Sitting of 12 December 1928

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

SUPREME COURT (PRIZE, ETC.) DEPOSIT ACCOUNT, 1927–28.
Account ordered,
"Of the Receipts and Payments of the Accounting Officer of the Vote for the Supreme Court on behalf of the Admiralty Division in Prize for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1928, and for the period 4th day of August, 1914, to 31st day of March, 1928; together with Copy of the Correspondence with the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon."—[Mr. A. M. Samuel.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  FRENCH FOREIGN LEGION (BRITISH RECRUITS).
  Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any instruction is issued to officials at the ports with regard to passports for recruits for the French Foreign Legion?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): If it is the hon. Member's intention to suggest that such persons should be restrained from leaving the country, the answer is that I have no power to take such action.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the French authorities in this country enlist Englishmen for the French Foreign Legion, and tell them that they can dispense entirely with a passport; and, when this comes to the knowledge of the Foreign Office, would it not be advisable, in view of what the Foreign Secretary has said on this subject, to stop people leaving this country, particularly when they are under 21?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The hon. Gentleman will remember that I wrote
  2090
  him a long letter on this subject a short time ago and I think that that covers the particular point which he is now raising. As a matter of fact, the French authorities do not give certificates to anybody whom they believe to be under 21.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Foreign Secretary said that it was most undesirable for any Englishman to be enlisted in this country, and that he uttered a warning in this House; and, seeing that this practice may be continued by the French authorities, cannot he offer some protection to these young people, and spare their parents the anxiety of having to lose their sons for five years in the French Foreign Legion?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I hope that the hon. Gentleman's questions and the answers given by the Government will have the effect of discouraging Englishmen from joining the Legion.
  Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Is not a man obliged to take an oath before a magistrate before he joins this Legion, and would it not be well for the magistrates to punt out what he must expect?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not think that that is the case. If a young man desires to enlist, he has to assert before the Secretary of the French Military Attache that he is over 21.
  Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these cases have been brought to the notice of the Foreign Office?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I should have to have notice of that question.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: If I go to France, do I not have to produce a passport, which is looked at at the port of embarkation, and why is it dispensed with in this particular case?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not think that it is dispensed with in any exceptional way. If it is asserted by the young person that he is 21 years of age, I do not think that it is possible to prevent him going to France.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs

  2091
  whether he will consider the advisability of representing to the French authorities that the present practice of assisting applicants for enlistment in the French Foreign Legion by paying passage money from this country to France should cease?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No, Sir. I have nothing to add to the replies given to the hon. Member by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the B6th July.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Considering that the Foreign Secretary uttered a warning against this practice of young Englishmen joining the French Foreign Legion, cannot he take some steps to represent to the French authorities the inadvisability of their encouraging young Englishmen joining?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not think that the French authorities do encourage there to join. If a young man turns up at the French Embassy, and says that he is 21 years of age and desires to enlist, all that the French authorities do is to hand him a return ticket to Dunkirk.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Is there anything in the laws of this country to prevent any Englishman, Scotsman or Irishman enlisting in the army of a foreign country?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The hon. Gentleman goes a little too far when he says that.
  Mr. WELLOCK: Have we any figures showing how many Britons have joined this Legion?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I should have to have notice of that question.

  PORTUGUESE WEST AFRICA (BRITISH SEAMAN'S ARREST).
  Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now received the Report of His Majesty's Consul-General at Loando regarding the case of Mr. A. J. Brewer, second officer of the Clan Line s. s. "Clan Lamont," who, after arrest on the charge of theft of £1 was imprisoned for nine months, while awaiting trial in Portuguese West Africa, and who
  2092
  was then condemned to 360 days' imprisonment and £18 fine or another 90 days' imprisonment; and, if so, what action his Department intends to take in the matter?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The Report from His Majesty's Consul-General at Loanda has not yet been received, but I expect it shortly. I may, however, add that the day before yesterday we received a telegram from the Consul-General to the effect that the Report was on its way.

  EGYPT (CAPITULATIONS).
  Mr. PONSONBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the reply of His Majesty's Government to the Government of Egypt, sent on the 12th ultimo, was an official reply to the formal request of that Government for the modification of the capitulatory regime; and whether the assent of His Majesty's Government was unqualified or was contingent on the acceptance by the Egyptian Government of certain requests made by His Majesty's Government?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, the understanding with Sarwat Pasha to which, as I informed the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. Ponsonby) on the 21st of November, the British reply to the Egyptian circular note of the 25th December, 1927, alludes, represents the manner in which after discussion it proved possible to conciliate the wishes of the two Governments. In some respects the proposals contained in the Egyptian Note go beyond the scope of this understanding, and in so far as these particular proposals are concerned His Majesty's Government have naturally intimated to the Egyptian Government that they must reserve their attitude.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    ARMENIAN REFUGEES (SETTLEMENT).
    Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that the Assembly of the League of Nations has recommended the Council, at its meeting this month, to appoint an advisory commission for the purpose of assisting in the settlement

    2093
    of the Armenians, His Majesty's Government is prepared to give full support to this proposal and to nominate, if desired, a British subject to serve on this advisory commission?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: His Majesty's Government are prepared to accord their support to the proposal, but the question of nominating a British delegate to the commission is still under consideration.

    DISPUTES (PACIFIC SETTLEMENT).
    Mr. BUXTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement as to engagements hitherto made by States, members of the League of Nations, for the pacific settlement of disputes, either by acceptance of the general Act or by the conclusion of particular conventions, in accordance with the resolution of the last Assembly of the League?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: As far as I am aware, no States have yet signed the general Act or adopted any of the model conventions the texts of which were approved by the last Assembly.
    Mr. RENNIE SMITH: Will His Majesty's Government set an example?

    RHINELAND EVACUATION (TREATY OBLIGATIONS).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any communication from the German Government on the question of linking reparations and evacuation or on the question of his reading of Article 431, together with the letter of the three Prime Ministers; and will he make inquiries as to the views of the American Government on these points?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by making the inquiries suggested by the right hon. and gallant Member.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister advocated quite recently closer co-operation in ideas with America, and
    2094
    is it not vitally important that in our policy as regards reparations and evacuation, we should know what America. thinks and work in co-operation with her?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The right hon. Gentleman must remember that his question refers to the Treaty of Versailles. The United States of America never ratified that Treaty. They made their own treaty bi-laterally with Germany, and there is no reason to suppose that they wish to be consulted on these matters.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: If America did not take part in the Treaty of Versailles, is that any reason for inconveniencing ourselves and our own policy by not now securing their co-operation, particularly as America is represented on the Reparations Commission, and we are asked to send members to this joint Board?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Conversations are now going on between the various Powers at Lugano, and I hope that we shall arrive at an amicable settlement. So far as I know, America does not in the least wish to be consulted on the question of evacuation.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not obvious that a solution at Lugano would be infinitely more in our favour if we had the backing of a party which is not represented, but which is vitally interested in the question of reparations? I know that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me, but he will not say so.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not think that I can add anything to what I have said.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Is there any hope of the British Government arriving at any views of its own instead of constantly adopting the views of France and other countries?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: My right hon. Friend has gone to Lugano in order to express our opinion.
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the conflict of opinion as to the legal interpretation of Article 431 of the Peace Treaty affecting

    2095
    the withdrawal of troops from the Rhine, he can see his way to recommend that the matter be referred to the World Court for a decision?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to the replies which I gave on the 10th December to the questions asked by the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood).
    Mr. SMITH: Arising out of this reply and the previous reply, and in view of the fact that the lawyers of the three countries concerned with the interpretation of this Treaty have all been quarrelling with one another as to its interpretation, is not His Majesty's Government prepared to submit this matter to an international Court?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I should have thought the best way of settling this question was in the way in which an attempt is being made to settle it now, that is, by friendly conversations and negotiations between the different Powers.
    Mr. SMITH: In view of the fact that the decision of His Majesty's Government last week on this legal point has made the negotiations more difficult, and that it is purely an ex parte judgment of one Government out of three; and, in view of the fact that His Majesty's Government have always refrained from committing themselves to arbitration on the ground—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not abuse the privileges of Question Time.
    Mr. SMITH: I am not seeking to abuse the privileges of the House. I am seeking to put the point of view that His Majesty's Government have—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members do not seem to understand that Question Time is not the time to put points of view.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to judge from the reply we have received that His Majesty's Government do not attribute much importance to the legal point of view, and think that the practical point of view is of more importance than the legal decision of these matters?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has stated what in the opinion of His Majesty's Government was the legal point of view, and he went on to add that there was another point of view as to policy, and this is the point of view which is now under discussion at Lugano.
    Mr. SMITH: But in view of the fact that the legal interpretation given by His Majesty's Government is hotly disputed and does require, therefore, some international interpretation, and in view of the fact that His Majesty's Government have said over and over again that they were willing to submit all suitable cases—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Duncan.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Is it, in fact, true that there has been no difference of opinion between the Allied Powers on the legal point?

    RHINELAND HIGH COMMISSION.
    Mr. PONSONBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many military officers, civilian officials, and clerical workers, male and female, are employed under the Rhineland High Commission in controlling the civilian administration of the German occupied territory?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The British department of the Rhineland High Commission at Coblenz numbers 31 all told, of both sexes, of whom 22 are clerks, shorthand-typists, messengers, telephonists, and chauffeurs. There is only one military officer on the British staff who was seconded for service as Deputy High Commissioner, and is shortly retiring from the Army. Fifteen more British subjects are employed on the Inter-Allied Secretariat-General of the High Commission. I have no precise information as to the strength of the French and Belgian departments at Coblenz. I cannot accept the suggestion of the hon. Member that any part of the staff of the Rhineland High Commission is engaged in controlling the civilian administration of the German occupied territory. If he will look at Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the Rhineland Agreement of the 28th June, 1919, he will see what are the rights and duties of both the Rhineland High Commission and the German civil administration in connection with the occupation.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: Is it not a fact that the Rhineland High Commission is engaged in such enterprises as prohibiting bands of music and confiscating Proclamations?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: It does nothing that is contrary to the ordinances which are published.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    PETTY OFFICERS' MESSES (ALES AND STOUTS).
    Sir B. FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether permission can he given to chief and petty officers' messes in shore establishments to purchase ales and stouts direct from the brewers, in the same way as the sergeants' messes at Marine headquarters, in order to make up in some measure the financial loss sustained by the compulsory introduction of general messing?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Head lam): The answer is in the negative.
    Sir B. FALLE: Will my hon. and gallant Friend give me a reason or an excuse for that answer?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I do not think any excuse is necessary.
    Sir B. FALLE: But there must be a reason for arriving at that decision, and can I not have it?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The reason is that the Admiralty think the present arrangement the best for all concerned.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Could not these ales and stouts be provided as medical comforts?

    SINGAPORE BASE.
    Mr. TAYLORasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any British firms were supplied by the contractors for the Singapore Naval Base contract with any plans or drawings in order to explain the work which the plant required by the contractors would have to perofrm?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The contractors for the base furnished full particulars to two British firms but neither of them asked for plans or drawings, as
    2098
    one sent a representative to the site, where he was given full facilities for investigation, and the other had been furnished with the necessary particulars by another of the competing contractors for whom they were preparing schemes.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Were the plans supplied to the American firm which the hon. and gallant Member has said were seen by responsible advisers before they were sent to America?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Seen by whom?
    Mr. TAYLOR: By your responsible advisers.
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: So far as I know, yes.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Then may I ask how the hon. and gallant Member squares that with the statement that the Admiralty knew nothing about these excavating contracts before the 2nd November?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I am not quite certain that I understood the hon. Member's question correctly. In my previous answer, I explained the facts of the case—that the American firm had been supplied with the drawings, and that we were convinced that the drawings were of the right kind to send to America; we are satisfied that this was the case. Whether we saw them before they were actually sent to America I am not sure. I said just now that I was under the impression that we had seen them. I am not quite certain—I want to be frank with the House—but what I do know is that the drawings have been seen by our officials at the Admiralty and that they are satisfied that they are perfectly in order.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Were the two English firms named who were able to see the contracts and so forth really English firms, or merely companies registered in England and, in fact, American companies?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: They were English companies.
    Mr. TAYLORasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the four large mechanical excavators recently ordered from an American firm for use on the

    2099
    Singapore naval base are standard models built as standard stock by the American firm concerned?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The answer is in the affirmative.
    Mr. TAYLOR: May I ask what justification the hon. and gallant Member had for previous answers in which he stated that cancellation of this contract would involve a very heavy loss to public funds? If these machines are standard stock in America, does it not follow—
    Mr. SPEAKER: All this does not arise out of the answer.
    Mr. TAYLOR: With great respect, I put down questions on this subject previously, and the hon. and gallant Member gave certain answers, and now I am asking, in view of the affirmative reply he has given to this question, whether he can tell us on what he based his previous replies?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: On the information supplied to us and which we took to be perfectly sound information.
    Mr. TAYLOR: I beg to give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I will call attention to this matter on the Adjournment.
    m. Mr. TAYLORasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state what information is available to Members of the House in relation to the terms and conditions of contracts entered into by his Department; and what is the established practice in this matter?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The established practice is not to publish specifications of this class of contract and that contract prices are confidential and are not disclosed. If any hon. Member asks for any particular information about the terms or conditions of a contract I endeavour to supply it, in so far as the public interest permits.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Is the hon. and gallant Member referring to the particulars of contracts so far as they relate to excavating machines?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: If the hon. Member will put down a definite question I will consider whether we can give an answer, and, if the hon. Member will
    2100
    come to see me about any particular matter, I will also be very glad to help him.
    Sir B. FALLE: Is it not the fact that the United States, in view of the fact that they built the Panama Canal, lead the world in the matter of excavation?
    HON. MEMBERS: No.
    Mr. SPEAKER: We have only reached Question 15 on the paper, and there must be a limit to the number of supplementary questions put by hon. Members.
    Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the First Lord of the Admiralty why it is proposed to modify the original plans for the naval base at Singapore?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The only modifications are those announced by my right hon. Friend the First Lord in introducing the Navy Estimates on the 14th of March, 1927, which were made with a desire to reduce the expenditure, and to provide only the minimum essential requirements of the present situation.
    Mr. BENNasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what total sum has been spent upon the works at Singapore, and precisely from what sources and by what Governments has it been defrayed?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The total expenditure on the naval works at Singapore up to the end of November amounts to £615,000. The whole of this is covered by the contributions received to date from:

    £

    Hong Kong

    …

    250,000

    Federated Malay States

    …

    864,000

    New Zealand

    …

    180,000

    which have been appropriated towards the cost both of these works and of the floating dock now stationed at the base.
    Mr. BENN: So that the Government are committing us to this great plan without coming to the House of Commons to get the necessary financial assistance?

    FLEET AIR ARM (PARACHUTES).
    Captain GARRO-JONESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what percentage of machines or pilots of the Naval Air Arm is fitted with parachutes; and how this compares with the corresponding figure for the Royal Air Force?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): I have been asked to reply. Machines of the Fleet Air Arm and other seagoing aircraft have not yet been supplied with with parachutes owing to the danger of the wearer becoming entangled in his harness if the machine falls into the sea. Research and experiment with a view to the design of a satisfactory quick release gear have been proceeding continuously, and though certain difficulties remain to be solved, it is hoped these may be overcome in the early future. Is regards the rest of the Royal Air Force, a parachute is now provided for every seat in every first-line machine capable of taking it.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Is not the question of quick release just as important in the case of land machines, and why, then, is that put forward as a reason for not fitting parachutes in the Fleet Air Arm?
    Sir P. SASSOON: No it is not nearly so important, because you cannot get drowned on land.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Does not the possibility of fire make it vitally important that machines should have a contrivance for quick release?
    Sir P. SASSOON: Not so important.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
    Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the great percentage of claims for unemployed insurance for which applicants are refused benefits at the Walworth Road (Borough) Employment Exchange, on the ground that they are not making every reasonable effort to obtain suitable employment; and whether any special instructions have been issued to this exchange on this subject?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): I assume the question relates to claims disallowed on the ground that the claimant is not genuinely seeking work. The percentage of claims so disallowed is not higher than at other comparable exchanges. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any definite rule by which these particular applicants are refused benefits on the ground that they are not genuinely seeking work?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Not that. I am aware of. So far as 1 am aware this Exchange judges these cases after receiving the Umpire's decision like other Exchanges.
    Mr. DAY: But is it not a fact that at this particular Exchange 30 per cent. of the refusals are on those particular grounds?
    Mr. KELLY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if any record is kept as to the number of cases heard and the number refused?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I think I can ascertain those figures if the hon. Member will put down another question.
    Mr. W. PALING: In view of the fact that the number of these cases has steadily grown, will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question as to whether special instructions-have been issued to this particular Exchange?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have not omitted to give an answer to the second part of the question. The answer is in. the negative.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it not a fact that various Employment Exchanges are sending unemployed persons to seek employment in districts where there happens to be already 200 or 300 unemployed, and will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why that is done?
    Mr. WALTER BAKERasked the. Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. H. Pillinger, of 3, Reformatory Bristol Road, Kingswood, (Class. No. L482/12,152, Kingswood Exchange), whether he is aware that Mr. Pillinger was employed at the engineering works of Messrs. Douglas. for 10 years; that he left that employment in October, 1924, as the result of illness; that Mr. Pillinger was under medical treatment for three-and-a-half years, and was subsequently certified as fit for work during March, 1928; that, after he had signed on at the Employ-

    2103
    ment Exchange on the 13th March, he drew six weeks' benefit; that Mr. Pillinger's unemployment benefit was then stopped on, the ground that he had had no reasonable period of employment during the previous two years, but that, as a result of representations made on the 10th July by the hon. Member for East Bristol, arrears for a period of 12 weeks were paid; and that, despite this favourable decision, the claim to benefit was again rejected at the beginning of October, Mr. Pillinger being refused permission to appeal to the Umpire on the ground that be had not received official consent for that course; and whether he will state the reason for this last decision?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: This claim was reviewed by the Court of Referees in accordance with the usual procedure on 3rd October. The Court recommended disallowance of benefit and did not give leave to appeal to the Umpire. I have no power to intervene.
    Mr. BAKER: Is the Minister of Labour prepared to justify the action of his Department in refusing benefit to a man in those circumstances?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have nothing to justify. When there is any doubt about a claim it is brought before the Court of Referees, and that is a statutory Court to deal with the matter.
    Mr. BAKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man was under medical treatment for 3½ years, and that then he was refused benefit on the ground that he had done insufficient work during the previous two years?
    Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot have a debate on this question.
    Mr. PARKINSONasked the Minister of Labour how many mineworkers have been disqualified for benefits in the Wigan Employment Exchange district for, as alleged, not genuinely seeking work since 1st January, 1928; and how many mine-workers have had their benefits suspended for the same reason but, after investigation, have been reinstated to benefits?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I regret that statistics of the disallowance of benefit are not available in respect of -particular industries or occupations.
    Mr. PARKINSONasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons, males and females, respectively, who have had their unemployment benefits stopped in the Wigan Employment Exchange district since 1st January, 1928?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the reply is somewhat long, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    During the period 17th January, 928, to 18th April, the claims for extended benefit of 382 males and 258 females were recommended for disallowance by the Wigan local employment committee. Statistics for the same period of the disallowance of claims for standard benefit made at Wigan are not available. During the period 19th April to 12th November the claims made at Wigan of 914 males and 680 females were disallowed by insurance officers and the claims of 67 males and 22 females were recommended for disallowance by Courts of Referees in cases where 78 days' benefit had been received during the preceding six months. The disallowances by insurance officers were subject to the right of appeal to Courts of Referees.
    Lord HENRY CAVENDISHBENTINCKasked the Minister of Labour how many miners have been disqualified from extended unemployment benefit in the last six months; and how many men in other classes of work have been similarly disqualified?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Under the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927, extended unemployment benefit was discontinued as from 19th April, 1928. During the six months 14th May to 12th November, 1928, 72,020 claims to benefit have been disallowed, subject to the right of appeal to Courts of Referees, under the transitional conditions prescribed by Section 14 (2) of the Act of 1927. Separate statistics of these disallowances in respect of individual industries or occupations are not available.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: In view of the acknowledged statement which has been made by many Ministers, including the Prime Minister, that there are at least 200,000 miners who will never get back to work in the mines, does the right hon.

    2105
    Gentleman think it fair treatment for 72,000 miners to be deprived of their benefit?
    Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Do we understand that the names of these 72,000 miners are now removed from the list from which these weekly unemployment figures are compiled?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: In the first place, I have already stated that it cannot be claimed that these are miners. As I indicated in my answer, I cannot state the industries in which they are, because we have not the records. In the next place, they are not removed from the weekly statement of unemployment. So far as they are claiming, or their books are lodged in the Exchange, we can still reckon them among the number unemployed.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the statement made by the ex-Mayor of Cardiff at the Mansion House meeting last Wednesday, that the Ministry of Labour were cutting off as many men as they could from extended benefit in South Wales; and cannot his Department, at all events, stop contributing in this way to the misery in that district?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have already given figures in this House which show that any statement of that kind is entirely contrary to the facts.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Could the right hon. Gentleman give any approximate idea as to how many of these 72,000 will necessarily be taken off the live register and not shown as unemployed?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman any exact number, but I can assure him that the vast proportion of them, if not every one, will appear in the live register, because, so far as persons make claims, they come into the live register, and, even if they have to apply to the board of guardians, the practice which is becoming almost universal with boards of guardians is to require that a person who comes to them for relief shall also claim and register at the Exchange, which means that they will come into the live register.

    BENEFIT CLAIMS (WAITING PERIOD).
    Mr. CONNOLLYasked the Minister of Labour whether it is in accordance with his instructions that men who have been disqualified from drawing unemployment benefit for a period of six weeks are compelled to sign for a further six days' waiting period without benefit, the claim being treated as a new one; and, if not, will he issue instructions for this practice to be discontinued?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: This matter is governed by the provisions of the Act and not by any instructions issued by me. Normally, a fresh waiting period is not required if a waiting period had been served immediately before the period of disqualification. If the hon. Member will give me particulars of any specific case he has in mind, I shall be happy to inquire into it.

    WOOLLEN TEXTILE TRADE.
    Mr. KELLYasked the Minister of Labour whether his Department have prepared an estimate of the number of unemployed in the woollen textile trade, with the cost to the industry?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the reply is somewhat long, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. MACKINDER: Can the right hon. Gentleman state how many people have been transferred into distressed areas from other distressed areas?
    Following is the reply:
    At 26th November, 1928, 33,901 insured persons classified as belonging to the woollen and worsted textile industry were recorded as unemployed in Great Britain. Of this number, 11,266 were wholly unemployed and 22,635 were temporarily stopped. By "the cost to the industry" I understand the hon. Member means the amount of unemployment insurance contributions paid. No separate record is kept of contributions in respect of particular industries. A rough estimate can, however, be made in respect of the year ended 31st March, 1928, on the assumption that the payment of contributions was at the same average per head as for all insured trades taken together, due allowance being made for the rate of unemployment and the proportion of women and juveniles. On this basis it is estimated

    2107
    that during the year ended 31st March, 1928, the unemployment insurance contributions paid by employers in the woollen and worsted textile industry amounted to approximately £240,000, and that the contributions by insured persons amounted to approximately £294,000.

    INQUIRIES (FAMILY INCOMES).
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the practice of inquiry into family incomes is still being carried out by his Department; if he can state the reason why this practice continues; and if it is in any way taken into consideration previous to benefit being granted?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Yes, Sir; in accordance with decisions of the Umpire, such inquiries are relevant in certain classes of claims to benefit.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Whence does the right hon. Gentleman derive his authority under Statute for inquiring into the family income of an unemployed person?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The case generally arises in connection with claims to dependant's benefit. For example, it may be a question whether the wife of a claimant is herself in business or is helping to maintain the children, or whether the claimant would be entitled to dependant's benefit in respect of them. That is the type of case in which such inquiry generally is made.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in cases where no such thing as dependant's benefit arises, family income is being inquired into; and may I ask him the question I have put on the Paper, namely, is family income taken into account when benefit is refused or granted?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It cannot be taken into account for diminishing or increasing the amount of benefit granted. It could only be taken into account in deciding how far certain conditions are satisfied. For example, if a claim is made by a woman as a charwoman, the amount of income that is being drawn or enjoyed by her husband may be material in deciding whether she is genuinely seeking work or not. But, as I have said, that is not a usual case; the cases that generally arise are in respect of dependant's benefit.
    Mr. BUCHANAN—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members must really understand that other hon. Members will not have a chance of putting their questions if we spend too much time over one question.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I have taken very little time on questions.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must remember that he is not the only one.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: This is a very important question.

    SINGLE MEN AND WOMEN (TRAINING CENTRES).
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEasked the Minister of Labour if he can give an estimate of the number of single men and single women unemployed between the ages of 20 and 30 in the mining areas; and the number of training centres for men in these areas and the approximate total accommodation therein, and the same figures for women?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The answer is necessarily somewhat long, and, with the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. RENNIE SMITH: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the universities in this connection?
    Following is the answer:
    Statistics of the ages of unemployed insured persons are not regularly compiled, and figures are not available in respect of all such persons in mining areas. It is estimated, however, that at 22nd October approximately 25,000 single men aged 21 to 30, classified as belonging to the coal-mining industry, were recorded as wholly unemployed in Great Britain. Corresponding figures for single women are not available. There are no training centres actually in the mining areas for adult unemployed miners, but special arrangements have been made whereby about 1,175 young unemployed miners are attending the day training centres at Birmingham, Dudley, Wallsend, Bristol, and Glasgow. In addition, farm training for those wishing to take employment on the land in the Dominions is available at the Claydon and Brandon residential centres. Accommodation for

    2109
    training about 600 women is available at 19 centres established in the South Wales, Durham and Scottish mining areas.

    EAST LONDON (TRANSFERRED WORKERS).
    Mr. MARCHasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that last week 12 men were discharged from a large building alteration going on at the corner of Commercial Street and White-chapel Road to make room for 12 transferred single men from South Wales and that most of the discharged men are married, with families; and what he proposes to do for these discharged London men?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I understand that the engagement of a number of workers from the depressed areas on this contract was in no way responsible for these discharges. The men discharged were non-unionists, and were replaced by union labour as a result of trade union action. If the discharged men register at their local Exchanges, efforts will be made to find employment for them.
    Mr. MARCH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say that they were all non-unionists, because the one who brought the information to me was a trade unionist belonging to the same organisation as I do?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. Member will communicate with me and give me any information which would lead me to modify that statement, I shall be glad to receive it.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman's original answer indicate that the transference scheme does not diminish, but merely redistributes, unemployment?
    Mr. SEXTON: Is there any truth in the statement that miners from South Wales have been sent to places where there is no employment for them, and are now pushing ice-cream barrows through the streets?

    BRISTOL.
    Mr. W. BAKERasked the Minister of Labour whether he has received a request from the Bristol Unemployed Association, dated the 6th November, and backed by three of the Members for Bristol, asking him to receive a deputation with regard to the position of un-
    2110
    employed persons in Bristol and the local difficulties arising from the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act; and whether, having regard to the growth of unemployment and distress in Bristol, he will expedite a decision?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have received a request for a deputation, and replied asking the Association for a statement of the points upon which representations are to be made, so that I might be in a position to deal with their application. I am repeating my inquiry.
    Mr. BAKER: Is it not true to say that the original letter gave the grounds which they desired to represent to the Minister, and that in these circumstances the desire for further information is only a means for pushing the matter over Christmas?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, Sir.

    EXCHANGE ACCOMMODATION, RADCLIFFE.
    Colonel ENGLANDasked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been called to the lack of accommodation at the Employment Exchange at Radcliffe and to the lengthy periods those attending this office have to stand in queues in bad weather; and can he take any steps to lessen this public inconvenience?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am aware of the congestion which exists here, and have been endeavouring for some time to obtain additional accommodation. This is proving most difficult to find, but every effort will continue to be made to provide more accommodation at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many districts people who are brought to the bureau to sign have to stand out in the rain with no cover whatever?

    BOOT AND SHOE INDUSTRY (LABOUR CONDITIONS).
    Mr. EVERARDasked the Minister of Labour whether he has received any representations from the employers or employés in the boot and shoe industry that the conditions of labour in that industry in the Rossendale Valley district are lower than those agreed by the joint industrial council, which are in operation

    2111
    in Leicestershire and other areas; and whether he will introduce legislation to make the agreements of joint industrial councils binding on all sections of the trade?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have not received any representations on the subject referred to by my hon. Friend. I am advised that as wages do not come within the scope of the Joint Industrial Council for the Boot and Shoe Industry, any legislation providing for the compulsory extension of Joint Industrial Council agreements would not affect this case.
    Mr. EVERARD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, owing to the attitude of the employers, and the trade unions in that district which are affiliated to the General Council of Trade Unions, there is a difference of one shilling per pair compared with any other part of the country?
    Mr. WADDINGTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries to find out whether the wages paid in the Rossendale Valley are not in many cases greater than those paid in Leicestershire, and whether it is not a fact that Rossendale manufacturers have left the Rossendale Valley to set up works in Leicestershire on account of the cheaper labour conditions?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I should be glad to receive information on that point from both my hon. Friends.

  DISTRESSED AREAS.

    CLYDE DISTRICT.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour if his Department have received any protest from the Clyde District Committee of the Engineering and Shipbuilding Trades Unions against the transfer of men to the Clyde district from mining areas; if they state that unemployment has been and is still acute in the district; and if he intends to take any steps to remedy the situation?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have received a protest against certain transfers to Partick, but these transfers do not appear to have been carried out through my Department. I am fully aware of the employment position in the
    2112
    Clyde district, but I cannot deal with the last part of the hon. Member's question within the limits of a Parliamentary answer.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman's answer is to the effect that these transfers are not being carried out through his Department, will he give an undertaking not to transfer any more men through his Department while distress prevails in the Clyde area?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: There is another question on that subject.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that in certain parts of the country, and particularly in the Clyde area, in certain engineering trades men are being called upon to work unduly long hours while other men, in large numbers, are a charge on both local and national funds through not being able to get work; and if he will consider taking steps to take powers to have this practice reduced or finished, or if he will set up an inquiry into the position or approach the employers, either local or national, to reduce this practice?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am aware that, in accordance with the agreed procedure, discussions have taken place between the employers' organisation and the trade unions concerned on overtime which is being worked in certain cases by pattern makers. I am assured that in the discussions the considerations referred to by the hon. Member were fully present in the minds of those concerned. The agreements between the parties appear to me to offer ample opportunity for such matters to be dealt with.

    TRANSFER OF WORKERS.
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Minister of Labour (1) the total number of miners who have now been transferred to other parts of the country;
    (2) the number of miners now transferred from each coalfield in the country to other areas?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Since the Prime Minister's Appeal about 7,000 men (not all of whom, of course, were miners) have been transferred from the depressed areas through the Employment Exchanges to employment in other districts.

    2113
    Statistics are not available as to the number of miners transferred from particular coalfields.
    Mr. LAWSON: May I ask the Minister of Labour if, after six months' experience of this method of transfer, the Government are satisfied that it is going to meet the situation in the coalfields?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am quite satisfied that, so far, it is by far the best possible means of meeting the situation in the coalfields at the present time.

    UNEMPLOYMENT GRANTS COMMITTEE.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Minister of Labour what steps are being taken, or will be taken, to accelerate the machinery of the Unemployment Grants Committee when applications are made to them under the terms of the circular letter of 9th November, 1928, or under the terms of grant applicable to areas with exceptional unemployment, in order that there may be as little delay as possible in approving of schemes for doing useful work and finding employment put before it by local authorities; and whether the staff of the Committee, including expert advisers, is to be increased?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. and gallant Member may rest assured that there will be no avoidable delay on the part of the Unemployment Grants Committee, and that all necessary staff will be provided.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I have an answer to the last part of my question as to whether the staff of the Committee, including expert advisers, is to be increased?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have not ascertained whether they require any increase of staff, but I will find out and let the hon. and gallant Member know. We are always ready to provide additional staff where it is required.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I referred particularly to expert advisers who are most necessary in this matter.
    Mr. RILEY: Has the number of applications been settled?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. Member will put that question on the Paper, I will give him an answer.

    WALES AND DURHAM.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Prime Minister whether the Government has come to a decision as to what action, if any, it intends to take to relieve the distress in the Welsh and Durham coalfields?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I would ask my Noble Friend to await the further statement I have promised.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it is about time he came to a decision?
    Mr. STEPHEN: Can the Prime Minister assure us that we shall get a decision in time to allow of a discussion before Christmas?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member was not here on Monday when a statement was made.
    Mr. BATEY: Can we expect this statement to be made so that we shall have a chance of debating it before the House adjourns?

    NEWSPAPER TRADE (FOOTBALL COMPETITIONS).
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Minister of Labour whether he has any information as to the number of persons in the newspaper trade within the Metropolitan area who have been discharged from their employment as a result of the stoppage of football competitions?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, Sir.

    COST OF LIVING.
    Commander SOUTHBYasked the Minister of Labour what was the purchasing power of £1 sterling in 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927, and in the period of January to September, 1928, based on the Ministry of Labour's retail cost-of-living index, and compared with the value of the pound sterling in 1914?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Calculated in the ratio of the Ministry of Labour cost-of-living index-number, what is popularly known as the purchasing power of the pound sterling in 1924, as compared with 1914, was 11s. 5d. The corresponding

    2115
    figure for 1925 was 11s. 4d., for 1926 11s. 8d., for 1927 11s. 11d. and for 1928 (January to September) 12s. 1d.

    LIQUOR AND TOBACCO TRADES (EMPLOYES).
    Mr. BRIGGSasked the Minister of Labour what was the number last year in the United Kingdom of persons employed by the brewing, whisky, distilling and tobacco manufacturers?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the reply is somewhat long, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. DAY: Can we have the total?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Has the Minister applied the policy of transference to these industries?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise on this question.
    Following is the reply:
    Statistics of the numbers of persons insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts in the various industries are prepared once a year on the basis of information derived from the exchange of unemployment books in July. Separate figures are not available in respect of brewing and whisky distilling, as these industries are included for statistical purposes with others such as aerated water and wine manufacture, to form one industrial group covering all the drink industries. Similarly, tobacco manufacture is included in one group with the manufacture of cigars, cigarettes and snuff. It is estimated that at July, 1927, the number of insured persons aged 16 to 64 in Great Britain and Northern Ireland classified as belonging to the drink group was 109,100, and at July, 1928, the number was 107,320. Corresponding figures for the tobacco group are 42,790 at July, 1927, and 44,050 at July, 1928.

    CRUISER CONSTRUCTION.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the statement by the United States Secretary of State to the effect that the United States Government would consider any British
    2116
    proposal for the calling together of an early naval conference to consider cruiser construction; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have seen reports of the statement to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, and, while they do not appear to me to be of quite so categorical a nature as he implies, he may rest assured that they will receive careful consideration.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I understand from that that the question of a Conference, on the narrow issue of cruisers, being called before 1931, is under consideration by the Cabinet?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir; I must ask the hon. and gallant Member not to conclude anything at the moment.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I take it that the matter is not being allowed to drift?

    MUNICIPAL AERODROME, SHEFFIELD.
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Secretary of State for Air if he can make any statement with regard to the arrangements for establishing an air port at Sheffield?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I am pleased to say that the Sheffield Corporation have notified the Air Ministry that they contemplate taking steps to acquire a site and to obtain a renewal of the powers conferred upon them by the Sheffield Corporation Act, 1920, in regard to the establishment of a municipal aerodrome. An officer of the Air Ministry recently visited Sheffield, at the request of the Corporation, for the purpose of inspecting possible sites and discussing the question of an aerodrome with the municipal officers, and every assistance which my Department can render will be at the disposal of the Corporation for this purpose.
    Mr. SMITH: Do I understand that in the event of an air port being established at Sheffield, it will be exclusively for civilian purposes and in no way connected with the military side of the Department?
    Sir P. SASSOON: It will be a municipal aerodrome.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    BILLINGSGATE MARKET.
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-D OYLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he has received any representations as to the transfer of Billingsgate Market to the site now occupied by the Custom House; and, if so, what reply has been given?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): In regard to the first part of the question, representations have been received from the Corporation of the City of London. In regard to the second part, the reply has been to the effect that, while the Government are prepared, as far as possible, to assist the Corporation in effecting this urgent and important development of the Billingsgate Market, they can only consider the transfer of the Custom House site in relation to the cost of rehousing on a new site the staff of the Customs and Excise Department. The Corporation were asked last year to indicate any definite proposals they could make to meet this essential requirement, but no reply has yet been received.

    WEIGHTS AND MEASURES REGULATIONS.
    Mr. REMERasked the President of the Board of Trade what progress, if any, has been made with the revision of the 1907 Weights and. Measures Regulations, including the making of Regulations for self-indicating pendulum weighers for counter use (automatic scales) as at present in use; and whether he can now give a date by which the publication of draft Regulations may be expected?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): The work of revising these Regulations is proceeding so far as the necessity of dealing with more urgent questions will allow. I regret that I am not yet in a position to say when a revised draft will be available.

    SILK IMPORTS.
    Mr. REMERasked the President of the Board of Trade what the importation in pounds weight of raw and thrown
    2118
    silk retained for home consumption was for the first 10 months in each year of 1924; 1026, 1927, and 1928?
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The answer has been prepared in tabular form; and, with my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The following TABLE shows the weight of the Net Imports of RAW SILK and THROWN SILK into Great Britain and Northern Ireland, registered during the periods January to October, 1924, 1926, 1927 and 1928:

    Period.

    Net Imports.*

    Raw Silk.

    Thrown Silk.

    Lbs.

    Lbs.

    January to October—

    1924

    678,322

    155

    1926

    728,023

    251,931

    1927

    923,187

    253,092

    1928

    1,139,428

    313,434

    *I.e., Imports less Re-exports.

    A small proportion of the thrown silk manufactured in the United Kingdom from imported raw silk was exported.

    IMPORT DUTIES, SPAIN (ROPES).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can make any further statement with regard to the proposed alteration in the Spanish tariff on manila rope and other ropes manufactured in England to the detriment of British manufacturers and merchants?
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: On the general question of the Spanish tariff revision I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given by the President of the Board of Trade yesterday to the hon. Member for Newcastle, North (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle) a copy of which I am sending him. Manila and other ropes were included amongst the articles of importance to British trade to which His Majesty's Ambassador at Madrid has drawn the special attention of the Spanish Government.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the answer to the hon. Member for Newcastle, North (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle) referred to steel products, and, further, that those engaged in, the trade in ropes have quite

    2119
    different information from that given by the Department, which would appear to be not fully informed?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I am not aware that steel was specifically referred to in the answer to which I made reference. It covers the general point.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the hon. Gentleman look into the matter, in view of the information that has been sent to the Department by the manufacturers engaged in the trade?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: The Department is constantly engaged, and I think successfully, in looking into the matter.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Is the Government considering reminding Spain that there are over 5,000,000 pounds worth of oranges imported annually from Spain into this country?

    SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES (WOOLLEN DRESS GOODS).
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet received an application, supported by the executive committee of the National Associations of Trade Unions in the Textile Trade, for a safeguarding duty on woollen dress goods?
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I am afraid I must adhere to the established practice, which has frequently been referred to in the House, of not stating whether a particular industry has or has not made an application under the safeguarding procedure, except on the appointment of a committee of inquiry.
    Mr. MACKINDER: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind, when he receives the application, that there were only 14 votes out of 200 people present, and that that does not represent the considered opinion of the quarter-of-a-million people concerned?
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: At the same time, does it not show that a certain amount of sense is beginning to percolate?

    LIQUOR AND TOBACCO (EXPORTS).
    Mr. BRIGGSasked the President of the Board of Trade to what countries and of what value were the exports last year of beer, stout, whisky, and to-bacco?
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I would refer my hon. Friend to pages 31, 35 to 36, and 43 to 47, of Volume III of the Annual Statement of Trade of the United Kingdom for 1927.
    Mr. BRIGGS: Can I have a copy of the volume to which the hon. Gentleman refers?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: There is a copy in the Library. The statement covers over 100 separate items.
    Mr. BRIGGS: Am I not entitled to ask for an exact reply to a question placed in proper form upon the Order Paper?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I understand, according to the instruction of Mr. Speaker, that, if the information is already at the disposal of Members, they really should not ask questions.
    Mr. SKELTON: Would not the Parliamentary Secretary consider lending the hon. Member his own copy?

    PATENT LAW.
    Sir ROBERT THOMASasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the present state of the Patent Law, he will consider introducing legislation to amend it, particularly with a view to accelerating the procedure and reducing the cost of granting a patent, cheapening the process of Law in actions for infringement, and reducing the congestion in the Patent Office?
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I am afraid that there will be no opportunity of introducing amending patents legislation this Session.

    SCHOOLS OF MEDICINE (WOMEN).
    Sir R. THOMASasked the Minister of Health what is the number of schools of medicine in London and the rest of the country, respectively, from which women are excluded; and whether, in view of the increasing need of women with medical knowledge, he will set up an Inquiry with a view to removing these restrictions?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): My right hon. Friend has no official information on this matter,

    2121
    but he understands the position outside London to be that there is no restriction on the admission of women to medical schools. The position in London already forms the subject of an inquiry initiated by the University of London.
    Sir THOMAS WATTS: Is it not a fact that the medical profession is already overcrowded, and there are many men who cannot find anything to do?

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RATING.

    ASSESSMENTS (DWELLING-HOUSES).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that assessment committees in various urban and rural districts are raising the assessment on dwelling-houses by from 5 to 20 per cent.; and will he say what check his Department exercises to see that all districts, urban and rural, shall be treated alike?
    Sir K. WOOD: The determination of assessments is a matter which Parliament has entrusted to the local authorities, subject to the right of appeal to the Courts. The Central Valuation Committee, composed of representatives of local authorities and constituted under statutory provision for the purpose of promoting uniformity of valuation, has issued a number of recommendations with that object. My right hon. Friend has no powers which would enable him to interfere with the discretion of the local authorities.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has not the Minister of Health a panel of experts, and does he not send out instructions to assessment committees? Finally, is there any sort of check to see that rural and urban districts are treated alike in the matter of house property?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, assessment committees have to determine the matter themselves, subject to an appeal to the Court. As regards rural and urban districts, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's suggestion would obviously not be the proper thing to do. It would depend, for instance, when the last assessment was made.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these householders cannot possibly appeal? They have not the means to do it. It is only companies that can go to the Courts, and they are doing it successfully.
    Sir K. WOOD: Anyone who has knowledge of the subject knows that many appeals have been made by private individuals. In the first place, they go to the assessment committees.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it any use for committees of ratepayers to get together in order to appeal collectively against what amounts to a local rather than an individual increase?
    Sir K. WOOD: Various people interested in the same question can, of course, be concerned in a case if they so desire.

    COAL INDUSTRY.
    Sir WALTER PRESTONasked the Secretary for Mines if any agreement has been come to between the Government and the colliery proprietors whereby the collieries must pass on to their customers the reduction in railway freights given them under de-rating, with a view to increasing output in the iron and steel trade and reducing unemployment, or whether the collieries are at liberty to retain, as additional profit, these reductions?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to reply. No such agreement has been made or is proposed. The Government's policy is to ensure that the rating relief to be accorded to the railway companies shall be passed on by the companies to those who pay the freight charges on certain selected traffics which pass by rail. In reducing the burden of transport charges upon selected traffics, the Government does not think it desirable or practicable to attempt to control the ultimate distribution of the benefit among the producers and consumers interested in the traffics embraced within the scheme of freight relief, but consider, as my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade pointed out in reply to the hon. Member for the Hallam Division (Mr. Louis Smith) on the 1st August last, that any consequential adjustments must be left to negotiations between the industries concerned.
    Mr. LUNN: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say if the benefits that will come to the coal industry will be similar to those which will come to Cheltenham under the Local Government Bill?
    Mr. BATEY: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us what has been the average reduction in prices under this freight relief?
    Colonel ASHLEY: No, Sir. If the hon. Member will put down a question, I will endeavour to give him an answer.

    WIDOWS' PENSIONS (MIGRANTS).
    Mr. LUNNasked the Minister of Health if widows in receipt of pension are permitted to draw the pension if they migrate to the Dominions?
    Sir K. WOOD: The answer is in the negative, but I would refer the hon. Member to the reply on 29th November of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, to a question by the hon. Member for Ashton under-Lyne (Mr. Bellamy).
    Mr. LUNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a deterrent to many widows who desire to go overseas? Is he also aware that certain shipping agents are informing widows that they will receive their pensions if they go overseas, and will he take steps to put a stop to that information being given if it is not the fact?
    Sir K. WOOD: If the hon. Member will send me particulars, I will look into them. As regards the first part of his question, it would be a desirable thing if these reciprocal arrangements could be made, and in a previous reply, on 29th November, my right hon. Friend stated that communications were being addressed to the Dominion Governments with a view to seeing whether we could obtain a settlement of the matter as soon as possible.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is it a fact that the Ministry of Pensions gives pensions under these circumstances?
    Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member is mistaken. We are dealing with widows' pensions.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is it not a fact that the Ministry of Pensions does?
    Sir K. WOOD: The Ministry of Pensions is not concerned.
    Mr. MACKINDER: Is it not a fact that naval, military and police pensions are paid?
    Sir K. WOOD: If the hon. Member will look at the question, he will see that it deals with widows.
    Mr. MACKINDER: I am asking the right hon. Gentleman why he should differentiate.
    Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member had better refer to the Debate when the matter was discussed.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    POOR LAW RELIEF (DISPUTE, MONMOUTHSHIRE).
    Mr. C. EDWARDSasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that an official under his Department instructed the Newport Board of Guardians to treat the stoppage at Nine Mile Point Colliery, Monmouthshire, as a workers' dispute when considering claims for relief by the dependants of the above; that the colliery company gave the workmen notice because the colliery was not paying; whether the above instruction was given by his order; and, if not, will he take steps to see that such instruction is withdrawn?
    Sir K. WOOD: The General Inspector on being consulted by the guardians advised them that if it were the case that work was available for the men at such wages as would enable them to support themselves and their families, the grant of relief to the men themselves would be illegal, though it would be necessary to relieve the dependants if destitution existed. The advice given was in my right hon. Friend's opinion correct. No instruction of the nature indicated in the question was given and the last part of the question does not, therefore, arise.
    Mr. PALING: Does this mean that the wages paid by this colliery company are going to be the deciding factor as to whether they are sufficient or not?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir.

    HYDROGENATION.
    Sir R. THOMASasked the Secretary for Mines if he has any information as to the measure of success which has attended research into the distillation of coal in Germany; whether a process or processes are being used there which yield a high proportion of motor spirit per ton of coal treated, in addition to other important products; whether this process or processes are being worked in this country; and can he give further particulars?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): I presume that the hon. Member's question relates to the hydrogenation of coal, and coal tar, which has been extensively investigated in Germany and by which comparatively large quantities of motor spirit can be obtained per ton of coal treated. My latest information would, however, indicate that commercial success has not yet been attained. For a brief summary of the position I would refer the hon. Member to page 180 of the Report on Economic and Financial Conditions in Germany issued by the Department of Overseas Trade in June last. An experimental plant for the hydrogenation of coal is working in this country.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether the statement which was made in a Sunday newspaper last week-end was correct—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question cannot arise here.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: It is pertinent I think. Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether or not the special secret Cabinet Committee have been dealing with the question of low carbonisation, and are we to expect a report before the Christmas Recess?
    Mr. SHINWELL: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether this process is being experimented with by the Fuel Research Department?
    Commodore KING: Oh, yes, Sir. The Bergius process is being experimented with at the Fuel Research Department.
    Mr. HARDIE: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say if any method has
    2126
    been discovered that stands more than three pressures?
    Commodore KING: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question on the Paper.
    Mr. PALING: Is it the hon. and gallant Gentleman's opinion that there are processes already established in this country equally as successful as the German process referred to here?
    Commodore KING: I cannot compare unlikes. They are two different processes.

    BEET-SUGAR FACTORIES (WORKING HOURS).
    Mr. KELLYasked the Minister of Agriculture the beet - sugar factories where a 12-hour day has been in operation during 1928, and the beet-sugar factories where the 8-hour day has been in operation during this year?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): As the reply is rather long, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    A 12-hour day is worked during the present manufacturing campaign at the following beet-sugar factories:

    Allscott.

    Brigg.

    Peterborough.

    Wissington.

    Selby.

    Felstead.

    Bardney.

    At the following factories a proportion of the men are employed on shifts of 12 hours:

    Colwick.

    Poppleton.

    Kidderminster.

    Cupar.

    Spalding.

    The system of 8-hour shifts is generally in operation in the following factories:

    Cantley.

    King's Lynn.

    Kelham.

    Bury St. Edmunds.

    Ely.

    Ipswich.

    Eynsham.

    The general policy of the industry is, I understand, to work on the 8-hour basis, but in some cases the 12-hour shift is for the time being considered necessary on account of the local conditions.

  POST OFFICE.

    PENNY POST.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider the suitability of commemorating the postal conference in London next year by reintroducing the principle of the penny post, having regard to the surplus of the Post Office in recent years?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): I am afraid I cannot add anything to the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 22nd November.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Can my right hon. Friend suggest any better process to which to devote the surplus than this? It would produce an enormous increase in trade.

    DISCHARGES MANCHESTER.
    Mr. LOWTHasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that men employed in the telephone department of the Government in the Manchester district have received preliminary notice to leave the service; and why, in view of the declaration of the Prime Minister, this has been done?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The hon. Member presumably refers to a number of workmen in the Post Office engineering department who have been given notice on account of the completion of work. I am sorry that this step should be necessary but I am afraid that I should not be justified in retaining at the expense of the taxpayer the services of men for whom no work is Available. Any men discharged will be considered for employment as opportunities occur.

    CLUB, SPRINGURN (LICENCE).
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that a club licensing certificate for 12 months was issued in July, 1927, to the
    Springburn Recreation and Social Club, 727, Springburn Road, Glasgow: and whether at the expiry of the period of licence any fresh application was made and granted for a new certificate, and, if so, upon what dates?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): The answer to the first part of the question is in the Affirmative. As regards the second part, I am informed that an application lodged in June, 1928, for renewal of the certificate of registration has been dismissed.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Do we understand that that application has been dismissed?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman then say why that club was permitted to continue until November, 1928?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: If the hon. Gentleman will put down a question I will give him an answer.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. MacDONALD: Will the Prime Minister be good enough to tell us what the business for next Friday is to be?
The PRIME MINISTER: Report stage of the Money Resolutions for the Local Government Bills; Third Beading of the Superannuation (Diplomatic Service) Bill, and of the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill; Report stage of the Overseas Trade Bill, and, if time permits, other Orders on the Paper.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on the Adjourned Debate on Local Government Bill and Local Government (Scotland) Bill (Allocation of Time) he exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 129.

Division No. 54.]

AYES.

[3.46 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Balniel, Lord

Bethel, A.

Albery, Irving James

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Bevan, S. J.

Allen, Sir J. Sandeman

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

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

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

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

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

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W

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

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

Brass, Captain W.

Astor, Viscountess

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Berry, Sir George

Briggs, J. Harold

Briscoe, Richard George

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

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Brittain, Sir Harry

Hamilton, Sir George

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Harland, A.

Philipson, Mabel

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Hartington, Marquees of

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)

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

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

Preston, William

Buchan, John

Haslam, Henry C.

Radford, E. A.

Buckingham, Sir H.

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Raine, Sir Walter

Bullock, Captain M.

Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

Ramsden, E.

Burman, J. B.

Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Carver, Major W. H.

Holt, Captain H. P.

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

Cayzer Sir C. (Chester, City)

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

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

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

Ropner, Major L

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

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

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

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Hume, Sir G. H.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

Salmon, Major I.

Christle, J. A.

Hurst, Gerald B.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

Sandeman, N. Stewart

Clarry, Reginald George

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Clayton, G. C.

Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Sandon, Lord

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

King, Commodore Henry Douglas

Savery, S. S.

Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Cohen, Major J. Brunel

Knox, Sir Alfred

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

Cooper, A. Duff

Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Skelton, A. N.

Cope, Major Sir William

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Couper, J. B.

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

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

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Long, Major Eric

Smithers, Waldron

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Lougher, Lewis

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

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

Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Stanley, Lord (Fyide)

Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

Lumley, L. R.

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

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

MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

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

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

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

McLean, Major A.

Templeton, W. P.

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

MacRobert, Alexander M.

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

Tinne, J. A.

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Ellis, R. G.

Malone, Major P. B.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

England, Colonel A.

Margesson, Captain D.

Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

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

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth

Meyer, Sir Frank

Waddington, R.

Everard, W. Lindsay

Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

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

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Warrender, Sir Victor

Fermoy, Lord

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

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Fielden, E. B.

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

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Watts, Sir Thomas

Forrest, W.

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Wayland, Sir William A.

Foster, Sir Harry S.

Murchison, Sir Kenneth

Wells, S. R.

Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

Nelson, Sir Frank

White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

Fraser, Captain Ian

Neville, Sir Reginald J.

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

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

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Ganzoni, Sir John

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

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Gates, Percy

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

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

Womersley, W. J.

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

Nuttall, Ellis

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Goff, Sir Park

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hen. Sir L.

Gower, Sir Robert

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Wright, Brig.-General W. D.

Grant, Sir J. A.

Pennefather, Sir John

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Penny, Frederick George

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Major Sir George Hennessy and

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Captain Viscount Curzon.

NOES.

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

Bromfield, William

Dunnico, H.

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

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Fenby, T. D.

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

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

Ammon, Charles George

Buchanan, G.

Gibbins, Joseph

Baker, Walter

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

Gillett, George M.

Barnes, A.

Cape, Thomas

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Barr, J.

Charleton, H. C.

Greenall, T.

Batey, Joseph

Connolly, M.

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Cove, W. G.

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Bellamy, A.

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Griffith, F. Kingsley

Benn, Wedgwood

Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

Grundy, T. W.

Bondfield, Margaret

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

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

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Day, Harry

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Briant, Frank

Dennison, R.

Hardle, George D.

2130

2131

Harris, Percy A.

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

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Hayday, Arthur

Mcsley, Sir Oswald

Sutton, J. E.

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

Murnin, H.

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

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Palin, John Henry

Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

Hirst, G. H.

Paling, W.

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

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Hollins, A.

Pethick- Lawrence, F. W.

Thurtle, Ernest

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Ponsonby, Arthur

Tinker, John Joseph

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Potts, John S.

Tomlinson, R. P.

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Townend, A. E.

John, William (Rhondda, Wast)

Rlley, Ben

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Ritson, J.

Viant, S. P.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

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

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

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

Warne, G. H.

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Saklatvala, Shapurji

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Kelly, W. T.

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Kennedy, T.

Scrymgeour, E.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

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

Sexton, James

Wellock, Wilfred

Lawrence, Susan

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Westwood, J.

Lawson, John James

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

Lee, F.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Wiggins, William Martin

Longbottom, A. W.

Shinwell, E.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanally)

Lowth, T.

Sitch, Charles H.

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Lunn, William

Slesser, Sir Henry H.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

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

Smillie, Robert

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Mackinder, W.

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Windsor, Walter

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

March, S.

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Montague, Frederick

Stamford, T. W.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Morris, R. H.

Stephen, Campbell

Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Whiteley.

Question put, and agreed to.

CROWN PROCEEDINGS.
Sir HENRY SLESSER: I beg to Move:
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to assimilate the procedure in certain Crown proceedings in the High Court to the procedure in actions between subjects; to authorise certain Crown proceedings to be brought in county courts; to make the Crown liable to be sued in tort; to amend the Law with respect to limitation of liability and salvage in the case of Crown ships; and to make other provision with respect to the enforcement of rights by or against the Crown; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid."
This Bill is the result of the deliberations of a Committee of extraordinary eminence, composed of the present Lord Chancellor, the present Lord Chief Justice, the Law Officers of the Crown, ex-Law Officers of the Crown and a large number of permanent civil servants and heads of Government Departments. The Committee to whom the most important question of how far the Crown should remain in a peculiar position under procedure of law, were unable or disinclined themselves to make any final decision, but they did unanimously draft a Bill, and expressed the opinion that if that Bill were introduced and passed, it would meet most of the difficulties which have been felt.
The Bill which I now ask leave to introduce, is the Bill of that Committee. My own share in any part of that Bill is confined to the fact that I happened
2132
to be a member of the Committee, but far more eminent persons than myself are responsible for its draft. The Bill meets with the support, in its main principles, of some of the most important bodies in this country. The Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the Corporation of the City of London, the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association, the Law Society, the City of London Solicitors' Company and the Bar Council have all expressed their approval of the principles embodied in the Bill. Therefore, I think I am right in saying that if a public demand of an informed kind is any justification for the introduction of a Bill, we have that demand in this case.
I do not think anyone would accuse me of being a person who is possessed of any reckless desire to introduce innovations into the law. It is my view that in regard to matters of law "Leave well alone," is an excellent maxim; but in this particular matter of Crown proceedings there is such a growing body of opinion that now that the State performs so many functions the subject ought to have the rights against a Government Department which he has against another subject, that if ever there was a case for an alteration in the law, it is the case here. This Bill, in accordance with that principle, first of all proceeds to abolish the old procedure

2133
of petitions of right, and the subject in future, as I understand the Measure, will proceed by ordinary writ of summons against the Crown or a Government Department, as he does against a fellow subject. Rights are also given to take action in the County Court in small matters in which a Government Department or the Crown are concerned.
4.0 p.m.
Another important matter arises. Under the present law, the Crown or a Government Department cannot be made responsible for wrongs done to the subject. If an agent acting for the Crown does a wrong to the subject, that subject is very often left without a remedy. This peculiar protection of a Government Department against actions at law is removed. Another anomaly was discovery. The right to obtain documents from Government Departments is at present a matter of right almost nonexistent. This Bill gives the subject the right of discovery, but at the same time is careful to guard against any improper use of discovery against the Crown in cases where the public interests demand that there should be no discovery. There are provisions dealing with salvage and with the Admiralty Courts and other particular provisions which will be discussed hereafter. I am aware that before this Bill reaches its final stage it will be necessary for the consent of the Crown to be obtained, but at the moment I am asking leave to introduce this Bill in order that the House may see the provisions which are contained in it. I am quite sure that whether this Government or any other Government has the honour of promoting and piloting this Bill through the House, sooner or later the great extension of national services is going to demand that a Government Department be placed in the same position as the subject in litigation, and I feel I need make no apology to the House for asking it to give me leave to introduce the Bill at the present time. I would say to my hon. Friends on these Benches that it is peculiarly important for those who wish to extend the powers and functions oaf the State, that the State in exercising those powers should do it in such a way that the subject cannot complain that they are tyrannical and improper. Therefore, from that point of view, even to those who do not
2134
contemplate any large extension of powers of the State, this Bill is important.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Henry Slesser, Mr. William Graham, Sir Ellis Hume-Williams, Sir Malcolm Macnaghten, Mr. Bevan, Mr. Harney, Mr. Withers, and Mr. Rye.

CROWN PROCEEDINGS BILL,
"to assimilate the procedure in certain Crown proceedings in the High Court to the procedure in actions between subjects; to authorise certain Crown proceedings to be brought in county courts; to make the Crown liable to be sued in tort; to amend the law with respect to limitation of liability and salvage in the case of Crown ships; and to make other provision with respect to the enforcement of rights by or against the Crown: and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 30.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) ACT, 1924.
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): I beg to move,
  "That the Draft of the Order proposed to be made by the Minister of Health and the Scottish Board of Health, with the approval of the Treasury, under Section 5 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924 (presented 6th December, 1928), be approved."
  The business before the House this afternoon arises out of two Sections of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924. Section 5 of that Act says that after 1st October, 1926, and in each second succeeding year, the Minister of Health and the Scottish Board of Health are to take into consideration the expenses which are likely to be incurred in the ensuing two years in connection with the provision of houses as well as the expenses incurred during the previous two years, and then, after consultation with the associations of local authorities, the Minister and the Scottish Board of Health may, if they think fit, make an Order altering the contributions payable by the Exchequer; and Section 6 says that such an Order before it becomes operative must be approved by Resolution of this House. My right hon. Friend and I have followed out the prescribed proceedure. We have taken into consideration the two sets of expenses, we have held the desired consultation with the associations of local authorities and we have decided to make an Order and we are here this afternoon to ask the House to approve by Resolution of the Draft of the Order.
  The Order concerns houses built in Scotland as well as in England, but the Scottish case will be put later on in the afternoon by my hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, and in any observations I make I propose to confine myself entirely to England and Wales. The House will remember that, in 1926, a somewhat similar Order was made, and was approved by this House on 2nd December in that year. The effect of the Order was to reduce the contributions payable in respect of the houses built under the Acts of 1923 and 1924. In the case of the
  2158
  1923 Act, it reduced the subsidy from £6 a year for 20 years to £4 a year for 20 years, and in the case of the 1924 Act, the subsidy was reduced from 19 to £7 10s. a year for 40 years, or in agricultural parishes from £12 10s. to £11. Although the amount of the annual contribution was different in the two cases, yet as in one case the period during which the subsidy was payable was 20 years, and in the other case 40 years, the capital sum equivalent to the cut in the annual contribution was the same in both cases, and was equivalent to a sum of about £25 per house.
  It will be desirable, I think to examine what were the results of that action before we come to consider what are the proposals which I shall have to make to the House this afternoon. Of course, on that occasion, as on this, the making of the Order preceded the moving of a Resolution, and it was therefore known before we came to debate the subject that the cut was in view, and hon. Members on the opposite side anticipated that the cut which was proposed would be defended upon the grounds that housing was costing too much, and that in the interests of economy it was necessary to make the reduction. But, to their surprise, and, I think I may add, to their disappointment, that vas not the reason which was adduced for the proposal then before the House. It is quite true that, in the course of my speech, I did point out that the amount of money that we were spending in subsidies upon house construction had reached very large figures, but the conclusion I drew from that was not that it must necessarily be reduced, but that we ought to be particularly careful to see that we were getting full value for the money we were spending. The reason I proposed a reduction in the subsidy was an entirely different one. It was because I had come to the conclusion that there was a definite relation between the amount of the subsidy and the cost of building, and I based that conclusion upon the history of the subsidy which I gave to the House with certain figures as an illustration.
  The figures are interesting, and, as it is some time since I gave them to the House, I think the House will pardon me if I read them again. I began with the year 192], when the Addison scheme was in operation. In July, 1021, the decision

  2159
  was made to shut down the Addison Scheme. At that time the price of a non-parlour house was, on the average, £665. By December, 1922—and during that interval, there had been no new scheme for subsidy—the price had come down to £346 per house. It remained about that mice until April, 1923, when the new Housing Bill was introduced with a subsidy which was equivalent to about £75 per house. A month afterwards the price rose from £346 to £368 and by January, 1924, it had gone to £386. The next move was in June of that year, when a further Housing Bill was introduced, with an increased subsidy equivalent to about £160 per house. In a month the price went up by £52 to £438, and by October of that year it had reached the figure of £451—an increase of £65. There it remained for some time, until December, 1926, and what I said to the House at the time was that since it was clear from the figures I had given, that every time the subsidy had been increased the price of the house went up, it was only logical to conclude that the best way of getting the price down was again to reduce the subsidy.
  That was then the argument which I used. That was the proposal which I made, and I ask the House now to see what happened. In the following quarter—the March quarter—after the cut was made, the price decreased by £23, and came down to £425, and since that time it has more or less steadily fallen until, in the September quarter of this year, it had got down to £360—a decrease of £88 per house. I do not think that many prophets can congratulate themselves that their prophecies have been so amply and rapidly fulfilled as my prophecy was in this respect. I am quite aware that hon. Members opposite are prepared to swear that the reduction had nothing at all to do with the subsidy, and that it was merely a coincidence that it happened to follow just at the time that the cut took place. I am not this afternoon going to enter into an argument upon that point, although I am bound to say that it does seem to me that to anyone who is not blinded by prejudice, there can he only one conclusion that can be drawn from the events I have related. But, after all, the thing we have got to consider is what are the actual facts to-day, and I would like to point out to the House
  2160
  what is the position of local authorities in regard to house building to-day as compared with what it was before the cut was made in December, 1926. We had a cut equivalent to £25 in the Exchequer contribution. It is proper, I think, to add to that the corresponding reduction in the contribution of the local authority, that is, half the Exchequer contribution. Putting the two together we have a total cut of £31 10s. Deduct that from £88, which is the fall in the price of non-parlour houses, and you get a net reduction of £50 10s. in the price of houses. Local authorities to-day, after making all allowance for the reduction in the amount of the subsidy and the reduction in their own contributions, are in a position to place orders for houses at £50 less than they were before the cut was made.
  I ask hon. Members to bear that figure in their mind for a moment while I consider another aspect of the question, and that is the output of houses. Hon. Members opposite will probably say, in fact I have heard it said already, that the reduction in the subsidy has stopped building. I think I must give the House some figures on that point; I hope hon. Members will forgive me if I give them rather more figures than I usually do, but it is very important that we should have the facts of this case in our minds. What was the rate of output before the alteration in the subsidy took place? I have here the number of State-assisted houses completed—obviously houses which are built without any assistance do not come into this matter at all as they are not affected by the alteration in the subsidy—in each quarter of the year 1926. The total for the March quarter is, in round figures, 28,000: for the June quarter, 34,000; for the September quarter, 41,000: and for the December quarter, 40,000. In the March quarter, 1927, they went down to 38,000, in June they went up to 44,000; and I call the attention of the House to the fact that at that time it was known that there was likely to be an alteration in the subsidy. In September they went up to the tremendous figure of 90,000; and in December they dropped to 24,000.
  What has happened this year? This year has been characterised by a rapid increase in the output of houses. In the first quarter it was comparatively small, 20,000. In June it rose to 25,000;

  2161
  September it was up to 32,000; so that by September of this year we were within 5,000 of the output of the quarter ending March, 1927. What is the conclusion to be drawn from these figures? Obviously, the salient feature is the violent fluctuation in an upward direction which took place just before the alteration in the subsidy became operative, 90,000 in that quarter, whereas it had been running at the rate of 40,000 per quarter. Naturally, after the tremendous scramble which took place then, all localities trying to get as many houses as possible finished before the subsidy came down, the tremendous figure which was reached was followed by a reaction. All the sites had been pretty well exhausted by that time and local authorities had to get new ones and make new plans before they could begin operations on a large scale again, but it is clear that the reaction was only temporary and, indeed, it is surprising to find how temporary it was seeing that in September of this year we were getting back nearly to the figure which ruled at the beginning of 1927.
  I must remind the House that in the three quarters of the present year the total output of State-assisted houses has been 77,477, which is nearly half as many again as were produced in the whole year of 1924. I think I can pass from the question of output, having clearly shown that, whilst there has been undoubtedly a remarkable rise followed by a corresponding fall, it is only a temporary disturbance which will pass away. I would much rather there had been no such disturbance and that the course of house building should have kept on evenly, and it is possible that that result might have been achieved if I had not given so long notice to local authorities, but if I had not it would certainly have provoked strong protests on their part, and I think we may console ourselves for the disturbance of the trade by reflecting that the result was that many thousands of people got into their houses several months sooner than they otherwise would have done had there not been this tremendous effort in the month of September last year.
  There is one other point on which I must say a word. I have seen a statement that the result of the Order of 1926 has been to throw out of employment a large number of people in the building
  2162
  trade. [HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear!"] I see that hon. Members opposite agree with that statement. They say that there are 106,000 unemployed in the building industry. Let us see what are the real facts. The first is that the 106,000 includes Northern Ireland and Scotland, but for the purposes of this discussion, if we are to consider the effect on the building industry, we must take England and Wales alone.
  Mr. VIANT: They are building houses in Scotland under the subsidy.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It suits my argument better to take the figures which include Northern Ireland and Scotland. I was taking the figures for England and Wales in order that I might riot be accused of importing something which is not relevant. I want to compare the amount of unemployment to-day with the amount of unemployment which existed just before the alteration in the subsidy took place. If there is not much difference then there is nothing in the argument that the reduction in the subsidy has produced a large amount of unemployment. In Great Britain, and Northern Ireland the figure of unemployment to-day is 105,961, roughly 106,000. On the 20th December, 1926, it was 108,503. It was actually larger then than it is to-day. That, I think, is not quite a fair comparison, so I will give the House the figures for England and Wales alone. In England and Wales the figures of unemployment for this year are 94,324. In 1926, on the 20th of December, it was 92,574. There are 1,750 more people unemployed now than in December, 1926. It is necessary, however, to analyse these figures a little further and divide them into skilled and unskilled, because, obviously, a number of labourers and other unskilled men are not tied to the building industry in the same way as carpenters and plumbers and other skilled workmen.
  Mr. THURTLE: Did not the right hon. Gentleman explain that in December, 1926, there was a very heavy slump consequent on the rapid increase which took place because the subsidy was taken off?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; the hon. Member is mixing up the two years. The cut in the subsidy was announced

  2163
  in December, 1926, but it did not operate until 1927. These figures, as I have said, should be divided into skilled and unskilled, and I find, taking the skilled men only, that the number of unemployed now amounts to 36,577. In December, 1926, it was 41,427. In other words, 4,850 more skilled men were unemployed before the alteration in the subsidy was announced than there are to-day. I think that disposes pretty well of the allegation that the cut in the subsidy has added to the unemployment in the building trade.
  I will now come to the proposals in the Order which is before the House. Take the first Act—1923. I am aware that in 1926 there were a number of people who thought that the cut. I made then might well have been larger. It was a cut of £25. I preferred to be on the cautious side and I only reduced the subsidy by one-third. I could now reduce it by another third, but that would have left a subsidy of only £25 per house remaining, and I do not think anybody can argue that a subsidy of £25 is going to make any appreciable difference one way or the other in the building of that type of house. There is only a £50 subsidy now upon these houses, the fall in price has amounted to £88, and I am satisfied that. it is possible now to remove this subsidy altogether and leave these houses to he provided by private enterprise with the help of the loan facilities which are allowed under the Act of 1923, of which local authorities have taken advantage to the extent of some £20,000,000.
  Then I come to the Act of 1924. I am bound to say that the same arguments apply and would justify an equal cut in the houses under the 1924 Act, but I have had in mind that although there is an actual net reduction in the case of building amounting to 250 per house it is an average figure over the whole country. There are places, including London, where there would not be so large a saving as that. On the whole, therefore, and with every desire to keep as much continuity as possible in the building programme of the country, I came to the conclusion with my right hon. Friend that it was better in this case that we should make the cut the equivalent of 225 per house. That is
  2164
  effected by Article 4 of the Order. Articles 5 and 6 are consequential upon the alteration in Articles 3 and 4. They make a corresponding difference in the contributions from the Exchequer and local authorities and from the London County Council in cases where new methods of construction lower the cost or where houses built for letting are subsequently sold.
  I see on the Order Paper that the party opposite propose to move an Amendment, the effect of which will be to leave the Draft Order as it stands as regards houses built under the 1923 Act but, as regards houses built under the 1924 Act, to restore the subsidy to where it originally stood. I believe that would be absolute madness. I am certain that the result of it would be inevitably to raise the price of houses. I dare say we shall be told that the effect of the Order will be to stop building and throw people out of employment, to destroy the confidence of the building industry, and all the rest of it. We were told in 1926 that all those things would happen, and none of them did happen. I venture to say that none of them will happen now. What in my opinion all parties should aim at is by every means in their power to reduce the cost of building. If there is one thing which goes without contradiction anywhere in the House it is this—that the rents of houses that are now being built are too high for many people to be able to pay them. What we have to do if we are to help those people whom we want to help is to do something to get the price down.
  The one indisputable result of the action of this House in reducing the subsidy has been to cut the net reduction of the cost of building by £50 per house. I do not expect that as a result of a second Order of this kind we shall get a second fall in the price to the same extent as after the first; but on the other hand I am not by any means satisfied that even now the price of houses has reached the bottom limit. When I am told that the effect of an Order of this kind is to raise the rent of houses, I say that those who maintain that are absolutely shutting their eyes to all the facts. As far as the building industry is concerned, I believe that if all subsidies and all restrictions upon

  2165
  building were removed, they would all heave a sigh of relief and would be glad to get back to normal conditions. Of course we cannot do that. It is the sort of thing that the party opposite would do, but we cannot as practical men make a great dislocation at one blow. We must proceed by steps. That has been the policy of the Government. But to refuse to take another step to-day, when all the signs point so plainly to the feasibility and desirability of it, would be in my opinion to show a lack of courage which nothing on earth could justify.
  Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: We have listened to a speech from the Minister of Health which carries far less conviction to the minds of hon. Members than most speeches which he delivers in the House. I find myself without one single word of his speech with which I can agree. We were told in 1926 that there was a relation between subsidies arid prices. The right hon. Gentleman to-day has treated us to his bowdlerised history of subsidies in this country. It is perfectly true that if you stop building houses you reduce prices. I admitted that in this House in these Debates on two occasions. The right hon. Gentleman knows that during the days of the Addison scheme—if he will look at his own records—the costs of building were falling rapidly before that scheme was brought to an end, and that was being done by increasing control of the industry and by getting rid of the purely artificial considerations which obtained immediately after the War. It was perfectly obvious that that fall in prices could be precipitated further if you were to give no new orders for houses.
  When the right hon. Gentleman in 1923 introduced his Housing Bill, with the object of rehabilitating private enterprise in the building industry, the price of houses was uneconomically, low. Builders were at their wits' end. They were prepared to take contracts at almost any price. The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is so. The master builders of this country were in the last stages of despair, and it was perfectly obvious that any new scheme for building houses again on a big scale was bound to result in the rise of the price level to an economic basis. It was not the subsidy but the
  2166
  renewed demand for houses that put up the prices. That was bound to be so. The right hon. Gentleman in December, 1926, and again in May of this year, defended his cut of the subsidy and the reverse process—take off the subsidy and prices come down. As I said in May of this year, it was perfectly obvious that prices would come down. When we debated this question in the House in December, 1926, we did not deny that prices were coming down. What we did deny was the intimate relation between the subsidy and the price of houses on which the whole of the Minister's case is based.
  It is true that prices have fallen very considerably. I shall not weary the House with detailed figures, but during the past two years there has been, in the case of non-parlour and parlour houses, a very substantial fall in prices. From the last quarter of 1926 to the last three months available, ending in October of this year, the average cost of the non-parlour house has fallen by 18 per cent. or 19 per cent. and of the parlour house by 16 per cent. or thereabouts. That is true. The building employers of the country put it rather differently. Their estimate is an estimate of the cost per superficial foot of floor space, and in their view, in the last two years or so, the cost has fallen from 10s. 6d. to 9s. 6d. a foot, which is round about a 10 per cent. reduction of cost. Those facts are admitted.
  The right hon. Gentleman thinks that it is due to his subsidy, but I do not accept his statement at all. I can give him certain other reasons, totally unconnected with the subsidy, which are responsible for the whole of the cut that has taken place in the cost of houses. I would point out to him, in the first place, that during those two years, the average size of the houses has decreased. I am not saying that it has decreased in the same proportion as costs; I am merely pointing out that the size of houses has decreased in the last two years, according to the figures available to me, in non-parlour houses by about 28 square feet, and in parlour houses by about 12 square feet—not an enormous lot but inevitably leading to a reduction in costs. But what is of even greater importance—I would like the Minister to deny this if he can—is the

  2167
  reduction that has taken place in the quality of houses. I am not familiar with how the, right hon. Gentleman has been administering the Housing Acts. I do not know whether he has inspired the cheaper house and the cheaper quality house. All I know is the fact that local authorities to-day, hard driven by the reduction of the subsidy, are building worse houses than before. The fitments are not as good, and where anything can be pared out of the cost, it is being pared out, with bad results on the houses. I see in the last number of the Federated Employers' Journal a statement to that effect from them, that it is within their knowledge that steps are being taken to reduce prices in this particular way.
  Then I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that one of the causes of the continued fall in prices this year is the fact that almost at the beginning of the year—in February—the building trade operatives suffered a 5 per cent. cut in wages. The effect of that has been again to reduce the price at which houses could be built. It is perfectly true also that the three to four years run of the scheme of 1924 has led to an improved organisation of the industry, has led to economy of methods, has led to larger scale construction, and the effect of that again has been to reduce the actual costs of the production of houses.
  With these reasons, apart from any others, there was bound to be a fall in the cost of houses. Even if the right hon. Gentleman had increased the subsidy you would have had that fall, because there arose considerations entirely distinct from the subsidy itself. But there has been a fall in the cost of practically all the large variety of building materials in the last two years since the reduction of the subsidy. I would remind the House that in 1926, as a result of the prolonged stoppage in the coal industry, the prices of building materials rose very substantially. There was a shortage of coal, a shortage of output, and it was almost inevitable that at the beginning of 1927, with the resumption of the supply of coal and a fall in price, there would be a fall in price of the very large range of building materials. All these things have happened. If you add these factors together and get the aggregate result, it is not surprising that we have
  2168
  had a fall of £50 10s., or whatever the sum may be, in the price of houses. These various factors are utterly irrespective of the subsidy.
  Let me draw attention to the situation in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman very skilfully evaded the situation in Scotland. I am not going to deal with the Scottish housing question, but I do wish to refer to the phenomenal fall in the cost of houses in Scotland before there was any reduction of the subsidy. If the right hon. Gentleman's reduction of the subsidy has produced this fall, then there should not have been a corresponding fall in price in Scotland where the subsidy was still operating. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health seems to think that that is amusing. I do not see the logic of his view. The Minister puts forward one cause for the fall in the cost of building. I put forward a whole series of causes which have operated over the whole of Great Britain. The right hon. Gentleman's one cause, which applies only in one part of Britain, cannot by any stretch of the imagination be responsible for the phenomenal fall in price in Scotland. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to prove that the effect of the reduction of the subsidy in England was to reduce all these costs, and that there was a reaction on Scotland, he is welcome to the task, because there is no more immobile industry than the building industry and there is no industry which is more affected by local consideration. What are the facts in Scotland? I think it is worth while quoting the Report of the Scottish Board of Health for last year:
  "The records show that during the past year the trend of building prices, so far as working class houses are concerned, is definitely downwards. The fall in price has been so pronounced that it was possible to make a substantial reduction on prices previously approved, and yet to have no great difficulty in approving tenders submitted by local authorities."
  And again:
  "Some of the tender prices submitted during the year"—
  that is last year—
  "are the lowest that have been received since Government assistance was offered in aid of the cost of building."
  I have some detailed figures for the city of Glasgow showing a fall in costs which corresponds curiously closely with the

  2169
  fall of costs in England and Wales. I take it from the costs of various Types of houses, in the last two years which I have analysed, that there has been, in Scotland, a fall in the price of houses of from 11 to 13 per cent. which is very like the figure of 10 per cent. in the estimate of the building employers. In some cases the reduction is even larger. If that be so, unless the Government are prepared to show that it arises from causes entirely different from those operating in England and Wales, we are entitled to draw the conclusion that the Minister's case against the subsidy falls to the ground. Then the right hon. Gentleman turned to the question of the output of houses. He did so, I thought, in a rather shamefaced way and he quoted figures from which I cannot see that he can draw any comfort because the outstanding fact is that the output of houses has been reduced. The right hon. Gentleman prided himself on his prophecy. I also am a prophet—it may be a minor one, but none the less a true prophet. When this question was first before the House I used these words and I think my prophecy has come nearer to the truth than the Minister's:
  "I have within the last few days received letters and reports from many parts of the country and almost everywhere the same story is told by local authorities, by building experts, by mayors and town councillors that the only effect of this proposal will be to reduce the building of working class houses."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1920; col. 1494, Vol. 200.]
  The Minister can juggle with the figures as he likes, but the fact remains that the rate of building to-day is much slower than it need ever have been. The figures quoted by the Minister disprove the conclusion which he tried to draw from them, that, after all, things are not so very had. If we take the houses under construction at the end of this month, which I submit is an even better test than houses completed, we find we have not got up to a monthly rate of building equal to that which existed before the reduction of the subsidy. We are now, as regards local authorities' houses under the 1924 Act, down to little more than half of what the local authorities are capable of building and what they have built in the past. Indeed, were it not that the local authorities, in spite of the reduction of the subsidy, have continued
  2170
  to build under the 1924 Act, the rate of output to-day would be half what it is. The fact that building is proceeding at all on any scale is due to the building of louses under the 1924 Act by local authorities; the rate of the falling off in building is far larger under the 1923 Act, and is larger still in private enterprise building under the 1923 Act. That is why the Minister can, if he likes, get rid of the 1923 subsidy, because the building industry has about reached saturation point as regards the building of houses for sale. The real problem, is the problem of building houses to let.
  I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has been trying to reduce the number of houses built under the 1924 Act. I remember when that Measure was before the House the present Home Secretary declaring that, while he did not want to say that it was a gigantic fraud, it would never produce houses. We happen to be producing houses now on a very coniderable scale under that Act, although the effect of the Minister's action in regard to the subsidy has been to reduce the building of houses. What is the position broadly? In the year before the reduction of the subsidy we built over 212,000 houses; in the year immediately following we built rather over 101,000 houses. I know there was a spurt. There was a spurt, according to the right hon. Gentleman, of 50,000. But when the Minister says that, as a result of the speeding-up of building, in order to get the subsidy, there were thousands of families who enjoyed new houses some months before they would have done so otherwise, I say to him that there are a hundred thousand families to-day without houses who might have had houses but for the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman told us in May that, of course, there was bound to be a period of reaction; that the local authorities were speeding up to take advantage of the increased subsidy, and that, afterwards, things would be slack but that the situation would improve. The situation has not improved. We are not building at the rate of which the building industry is capable.
  As I understand the Minister's figures, he has been able to dissolve unemployment in the building industry altogether. That is a very convenient way for the Government to deal with an otherwise

  2171
  difficult problem. If you can prove to yourself that the problem is not there and thus satisfy your conscience, it is very convenient. But does the Minister mean to say that, with the rate of building to-day standing at about half what it was two years ago, there are as many men employed in the building industry to-day as there were two years ago? [HON. MEMBERS: "More!"] I cannot believe that more men are employed now than there were when far more building was being done. Even though there are only 1,750 more men unemployed in England and Wales, the fact that the number is 1,750 more instead of 1,750 less, with the housing problem in its present state, is not to the credit of the Government or the Minister of Health. The Minister pleads that we ought to reduce costs. We all agree. We all know that the problem before us to-day is the problem of providing houses at a price which will permit of rents within the means of working-class families. That problem has to be solved somehow or other. But the right hon. Gentleman's way of doing it is to take off £25 subsidy, and then say he has reduced costs by £50 nett. If he would only take off the other two-thirds, we might give houses away for nothing with a copy of the Tory Programme; but, obviously, it is no solution of the problem of providing houses to let at reasonable rents, to reduce the output of houses. That is the only sure result of the Minister's policy.
  There are other ways. If the cost of houses to-day be uneconomically high, it is because private enterprise, in one of its many manifestations in the building industry, is holding the community up to ransom. We have had many illustrations of that and the practical way of bringing down housing costs to a minimum is to squeeze out every unnecessary profit. The Government will not do that. They go on with this indirect method of reduction of subsidy. The right hon. Gentleman has prophesied. I, also, venture to prophesy again, and I say that under the reduced subsidy you will never get up to the rate of building of which the building industry is capable. Under the reduced subsidy you will never get to a rate of building which will enable you to eat into the great bulk of housing needs and arrears. You may
  2172
  build at a rate sufficient to keep things as they are, but you cannot, under this reduced subsidy, stimulate local authorities and public utility societies to exercise the initiative and courage which they have often shown in the past. I said in 1026 that I had noticed a difference in the official attitude towards the housing problem. There was a time when it was realised that the solution of the problem demanded a great crusade, which would fill the hearts and minds of the people with the need for dealing with it. But the consideration of the matter by the Government is purely official now. The heart has gone out of it, as a result of the action of the Minister of Health during the last two years, and the more local authorities are dispirited and discouraged, the more the solution of this grave, pressing and growing problem will be postponed.
  5.0 p.m.
  We are spending a considerable sum on the unemployed whose numbers appear in the "Labour Gazette." We are spending on them far more than the Government will save in the cutting of the subsidy. That is not economy. The Minister said he did not propose this reduction on the grounds of economy. I put the whole question of the housing subsidy on grounds of economy, and I say that it is economical to apply the maximum amount of financial help to stimulate local authorities and ensure full employment at maximum pressure in the building industry in order to get rid of the cancer of bad housing in the towns. That evil is costing us, not only millions of pounds every year, but is costing much more in diminished vitality and shortened lives, in the reduction of social usefulness, and in other ways. It is costing us infinitely more than could be saved if the whole subsidy were abolished. This proposal is not economy. It is the wildest kind of national extravagance. The Government are playing with a matter of pounds, and disregarding the fact that the lives of thousands of people in this country are being lived under inhuman conditions. I think the right hon. Gentleman would pay attention to the views held in his own constituency, and the Medical Officer of Health here recently reported that this was a problem which demanded even greater attention now than it had demanded in the past.

  2173
  "Quite steady progress continues to be made in the provision of new houses. The problem of housing must continue to rank as one of the most urgent and fundamental questions confronting Birmingham."
  He goes on to say:
  "It is not possible to measure the loss to Birmingham arising from the effects of such surroundings, not only through their adverse effect on physical welfare, but far more fundamentally through their hindrance to any real fullness of life."
  I could quote report after report by medical officers of health showing the persistence of appalling housing conditions. The great city of Manchester, we are told, had last year nearly 19,000 overcrowded houses. We are told that in Brighton, which one does not associate with slums, unless one knows the town well, there are houses in the eastern part of the town which were condemned as slums in 1877 by the then Medical Officer of Health for the district. In Stoke-on-Trent—and here is another point of the utmost importance—the medical officer reports:
  "A very large number of houses are still required to house newly-married couples and to relieve overcrowded dwellings."
  Nearer here, in Wandsworth, where one might think the problem was not as serious as it is in some parts of London, the Medical Officer says:
  "Many cases of overcrowding were brought to the notice of the public health department, but owing to the shortage of housing accommodation it was not possible to remedy the conditions found."
  That story can be repeated in every town and every village throughout the country, and so long as overcrowding exists, however small the dimensions of the problem, so long as any slum exists, however small the slum may be, so long as the housing need exists and there is an unemployed building-trade worker, it is the business of the community to deal with this problem. Of all the disastrous Measures with which the Minister of Health in this Government has been associated, there is no more sinister blow at our national well-being than this proposal further to reduce the subsidy. If hon. Members could escape their party Whips and judge of this problem on its merits, apart from party political considerations, I venture to say that when the Division was taken to-night, there would be a great majority standing with us for more houses rather than with the Minister for fewer houses.
  Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: The speech of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. A. Greenwood), to which we have just listened, is interesting from an academical point of view, but from a practical point of view I doubt whether it really has added very much to the knowledge of the House. It is perfectly obvious that the hon. Gentleman has never built a house in his life, and knows absolutely nothing about the conditions of building. In order that the House may realise, in some degree, the actual, practical effect of the constant changes in policy of successive Governments in the matter of the housing of the working classes, I might perhaps briefly state from my own experience in my own district, what the result has been of all this chopping and changing. As I, for one, instead of talking about providing houses for the working classes, have provided a very large number at my own expense, I may be able to explain my reasons for congratulating the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health on having had the courage—for it does require great political courage to do it—to take away this distinct detriment to the building of houses at reasonable rents for the working classes in this country.
  In my own district we are still saddled with a considerable number of most unsuitable houses, which from time to time we condemn as a local authority, although we cannot condemn them as quickly as we should like, since, under the Rents Restriction Acts, it is extraordinarily difficult to condemn any slums at all. Before 1910 a fair number of fairly satisfactory new houses were being built for our people, hut, of course, the introduction into this country in 1910 of the principles of the late Mr. Henry George at once put a stop to the building of any working-class houses. It absolutely cut off the building of working-class houses throughout the whole of my own district and the surrounding districts of South Lancashire, for the simple reason that it made it unprofitable for anyone to build working-class houses, and naturally, as builders are not working for the benefit of their health, but are working for their livelihood, they did not build any more houses of this class. Thereafter we were bound to have to face a housing problem sooner or later. No houses were being built suit-

  2175
  able for renting to working-class tenants, and by the time the War broke out our own district was beginning to feel the shortage rather badly. In other words, if industry began to expand at all, it was very difficult for workers from other districts to get suitable accommodation when they came into ours to work in our new industries.
  The War intervened, and with the War there came another change in the policy of this country in relation to these matters. We had the Rents Restriction Acts, which, of course, at once cut off any normal supply of capital for the building of houses for working-class tenants to be rented. So long as the Government of the country says that Any man may get a full return for his investment in any other direction, but that if he invests in the building of working-class houses he is not allowed to get a full return on his investments, it stands to reason—and this has been proved up to the hilt—that you cannot get capital invested for the building of working-class houses to rent. After the War, in my district, the position was extremely acute, and being at that time a member of the local authority, as I am now, I thought it my duty to make, at any rate, some sort of start with the building of the houses that we required.
  I started building houses on my own land, with what result? As soon as Dr. Addison's scheme got fairly going, the price of houses went up, week by week and month by month, so that, although immediately before that scheme came into effect it was just possible to build houses to let at a rent which working class people in those days could pay, and at the same time not to lose heavily on the transaction, by the time Dr. Addison had really got to work, it was absolutely out of the region of practical politics at all. Prices went up at one period by as much as 5 per cent, per week, in my district, in the cost of construction. The Addison scheme produced a complete corner in the building trade, a corner in building trade labour, and a corner in building trade materials. Rings formed in every direction, in every sort of building trade material, and in every sort of building trade labour too. As far as my own observations and my own experience of the cost of building at that time go, if Dr. Addison had been allowed
  2176
  to proceed with his scheme, there would have been no chance of any appreciable fall in the real cost of building. There might have been a fall in the money value of the cost, but not a real fall in the cost of construction, if you took into account the falling prices in other directions and for other commodities.
  Therefore, some of us, as Members of this House will remember, took it upon ourselves to make a dead set against that scheme, and ultimately we were successful in getting rid both of the scheme and of Dr. Addison, with the result, as the right hon. Gentleman has hinted already in his speech, that within a very few months of Dr. Addison's leaving the Government and the abolition of his scheme, we were once more back upon practically an economic level of building prices. I remember well myself passing the plans for buildings of my own on my own land, at a price which actually gave a return of something like 4 per cent. on the capital invested in them—a most remarkable return, in these days, on newly-built working-class property. There was every prospect then that we should at last be able to get working-class houses built at a rent that working-class tenants could pay and houses that were quite of a better type than we had been accustomed to build prior to 1910. But the right hon. Gentleman came along then, and just at this point, when we were getting on to a proper level of costs for the building of houses, when we could have put them up and let them at rents that working-class tenants could pay, he introduced his subsidy scheme.
  The result was that the cost of building materials began to go up. I remember that on the Second Reading of his Subsidy Bill I went home and found a notice on my desk there saying that the price of bricks had been raised 5s. per thousand; after the Third Reading, I went home and found another notice to say that the price of bricks had been raised another 5s. per thousand; and when finally the Bill got the Royal Assent, I went home and found a third notice saying the price had been raised another 5s. per thousand, making a total of 15s. a thousand for bricks as a direct and immediate result of the right hon. Gentleman's Subsidy Bill. Before he introduced his subsidy, there was consterna-

  2177
  tion among the building trade rings. I found, just before the subsidy was introduced, or at any rate before the announcement of the policy was made, that the building trade rings were breaking up right and left. I found that I could get light castings, of all things in the world, at below the ring prices, and the right hon. Gentleman will understand that when the light castings people allowed you to get things under the ring prices, things were in a very bad state for that ring, because, of all other rings in the building industry, the Light Castings Association has been the worst of the whole gang.
  But hope came to those building trade rings, and hope came to the labour rings in the building trade as well, when the right hon. Gentleman introduced that subsidy, and that hope was duplicated and re-duplicated when the right hon. Gentleman who was Minister of Health in the Labour Government added to that subsidy. As the right hon. Gentleman the present Minister of Health has told us to-night, and as I have told this House again and again, year after year, the average price of houses went up by almost exactly the capital value of the subsidy which was granted in the two Acts. In the case of the 1924 subsidy, it did not go up by the full capital value, because the building trade came to the conclusion that the basis of the subsidy was so preposterous that the people of this country would not stand it, and so they discounted the rise by about 50 per cent. instead of the whole 100 per cent. that they got in the case of the other subsidy.
  We went on building in my own district. Fortunately, I was able to convince my local council, of which I am a member, that it would be a mistake to adopt a council scheme, and what has been the result? Immediately after the War we had 1,900 odd inhabited houses in our district. Since then we have had built no less than 340 new houses of a far better type than was customary in the same district, absolutely without a penny of contribution from the ratepayers, and I venture to say that if there had been no subsidy at all, there would have been exactly the same number of new houses built in that district. In fact, we only applied as a local council for the grant of a subsidy to our builders because the surrounding districts were giving the
  2178
  subsidy, and we found that our own builders were rather at a disadvantage. We should have preferred, and so would the builders themselves, to have done without any subsidy at all, but the surrounding districts were giving it, and we had to apply to the Ministry of Health for it in consequence.
  Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman comes here, as he has done to-day, and says: "We have tried this thing out to the full; it has been a gross mistake from beginning to end, it has had exactly the opposite effect from what it was intended to have, and it has accentuated the difficulty of housing," then I say that we can congratulate him on political courage in revoking a scheme for which he himself was responsible, unless indeed it was forced upon him by an unfortunate bye-election in the Mitcham Division of Surrey, because, although post hoc was not propter hoc, it was so very much post hoc that one might hazard the statement that it was propter hoc. That has been the position in one small urban district, which has suffered for years from the lack of working-class houses very largely owing to the follies perpetrated in the People's Budget of 1910.
  The right hon. Gentleman has at heart the problem of the housing of the working-classes. His own work in the city of Birmingham is proof that he at any rate really feels the seriousness and the importance of the problem, and I would ask him to impress upon his colleagues in the Government that there is still one bar to the housing of the working-classes. That bar is that it is impossible to get capital for the housing of the working-classes. It is possible to get any amount of capital for building houses for sale, and the reason that it is impossible to get it for houses to let is that the whole thing is so insecure, and people fear that we may have a repetition of the policy of rent restriction. They fear that, if they invest their money in that direction, like so many of their poorer neighbours they may find that their money has been put on a wrong horse, and they feel that, if they invested it in greyhound racing or in gold-mining shares, they might retain their capital instead of losing it. As the right hon. Gentleman has done so much by the reduction of the subsidy to encourage the building of working-class houses at a reasonable rent and at a

  2179
  reasonable cost, I ask him to continue the good work by impressing on his colleagues the necessity for departing as soon as possible from the ridiculous policy which has cut off the supply of capital for the building of houses for letting.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: The hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House has given us one of his delightful and characteristic speeches. I cannot help but regard him as the remnant of a bygone age. In this House he represents an individualist system which has, as far as I can hear, no defender but himself. He congratulates the Minister of Health on the courage which he has displayed in this draft Order, and one may congratulate the hon. Member in being faithful to the individualist views of his grandfather. I would respectfully ask him to take a few lessons in modern economic history. He tells us that the collapse of house building was due to the Finance Act of 1909. I submit that it was due to nothing of the kind. If the hon. Gentleman will examine housing history, he will find that the birth of the rings and combines in the building industry took place in 1909. There was an indiscriminate and unregulated system of house building in every part of the country, and a surplus of working-class houses to let. Between 1910 and 1913 the cost of building went up by 30 per cent. Obviously, the people who would have put their money into building, as the hon. Gentleman desires them to do, in 1913, and erected houses costing one-third more than existing houses which were empty, could not hope to compete successfully with those empty houses. So they had to stop building until two things had happened—first, until the surplus houses had been inhabited, and second, until the rents of existing houses were put up to a level that would make profitable the erection of houses that were to enter into competition with them.
  Had it not been for the Government of that time, or rather for the pressure put upon the Government by tenants all over the country, rents would have gone up when the surplus houses disappeared. It would not have been merely the rents of the new houses that would have gone up; the hon. Member, and people who think like him, think that the Govern-
  2180
  ment should have stood aside and allowed rents to be put up on the millions of houses already in existence, which had cost no more to build, because in the meantime we had had a war. In other words, the hon. Gentleman is defending the policy that people who had money invested in house property should, because of the nation's difficulty, be allowed to rob the nation. He went on to tell us that the prices had fallen after the Addison Scheme had been stopped. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. A. Greenwood) has pointed out, prices will always fall if there are no buyers. There were no houses being built when the Addison Scheme stopped—
  Mr. HOPKINSON: The right hon. Gentleman is totally misinformed about that.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I submit that I am not misinformed. It is within the recollection of Members of the House, and, if it is not within the recollection of the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson), he has not been following so closely as I thought the history of the building industry.
  Mr. HOPKINSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any figures to prove it?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I have no doubt that if the hon. Gentleman puts down a question to the Minister of Health, he will get all the figures that he wants. Before dealing point by point with this policy as I propose to do, I will ask the House to consider that it is possible to give far too much attention to the relation between subsidy and the cost of building from another point of view. The granting of the subsidy by any Government was not due to the fact that the cost of building was high; I mean that it was not due to that fact in itself. The object of the subsidy was to bring the rents of habitable, healthy houses within the reach of the average working man, and the cost of the houses did not necessarily bear a relation to it. Let me put it this way. If a house was costing £600 to build and the wages of the man for whom it was provided were £6 a week, and the cost of the building came down to £300 and the wages at the same time to £3, the fall in the cost of building had not brought you one step nearer the solution of the problem that con-

  2181
  fronted you. The problem was to enable the man, out of the wages which he was receiving, to pay a rent for the house that was being erected at the current cost. What the right hon. Gentleman leaves out of account altogether is the fact that, while the cost of building has come down, the rate of wages has come down proportionately, and that the rent of the houses is no less for the man for whom they were originally intended than it was when the cost of building was double what it is to-day. Nominal wages have come down, and with nominal wages coming down, the product of labour comes down. If the house has come down from £600 to £300, and the wages from £6 to £3, the fall in the cost of the house is not to be claimed as a reason why we should refuse State assistance to the man whose wages are also down.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), the other evening, said that it seemed to be the settled policy of the Government to give as many parting gifts to their friends as possible before they meet their fate at the General Election. I ask the House to regard the draft Order, which is to be pressed through by the Government majority to-day, as one of the Government's death-bed gifts. In the old days, if one had assisted one's friends out of public funds, it would have been done in such a crude manner as to be evidently corruption. The modern method is more scientific and respectable. The Government put through an Act of Parliament which is quite clearly calculated to help the friends to whom they look to give them backing. Considerable capital is sunk in dwelling-houses for letting purposes; I suppose that there are few industries in which a larger amount of capital is invested. The return on this invested capital depends, of course, upon the rents that can be obtained for the houses, and the new publicly-built houses naturally come into competition, in the fixing of rents, with the existing privately-owned houses. If the new houses are scarce, if building is slow, the supply is reduced, and you put up under the competitive system the market value of the commodity. If the rents of the new houses are kept high, the rents of the old houses can be kept high; and if the rents of the old houses can be kept high, there is to a greater
  2182
  extent that extra return on capital which was desired by the hon. Member for Mossley.
  When the subsidy is withdrawn, undoubtedly rents will be put up. You will shift the burden from the State, from the taxpayer, and to a corresponding extent from the ratepayer, and put it on to the shoulders of the working-classes who are the inhabitants of these houses. You at the same time enable the private owners of houses to put up their rents and you put millions of money into their pockets as a result. The Minister of Health is well aware that there is still a tremendous shortage of houses. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne gave the figures, and no one knows them better than he does. I read an official statement last week that 34,000 people are waiting for new houses in Glasgow. That is a considerable increase on the number five or six years ago. My hon. Friend pointed out that you may be embarking on a scheme of very unsound finance in this policy. Undoubtedly, the shortage of houses leads to overcrowding. There is a mistaken idea that overcrowding is associated only with slums. No one knows better than the Minister of Health that there is more overcrowding outside slums than there is inside slums. A shortage of houses necessarily creates overcrowding. The working-class house has no margin beyond the healthy requirements of an average family. When there is a shortage, the people who have no houses must find shelter somewhere. They will never be taken in by the richer families who have surplus accommodation, so that they have to find accommodation in the small houses of their fellow workers. Every time you have an additional family brought into a small house you have overcrowding, and all its consequences. Those consequences are only too well known to the Ministry of Health. No one knows better than the present Minister of Health how much of the disease, the death-rate and the financial burden of this country is due to overcrowding.
  While the housing shortage exists you are bound to have overcrowding. But the policy of the right hon. Gentleman clearly retards building. His own figures prove it. They prove that the policy of withdrawing the subsidy retards building. He

  2183
  cannot get over those figures. But I think there is stronger evidence than that. There is evidence that the right hon. Gentleman does not believe in his own policy. The right hon. Gentleman, as the House well knows, is no fool, and it is of no use for him to come here and attempt to play the fool. He cannot get out of the evidence which is within that Order itself. If the right hon. Gentleman believes in his policy, and thinks that by reducing the subsidy you bring down the cost of housing, how does he explain the attitude taken towards Scotland? How does he explain why Scotland is dealt with less harshly than England and Wales when he comes to the revision of the subsidy? Surely it cannot be that he loves Birmingham less than he loves Scotland; there must be some other reason for it.
  Is not the reason, quite clearly, that the housing problem in Scotland is more intense than the housing problem in England? When the right hon. Gentleman came to deal with the subsidy in 1926, he said, in effect: "We are going to bring down building costs in England by reducing the subsidy. We are going to keep up building costs in Scotland by not interfering with the subsidy." So he allowed the full subsidy of the 1924 Act to remain intact in 1926. Now he comes forward again to-day and says: "We are going to reduce that subsidy in Scotland to the level which exists at the moment in England, but we are also going to bring the subsidy for England down further still." Why? Is it that he wants the costs of building in Scotland to remain up? Surely if this is a specific for bringing down building costs, then Scotland needs its building costs reduced much more than England and Wales require their building costs reduced. Quite obviously, the right hon. Gentleman does not believe in his own policy. He simply comes here and wraps it up in a volume of figures and attempts to humbug this House.
  I think it is worthy of remark that for all practical purposes the 1923 Act, put on the Statute Book by the right hon. Gentleman himself, is now completely wiped out. The 1923 Act expresses much more clearly and much more reliably than do his speeches the right hon. Gentleman's view of what ought to be the
  2184
  State's attitude towards the removal of the housing shortage. I think it might be summed up in this way. He believed the way to do it was to help those who least need help; in other words, to help those who could financially help themselves and allow all the others to go to slumdom—or further, I suppose, if they like. So under the 1923 Act he produced a scheme for giving State assistance to those who could afford to buy houses, and giving no State assistance, or practically none, to those who could not afford to buy houses. If the cases were closely examined it would be seen that the great bulk of that money went into the pockets of the private builders. We know what the situation was. There was such a shortage of houses that people who had a little capital to invest were engaged in a scramble for houses at any price, and the speculative builder was in the position not only of being able to extort from the house purchaser an exorbitant price for the house but, in addition, was able to put the right hon. Gentleman's £75 subsidy in his pocket. In nearly every case, I should say, it could be easily proved that instead of the subsidy under the 1923 Act reaching the purchaser of the house it went in the other direction altogether. That was due to the fact that, unlike the Act of 1924, the right hon. Gentleman's Act made no provision at all for controlling the subsidy and directing its destination. So I am not at all surprised, but rather glad, that he now sees the folly of the step he took in 1923, and refuses to distribute any more public money among private speculators who are erecting houses for sale.
  The 1924 Act, on the other hand, expressed the Labour view of how the housing problem ought to be faced. That Act is based on the idea that State help should be given only to those who need State help. Not only in this matter, but in the de-rating Bill, and all through their policy, it will be found that that conception never enters into the consideration of the Government. It enters into the consideration only of hon. Members on this side of the House—that is, the view that State help should be given only to the people who need State help. The 1924 Act set out to give substantial assistance to the local authorities to enable them to provide houses to let. I remember that the right hon. Gentleman

  2185
  himself said that the real housing problem was the provision of houses to let. If everyone could afford to buy his own house, there would be no housing problem to trouble us at all. In the 1924 Act, unlike the 1923 Act, stipulations were made to ensure that the assistance given by the State for the erection of houses would reach the people for whom the assistance was intended. The local authorities were bound under that Act to pass on the subsidy to the tenants.
  I would submit this to the local authorities, if my voice should reach them by the aid of the Press—that they should render vigorous opposition to the present Order of the right hon. Gentleman, and that they should at least recognise that the only Act for giving State assistance towards the removal of the housing shortage in this country is the Act put on the Statute Book by the Labour party in 1924. Everything else now disappears, and but for the fact that we had a Labour Government local authorities, after the passing of this Order, would not have a penny of State assistance going towards the solution of the housing problem. I submit that local authorities and everyone else interested in housing should be grateful that even for the short period of nine months we had a Labour Government in this country.
  I oppose this Order, further, on the ground that it violates all the pledges given by the Government of 1924 to all the people interested in the solution of the housing problem. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may sneer at the violation of pledges given to our own people. That is characteristic of them. If we give pledges to Frenchmen, those pledges are sacred; but if we make promises to our own people, they are to be regarded as belonging to the piecrust order. Hon. Gentlemen opposite sneer at their own people, but they hail with reverence and deference the people of other countries in their negotiations with them and in the promises made to them. We violate here solemn pledges to our own people in 1924. It is impossible to convey to this House, even after a brief period of four years, the difficulties which stood in the way of housing in 1924. Hon. Members opposite and their party were completely helpless, and came to this House and confessed their helplessness. The fundamental criticism in 1924 was that out of
  2186
  the chaos in which the industry was it was impossible for us to carry out our policy and impossible to build houses. The party opposite had tried it. The right hon. Gentleman had put his Act of 1923 on the Statute Book, but no houses were being built, and, after all, it is houses that matter, not Acts of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman, or his successor at the Ministry of Health, had to come here and state in the most lamentable language that they could not get houses built.
  I remember the Conservative predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman at the Ministry of Health, now the Home Secretary, coming to the Treasury Box here and telling us that he had been practising bricklaying. They had started off on the assumption that the first step necessary in solving the housing problem was to smash trade unionism. You could make no progress till you had smashed the trade unions. The right hon. Gentleman the present Home Secretary wanted to demonstrate that there was really no craftsmanship in the laying of bricks, and so he accepted an invitation from a speculative builder who later, I suppose, pocketed the 192.3 subsidy, and went down to where houses were being built, and then solemnly came back and told the House that with the aid of a hoard which served as a guide line he could lay six bricks while a bricklayer was laying one. I submit that as just a sample of the tone which prevailed in the House at that time. There was a. shortage of houses, there was a shortage of men, there was a shortage of materials, and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, whom many of you here believe to have superior business capacity—wrongfully believe it, because they are inferior to you, so far as my experience of them has gone—held up their hands in holy horror, and said: "We cannot get out of the difficulty until we smash something. Let us begin with the bricklayers, let us go for the plasterers, let us go for the joiners, let us smash everybody who can help in the building of houses, and then we shall be able to solve the problem." That was the attitude adopted towards the problem, and that was the basis of their policy in 1924.
  I remember that when I made an estimate that in the second year a re-organised industry would be able to produce 90,000 houses per annum hon.

  2187
  Members opposite jeered. I was met with loud laughter from the Conservative party. They jeered at the proposal and they sneered at me, just as the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson) said to-day to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne: "If you knew anything about the problem you would not make such a rash prophecy." I said not only 90,000 houses, basing my scheme on that, but I said that later there would be a steady increase in the output of houses. What do hon. Members opposite do now? They stand at that Box, and they go round the country, proudly boasting of the houses that are being built, as if they were the actual builders, as if they had followed the example of the Home Secretary with the board and had gone round the country erecting houses. You would think that the trade unions had contributed nothing towards the problem, but that hon. Members opposite had had something to do with the laying of the foundation of the industrial system which has enabled us comparatively to solve the housing problem of this country. They have no right to parade as builders of houses or the builders of a policy that would lead to the building of houses. I submit that the 1924 Act was more than an Act of Parliament. It was a first-class piece of national industrial organisation. We are witnessing to-day not merely the breaking up of an Act of Parliament, but deliberate, smashing blows at probably the one intelligently organised industry in this country.
  In 1924 we found the building industry in chaos, and we brought together all the people interested in a solution of the problem. We made an appeal to them on high moral lines as well as on other grounds. We appealed to them for the sake of the nation to come together and help us. We got the local authorities, operatives, manufacturers, contractors and merchants to meet the Government and the representatives of the tenants, and these people a-greed to terms which, for the first time in this country, put the building industry on a solid basis. The Government gave pledges to the country, and I say that those pledges are just as solemn and worthy of recognition as any pledge given to any nation in the world. If the people of this country know their own business and have any respect for
  2188
  their own honour, they will make snort shrift of the Conservative Government that violated the pledges which were given in 1924.
  The local authorities said that the subsidy was insufficient. I will show the roguery that is behind this Order. The local authorities pleaded with me that the 1924 subsidy of £9 per house for 40 years and other parts of it was insufficient for the purpose. They fought me and my officials for several days, and it was only within half an hour of the close of the Housing Conference that I succeeded in bringing the local authorities to a sense of reason, and they agreed to accept my proposals. The members of that Conference told me that they felt that prices might rise, but I assured them that the steps I had taken were more likely to lead to a reduction, and ultimately we reached the compromise to which I have referred. We agreed to allow the scheme a fair run for two years and see what would happen. We agreed to leave the door open, and if local authorities felt that they could not carry on with the subsidy granted then the Minister could come to Parliament and ask for an increase in the subsidy. Of course, hon. Members know that no increase could be made in the subsidy without the approval of Parliament, and that could not be done by any party without the approval of Parliament. We said that we would leave the door open, and allow the local authorities to come back again at the end of two years' experience. I told the Conference that if my estimate of the future was not correct, and my anticipation of a fall in prices did not, materialise after two years' experience, then an additional subsidy could be applied for if required. No one contemplated then that when you left the door open, the right hon. Gentleman opposite and his party would take advantage of the open door to go in and rob the fund that was provided for the housing of the people.
  The Minister of Health now says: "I am acting under the powers conferred upon me by the Act of 1924; I am taking into account all these things and revising the housing subsidy." It was never intended that that should be the case. It was generally agreed that a £13 10s. subsidy was insufficient to provide houses at rents prevailing in the locality for exist-

  2189
  ing houses occupied by this good deal people, and we agreed that cost of building came down, the first people to be relieved should be the tenants. We said to the local authorities: "We will not reduce the subsidy, but in order to induce you to co-operate with us in bringing prices down—it was very essential to give an inducement to the local authorities to help to bring down the cost of house building—if you help us to bring down the cost of house building and our joint efforts are successful, then the first to receive the benefit will be the tenants, and we will reduce the rent." We said further to the local authorities: "After the tenants have been relieved, if prices come down still more, we will then reduce the subsidy to be contributed by the local authority." Our policy was to relieve first of all the tenant, then the rates, and afterwards the taxpayer. That was to be the method by which the relief from a reduction of building costs was to be distributed.
  In spite of the fact that there has been no relief in relation to wages, and assuming the reduction in costs to be a relief, the Government have reversed that process, and they say that the first people to be relieved must not be the tenants, but the Super-tax payers. Consequently, it is proposed to give the State the first relief, so that the Super-tax payer in possibly the last year of office of the present Government may be relieved at the expense of the poor population of this country, who are to be camouflaged by pages of figures which neither they nor anyone else can properly comprehend. The cost of building is down and wages are down proportionately. As things are to-day, the ability of a worker to get a house even at the present cost is less than the ability of the same man to get a house under the higher costs in 1923 and 1924. The Minister of Health spoke about the madness of our policy, but can you think of anything more mad than the policy now being pursued? As my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne pointed out, you have increased unemployment, and you are going to further reduce the number of houses built as well as the number of people who will be engaged in the building industry. Consequently, you are going to have a much greater demand on your Unemployment Insurance Fund.
  2190
  We have heard a in our discussions upon unemployment about paying out money in doles, and hon. Members have asked, "Why not put the unemployed people doing useful work?" The useful work provided for them by the Government seems to be digging holes, making unnecessary bridges, and widening roads which might very well have been left alone for another 50 years. What more useful work could you have than the erection of houses? If you want to solve the problem of unemployment, what is the use of talking about futile labour schemes? Why not put the people on to the most useful work in which men at the present moment can be engaged? Instead of doing that, the Government proceed to put men on the dole and drive them away from useful work. I feel sure that if the Minister of Health made a careful calculation of the financial consequences of this Measure, he would find that the increased amount to be paid in unemployment insurance, for unnecessary overcrowding, and matters of that kind would be considerably greater than the amount that will be saved by the cutting down of the housing subsidy. We all know that bad health accrues from overcrowding. We hear a great deal about the foreigner being to blame in these matters. We are told by hon. Members opposite that if we could have more overseas credit and make the Belgians, the French and the Russians richer, then we should become richer ourselves. It is always the foreigner across the sea who is blamed for our poverty, and it is always the fellow across the sea who gets assistance first. We are now dealing with something with which the foreigner has nothing to do. He is not breaking up the building industry. It is not the foreigner who is breaking up this branch of our trade. We are dealing now with what is exclusively a home trade, and here we can operate without any regard for the foreigner at all. If we can be so kindly disposed towards the foreigner, whether he is a Frenchman or a Russian, why cannot we have a little of that kindly disposition for that section of our own people at home who need it most?
  It was the duty of everybody to improve upon the scheme of 1924 and extend it to every branch of the industry. Now the people who prate about the importance of national unity

  2191
  are taking ever possible opportunity to strike a blow at the poorer section of the community, and they are doing this to put an extra penny into the pockets of their own supporters. This is something which is not only indefensible but it is scarcely respectable in politics, and it certainly emanates from a mentality that deserves no respect from the people on this side of the House or the people whom we represent. I hope that we shall take every opportunity to expose in the country and make clear to the elector how the health, the lives and the happiness of the poor are being exploited in order that the pennies of the Income Tax payers may be saved.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. HARRIS: When the Minister of Health made his statement last Tuesday foreshadowing a reduction in the housing subsidy, it came to me as no surprise. I had the honour of accompanying a deputation to the Ministry of Health in another capacity. It was a deputation representing local authorities from all parts of the country, including municipal corporations, urban district councils, rural district councils, and the London County Council, and those representatives came at the invitation of the Minister of Health, who is required under the Act to consult local authorities on these questions. These representatives were people not accustomed to sitting at Whitehall reading documents, but they were practical people who for some years have been trying to put into operation the various Housing Acts. They were public-spirited persons, not the friends of contractors. It was a most representative gathering, including the Chairman of the Municipal Corporations Association, the chairmen of other authorities, and the Chairman of the Housing Committee of the London County Council; and they pressed the Minister to maintain the present rate of subsidy. Apparently they did not think, from their knowledge as practical people, that the result would be to give a present to contractors, and they ought to know what they are talking about. If the theory of the Minister of Health is right, however, all that they were asking was to be allowed to give a benefit to contractors and to stop the reduction in the price of houses. According to the theory of the Minister, the
  2192
  eduction of the subsidy will be mediate drop, as happened, accor his statement, two years ago, in the cost of housing, but at any rate the Chairman of the Housing Committee of the London County Council, who was the first speaker, and who represents a borough very near to that which the Parliamentary Secretary represents, pressed for an increased subsidy for London in the central area. [Interruption.] The Manchester Corporation, as I understand, was rather inclined to support that view.
  Ministers talk a great deal about averages, but averages are often very misleading, and to take a great number of authorities all over the country, urban and rural, strike an average, and say that there is a reduction and therefore the case is proved, is certainly not very conclusive. It is far more satisfactory to take a typical area and get at the facts, and so test the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, particularly if the authority selected is beyond suspicion, non-revolutionary, and of the same political complexion as the right hon. Gentleman. The majority of the London County Council at present is Conserva and the Chairman of the Housing Committee is a Conservative, and has been for some years.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): For 20 or 30 years.
  Mr. HARRIS: The right hon. Gentleman confirms what I say. For the last 22 years the Chairman of the Housing Committee has been a Conservative. He pointed out that, although, according to the Minister's average all over the country, there has been a reduction of about £80 yet in London the average reduction is only a little over £26. We can test the matter in London, because we have three estates, for which I have the figures here, and of which the circumstances are very different. The building has been done by different contractors and under different conditions. There is an estate in South London which has been called after an ex-Minister of Health, the late Mr. Hayes Fisher, who afterwards became Lord Downham. The average cost on the Downham Estate has only dropped by Then we have in North London the Watling Estate, near Hendon, where the building conditions

  2193
  are very different, and there the drop has been £25 or a little more. These figures are very different from the average figure given by the right hon. Gentleman.
  In East London, on the Becontree Estate, the drop has been larger, namely, £39, but there we have had mass production, and, during the period in question, the output has been larger than at any other period. The production was standardised, and houses were turned out at the rate of 90 a week, which, naturally, has brought down the cost of production. The County Council in that case were working practically by direct labour. They were working through contractors, Messrs. Wills and Company, on a cost-plus-percentage basis, and the contractors were merely acting as our agents. That justifies me in saying that to be guided by a supposed average reduction throughout the country through a change of policy involving a reduction of the subsidy is very dangerous in face of the facts that we have in London, where we have the advantage of a great number of contractors and a great deal of building labour, and of being able to import supplies of materials from abroad, because we have, I think quite rightly, gone in for a policy of buying in a free market.
  Leaving for a moment the question of the actual drop in prices, let me go into the question of the adequacy of the present subsidy. Before the subsidy is reduced, it is necessary to prove that the present subsidy is adequate. I took the trouble to get the figures and facts from the experts of the London County Council. The Parliamentary Secretary was once a member of the London County Council for some years, and I think he will agree that they have the advantage of expert officials who are some of the ablest and most competent men in the country. The man in charge of the contract department has just been knighted by His Majesty in recognition of his great services in trying to get mass production and cheap houses.
  At present, the loss per annum on the houses that are being built in 1928 works out at something like £14 10s. per house. The present subsidy—not the reduced subsidy—is £7 10s. According to the provisions of the Act, local authorities were to contribute in the proportion of
  2194
  2 to 1, and therefore, the amount that they were supposed to give was £3 15s. £7 10s. plus £3 15s. makes £11 5s., so that actually at present the rates have to bear, on the present output, an average loss all over London of £3 5s. Therefore, the present rate of subsidy, so far from being too large, is insufficient, because, over and above the 2 to 1 proportion, an additional contribution has to be found from the rates of no less than £3 5s. This is not because the rents are too low. On the contrary, I have a report here which I think is conclusive. It is dated as recently as the 13th November, 1928. I have had the advantage of speaking to one of the principal financial officials of the County Council this afternoon, and he admitted to me that, all the evidence tends to prove that, so far from its being possible to increase the rents in order to cover the reduced subsidy, we are coming now to a point when we shall very soon have to bring rents down, because they are such that the applications of many deserving families have to be refused. This report, dated the 13th November last, which appeared on the Minutes of the County Council says:
  "As regards houses on cottage estates, experience shows that, generally speaking, it has not been practicable for the council to enact houses complying with the requirements of the Act of 1924 as to the class of accommodation and the amenities to be provided, which do not involve annual losses greater than those contemplated by the Act and subsequent Order of 1926, respectively."
  The report goes on:
  "In accordance with Section 3 (1, e) of the Act of 1924, the rents of the council's houses have been fixed on the basis of pre-War rents for similar accommodation in the neighbourhood concerned "—
  that, as I understand, means the requirements of the Ministry of Health on the basis of neighbouring houses—
  "the 40 per cent. increase allowed by the Rent Restriction Acts being added, and due variation being made having regard to size, amenities and position."
  In other words, the London County Council, protecting the ratepayers, make generous provision not to charge too low rents, and they have covered increased amenities and the 40 per cent. increase provided by the Rent Restriction Acts in calculating their rents. The report says further:
  "We always seek to keep the rents of the council's dwellings as low as the circum-

  2195
  stances warrant, and we cannot contemplate any increase in the present rents, but are rather looking forward to the time when it may be possible to effect reductions."
  And the answer to that report is the Minister's proposal to reduce the subsidy.
  Sir K. WOOD: I cannot quite follow what the complaint of the hon. Gentleman is. In London, as I understand it, there has been a reduction in the cost of housing of about £25, which is just about the amount of the subsidy, and there has been no slackening off in the building programme for London. What is the complaint? What is the matter?
  Mr. HARRIS: I am sorry if the right hon. Gentleman's intelligence is not equal to my reasoning. If he likes, I will repeat my argument, and, if he applies himself to it, he will understand it. This Report, issued on the 23rd November, 1928, is based on the present cost of production of houses, and it points out that, over and above the Government subsidy and the subsidy expected out of the rates, an additional amount has to be provided by the rates, and yet the rents are too low to cover the cost of the houses. An additional loss has to be borne by the rates, and the Report points out that, so far from its being possible to increase rents, the present rate of rent is too high, and it is anticipated that the reduced subsidy will mean one of three things. It will either mean a further increase of rents, or an increased charge on the rates, or, alternatively, a reduction in the building programme.
  I regret to say that already the London County Council has reversed engines. Already it is slowing down. Already the programme at Becontree has been cut down. Whatever may be the influences that have brought that about—whether it is due to the influence of the Minister's policy, or whether there are influences at work inside the council—I do not know, but there has been a slowing down. The council has adopted a policy of slowing down on the outskirts. On the outskirts of London, the cost of travelling is high, and it is very difficult, owing to the low wages paid, for people to pay railway fares in order to go backwards and forwards to and from places five or six miles out of London. That means an additional charge on the rates, and for that reason
  2196
  the programme is being slowed down, and the council, as was made clear at the deputation, has come forward with another policy—
  Sir K. WOOD: That has nothing to do with the subsidy.
  Mr. HARRIS: Oh, yes, it has everything to do with the subsidy. I think the right hon. Gentleman must be asleep. He must be confused by the other Act, and by the five-year periods. Apparently he has been trying to master the Act passed by his right hon. Friend, and has not his usual clearness of mind. This very Report which I have quoted says that the council has another scheme, and suggests that it is advisable to build houses in the centre of London; but it is pointed out in this Report that that means buying very expensive sites, costing from £5,000 to £10,000 an acre. They say, however, that the present rate of subsidy—that is to say the old rate which is now in existence—is quite inadequate, and they went to the Minister last Thursday to ask for an increased subsidy. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was giving the matter his sympathy and consideration. The sympathy that we are getting is merely a reduction in the subsidy. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman was thinking of when he referred to that as being quite a different story; it is entirely the same story. It is a matter of pounds, shillings and pence, and we shall not get houses in the centre of London unless we get, not merely sympathy, but some pounds, shillings and pence to help us to do so.
  It is suggested, not by many but by some, that something like equilibrium has been reached, and that the supply of houses is meeting the demand. I have here, however, another report, in which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be interested. It is of the London County Council's familiar orange colour, and is dated September, 1928. It deals with the present position, and is signed by the council's valuer, Mr. Hunt, one of the ablest surveyors and housing experts in the country. This is what he says:
  "There continues to be a great demand for accommodation on the council's estates. During the year a very large number of persons made inquiries, both written and oral, as to the possibility of obtaining accommodation and, being informed of the

  2197
  position, did not make formal applications which, in the circumstances, would have been futile. It is undoubtedly the case also that many persons refrained from making inquiries owing to its being well known that the council cannot, in the present circumstances, meet the requirements of the numerous applicants already registered. It is indicative of the situation that the number of persons who called at the central office "—
  most of these are working men, occupied during the day, who have not very much time to go to the central office in Trafalgar Square—
  "during the year to apply for houses was nearly 60,000, while over 77,000 inquiries were made by letter as to the possibility of obtaining living accommodation on the council's estates."
  The right hon. Gentleman's answer is merely to reduce the subsidy. But perhaps the most serious part of it all is that, while the Minister now is changing his attitude and initiating this new policy, everything indicates that, instead of things getting better, there is something like stagnation. In reply to a question asked in the London County Council on 30th October, a statement was made that, according to the census return, 683,000 persons, about 15 per cent. of the population, were overcrowded, or living more than two persons to a room. This is the statement:
  "Later figures available for one or two boroughs indicate that, while overcrowding as a whole has not increased since the last census, there has been some increase in the worst forms of overcrowding."
  That is a very serious position. The Minister is taking a very serious step on the insufficient information that (is available in reducing the subsidy. There are one or two very healthy indications for the future. There is now no shortage of building material. There is an ample supply of all the necessary requirements for the construction of houses and there is plenty of skilled labour available. I have on many occasions been prepared to support schemes for increasing the amount of skilled labour, but there are plenty of bricklayers, plasterers, carpenters and other forms of labour. It is not even necessary to use alternatives—to build steel houses or to use substitute materials. We can get all the bricks and labour that we require and all we ask for is a forward policy by the Minister and a lead to the country.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Elliot): We have listened with interest to the hon. Member who has just sat down, speak-on a subject on which he is an acknowledged master, but speaking in the way we have come rather to associate with him, with a semi-gloomy outlook, which we have to discount to a certain extent, coming from him. I ask the House to turn from the affairs, however important, of the Metropolis to a consideration of the matter in the Northern Kingdom. We are dealing with Scottish affairs, and dealing with them according to what I conceive to be the very right and proper practice, here on the Floor of the House. It is said that this amounts to an insult to Scotland, but one cannot appreciate that point of view. We are dealing with a suggested reduction in the subsidy which is not so great as in the case of England. We are also dealing with a housing position which differs very considerably from that in England and will require a moment or two of explanation. The housing situation in Scotland has been most acute, and I would not deny that it is still acute. It has received the anxious attention of Members in every part of the House, and it has been universally recognised as one of the blots upon our Twentieth Century civilisation. No one has done more to bring it to our notice than my predecessor in the Scottish Under-Secretaryship of Health.
  To-night we have had prophecies from the Minister of Health, and the divine afflatus descended upon the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. A. Greenwood), who prophesied in his turn. All one can say is that in the past the prophecies of the Minister of Health have been more accurate and more nearly fulfilled than those of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. But it is always an uncertain business to deal with prophecies. We in Scotland are in the very much simpler and more pleasant position of being able to deal with ascertained facts. It is not a question whether a fall will or will not take place, for a considerable reduction has already taken place, as was brought out by the hon. Member himself. In fact, I had some hesitation whether it was necessary for me to make a speech at all, on hearing the eloquent way in which he brought out the facts, which I shall try further

  2199
  to make clear. He pointed out that there had been a very considerable drop in the cost of housing in Scotland.
  I would simply ask the House to consider a few figures which give a concrete example of how great that drop has been. In October, 1926, when the subsidy was previously under consideration, the price of a three-apartment cottage was £449. To-day the price of that same house is £414, a drop of £35 in the average cost. In 1926 the price of a four-apartment cottage was £469. To-day it is £425, a drop of £44 in the average cost. For the flatted type of house, which is the standard type of house in Scotland, a three-apartment flat, which in October, 1926, was being constructed at £392, in October, 1928, was being constructed at £339, a drop of £53. We are asked, then, to make our decision to-day not on prophecies but on ascertained facts. The cut my right hon. Friend is recommending to the House for future building programmes is a cut which in round figures represents £25.
  The ex-Minister of Health strolled into -the House and delivered an eloquent tirade upon many subjects, but chiefly, as far as I could gather, on the callousness and brutality of the Government in not carrying out any part of his policy when he was Minister of Health. I understood that the main part of his policy was to stimulate the production of houses, and the production of houses has certainly been stimulated even beyond his most enthusiastic prophecies. But we in Scotland are not making a cut equivalent to the amount of the drop that has actually taken place. A substantial amount of the reduction in costs is being left with the local authorities, to apply either to the lowering of rents or to a reduction in the rate of their contribution, whichever they propose. An average cut of £25 means, in the case of a three-apartment cottage, that £10 is being left with the local authority, and, in the case of a four-apartment cottage, £19. That is to say, they will be £19 better off than they were in October, 1926, under the right hon. Gentleman's unreduced subsidy, and, in the case of the apartment flat, £28. Even after this cut has been made, local authorities will be £28 better off under my right hon.
  2200
  Friend's proposals than they were in October, 1926, under the unreduced subsidy of the ex-Minister of Health. These are proposals which we can not only bring before the House but to which we confidently ask the House to give its assent. They are reasonable and businesslike proposals. A fall has taken place. The cut we propose does not by any means absorb the whole of the fall that has taken place, and a substantial portion of that fall is left with the local authorities to utilise in whatever way they wish.
  The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne seemed to discover in the fall in the prices of building in Glasgow some dilemma upon which he hoped to impale the Minister of Health and the Under-Secretary. He asked, "What becomes of the contention that the cut in the subsidy has brought about the fall in houses, when the fall in building costs has taken place in Glasgow as well as in Birmingham, Newcastle and other English cities?" I entirely fail to understand his argument. He buttressed it by the most astounding suggestion I have ever heard from a responsible Minister. He said the fall in the English price could have no relation to the fall in the Scottish price, because the building trade is immobile. The building market is one of the most immobile. Is it? Is there any foundation for that statement? We are told by the hon. Member who has just spoken that they in London have a free market. They buy their building material abroad. It is brought into this country without let or hindrance. Is a cargo of Belgian tiles not as free to be delivered at Glasgow as in London? If it is getting a lower price in London, will it not similarly get a lower price in Glasgow? Of course, it will. A fall in the price of building material is reflected in the prices in Glasgow, with a result as immediate as that which stands reflected in the building costs here in London. As for the immobility of labour, labour moves freely from place to place across the Border. It is the first time I have ever heard the suggestion that with a boom and high wages in England an army of hungry Scotsmen would not come here to take advantage of it. This immobility of labour seems to me to be an entire chimera. The fact remains that, whether you say the fall in the

  2201
  subsidy brought down prices in Scotland or not, we know for certain that a rise in the English subsidy would produce a rise in the prices in Scotland, and we should have an immediate difficulty in getting our tenders let at the price at which they had been before.
  The progress of housing in Scotland has been considerable. The rise in the number of houses constructed has led to a substantial annual contribution being made to meet the deficit that has been accumulated, and that is brought out in all the publications that deal with the matter, with the authority of official publications. The progress that has been made is not merely in dealing with the 1923 and 1924 Acts new housing construction, but there has been a very substantial progress in dealing with slums—much greater advance proportionately than has been made in England. I do not say it is satisfactory or begins to be satisfactory. The slums of Scotland are still a disgrace to our nation. They are still one of the great cankers gnawing at the health of Sootland. But it is clear that no accusation can possibly lie against the Government in that respect, for there is no suggestion of touching, by a penny piece, the proposals originally made by the Minister of Health for the slum clearance subsidy—the fifty-fifty grant. That will remain after the passage of this Order, just as it was before, as an insurance to ensure that the poorest of the poor will not be in any way affected by any proposals that are made under the present Order. Further, I take this as a strange attitude from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who have already indicated their intention of attacking us in unmeasured terms because of certain proposals to deal with the percentage grants in relation to health matters on another Bill, and to substitute for them block grants. Here, when we are making a modification of the block grant, and leaving the percentage grant untouched, we have these unmeasured denunciations hurled at us as people who desire to injure the health of the people and to keep dawn the housing of the poorest.
  The difference between the position after the passing of this Order and the position in October, 1926, is that the local authorities, after the passing of this Order, will be better off than they were
  2202
  in October, 1926. In regard to the slum clearance proposals, no change whatever of any kind or description is envisaged. With regard to the slum clearance proposals—those proposals under which already tenders have been approved for nearly £4,000,000, £3,900,000 worth of slum clearance—they remain on the Statute Book, and the Government will continue-to find the money in the future as they have in the past—fifty-fifty—for any proposals local authorities put forward to deal with the problem of the slums.
  I think that these are all the facts which. I should like to bring to the notice, of the House in recommending hon. Members to accede to the Order which the Minister of Health and the Scottish Department have proposed, save one point. The question of unemployment in the building trade has been brought up. I would only say this: We are supposed to have the unemployment of over 8,000 people in the building trade in Scotland. That arises almost very largely from the conception that there is such a thing as a building trade. There is not. There are "the building trades," which are in many ways highly compartmented, as highly compartmented as other trades which are grouped under entirely separate headings. Of the total, we have over 80 per cent. belonging to the three categories, house-painters, labourers and other occupations, and the unemployment in the key trades remains at a very low state.
  Mr. STEWART: Is not house-painting, a trade?
  Major ELLIOT: Yes, the house-painters constitute a trade, but I am sure that the hon. Member would agree that a house cannot be painted until it is built; that the house builder is absolutely dependent on the activities of other trades, and that, if the plasterer does not complete a new house, it is impossible for the painters to be brought in.
  Mr. STEWART: But if the bricklayer does not lay the bricks there will not be an opportunity for the plasterers to get to work.
  Major ELLIOT: I quite agree. The question of the bottle neck still remains, and, with 8,800 people normally unemployed in the building trades of

  2203
  Scotland, unemployment among the real key trade of the plasterers is to-day 88, not 8,800. There are 88 plasterers registered as unemployed throughout the whole of Scotland from the Cheviots to the Pentland Firth. [Interruption.] The hon. Member thinks that everything is very serious.
  Mr. STEWART: May we take it that there is a shortage among the key people in the building industry?
  Major ELLIOT: I would ask the hon. Member what becomes of his whole argument as to the reduction of the subsidy causing unemployment. Since we agree that there is no reduction of subsidy in Scotland so far, his whole argument that the reduction of the subsidy has led to unemployment falls to the ground. Whatever the future action of the Government may be, the present action to which we are asking the House to assent is fully justified on the figures which have been brought up. Furthermore, there can be no doubt that it will in the future mean a rapid spurt in the building trade in Scotland; that whatever happens we shall get an immediate increase of employment in the building trade in order to complete the houses within the subsidy period. That will be considerably to our advantage in Scotland, for oddly enough, in the last year, the housing fell as compared with the year before. In spite of the full subsidy, in spite of the longer run of organisation, and in spite of the schemes which ought by this time to have been yielding a growing increase of houses each year, the output of houses for the current year looks like being less than the output of houses for the year before. The output for the year 1928 looks like being actually less than the output for the year 1927. That cannot be put down to any failure in subsidy or to any failure of the desire of the Government. [Interruption.] The hon. Member brings forward explanations of his own. I will say, at any rate, that no Member on the other side of the House can suggest that the action of the Government has had anything to do with it save in regard to one thing.
  Part of that decrease is represented by the fact that we did not continue the programme of steel houses this year as
  2204
  we did the year before. It was that auxiliary programme of additional houses that brought our numbers in Scotland for the first time up to 20,000 houses. It was that auxiliary programme carried through not by a penny piece on the part of the ratepayers, but by 100 per cent. support from the Exchequer that brought our programme over 20,000. It was a programme which enabled unemployed men to do useful work, and brought our housing programme in Scotland forward with a great rush. Hon. Gentlemen opposite can consider for themselves how much assistance the Government had from them in bringing forward that scheme. I do not wish to say more. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr. Benn) is not perhaps aware of the previous history of the party which he has recently joined. In that matter of the auxiliary housing programme there was a unanimous vote against it by the party of which the hon. Gentleman is now a member.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has forgotten that I was in this House when he was in his perambulator.
  Major ELLIOT: We are not discussing what either the hon. Member or myself did when I was in my perambulator, but during the past two years when housing in Scotland was being pushed forward. I say that in the near future we look for an increase and not for a decrease in housing as a result of this Order. Whatever happens, we have as a safeguard the slum clearance schemes giving us a steady 50–50 for Scotland, and, with these two things in view, we confidently ask the House to support the Ministry and the Measure which we are introducing.
  Mr. STEWART: I was interested in what I think were some of the contradictions made by the Tinder-Secretary of State for Scotland. It seemed to me that he claimed some credit for the Government for the increase in housing in Scotland because of their housing policy, and because of their 50–50 policy with regard to slums. May I point out to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland that the argument which the Minister of Health used this afternoon for a reduction in the cost of houses was that

  2205
  it was entirely due to the fall in the subsidy. As the subsidy fell, so did the price of the houses fall. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has, on the contrary, made it appear that the subsidy has no reflection whatever in the cost of houses in Scotland. I submit, if I understood him aright, that either the statement of the Minister of Health is somewhat incorrect or the argument that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has used with regard to houses is quite incorrect.
  When I had the honour to be the Parliamentary Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health there was an attempt—as I put it and as my responsible advisers looked upon it—on the part of the building trades, to increase the cost of houses in a way that was antagonistic to the welfare of the State. Though I claim that there is no man in this House or in this country more interested in the housing question and in the provision of houses for the people than I am, I felt it my duty to take such action as prevented houses from being built. The consequence thereafter was that when the hon. and gallant Gentleman came into office prices had begun to fall. The subsidy was still the same. It was the 1923 subsidy with which I was connected in 1924. The 1924 Act had not been passed then, and in Scotland we had that particular position. I submit that private enterprise in connection with the building trades did not do its duty by the State. You are proposing to stop house building by the state, for, in my opinion, that is undoubtedly the ultimate aim of the Government, but long before the programme of houses which the Government have set themselves to carry out is anything like an accomplished fact, the condition of housing will be much the same.
  I heard the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson), while speaking in the House this afternoon, state that the cause of the increased cost of building and the stoppage of house building in 1910 was due to -le Land Tax which was then imposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). As a matter of fact, in Scotland at any rate—I do not claim to speak for England—the building of houses stopped in 1905, and that condition of affairs continued until after the War had started. From 1905 onwards, there were
  2206
  practically no houses built. Between that year and 1914 there were not sufficient houses built, as far as Glasgow is concerned, to meet one year's requirements. The reason is, and I admit it at once, that we were then over-built. If that statement of mine be correct, I submit that the oft-repeated statement made with regard to the effect of the tax on land and its prevention of house building, has proved to be, I will not say untrue—I do not like to use that word—but at least exaggerated and not is accordance with fact.
  In Scotland we have continued to pay the £9. We are paying it to-day. The price of houses has fallen in Scotland; that is admitted. The Government say that it is due to the fall in the price of houses in England. If that argument is correct why not exclude the North of England from this Bill and, indeed, cut other parts of the country out of the Bill. The Government would then leave themselves with a very small subsidy in a localised centre, which would have the effect of reducing the cost of house building all round. The Government would save money. No, I do not believe that the fall in prices in England has had any effect in reducing the cost of houses in Scotland. Other causes have contributed to this result. In 1924 one of the reasons given why the building of houses was not proceeding very rapidly was the shortage of labour. The representatives of the building trade met the Government and gave a pledge, which they fulfilled, that they would take apprenti excess of the number stipulated the agreement between themselves and the employers. As a result of their assistance the Minister of Health to-day is able to say that there are over 100,000 unemployed people in the building trades. In Scotland alone we have over 8,000 unemployed, the larger proportion representing, it is true, as stated by the Under-Secretary, those belonging to the labouring section of the building trades. But also in the skilled sides, plasterers, plumbers and joiners, there is a greater number unemployed now than there has been at any time since 1919, and this is due to the fact that the building trades took in this larger number of apprentices, who have been employed and are responsible for the building of 20,000 houses, apart altogether from steel houses, last year.
  Major ELLIOT: Just under 20,000.
  Mr. STEWART: Well, just under 20,000. In any case it was the action of the building trades which enabled us to reach that level. Ever since 1923 all parties have been striving to give effect to the building of houses and it was not until last year that we were able to reach a total of 20,000, and for one year only. The housing needs of Scotland do not show the least diminution. They are as great to-day as they were in 1917 when the Commission made its Report, and now the Government propose to cut down the subsidy. The Lord Provost of Glasgow at the opening of a scheme, at which the Under-Secretary was present, said that there were some 34,000 people whose names were down for houses who could not be supplied. In 1925 the Government reported, as did also the Board of Health in its Annual Report, that the figure of 118,000 was an under estimate. Instead of going forward we have actually gone back, and now the Government come along and tell us that if the. Subsidy is decreased it will tend to increase the building of houses. I contend that the action of the Government is going to defeat what I believe is the desire of everyone, and that is to see people living under better conditions. Let me once again revert to the case of Glasgow. The problem of overcrowding there tends to grow worse instead of better. Last year the medical officer of health stated that he had investigated 2,100 houses in four of the wards on the South side of the city. These wards were Govan, airfield, Kinning Park and Kingston and he found that 12 per cent. of them were one-roomed houses, two families living, and 13 per cent. were two-roomed houses, with two families living in them. I submit that the action of the Government is not going to abolish these conditions which everyone will condemn.
  In addition, the action of the Government will be reflected on rents. Already in Glasgow, and I dare say throughout the country, the policy of the Government in decontrolling houses when vacated by the tenants has given the landlord power to raise the rents to any height they like, and where houses have been decontrolled the rents are steadily rising. If the Government by this policy prevent houses being built in Scotland I say that it will
  2208
  mean a still further increase in rents. As a matter of fact, the rental of houses. which before decontrol amounted to £100,000 have now risen to £108,500; an increase of 8½ per cent. And so the Government go on. The effect in my opinion must be worse and worse. It has been said that there have been no complaints with regard to the stoppage of the housing subsidy. A conference was recently held at Buxton when the following Resolution was passed:
  "This National Housing Conference of local authorities in England and Wales and Scotland is emphatically of opinion that a satisfactory solution of the housing problem depends on building good standard houses to let at rents within the means of the lower paid wage earners, and that so long as the present economic conditions prevail this can only be accomplished by means of an adequate Exchequer grant. The Conference therefore, strongly urges that the subsidy granted under the Housing (Financial Provision) Act, 1924, should be stabilised at its present rate for a further period of at least five years and that additional Exchequer assistance should be provided to enable poor and large families to occupy healthy modern homes."
  7.0 p.m.
  That Conference was attended by representatives from all local authorities in Scotland as well as in England; from Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow, Edinburgh, and all the great towns, and they unanimously passed that Resolution. I have no authority for the statement except my own experience, but I believe that the Government's policy will retard the building of houses in Glasgow. It will increase the cost to. the City itself. At present the housing rate in Glasgow is 3¾d. in the A 1d. in the £ yields £45,000. That means that Glasgow has £160,000 to bear in connection with housing schemes. Up to now the number of houses built in Glasgow is 14,000; and the immediate needs of the City are at least 80,000 houses per year. That I believe would make no impression on what the Under-Secretary calls Scotland's disgrace, the one-roomed house; and I would point out that, even after you have. built these 80,000 houses, there will still remain 42,000 one-roomed houses and 114,000 overcrowded houses, where people are living under terrible conditions, suffering from tuberculosis and propagating the disease. And it is at a time like this that the Government propose to make a reduction in the subsidy, a policy which in my opinion, and in the opinion of

  2209
  every hon. Member who knows Scotland and the conditions which prevail there, will prevent houses being built. It will also tend to increase rents on people whose wages are falling, whose conditions are becoming worse, at a time when the cost of living is rising instead of falling. I submit that the proposals which are being made by my Scottish colleagues on the opposite side of the House to deal with this matter, however well intentioned they may be, will work out badly for the people of our country who deserve our protection and who, even though it may cost a little more money, should get more support than they are getting at the present time from the Government.
  Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: We always like to hear the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Stewart) on housing, because he confines himself very largely to talking about the points we all have in common and, if he ends up with a rhodomontade against the conditions to which we all object, we on this side do not object. I should like, however, to turn to the arguments brought forward by the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley). When the right hon. Member was Minister of Health, he always spoke, and he still speaks, with two voices. He really represents the old myth of the god Janus who had two heads, one facing in one direction and one facing in the other. When I had the privilege of visiting the right hon. Member in the Ministry of Health, one could see clearly that it was quite a different face which one saw there to the one which faced the audience up at Shettleston from the soap-box. To-day we have had rather a mixture, but I am afraid he has shown us more of the soap-box side than of the side we saw as a Minister. I would remind him and the House of his own Act and the failures which occurred under it. I shall not go into them in detail as it would be rather an unpleasant bit of anatomy for the right hon. Gentleman. Of the many objects, some of them very worthy, which he put forward, some were defeated even at the time, while others proved their failure later on in practice. If he accuses the present Minister of Health of having failed to carry out the obligations under the 1924 Act, I would
  2210
  remind him of Section 5 of his own Act, which gave the Minister power at any time to rearrange the subsidy owing to financial exigencies.
  I want to consider seriously the question of the finance of this Measure of housing in relation to other matters which are equally important to the public health and welfare of the people. It seems to be argued sometimes from the opposite side of the House that the State ought to pour forth any amount of money in order to rectify those conditions which are rightly referred to from all sides as disgraceful to civilisation. We ought, how to have a considerable regard to sense of proportion as regards the different objects for which money can be ghtly used. We are considering an expenditure on housing amounting, roughly speaking, to £10,000,000 a year, which is settled upon the Exchequer for a period of from 20 to 60 years, quite apart from any continuance of housing and of existing subsidies in the next few years. That is a definite subsidy of £10,000,000 a year for that purpose only up to date. Here we may leave party politics, and refer simply to the point of view of the medical officer of health who simply wants to get an improvement in the health of the people. The medical officers of health ask for grants of £10,000, £20,000, or £50,000 a year at the most. The idea of spending £1,000,000 a. year on various measures for the improvement of public health is quite beyond their dreams, and yet we are spending £10,900,000 a year on housing.
  Me. KIRKWOOD: Is not that a bagatelle compared with the £350,000,000 you spend on war debt?
  Lieut. - Colonel FREMANTLE: I am not comparing £10,000,000 with £350,000,000, but with the paltry few thousands which any Government, even the Labour Government, have given for important matters of health. My argument is that we want to go back again and again to this sense of proportion. If you are arguing the necessity for better housing from the point of view of the improvement of the health of the people, then we say at once that we would rather spend every extra penny proposed to be given to housing on other purposes which could be named but which would not be pertinent on this vote. We have to look

  2211
  at the matter then in a different light to that from which the other side have been looking at it this afternoon. From that point of view, we should certainly not maintain the subsidy at the very high rate of these post-war years, unless we were perfectly certain that we were going to get value for money out of the continuance of it. Every Chancellor of the Exchequer knows that he has only a limited amount of money every year which he can devote to public health services, including housing. Therefore, if he is going to take £100,000 more for housing next year, it means that £100,000 less will be devoted to other purposes. Let me make it clear that I have never opposed, but have always favoured, increasing the housing subsidy where you are getting value for your money, but, where you are not certain of getting value for your money, then I would much rather, for the sake of the people, see that money used in a way that would bring 100 or 1,000 times more results for the health of the people than the housing subsidy does. Even if this costly way of helping the health of the people is necessary, we still have to consider whether we get value for money or not.
  The right hon. Member for Shettleston dwelt upon the profiteering that went on as the result of the subsidies after the War. We ought all to be on common ground that, when you get a subsidy, it naturally goes very largely to anybody who has a finger in the pie. My hon. Friend the Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) said it all went in profiteering. The right hon. Member for Shettleston said it went largely in profiteering. I would say that 75 per cent. to 80 per cent. of the cost of building, including the cost of building materials, is labour, and that, if you accuse the building trade of profiteering, you must include the operatives as well as the employers. If the employers were getting a large sum of money out of this or any other national sources, I maintain that the trade union leaders would not be doing their duty unless they saw that the operatives got their fair share out of it. The Labour party opposite have either to say that the trade union leaders have not done their duty and have not got their fair share for the operatives out
  2212
  of this plunder, or else they must agree with what I say that all parties have had a finger in the pie and have all taken their share out.
  I am glad to say that the records we have at present show that the output of labour in the building trades engaged in house-building has improved fairly steadily, and that the costs are not so high as they were when I proved to the satisfaction of the House that the cost of building output, as compared with building output costs before the War, had risen to 900 as compared with 100 before the War. At the present moment, the cost of building output labour is something like 300 as compared with 100 before the War. That is higher than most labour in this country. It is not for us to say it is too high, but it is quite obvious that building labour is one part of the general building trade which has scored very heavily out of the building subsidy.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: Does the hon. Member say that building trade workers are to-day getting three times as much as they did before the War?
  Lieut.-Commander FREMANTLE: No, I was dealing with the cost of output per rod of brick work laid.
  M r. MONTAGUE: What does that mean?
  Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I have argued it once in the House. I cannot argue it again. It will be in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As regards the causes, the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) relied largely upon the actual statements of the "National Builder," the official organ of the National Federation of Building Trade Employers. He quoted almost word for word as regards the causes of the reduction of cost. He did not add the conclusion of that article, which was very largely what the Minister has stated. The article concluded:
  "The building industry hope that they may soon be relieved from the causes of the violent fluctuations and under normal conditions may be free to restore order and to secure the utmost efficiency and economy in its service to the public."
  The cause of the violent fluctuations, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne has said, was, of course,

  2213
  the question of the subsidy. A subsidy quite clearly cannot be imposed without causing violent fluctuations. The sooner you get rid of that the better. The Minister of Health has replied to the query as to why he should not at once remove the whole of the subsidy. All of us who have had to do with the building trade, or with any trade, know that you cannot make violent changes without incurring violent results. We on this side of the House do not believe in violent results; what we are in favour of is a gradual change.
  I should like to remind the House of how this was exemplified in the policy of the present Minister of Health when he came into office after the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston had vacated office. Many thought that, inasmuch as the 1924 Act, which was introduced, as the right hon. 'Gentleman the Member for Shettleston said, in opposition to the 1923 Act, to do what the 1923 Act, according to the right hon. Gentleman, did not do—to do something to solve the problem of housing—the present Minister of Health, on taking office again in 1924, might have repealed the 1924 Act. But what happened? The present Minister of Health came into office and said: "No; let us make these two Acts run side by side and see which has the most effect." The result has been very satisfactory to the authors of both Acts. We have seen a very wonderful growth of houses, so much so that the figures prophesied by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston have been exceeded. The actual number for four years, according to the pledge given in connection with the 1924 Act, has been exceeded by 111,125 houses, over and above the number actually laid down in the scheduled programme. That is very satisfactory. The number laid down for four years was 420,000; the number actually built during that same period was 578,893.
  Then, again, it was expected in certain quarters that, in reducing the subsidy, the Minister of Health would take the opportunity to put the subsidy given under the 1924 Act and under his own Act on equal terms. It was said that he was going to reduce the subsidy on the 1924 houses to the level of the 1923 houses, and keep the subsidy on the 1923
  2214
  houses at the same level as it is at present. Many were in favour of this, in order that private enterprise and the local authorities' houses for sale and letting might be put on an equal footing. But the Minister is not doing that. If he had done that, we can imagine what an outcry there would have been from the benches opposite. Instead of doing that, the Minister says: "I believe that the doing away with the subsidy will not increase the cost of the houses; indeed, I believe that the cost of the 1923 houses will go down when the subsidy is withdrawn. I will put it to the test, and, in the future, the 1923 houses will have no subsidy." That is a test which we shall all watch wits the greatest interest and sympathy. We shall see if the 1923 houses can hold their own.
  I come back to what is to be the future of all this. I still believe that the causes put forward in the article quoted by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne for the decline in costs were true, but it is not worth while now discussing the causes. We are making a bold experiment whereby, I hope, we shall save much needed money, and hon. Members must not forget that we can re-impose the subsidy if necessity should arise. I agree that the subsidy is an unnatural way of supplying houses, and the sooner we can get back to normal conditions the better, but we must not forget that, with the supply of houses, there goes also the question of rent restriction. I hope that next year, under the happy auspices of the next General Election, it will be possible to deal with the slum question as a whole, and to insist upon the bringing of Part I of the Rent Restrictions Act to an end and to allow free play to Part II. I should like the whole lot of the housing subsidies to be merged into a block grant to be given to the different boroughs and housing authorities to use specifically for housing in respect of slum. Clearances and provision of houses for the poorer classes, to be carried out as they felt inclined, with as much latitude as is possible under the improved local government and the block grant. It is to that future, to the proper use of this enormous sum of money that is voted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the solution of the slum problem and the improvement of housing that I look in the end, and I believe that

  2215
  this Measure, this experimental Measure, is certainly one in the right direction, and I strongly support it.
  Mr. GEORGE THORNE: I do not rise to repeat the arguments which have already been emphasized by hon. Members, but only to emphasize one point. If I understood the Minister of Health aright, in the course of his speech he told the House that the course which he has taken was taken by him after consultation with the local authorities. That I believe to be the case. The consultation did take place, but the point I want to emphasize is that, although that consultation took place, the course now taken by the Minister is not in accordance with the advice of those authorities; it was not in accordance with their acquiescence. The decision to which he has come is, in fact, in direct opposition to the advice they gave him. I cannot help regarding this as a very important matter. Of course, I admit that the Minister, while taking that necessary course of consulting the local authorities, is not bound by the advice given him. But this is a matter for very serious consideration. I did not hear from the Minister any direct reason why, having consulted with the local authorities, he did not find it right to follow the advice which they gave him. I am speaking with the authority of the Association of Municipal Corporations, with which I am identified as one of its Vice-Presidents. They did not come lightly to the conclusion which made them give the advice they gave to the right hon. Gentleman in the consultation which took place. I propose to read to the House a short quotation from the report of the Housing Committee of the Association of Municipal Corporations:
  "By our direction, questionnaires were issued to a number of selected cities and towns of varying sizes, and, after having examined the replies thereto and considered other relevant factors, it appears to us that, in view of all the circumstances, including the importance of reducing rents, no justification exists for any further reduction of the Government subsidy."
  I consider that, coming from a body of men so representative of the whole country, is a matter for very serious consideration. I respectfully submit that it might receive from the Government more consideration that it has
  2216
  hitherto received. The County Borough of Wolverhampton, of which I am one of the representatives, has just passed a resolution in confirmation of the course taken by the association. If I am not mistaken, numbers of Members this House have received from their various local authorities notification that those authorities have given the same advice. The position, therefore, is this. This is the Act of the Minister and the Minister alone. It is not done with the advice, ut it is done contrary to the advice, of all these recognised local authorities of the country, including London. The course proposed to he taken is a very serious one. The results which will naturally follow have been pointed out by Member after Member. I do not desire to repeat their arguments, but I would point out that the course taken is in direct opposition to the advice of the bodies best calculated to give advice to the country on this matter. I submit that is a very serious course, and the responsibility of that course must rest upon the Government and upon no one else.
  Sir ROBERT NEWMAN: I propose to intervene only for a very few moments. I am sure that there is no Member of this House who is not anxious to approach this question with the desire to promote good housing among the people. I am, however, bound to ray, from my experience, that I look with some fear upon the sudden stoppage of the subsidy, at any rate under the 1924 Act. An ounce of fact is better than a ton of theory, and I will put some facts before hon. Members. I represent a city that is now just beginning an extensive housing programme. It is going to erect about 400 houses under the subsidy given by the 1924 Act. I am advised, on the best authority, that it is quite impossible for those houses to be finished within the next 12 months and therefore, without going into a great number of figures, it will be apparent that, in respect of those houses, this subsidy will be lost. The result of that will be that these houses will have, to cost 7d. a week more, and that will either have to be borne by the tenants or it will have to come out of the pockets of the ratepayers. Of course, 7d. a week may not be a very large sum, but these houses will be designed for the very poorest of the poor who have now very great diffi-

  2217
  culty in getting houses, and this really is a matter for very serious consideration. I respectfully suggest to the Minister that, even if the subsidy is eventually to be abolished, it might be allowed to run for two or three years longer, while these schemes which have been entered upon throughout the whole country are being carried out.
  I have another instance which I might mention. I belong to a little association or company which is run snore or less on philanthropic lines to try and do away with some of the slum areas of that great city. We, again, find a very great difficulty in carrying out our policy. I suggest to the Minister that what is really handicapping housing at the present time is the fact that we have to pay such a very large sum of money in the way of interest on loans, and that we are allowed such a very short term of years for repayment of the loans. Let me give one instance only. I know of houses that are being built now. The interest on the loan is about 5¼ per cent. and all has to be paid, capital and all, in 20 years. That really means 8 per cent. In other words it is £30 a year or about 12s. a week, and the man that I have in my mind can no more afford to pay 12s. a week for rent than I can afford to pay £10,000 a year.
  I shall not trespass further on the time of the House, but I was anxious to get up and ask whether it would not be possible to postpone the fall of the guillotine, as far as the subsidy under the 1924 Act is concerned. My experience may be limited to one place and may be peculiar to that place, but I do not think it is so. There is another point. Personally I aril not very much taken with the question of pounds, shillings and pence. I know that we have to pay consideration to it, but there are certain times of crisis in all nations when we have to put on one side mere questions of money. We had to do that during the Great War and had to spend money with both hands. I think we are passing through a great crisis on housing at the present moment. It is going on and on and on. I am almost ashamed to go into the city I represent and see the slums that exist there, knowing as I do the toll they take every year in the way of loss of life and health. I understand that the Minister of Health shares those views entirely, but he thinks that the cutting off of the
  2218
  subsidy will mean more houses. Personally I am rather doubtful. Which of us is right the future will show, but meanwhile I once more urge that the dropping of the subsidy should be postponed for two or three years.
  Mr. VIANT: I rather regret that the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle) should have gone out of his way to attack the building industry as such. I well remember that when housing schemes were embarked on throughout the country it was the common custom to attack the building trade operative as being responsible for the delay in the erection of houses. They were charged with playing the game of ca' canny. I noticed that, the hon. and gallant Gentleman also stated that the cost of these houses had gone up to a very large extent. The building trade operatives are in no sense of the word responsible for the increase in the price of production. Never in the history of this country has the building trade operative given such magnificent results as he has done since the 1924 Act was passed. We have already built an unequalled number of houses. The figures are actually 1,200,000. Side by side with that we have rebuilt considerable portions of London. One has only to visit the West End. to see evidence of that fact. In every town and city in the country there have been cinemas and theatres built. All this work has been going on side by side with the erection of houses. Care and time have been given to an investigation of figures as to the amount of output and the number of operatives engaged in the building industry in this country, and the result is this: That for every three operatives in the building industry to-day you have a result equivalent to that of five operatives in pre-War days.
  Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Does the hon. Member mean an equivalent financially, in the amount of money and cost?
  Mr. VIANT: I am talking of production and not of money valves.
  Lieut. - Colonel FREMANTLE: The amount of production, not the cost of it?
  Mr. VIANT: The amount of production. I am meeting the statement levelled against the operatives that they are responsible for the high cost of houses to-

  2219
  day. At no time have the building trade operatives—this has been the exception and not the general rule—received more than 2s. 4d. an hour, and that has been enjoyed by the plasterers, who were very scarce. To-day, in London, the craftsman is receiving 1s. 9½d. per hour. I am not concerned with the money value of output; I am concerned with the output per unit in the industry, and that is the only fair basis of comparison. Then it was suggested that there was a ring or understanding between the operatives on the one side and the employers on the other.
  Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I did not make any such suggestion.
  Mr. VIANT: I submit that that was the general impression conveyed. I want to prove that such a thing is impossible in existing circumstances. The hon. and gallant Member should know that wages and hours of labour in the industry are determined by a Wages Council, and that the wages are determined further by the cost of living. Therefore, it is grossly unfair to charge the operatives with not giving their best, and at the same time to make the insinuation that both operatives and employers have joined hands for the purpose of fleecing the general public. As a result of the 1924 Act we have had introduced into the industry something like organisation, which did not exist before. Our increased output to-day is due very largely to the fact that we have a more intelligent operative, and that in Addition there is far better organisation and every facility for getting mass production.
  I listened with considerable interest to the Minister of Health when he brought this Motion before the House, and I tried to understand the reasons that were advanced for a further reduction of the subsidy. Behind it all there is the suggestion that the reduction of the subsidy on a former occasion was responsible for the reduction in the cost of housing. Nothing is further from the truth. There have been reductions in wages in the building trade; coal is cheaper, and coal enters into the manufacture of much building material, which in turn gives you material and labour at a price very much lower than that charged when the subsidy was last reduced. The Minister has no right to take honour upon himself for the reduc-
  2220
  tion in the price of houses to-day. There are a dozen and one factors responsible for the reduction of the price. The right hon. Gentleman did produce some figures relating to the building trade operatives who were unemployed. I suggest that the full effect of the reduction of the subsidy was not felt at the beginning of 1928. It would be fairer to take the month of June, 1928, and compare it with the month of June, 1927. Anyone who is acquainted with the building trade knows that the summer months are the months when you concentrate on completing your shells in order to get the men on inside work for the winter. Immediately it went forth that the subsidy was to be reduced every local authority urged the contractors to speed up the erection of houses.
  What are the figures? On 20th June, 1927, there were 3,493 carpenters unemployed. By 25th June, 1928, the number had grown to 7,978, and by October of this year it had increased to 9,216. Take the bricklayers. There were only 908 unemployed on 20th June, 1927, but by June, 1928, the number had increased to 3,690, and to-day there are 5,892 unemployed. Then there are the masons. In June, 1927, there were 957 unemployed; in June, 1925, the number was 1,345; and to-day it is 1,974. So one can go right round the table, which shows conclusively that by a reduction of the subsidy the Government are intensifying unemployment among building-trade operatives. But assuming that the hypothesis of the right hon. Gentleman is correct, what genius of statesmanship is shown in reducing the subsidy and intensifying the unemployment problem, and then suggesting that the reduction in the cost of housing according to the figures that he advanced can justify him in his policy! I suggest that after the manner in which the labour in the building trade was augmented in accordance with the 1924 agreement, it is evidence of poor respect and consideration for the operatives to find that they are on the scrap heap or the unemployed market at the present time.
  Assuming that the builders are trying to fleece the general public as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, what justification is there for trying to hit the builders through the stomachs of the building-trade operators? That is the policy of

  2221
  the right hon. Gentleman, and it appears to me a grossly unjust and unfair policy. If he is persuaded that the building-trade employers are getting undue profits out of the industry, why does he not ask the House candidly to pass a Bill to deal with undue profiteering? That would show a sounder mentality and greater statesmanship than is being shown in the present policy. The 1,200,000 houses erected up to date are, in the main, inhabited by comfortable and well-off people.
  We have arrived at a stage where, instead of reducing the subsidy, we ought to be increasing it, so that the poorly paid can obtain houses at rents which they can afford. In my constituency, the Willesden District Council are at their wits' end to get houses for the very poor, at rents which the poor can pay. I repeatedly get letters asking me to use my influence with the local council to secure houses for people. Here are some of the cases. A man, wife and four children occupy two rooms, one of these being an old washhouse with a stone floor in which two children have to sleep—the premises, very dirty and in-sanitary, being overrun with beetles. In another instance, a man, wife and five children—three girls aged 13 years, 10 years and 8 years respectively, and two boys aged 6 years and 3 years respectively—have one bedroom, and have to share a kitchen with another family. In a third case a man, wife and two children—a boy aged 9 years and a girl aged 6½ years—have one room and no cooking facilities except a gas ring, in consequence of which they can only have fried or boiled food.
  I have a list of such cases and other hon. Members could produce similar lists. With this reduced subsidy the local authorities can never hope to provide houses to meet circumstances such as I have indicated, and that is why I say that instead of reducing the subsidy, we ought to be increasing it. If the right hon. Gentleman is persuaded that undue profiteering is taking place I repeat that he should ask for a Bill to deal with it. But this proposal is not going to find a way out of the difficulty. It will intensify the difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman has promised that he will bring in legislation to deal with slum areas. I hope he will face up to the fact
  2222
  that, even before we tackle the so-called slum areas, we have to deal with the problem of the large numbers of people to-day whose wages are only £2 per week. In my district the rents asked for the houses that are being erected are 19s., 20s. and 23s. per week. People earning such wages as I have mentioned cannot pay those rents. I hope the House is prepared to consider this question not solely from the point of view of £ s. d. but with an understanding and appreciation of the fact that housing to-day is a social service just the same as our public health service. There is no surer or shorter way of improving the health of the community than by providing good housing accommodation. Money well spent on houses is true economy, which ought to commend itself to this House.
  Sir BASIL PETO: If the Minister of Health had based his argument this afternoon upon the supposition that the reduction of £25 in the subsidy in respect of one of the Acts had actually reduced the cost of houses by £88, whereas there had been no reduction in Scotland at all, it would have been very difficult either to have followed his argument, or to have supported him. But the right hon. Gentleman made no such contention. What he did was to prove conclusively that his anticipation when he reduced the subsidy in 1926 had been justified. He showed that the reduction in the subsidy had produced no permanent diminution in the output of houses, but, incidentally, had for the moment, actually increased it and that it had not increased the cost of housing. He further argued that in consequence of that, and many other factors, there had been, at the same time, a general reduction in the cost of building both in this country and Scotland. That is a perfectly understandable and clear proposition and one to which there has been no answer from the Opposition. They have attempted to answer a proposition which was never put forward by the Minister and I am sure never will be put forward by him.
  On the subject of the relation of this proposal to the question of employment I should like to say a few words. The hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) is very interested in and knows a great deal about employment in the building trade, but I think he sought to over-prove his case. He pointed out,

  2223
  quite rightly, that the erection of small houses under these Acts is only a part of the activities of the building trade as a whole. He claimed great merit for the building trade operatives because they had been able to tackle the immense production under the Act of 1923 of houses for the working-classes while at the same time they had very largely rebuilt the West End of London and there had also been immense building schemes not connected with working-class housing in every part of the country. If that be the case—as it is—why should the hon. Member attempt to argue, on this comparatively small matter of the proposed reduction in the housing subsidy, the whole question of the increase, as he put it, of unemployment in the bricklaying, carpentry and other great basic trades which are linked together in the building industry? He is right in saying that the production of working-class houses is only a part of the building trade activities. Surely then, the demand for labour in these other building works, is also a factor in the question of employment or unemployment. I think that the Minister is on perfectly sound ground in showing that, broadly speaking, there has been no increase in unemployment but on the contrary a slight diminution since the 1926 proposal. The right hon. Gentleman carried the argument no further than to say that it could not be shown that that proposal which was carried into effect had produced a great amount of unemployment.
  I wish to deal with one or two specific matters in connection with the 1924 Act. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) is extremely proud of that Act and he told us that it is more than an Act of Parliament—that it is a great piece of industrial organisation, I want to examine what this great piece of industrial organisation has done for employment in some of the very trades to which the hon. Member for West Willesden referred, such as the carpenters' trade. I find in Section 3 of that Act that in respect of houses provided by local authorities—and there is a similar provision concerning houses built by societies or bodies of trustees or companies—there is the usual Fair Wages Clause. We all know what that means, namely, that those employed
  2224
  under these schemes by local authorities or by companies or societies, must be paid the full standard wage applicable to their trades. I find, however, in Section 10:
  "In approving proposals for the construction of houses under this Act, the Minister shall not impose any condition which would prevent the materials required being purchased in the cheapest market at home or abroad, or which would require the employment of any particular trade."
  8.0 p.m.
  The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris) gloried in the fact that in the East End of London they had been able to build houses at a reduced rate; and he attributed that result, not to the reason given by the Minister, but to the fact that they were convenient to ports and could obtain the cheapest possible joinery and other things from abroad. It is rather remarkable that this part of the industrial policy of the party opposite is becoming more and more divorced from trade union policy in this country. Only the other day my attention was called to the fact that the Carpenters' and Joiners' Society—I think now called the Woodworkers' Society—had written a letter of protest to a town council against foreign joinery being used in the construction of council houses under this subsidy. Broadly speaking, the policy of the Government, as I understand it, is that in all these contracts which involve an expenditure of public money, preference should be given to the employment of people belonging to our own country. In this matter of the building subsidies it appears to have been handed down by the Labour Government of 1924, as a part of their industrial policy, that public money is to be paid in subsidy for the employment of foreign carpenters and not of our own trade unionists. Naturally the trade unionists do not quite understand that industrial policy now. It is not only a matter of doors and windows; there are also slates and tiles. There are various trades which are concerned where there is very considerable unemployment at the present time, and I suggest that although I most cordially agree with him in his proposal to-day in reducing the subsidy under the 1924 Act and doing away with the remainder of the subsidy under the 1923 Act, yet as long as there is any public money used for subsidies of any kind for the erection

  2225
  of houses for the working classes, it should be at least the policy of any party to see that the working classes have a chance of building their own houses. The actual laying of the bricks is, of course, done, but when you deal with a trade like that of the carpenters or the joiners, why on earth is it that all that an English carpenter has to do is to hang the product of a foreign carpenter's labour? I do not think it is common sense. Therefore, it is necessary to point out this one flaw in the great industrial system set up by the right hon. Member for Shettleston in 1924 from the point of view of the actual building operatives themselves, and I hope that the Minister will give very serious consideration, if ever he is amending that Act, to amending that particular part of it which is set out in Section 10.
  There was a good deal in the speech of the right hon. Member for Shettleston which was very ungenerous, and I thought the most ungenerous thing of all was this, that he gloried in the fact as he called it, that in future, as the subsidy was done away with so far as the 1923 Act was concerned, there would be no houses built under that Act. That was a monstrous supposition, because the whole reason for doing away with the subsidy is that the Act was so well conceived that it can now do without State aid in the form of spoon-feeding any longer, and the output of houses under that Act will continue, I have not the slightest doubt; but the gibes at the Minister for doing away with the subsidy under his own Act while dealing so extraordinarily fairly with the Opposition Act of 1924 seem to me to be a little beyond the ordinary limits of ungenerous treatment by one party of another. I think the Minister has been extraordinarily generous. As was pointed out by one of my hon. Friends, when this Government came into power, obviously it was a question of whether we wanted all these different and competing Housing Acts, and the right hon. Gentleman decided to give both the Act of the Opposition and his own Act an equally fair chance, and he is now giving the Opposition Act of 1924 a still fairer chance. He is only slightly reducing the subsidy there, while he is doing away entirely with the subsidy under his own Act. I believe it will stand the strain and that private enterprise will fill up the gap which might
  2226
  be expected to be made by leaving it to stand upon its own feet.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I will not detain the House at any very great length, as I cannot lay claim to the expert knowledge or practical experience possessed by many hon. Members who have taken part in the Debate. There is perhaps an advantage, in coming to a Debate of this character, in having an open mind, and I certainly began to listen to the statement of the Minister of Health this afternoon prepared to give an unprejudiced consideration to the case that he might submit. The right hon. Gentleman set forth the reasons in support of the proposal that he is now making with all his accustomed dialectical skill, but I confess that when he sat down he left me certainly not prepared to support this proposal; and the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood), which followed, was, I think—and I believe that most hon. Members of the House, even many hon. Members opposite, who listened to it will agree—one of the most devastating refutations of arguments which has been heard in the House of Commons for a long time past.
  I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. G. Thorne) raised that matter of the views of the local authorities on the proposal of the Minister. I noted that the right hon. Gentleman said nothing at all about the views which the local authorities had, in the obligatory interviews, laid before him. I think it would be agreed that that obligation was inserted in two Acts of Parliament not merely for the purpose of formal interviews between the Minister of Health and the representatives of the local authorities, but that due weight should be given by the Minister to the representations which the local authorities might submit. After all, they are entitled to such consideration, for they are men who have had practical experience in the working of these Acts. I do not want to say one word in disparagement of the officials of the Ministry of Health, but they look upon these questions from a distance, and therefore the views. of the local authorities ought to carry more weight than those of the officials of the Ministry of Health. Now what are the views of the local authorities upon this proposal? My hon.

  2227
  Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton has stated them in part, but he did not mention that the local authorities have quite recently submitted to the Ministry of Health a strong protest against the proposals in this draft Order, and have urged the importance of postponing any reduction of the subsidy until the next revision period two years hence. That, I think, is a matter which Members of this House ought to bear in mind when they come to vote upon the Motion which is now before the House.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health began by saying that this proposal to abolish the subsidy under the 1923 Act and to reduce it under the 1924 Act was not actuated by motives of financial economy, but he based the whole of his case upon the pretension that the subsidy did not encourage the building of houses and that the previous reductions in the amount of the subsidies had —I believe he did not go so far as the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) who said that Members on this side, referring to that part of the Minister's speech, had said that he had claimed that the whole of the £80 reduction in the price of houses was due to the reduction in the subsidy. I do not believe that any of my hon. Friends have made that statement, and I certainly would not assume that the right hon. Gentleman had made a claim of that kind—if he had, it would be quite untenable and altogether absurd—but, at any rate, the right hon. Gentleman did contend that the previous reductions in the amount of the subsidy had had a very considerable influence in bringing about the reduction in the cost of houses during the last two or three years. In other words, he maintained that there was a relation between the subsidy and the cost of building.
  I was not in the least impressed by his reference to prices under the Addison scheme. He told us that in 1921 the average cost of these houses was £665. Well, I remember houses that were built under that scheme which cost a great deal more than £665. There were cases, I believe, where the cost ran as high as £1,200 in 1919, and, therefore, if the Minister of Health had given the highest figure, he might have shown a much greater reduction in the cost of build-
  2228
  ing after the Addison scheme was abandoned. However, I do not attach the least importance to that, because it must be remembered that that was a period of chaotic and inflated prices, and it was after 1921 that the general level of prices began to fall very rapidly; and even if he is able to show a reduction from £665 to £451, that reduction is no more than the fall which has taken place during that period in the general price level. Whether or not the Minister of Health proved that the reduction of the subsidy had been responsible to some extent for the fall in prices, he made no attempt to prove that it had stimulated building. A reduction in the cost of building is very important, and we are as anxious as is the Minister himself to do everything which is practicable to reduce the cost of building, but there is something more important than reducing the cost of building, and that is to maintain and to increase the rate of building houses.
  It is the easiest thing in the world to quote figures in support of a case, and Ministers are always under the temptation to present a vast mass of figures and thereby confuse Members and obscure the issue. Therefore, sweeping aside the mass of figures that the right hon. Gentleman submitted this afternoon, I think there is one fact which emerges, and that is that in normal conditions the rate of building has declined with the reduction of the subsidy. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to take particular periods, but nobody knows better than he does that it has been the threat of a reduction in the subsidy which has been responsible for occasional outbursts of greater activity in the building of houses. If we take what I might call the level of building during the last two or three years, the fact is indisputable that there has been a reduction in the rate of building side by side with the reduction of the subsidy. Therefore, even if it could be proved that the reduction of the subsidy has lowered the price of houses, the fact undoubtedly remains that it has not stimulated it. That is the important thing. It has not stimulated it; it has reduced the rate of building.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. A. Greenwood) among the many good points which he

  2229
  made, made. one very forcible point. He was dealing with the claim of the Minister of Health that there had not been any reduction in the rate of building since the subsidy was reduced, and he pointed out that there has been greater progress of building under the 1924 Act than under the 1923 Act. It is quite possible—and this I might be prepared to concede—that one effect of the proposal we are now asked to approve might be to increase building under the 1924 Act at a greater rate than building under the 1923 Act. If that happens, and these houses are for letting purposes, some advantage would undoubtedly accrue, but I should say that the abolition of the subsidy under the 1923 Act will stop building under that Act altogether. I have had placed in my hand a striking letter from a large co-operative society in Lancashire, a place which attained some considerable political notoriety, and indeed I might say a great deal of honour, a few weeks ago by affording a striking victory to the Labour party. I mean Ashton-under-Lyne. The secretary of the Ashton-under-Lyne Co-operative Society writes this letter. It is sufficient to say that the society have built a large number of houses under the 1923 Act. I do not think they could build under the 1924 Act without the permission of the local authority. The secretary of the society states most emphatically that if the subsidy be abolished under the 1923 Act, the housing activities of that society will completely come to an end.
  Sir K. WOOD: That is the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: We are prepared to accept that for the reasons which we gave just now. There may be some stimulus of building under the Act of 1924—
  Sir K. WOOD: The right hon. Gentleman's own Amendment takes it away.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: The reason for the reduction in the price of houses built by the building trade has been referred to by many Members, and I need not deal with it. The hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle) made a statement which could not have been possibly understood by Members of the House. He said that the price of materials had increased nine times as compared with pre-war cost.
  Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I said that at one time the price of the output cost of labour had increased nine times.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not know what the hon. Member means by the output cost of labour. One reason why the cost of houses is high is the existence of rings in the building trade; and they are not merely rings in the production of materials for houses, but rings among the builders themselves. Of course the builders get their opportunity when the house building trade is greatest. I heard of the experience of an urban district council in my constituency from the chairman, who is a builder. He knew that tenders which had been sent in for some new houses were altogether extortionate, and the council sought tenders outside the district. They received tenders at a much lower figure. In a week or two, these outside tenders were withdrawn, and the explanation that he gave to me was that pressure was brought to bear upon the outside builders to withdraw their tenders, and it was accompanied by the threat that, if they did not do so, the supply of building material would be withheld from them. The Parliamentary Secretary nods his head. I do not mean to insinuate that he is nodding approval, but it is an acknowledgment of his knowledge that these practices do exist.
  There is in existence a committee to watch prices. They have no powers, but they publish returns; apparently, they have no influence. Some time ago the Minister was asked if he would give them some kind of powers in the examination of books, and so on. The right hon. Gentleman stated, in reply, that he thought publicity would attain the desired object, but it has not attained the desired object. The right hon. Gentleman further said that, if publicity did not secure the object, he was prepared to take other measures. Publicity has not secured the object, and the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, ought to redeem his pledge, and give this committee powers of a more drastic nature.
  What has been done in the way of supplying housing accommodation? The Conservative party are constantly boasting about the number of houses built, and we have been told this afternoon that since the War nearly a million and a quarter have been built. I am attaching no blame to anybody at this point, but

  2231
  the point I want to make is this, that those million and a, quarter houses have not gone very far to supply the most urgent needs. It has been estimated, an estimate which I think was generally accepted, that we require about 100,000 new houses every year to make up the wastage and supply new demands. If that be so, and we have built a million and a quarter in 10 years, we have only just met what might be called the annual demand for houses, and have made no impression at all upon the housing situation as it existed before 1918. We had four or five years during, the War and just after when there was no house building at all, and everybody admits that in the years before the War the housing situation was a national scandal. Therefore, these two things remain quite untouched by the building done during the last 10 years: the state of things which existed before 1914 and the aggravation of that state of things by the absence of building during the War. What is the kind of building which has gone on during the last eight years? My hon. Friend the Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant), in his very well informed speech, said quite truly that this building had supplied the needs of the lower middle class and the better artisan class. It has not touched the needs of the poorer part of our population. Of course, a, great many of the houses built for sale have been built through the co-operative societies and through the building societies.
  Sir K. WOOD: The building societies first.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Oh, yes; the extension of that movement during the last 10 years is almost a romance. But let us not forget that there has been a great deal of what we might call compulsory thrift. People have been compelled to buy houses as the only way of getting a roof over their heads, and often it has involved very great sacrifices on their part. The drain upon this class has corn-polled them to economise in other directions. These are the people whose needs have, perhaps, to a very considerable extent, been met by what has been done during the last 10 years; but the grave side of the problem has not been touched at all. I wholly agree with a remark made by my hon. Friend to whose speech
  2232
  I referred just now, that what any Government which tackles the need for housing the working classes will have to face is the financial problem. It cannot be done without money.
  An hon. Member opposite said this was a question of economy, that we had only so much money to spend and that if it were spent upon one thing it could not be spent upon another. There is such a thing as false economy, and economy in a matter of this sort is the worst of all. If we save a few millions a year by not spending it upon housing the people better let us not deceive ourselves into thinking it is a national gain. It is no such thing. It is a great national loss. I believe that if a calculation could be made it would be found that we are spending more indirectly through sickness. Sir George Newman has stated in his Report—published only a few weeks ago, if my memory serves me right—that 33,000,000 weeks work were lost last year through sickness. I do not say the whole of that is due to the insanitary conditions under which these people live, but nobody will deny that bad housing and bad sanitary conditions generally are to a very large extent the cause. That loss of 32,000,000 weeks work probably means a loss in wealth production of not less than £150,000,000.
  I was amazed to hear the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans, who, I believe, is a medical man, minimising the influence which bad housing conditions have upon the health of the people. He wants less money spent on housing subsidies and £50,000 or £100,000 a year spent upon certain public health services. He would spend a few thousand pounds a year in dealing with the effects of bad housing, instead of dealing with the cause of those effects. If we are going to tackle this slum problem—[Interruption]. I give a rather comprehensive definition to slums. We include as slums houses which have been condemned by the local authorities, and I believe the number of such houses is nearly 300,000. But there is a vast proportion of our working class living in houses which no self respecting community ought to tolerate, and we want at least another million houses for the people. The reduction of the subsidy is going to do nothing at all to help that problem. On the contrary—and I doubt if this will be disputed—the reduction in

  2233
  the subsidy under the 1924 Act must result in an increase of rents, and if it does, then it has aggravated that part of the problem which it is so important should be dealt with drastically.
  The Conservative party, and this Government, have a special obligation in this matter because one of the pledges they gave at the General Election was that they would deal effectually with the slum problem. They have done nothing whatever. I believe that only 100 schemes for slum clearances submitted by local authorities have been approved by the Ministry of Health, and that only something like a paltry 10,000 houses are affected by them. I submit, therefore, that the case as presented by the Minister of Health has not been proved, that the reduction of the subsidy under the 1924 Act is not likely to lower the price of building, is not likely to stimulate building to any extent, and is going to do nothing to help the grave unemployment problem in the building trade; and not even the Minister himself would contend that it is going to touch the urgent need there is for providing houses for working people at rents within their means. I do not know—it is one of the mysteries I cannot solve—how working people pay their rents. Every Member of this House knows of his own knowledge that in a great many cases rents are taking half the income of working people. The hon. Member mentioned families with an income of £2 a week having to pay rent amounting to 18s., 19s. and 20s. per week. What does that mean? The rent is the first charge and it must be paid, and the higher the rent the less there is for food, clothes and other necessaries. Therefore, high rents mean the starvation of the working people. The proposal which the Minister of Health is making does not touch that problem, and it is certain to have the effect of aggravating the grave conditions which exist.
  Mr. BARR: I should like to refer to some remarks which fell from the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle). The hon. and gallant Member referred to the Section of the 1924 Act under which this reduction was taking place, but he made no reference to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for
  2234
  Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) that there might be an increase in the subsidy, and that whatever benefit there was from a decrease in the building costs would go to the local authority. The hon. and gallant Member went on to deprecate the expenditure on various forms of housing as compared with expenditure on schemes of health. I should like to give an illustration. I was a Member of the Royal Commission on Housing, and I know the effect of bad housing on the health of the people. I will quote some figures given in evidence before the Housing Commission which I have never forgotten. Of the boys who died under five years of age, the death-rate for one-apartment houses was 40.56 per thousand:. for two-roomed houses, 30.2; for three roomed houses 17.9; and for four-roomed houses 10.27. So that, speaking generally, for every boy under five years of age who died in a four-roomed house four would die in a single-roomed apartment house.
  The hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans deprecated extravagant expenditure on housing and he demurred to some remarks which were made by an hon. Member on this side dealing with the expenditure of the War. Take the housing scheme of 1924. If you make a broad calculation of the subsidy, it would amount to £1,000,000,000 spread over a period of 40 years. During the Great War covering a period of five years we spent, not £1,000,000,000, but £11,000,000,000. Surely if this country could afford to spend £11,000,000,000 in five years on a work of slaughter and destruction, it can easily afford to spend in 40 years—which is eight times that period—one-eleventh part of that amount on a work of reconstruction, making better homes for the people and better people for the homes. The hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston, who made a very effective defence of the 1924 Housing Act, and he likened him to the god Janus who had two faces. The hon. and gallant Member forgot to mention that the god Janus had another function, which seems to be in the way of a compliment to my right hon. Friend, because the god Janus was an opener of doors. When I read that under his scheme already 241,000 houses have been provided, I think my right

  2235
  hon. Friend can claim to be a Janus and an opener of doors, for he has opened up a good many doors of hope for the working classes of this country. The hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans admitted that the slum problem was practically untouched, but he said that after the next Election the Conservative party would take up the question of the slums. I think we might remind the hon. and gallant Member and the Government he supports of the words:
  "To-morrow, and to-morrow, and tomorrow,
  Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
  To the last syllable of recorded time;
  And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
  The way to dusty death."
  The hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans further said that the conditions existing in Scotland were a disgrace to civilisation. I am sure we were glad to have that condemnation of the conditions existing in Scotland. I remember that during the recent Election in North Aberdeen the Prime Minister said that Scotland had really overtaken England on this question, and that the shortage of houses was in a fair way towards being solved. That places upon us the onus and responsibility of showing what is the shortage of houses in Scotland and how that country stands to-day in that respect. When the Royal Commission issued its Report in 1917 it estimated that 121,000 houses were required to meet overcrowding and to provide accommodation for those who were living in uninhabitable dwellings. The Report also went the length of stating that 114,000 more houses were required in order to provide better conditions. I will take the shortage at 121,000. In 1921 the local authorities in Scotland and the Scottish Board of Health put the figure of requirements at 131,000 houses. Following that up in 1925, the medical officers throughout Scotland put their requirements at 118,000 houses. Suppose we say that, in 1919, 120,000 houses were required. We learn, further, that 10,000 houses are required every year to meet the normal growth, wastage, and so forth, apart from the figures I have quoted.
  Therefore, for the nine years since 1919, 90,000 houses must be added, giving
  2236
  a total of 210,000 houses that should have been built to meet the total requirements from 1919 to the present time. As a matter of fact, the houses that have been built with State assistance, even including those in process of erection and definitely arranged for, total, according to the Report of the Scottish Board of Health, 96,689, and that was at the end of 1927. That leaves a shortage still of 113,000 houses, and, assuming that 13,000 have been or are being built up to the 30th September of this year—which I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree is very near to the figure—there are still, according to "the estimates of the Scottish Board of Health itself, 100,000 houses unprovided. Indeed, these Reports have admitted that that is the position, and the Report for 1926 contains a statement that:
  "It supports the general view that the efforts since 1919 have not resulted in any material reduction of the shortage."
  It is only this year, in the Report for 1928, that an effort is made at all to show that there is any meeting of the shortage, and this year's Report states that:
  "The impression is gathered that in a number of districts the period of really acute shortage is passed,"
  and that we may concentrate now on replacing uninhabitable houses. But how does that Report proceed to show that the shortage is past? It points out that, in the mining areas particularly, the population is being depleted. There is no employment, and, because there are not the people to provide for, the housing problem is solved by the Government in that they do not need to provide houses for people who have to quit the district.
  Take the case of Glasgow. The Commission's estimate of the needs of Glasgow in 1917 was 57,000 houses. That was confirmed by the corporation and approved by the Local Government Board. But in 10 years the normal increase of the City of Glasgow would require 31,910 houses. That gives a total of 89,000 houses. Taking the number of completed houses as 14,000, the figure given by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Rollox (Mr. J. Stewart), and the houses in progress at nearly 9,000, that gives a total of 23,000 houses, which, as compared with the requirement of 89,000, leaves a defi-

  2237
  ciency of 60,000 houses in Glasgow to-day. At Whitsunday last, in the City of Glasgow, 17 per cent, of all the houses were one-apartment houses. Of two-apartment houses there were 46.4 per cent. That is to say, 63.4 per cent. of the houses in the City of Glasgow were either single-apartment houses or room-and-kitchen houses. It is no wonder that ex-Bailie Morton, who has had great experience in the City of Glasgow, who has been convener of the housing committee, and who does not belong to our party at all, said that the housing shortage was in his opinion more acute to-day than when they began building.
  A good deal has been said, and rightly, about the efforts that must be made in regard to housing the very poorest class of people. The Corporation of Glasgow and their Housing Committee have been experimenting with a three-apartment house at a rent of 125. 6d., and they have been reducing that until now they have in view a reduction to 10s. a week, and even to 8s. and 6s. All that is now ruled out and becomes impossible with the withdrawal of the subsidy. To deal with that poorest class of the people an entirely new scheme will be needed, and a special subsidy more than anything we have known, in order to bring these houses within the reach of the poorest people at rents which they can possibly afford. In my own district last Christmas, 69 houses had been built and rented for these poor people, and, of those 69, 41 have been unable to meet the requirements as to rent, and, on economic grounds alone, have fallen into arrears.
  The various effects of this withdrawal of subsidy in Scotland have been indicated. I will just mention what I believe they will be. As to falling costs, I do not think that the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) at all met the argument that in Scotland, where until now there has been no reduction of subsidy, there has been a fall in costs exactly similar to that which has taken place in England, and that, therefore, you cannot attribute to the subsidy the fall in costs that has taken place equally in Scotland and in England. The tendency will be to raise the rents, not perhaps to a larger figure than at present, but certainly to a larger figure than they would stand at if the subsidy were continued. There will also be a tendency
  2238
  to raise the rates, and to lower the standard of quality and size of the houses. In England, already, the floor space has been reduced by 25 superficial feet. That affects the question of cost, and shows the whole tendency to depreciate the standard of housing, which is already poor enough in Scotland at present.
  I do not think that hon. Members here realise the kind of housing that we have in Scotland. At the Census of 1921, and the conditions have not materially altered since then, 11.8 per cent. of all the people in Scotland were living in one-roomed houses. In my own district, which, perhaps, has some of the poorest houses in the whole country, no less than 19.2 per cent., or nearly one-fifth, of the people I represent live in single-apartment houses. You call it, and the Registrar-General calls it, congestion in England if there is an average of more than two persons to a room; but only 30.8 per cent. of the people whom I represent live not more than two to a room. There are 24.7 per cent. living two and not more than three to a room, and 20.4 per cent. living three and not more than four to a room; while no fewer than 24.1 per cent., or nearly one-fourth, of all the people I represent, live, on an average, more than four to a room. Further, it will produce a slackening off, if not a cessation, of house-building for the working classes. I have the figures here, and I do not think the Minister of Health will be able to contradict them. In England, in the first 10 months of 1927, there were erected 183,021 houses, but in the first 10 months of 1928, with the reduced subsidy, the number fell to 88,220.
  I will give the Secretary of State a little arithmetic which will show the position in which Scotland stands to-day. In England, on the 1st November last, the total number of houses completed with State assistance was 792,337. Scotland's proportion of the cost of housing is 11-80ths, and we will take it as though the cost per house were the same for this argument. Scotland's proportion, on the 1st November last, would he 108,946. There were actually completed on the 1st October, including the steel houses, 82,991, so that, adding 1,000 houses for October, you have 84,000 houses completed, whereas Scotland's proportion, in order to conform

  2239
  with England, would be 108,000. That is to say, 25,000 houses have to be completed between 1st October of this year and 1st October of next year in order that we may be alongside of England in respect of the subsidy. I believe that calculation cannot be impugned. The figures are taken from the Scottish Board of Health Report. The highest production ever obtained was in 1927, when 21,660 houses were produced. I do not see that we are to be in any other position than we were in in 1921, when Scotland lost a very considerable amount of money owing to the hasty withdrawal of the Addison scheme. Therefore, I hold that we are not receiving even our full amount, and I trust, if my argument be correct, that what we may lose may be carried over and considered in connection with the future readjustment of the subsidy.
  The hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans spoke of the subsidy as an artificial and unnatural way. Others have spoken as if the whole effort were to be to get back to private enterprise. I believe the right hon. Gentleman will agree to some extent that it is out of the question to think of private enterprise supplying the needs of Scotland for many years to come. I will not quote, in that connection, a partial advocate who might support the views held on this side of the House, but before the Royal Commission Mr. G. Fraser, then a factor and land agent on the Dalzell Estate, gave evidence that the necessary housing for Mid-Lanark could not be provided by private enterprise and that he was prepared to face the housing of the whole population of Scotland by the nation. The Royal Commission on Housing said this, referring to conditions even before the War:
  "We have indicated that in our view private builders had, for a long period before the War, failed to provide in anything like adequate numbers the houses necessary for the working-class population."
  Is it more hopeful now than it was in 1917? Are the economic conditions better? They are admittedly worse. To give modern working-class houses for the poorest people at rents which they can afford demands that we have the continued aid of the State. The hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson), like others, attributed the failure of private enterprise to provide houses to the pass
  2240
  ing of the Finance Act of 1909–10. If he had been here, I should like to have given him this conclusive reply, which is to be found in the Report of the Scottish Commission on Housing. Only two members of that Commission were Labour men. Some of them were Conservatives, and some were attached to the party below the Gangway, which was a larger party then than it is now:
  "We are unable to agree with the suggestion that there is any evidence to show that the difficulty of finding capital for house building has been to an appreciable extent brought about by the Finance Act of 1909–10."
  I should like to recall what the fluctuations were when it depended on private enterprise. I take Glasgow. In 1902, they had linings for 4,558 new houses. By 1911, it had fallen to 256. I do not want to see housing ever go back to be dependent on the fluctuations of private enterprise, speculative builders producing them when it is profitable and not producing them when it became unprofitable. We say that this duty to provide houses is a fundamental and primary one. I can quote to that effect the Royal Institute of Surveyors, which, in paying a tribute to private enterprise, said, in 1917:
  "It is impossible to provide sufficient houses for the people, save by the nation with its national resources."
  I do not want to look at this question merely on financial grounds, but on the grounds of the physical, mental, and moral welfare of the people. The Minister of Education, on the Second Reading of the 1924 Bill, said:
  "We have shown on the Money Resolution that it is not the cost of the Bill to which we object mainly. I say, frankly, that if I thought there were any prospect of the expenditure provided by this Bill producing the houses, I would vote for the Bill on those grounds with a light heart. So far as the expense of the subsidy is concerned, it does not terrify us."
  9.0 p.m.
  The present Home Secretary, on the same occasion, spoke to the same effect, that it would not produce a single house, and that it was not a matter of the cost. I have already shown that the Act has produced the houses in a large degree, and I have referred to the value of continuing the houses from the point of view of the health of the people. I value housing, and I plead for a continuance of the sub-

  2241
  sidy for the moral refinement and the uplift that it brings. I know people can live good lives in the poorest houses. I know something of the heroism of the poor, but it is a heroism which should not be asked of any man or woman in a civilised, I do not even say in a Christian community. There are two ways by which men and women can be elevated: the one by their own resolve, by their high endeavour, by their laying hold of things above the material, and the other by giving surroundings and conditions which make virtue easy and vice difficult, by giving better homes for the people in order to make better people in the homes. The Royal Commission, from which I have quoted, recognised that. They said:
  "These people are the victims of manifold social evils, of which bad housing is one of the greatest. Without in any way minimising or under-estimating the importance of character, in the securing and maintenance of good housing, we maintain that the provision of better houses will be one of the best means of elevating the character and habits and tastes of the people."
  In the reports of the Scottish Board of Health it is gladly recognised that it has had that refining effect, and those who have been brought from the slums and from poor conditions have been refined in their taster, and the keeping of the houses has been most satisfactory. That is in the reports of all the local authorities, and so I desire that we should go on. I wish that, instead of lowering the subsidy, we had been greatly increasing it. I would close with a reference to the man in Nehemiah who hindered the work of the building of Jerusalem and did what he could to keep it back. The judgment that fell upon him and those who were associated with him for hindering the work was this. It is worth recording. You will find it in the 6th chapter of that Book, and it is what will fall on hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite. After others had come in and done the work, they were "much cast down in their own eyes." After others have come in a year hence to do the work that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have been hindering, I am confident that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will be "much cast down in their own eyes" and in the eyes not alone of the Scottish people but of this nation.
  Mr. BRIANT: I cannot follow the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr)
  2242
  in his eloquence. I am going to very prosaic. I am, of course, intensely interested in the question as to whether the reduction of the subsidy will lead to reduction in the cost of housing. I do not think that the Minister is correct in his assumption. I do not believe for a moment that the reduction of the cost of housing is due to the reduction of subsidy. One would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman definitely what is his policy on the matter. Does he believe that the subsidy never reduced the cost of houses for the people? Does he believe that it is of no use whatever, and that it never can be of use? We should like to know definitely his policy. I do not hesitate to say that the problem of housing, with regard to those receiving small wages, will never be solved without a very substantial and largely increased subsidy from the nation. It is perfectly idle to try to hide the fact. The average man earning £2 10s. or £3 per week cannot pay the present rents of even those houses which are built at a reduced cost, and even with the subsidy.
  I want to illustrate this by a typical case—that of the London County Council. This body have made attempts to build houses at reasonable prices. They also charge, I suppose, what they describe as an economic rent, even in view of the reduced cost of houses and the application of the subsidy. Here is an actual case. A few doors, comparatively speaking, from a place which I very often visit in my constituency, a woman is living with her husband and six children in one room. They came to me and asked me if I could find them more accommodation. I said, "Have you applied to the London County Council? "Yes," they said. The London County Council had refused them. So I went to the London County Council, and the reply I received was very interesting because it was to the point. It shows how absurd it is to think that we can meet the situation by ordinary private enterprise. The London County Council's answer, which I hold in my hand, is very simple. This man is earning 3s. a week, which is a very much larger wage than many thousands of men are earning. The County Council say, and quite rightly, that this man ought to have four rooms, because he has a wife and six children. I agree with the County

  2243
  Council. But what follows? The County Council say, "Your total earnings are 3 3s. a week, but the cost from this place to your work and the maintenance of your family is so much that. we do not think you can pay 17s. Cd. a week rent, and so you cannot have a house." The largest municipal body in the world says to this unfortunate man in effect, "You ought to live in foul rooms, but as you cannot pay the rent even of a subsidy house, you must live in one room till you die." It is a terrible thing to say, but it comes from the London County Council as the net result of their efforts.
  No hon. Member, whatever his politics, can defend social conditions which render such a letter as that possible. I have seen, of course, the people concerned. I wish the, hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for St. Albans (Lieut. Colonel Fremantle) was here. He talked about expenditure on health. The best expenditure on health would be to try to save that family of six children, because inevitably they are going to be a cost in one way or another on the whole of the community. We have heard that it is costing £10,000,000 a year for housing. That, is not really an accurate statement. A large proportion of that £10,000,000 is being spent in wages and means that the community are being relieved of the responsibility of keeping a very large number of men who are being found employment in this connection. The nation must realise the terrible waste of money which is going on year after year through employment not being provided where it is required. When we spend State money on unemployment schemes we are relieving the rates, we are relieving the Insurance Fund, we are relieving the community in one respect or another. If a man is unemployed he becomes in some way or other, a charge on the rest of the community. Everybody knows that.
  These figures are alarming. They would be humorous if they were not tragic. In the last six years we have paid out £200,000,000 in unemployment benefit and in Poor Law relief for the able-bodied. I am not a statesman. I am not an economist. I am not a business man, but I cannot help thinking that if 12 business men were to sit round a table they would
  2244
  be able to say that £200,000,000 could be spent on building houses when so many men are wanting work and people are dying for the wan t of houses. It is idle for the Government to say that this reduced subsidy may reduce the cost of housing. I want to know, not whether the cost of houses has been reduced but when the increase of houses is to come. If they say that this policy of reducing the cost of housing is a wise one, I want to know what really is their policy on housing. We have not had a hint of their policy except that somehow or other they are going to reduce the cost per house. It does not follow that there will be more houses built. I am inclined to think it is true that to some extent the subsidy was diverted into the pockets of some of the big builders, but I think also that the provision of the subsidy did divert some of the labour employed on luxury buildings like cinemas and hotels to the building of houses. The amount that we spent in that way was paltry compared with the lives at stake, let alone the comfort of the people.
  The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) made one valuable contribution to the reduction of the cost of housing. He would reduce the cost by putting a ring round all British materials and letting no foreign materials in. How the hon. Member expects that to reduce the cost of housing I do not know. It could only be invented by the mind of a tariff reformer.
  I wish the Government would face the problem seriously and would not content themselves by telling us so much a-bout the actual subsidy. If they are right that it does effect a reduction in the cost of particular houses that is not the thing we want to know. We want to know what the Government are doing about the building of houses. The figures are alarming. We were told last May by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health that there would soon be a large acceleration in building. It has not come. The figures quoted by the Minister of Health to-day show that 150,000 houses will be built this year. That only meets the annual need caused through the increase of population and the deterioration of existing houses. It does not give us one house to wipe off the deficiency which at present exists, and which are required to give some 3,000,000 people who are at the present moment

  2245
  living in insanitary conditions proper and decent accommodation.
  I do nut want to dwell on the humane side of the case because it may be thought that one is trying to raise a scare, but these are facts which are with me every day. It is idle to tell me that there are houses at Becontree which can be had for 17s. 6d. a week. These people cannot go there. A man earning £2 10s. a week is living in a room 14 feet by 10 feet, and the height—it is an attic—is 6 feet 3 inches, with four children; and they are nearly all ill. How can you expect anything else? We talk about spending money on our health services; this is the great health service of the nation. I am not speaking from a party point of view, the health of the nation is more important than anything else and the Minister of Health leaves us with the vague statement that his calculations may be right and ours may be wrong. I hope he will at any rate give us some substantial promise that he has some scheme which he can put before us by which these vast masses of people may be housed in decent conditions.
  Mr. SEXTON: The speeches which we have already heard on the question of the provision of houses, particularly those of the right hon. Member for Shettleston. (Mr. Wheatley) and the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) have covered the ground extremely well. I do not wish to go into details with regard to this subject but I should like to refer to the characteristically pedantic speech of the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson). It is a little difficult to follow the argument of the hon. Member. Everyone knows the sacrifices he has made to his workpeople because of the economic conditions which prevail at the present moment, but the curious part is that the sacrifices lie professes to have made on behalf of his workpeople to combat present economic conditions are supported by the greater portion of his speech. Personally I do not support the principle of a subsidy at all, but the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health has put his hand to the plough and it would be a waste of energy and time and raw material if he refused to complete the furrow now. There is something radically wrong in a system that does not provide wages to enable a workman to
  2246
  pay an economic rent for his house. The hon. Member based his charge for the collapse of the housing system on the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) because he introduced his Land Tax in 1909, and from that he jumped to the price of bricks. The right hon. Gentleman may have committed many sins since then, but I do not think his introduction of the Land Values Bill in 1909 can be called a sin, as it has been by the hon. Member for Mossley.
  I remember the very eloquent speech the right hon. Member made then from the Government side of the House. We were sitting on this side and were complaining bitterly about the delay in the production of houses. I remember how he told us to be patient, that he had already ordered four thousand million more bricks and four thousand million doors and windows. Although they had not yet commenced to build, by jingo when they did they had the bricks and doors and they had the windows too. That statement of the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for an enormous rise in the price of bricks. It went up to phenomenal heights; and may I tell the hon. Member for Mossley that in some cases the price of bricks was raised even before they were made. My memory goes 'pack to a time and a place, not many miles away, when an extension of the docks was required. The barren seashore did not produce anything but grass and r.2eds. It was valueless apparently, but underneath there was clay and the demand of the people for houses, owing to the extension of the docks, was so great that the price of that land rose from nothing at all to £3,500 per acre. It was all due to the demand of the people for houses and a speculator who was making bricks leased it on a short lease at that figure. In addition, for every thousand bricks he made he paid a royalty of 2s. 6d. to the man who claimed to own the land. May I give one or two instances to the hon. Member for Mossley who is utterly at sea when he lays the whole of the blame for the collapse of housing on the shoulders of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs because he introduced the Land Bill in 1909. If it was a sin then it was like the servant girl's sin, it was only a very small one. Personally I was

  2247
  sorry the right hon. Gentleman dropped the Bill, and I remember that some of my colleagues when conferring together behind the Speaker's Chair expressed the opinion that the right hon. Gentleman had entered on a period of degeneracy.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The hon. Member is now some distance away from the question of the subsidy on housing.
  Mr. SEXTON: I will try to obey your ruling. The hon. Member for Mossley raised the important point that the Act of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs is responsible for the collapse of the housing policy introduced by Dr. Addison, or by anybody else. I am trying to show how unsound is that argument. I speak as one who has had some 24 years' experience of municipal life, in a city where houses are required and where slums have been demolished, but where slums still exist, namely, Liverpool. There was one in which I lived or existed for a while—one apartment with two beds and four in a bed and a week's washing at the foot of the bed all night. After generations, these slums were abolished, under the Local Government Act. The men who created the slums got nothing, but the demolition of the slums created the value of the land, and, when we came to buy that land back again, we had to pay such an enormous price that after that we had to put the people up in the air. Therefore, the subsidy came from the rates that these slum dwellers had to pay.
  Let me give one or two cases. In one case, we paid £100 a square yard for land for city improvements and for houses. In another case, we paid £5 per square yard or £23,400 per acre for land which, on a 20 years' purchase, was not worth more than £800 or £900 at the outside. You talk about subsidies! Not one penny of this increased value created by the slum dwellers and the joint action of the workpeople and the docks, not one penny of that contributes one farthing to the local rates. Here is an example of the necessity for relieving the local rates—
  "Something is rotten in the State of Denmark"—
  when men who are on the dole or who are out of work or even in work get a
  2248
  subsidy in order to pay the rates of the houses in which they live.
  If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Borougns (Mr. Lloyd George) had got fair play, we should not be asking for subsidies from the Government. We should be asking for a subsidy from the landlords. He asked the men who made the profit on the land to pay their fair share of the local taxation. It is said that open confession is good for the soul. I know landowners who take advantage of this system. I have friends of my own among them. I do not blame the individual but the system.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I cannot help thinking that a general argument on rating or the taxation of land values has only a rather remote connection with the immediate subject of whether the Government should continue the present rate of subsidy for building houses.
  Mr. SEXTON: I was afraid I was getting a little way from the subject, and -I am very thankful to have been given the opportunity. However, I will try to keep within the Motion as much as possible. There was a period in the time of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs which I have always thought was a period of degeneracy. At that time, he was contaminated by being in close association with hon. Gentlemen opposite in the Coalition Government, but I have never subscribed to some of the things said of him or that he had burnt his boats. I do think that the country had a very difficult time and that the right hon. Gentleman did yeoman service then. Nevertheless, I could not help sighing
  "for the touch of a vanished hand,
  And the sound of a voice "
  even temporarily stilled. In my own mind, I always thought that the political jade with which he was then coquetting was temporary and that he would eventually come back to his old love. Indeed, we have had every sign that he is trying to come back to-day.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The future action of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs has even less connection with the subsidy than the hon. Member's previous remarks.
  Mr. SEXTON: It is a betrayal on the part of the Minister of Health that, after

  2249
  having once started to relieve the horrible conditions under which people lived in the old days, he should now try to drop this thing in the way that he is doing to-day. Of course, the most essential thing is the health of the people. This is not going the right way to improve the health of the people. It is a betrayal of trust and a breach of pledges. That is nothing new to the right hon. Gentleman, but I hope that even at the eleventh hour he will see that, instead of helping the local authorities, he is, by this method of depriving them of the subsidy, simply inflicting more penalties on them every day.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I want to concentrate upon this point of the unwillingness of the Government to face the principal feature of the situation, which is that we are only now getting down to the necessities of the poor people of our country. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. G. Thorne) read a deliver-ante appertaining to the local authorities, whose view was that there should, at any rate, he a deferring of revision until another two years. My own position in the matter is that from the very beginning I have stood throughout for the contention that the first people to get the benefit of these subsidies should, undoubtedly, have been the people who were in greater need of this housing accommodation. The hon. Member who has just spoken from the Liberal benches has made a very considerable impression on the House by his own illustration of some of those facts which crop up in our industrial constituencies. He, like others of us, felt some diffidence in unduly emphasising that situation for the very reason which he gave, which is that it might be thought that we are wanting to strain the matter from the personal point of view in order to make an impression upon that ground.
  At the same time, I think, even at the risk of any misunderstanding, there is a real and appalling tragedy prevalent in the homes of those people who are resident in these one or two-roomed dwellings. The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) gave us statistics, which I thought he handled remarkably well considering that he had memorised them, showing the more frequent deaths in the family circles in the one-room and two-room houses. That arises from the con-
  2250
  gestion, which is a feature in all industrial places. I would ask the House to remember the point which has been made by the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. Briant), that the London County Council has admitted that people are entitled to larger accommodation, and that, although that is the natural right of the family circle, they cannot get it because they are not able to pay the money. You have that laid down by the London County Council with all the wealth that that great body commands.
  In my own constituency there has been an effort made for some time to bring about economy and to bring the provision of housing accommodation to a standstill. Fortunately, that movement has not got to the point of complete success. Only the other day, they were obliged, after the recent November elections, to face the necessity of providing for those people who are in the poorest circumstances. One of the new representatives suggested that there ought to be consideration of all-round slum clearance in one great undertaking; and it was very forcibly brought home to him that the cost would be far too heavy. Yet it will have to be adopted, even from the point of view of economy; the houses that are uninhabitable will have to be closed and an endeavour made to find fresh accommodation elsewhere. Now, at the stage when we are making more and more provision to meet the needs of people with miserably small wages, the Government, in spite of the recommendations of the local authorities, who must be admitted to know better than the Government what are the local circumstances, say that they will stand up against the local authorities and take a course of their own. Only some two years ago, we had representations from some Scottish constituencies, including my own, that an attempt was being made to amend the Act so that these small dwellings would be made available for the people. There were differences of opinion on this side of the House as to the desirability of providing the smaller dwellings, and it was said that a larger class of houses ought to be made available.
  I am glad it has been emphasised from the front Opposition bench that we have all over the country large numbers of people who are in good circumstances, and who are being provided with the

  2251
  better class of houses at lower rents than they would otherwise have been obliged to pay. It is quite apparent, from the public point of view, that one of the great wrongs that has been done is in making provision first of all for the people who are not actually necessitous. You have poor people stifled in those dwellings, where it is a matter of wonder how they manage to exist at all, the conditions are so appalling. The Prime Minister himself emphasised that when he visited our constituency. Yet here we have the Government, in spite of what the Prime Minister himself said, tightening the screw on the people whose noses are to the grindstone, and who are being bound to a. state of conditions which is appalling. It would he a failure on our part if we did not make our protest and our appeal that even yet this question should be reconsidered. The convener of the housing committee of Dundee, before I came away, said he felt there was reason for considerable anxiety about this matter. That is why I am making my protest, that the Government ought not now to take the step they are taking after providing subsidies for people who are well established in excellent dwellings, and leave these poor people in their depressed conditions to feel that they are last in the race.
  Mr. THURTLE: This second reduction of the housing subsidy is, in the view of hon. Members on this side of the House, and I am sure in the view of the country as a whole, a most unworthy form of economy. It is a surrender by the Minister of Health to the very false idea that avoidance of spending money is necessarily economy. It may easily be that, by avoiding spending money in this way, so far from economising, you are indulging in something akin to criminal waste, and our view is that you are doing so by economising on housing. Conditions being what they are, it is all the more regrettable, because the Minister who is responsible for this knows better. Not only does he know better, but he is doing this wantonly. There was no kind of political pressure or pressure from public opinion on him to effect this economy. The most moderate, not to say the most reactionary, person in this country looks upon the housing problem in rather a different way from that in
  2252
  which he looks upon many other social problems. You will find people who are unmoved by inequalities of wealth or by stark poverty and yet are deeply stirred by the mass of human misery and suffering which arises from overcrowding.
  In the course of my attempt to spread political and economic wisdom, I sometimes engage in arguments with Conservatives. They say to me, "Why do you fellows take such an extreme view of things? Why are you so bitter against existing conditions?" I put one argument after another to them, and very frequently I fail to move them, but when I confront them with the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of their fellow countrymen and women living in conditions in which these Conservatives would not keep their horses or their dogs, they invariably hold up their hands and admit that that is something to which there is no effective answer. So I say that the Minister of Health would have had public opinion entirely with him if he had continued this subsidy instead of cutting it down. The only argument that has been given to us in justification of the reduction of the subsidy is that it is going so to reduce the cost of houses that it will not affect the building of houses. That point has been so fully dealt with that I do not propose to spend more than a minute or two on it.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) adduced what seemed to me to be very cogent reasons why that argument was fallacious. He mentioned the decreased size of the houses that have been built, the inferior quality of the houses built, the 5 per cent. decrease in the cost of wages, and above all the great expansion of the machinery of building, which by reducing overhead costs made cheaper production possible. But even leaving those arguments on one side, the Minister has failed to meet the illustration which was given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) as to Scotland. What was the case of the Minister when he introduced the first reduction of the subsidy? What he said was that so long as that subsidy continued, so long as the builders could see that pool of money there, they were determined to keep up their prices in order to get it out of the authorities. He said that if we reduced the pool of

  2253
  money and cut down the subsidy there would be a tendency on the part of the builders to reduce their prices. What happened in Scotland? In Scotland there was no reduction whatever of the subsidy, and yet we find that, although the pool remained the same, and though we may assume that the rapacity of the builders in Scotland would be the same as that of the builders in England, the cost of housing in Scotland has fallen in exactly the same proportion as the cost of housing in England.
  As a matter of fact, the figures speak for themselves; they are the most eloquent things in all this Debate—the figures showing the fall in the production of houses since the subsidy has been reduced. I shall not presume to take the year 1927. It may be said that, with a decrease of the subsidy imminent, there was an acceleration of housing production in 1927. I shall therefore be fair and compare 1926 with 1928. In the first quarter of 1926 there were 28,000 houses built; and in the first quarter of 1928 there were 20,000 built. That is a reduction of over 25 per cent. In the June quarter of 1926 there were 34,000 houses built, and 25,000 in the June quarter of 1928. That is a reduction of 30 per cent. In the September quarter of 1928 the reduction was again 25 per cent. In the face of those figures it cannot be gainsaid that the reduction of the subsidy has led to a diminution in the number of houses built. We have had it from members of the London County Council who are intimately acquainted with the problem in London, that as a result of the reduction of the subsidy the London County Council itself has not built at nearly the same rate as before.
  It is not only the number of houses that concerns us. We on this side are almost as much concerned about the rent that the workers have to pay. Those of us who happen to represent crowded areas in the East End of London know that it is not merely the fact that a house is available which interests a worker, but whether he can pay the rent which is to be charged for that house. I notice that the hon. Member for North Lamebth (Mr. Briant) is present. Like him, I have people continually coming to me and asking me if I can get them a London County Council house on one of the housing estates. It may be that in one case I
  2254
  succeed in establishing the fact that it is a case of acute overcrowding and deserves precedence, but when the people come before the London County Council representative and are asked what their income is, and they reply, "£3" or "£3 5s. a week"—that is a very high income in the East End of London—and that they have six or seven children, the London County Council say that according to the council regulations the people need either three or four rooms, and the rent for those three or four rooms would be such that they do not think the people concerned would be able to pay it, and therefore they cannot have the house.
  I want to bring this problem down to the human basis. It so happens that an independent body of architects recently conducted a survey of the Borough of Shoreditch, which I represent. These architects are not Labour people. I believe they are Conservatives in their political views. They work, I understand, under the inspiration of the Bishop of London. I hope, therefore, that there will be no suspicion that they are at all partisan in their review of the situation.
  Let me tell the House some of the things which these architects found in the Borough of Shoreditch. It is good that we, the Commons of England, who are now considering a reduction of the housing subsidy, should learn the conditions under which some of our fellow-countrymen and women have to live. In one case, in a house in Moneyer Street, a man, wife and three boys aged 13 years, 9 years and 7½ years respectively, and a daughter aged 20 years live in one room. There is only one bed and—this statement remarks in brackets—there is only room for one. The father and the boys have to go to bed first, and the mother and daughter undress behind a curtain. The mother then shares the family bed and the daughter sleeps on some chairs. It is added that the room was extremely clean and orderly when visited. The family have repeatedly tried to get other acommodation but they must live in or near Shoreditch. The next case is in Angrave Street. In one room on the first floor of a house live a man, wife and seven children—five girls of varying ages and boys aged 10 years and 8 years respectively. The man is a casual labourer and is often out of work, but the rent

  2255
  has been paid regularly for over 10 years. All the children except a baby sleep in one bed. These six children sleep in one bed, the sides of the bed being used as the head and the foot respectively. The children are always ailing and the mother spends most of her time taking them to hospitals and clinics. Then you talk about economy!
  There is another case in Baches Street. This is a house in a dilapidated street, overcrowded throughout. In two rooms on the ground floor which are dark, gloomy and dirty, live a man, wife and three girls, aged 18 years, 10 years and 3 years respectively and three boys aged 16 years, 6 years and 4 years respectively. In the little back room the elder girls share a bed with the boy of six, and the boy of 16 years sleeps on a couch bed made up at night. There is no room for this and the table and accordingly the table has to be moved out of the window to make way for it. In the front room the parents sleep with the two youngest children. The man is a hawker whose average earnings are £2 a week or less. The daughter works in an "A.B.C." and earns 22s. 6d. a week. She is very much ashamed of the house and cannot bring her friends there. The mother is disheartened and miserable and says she is so worn out with struggling in these wretched rooms, that she has lost all her energy. I apologise for reading all these extracts, but I propose to give two further cases. The next is the case of a five-roomed house in Styman Street—two rooms upstairs and two downstairs with a back addition room over a wash-house. When visited it was in an insanitary condition as the drain was badly choked. The back rooms' are small, being only 9 feet by 9, and the back addition room is very dark and is overshadowed by factory buildings, a sausage factory and a silk warehouse. All the rooms are crowded. In the little ground floor back room live a man, wife and four children, the eldest of whom is 14 years of age. It is stated:
  "The room is infested with blackbeetles which appeared on the occasion of our visit to come from the sausage factory."
  10.0 p.m.
  The last extract which I give refers to a house in Windsor Place, in two rooms of which live a man, wife and five children—a boy of 10 years and girls of
  2256
  eight years, seven years, five years and one year, respectively. The boy of 10 sleeps in the same bed with his father and mother. The girls all sleep in another bed in the same room. The downstairs room is so small and congested, as well as being damp, dark and infested with rats, that sleeping is impossible. At meals there is just room for the father to sit at the table. The children sit on the stairs and the mother walks about. Home, sweet home, Mr. Speaker, in the year 1928 in the heart of the greatest Empire that the world has even seen! I want to say very little more, but there is this to be remembered. It may be said that in citing these extracts I have been sentimental. Let it be so, but the people who live in these crowded and damnable conditions have a right of equity, apart from sentiment, to be provided with decent accommodation. Who are the people who live in the crowded areas of our great cities? They are the hewers of wood and drawers of water for capitalism. The workers living in these conditions in London are the men who, in our factories, warehouses, docks, railways, and so forth, make tee industry of this country possible. Men like these have a real title, apart from sympathy, to decent houses in which to live. I do not know whether the Minister is troubled with what is called a conscience. There are times when one doubts it very much; but, if he is, I think he must sometimes be stricken with shame for the part he is playing in economising on the housing conditions of these poor people. He is not doing it in ignorance. No man in this House knows better than he the terrible consequences to these poor people of having to live under such conditions. He knows the magnitude of the problem. Therefore, if he sins at all he is sinning against the light.
  The right hon. Gentleman is credited with having a sincere desire to promote the health services of this country. It is said of him, with what truth I do not know, that when the Government was formed he had the opportunity of taking a more exalted post, but chose the post of Minister of Health because he desired—so it is said—to promote the health services of the country. If he did that he deserves credit, because it is something not common to politicians.

  2257
  But I am sorry to find, if that were his motive, that he has so soon wearied of well-doing; that he has not proved a good "stayer," and that now, under pre-sure of the rich taxpayers of the country, he is sacrificing, the humanitarian claims of the people.
  The Minister is said to be strong-minded. He has not been strong-minded enough to stand up to the ruthless and calculating economists who are to be found in his party. He will not hold his present office for ever. He may not hold it very much longer. I dare say the time will come, when he has given up that office, when he will indulge in some reflections on the work he has achieved. We all do that at certain times, in the quiet watches of the night, as it were. If the Minister of Health thinks over the work he has done at the Ministry he may, quite justifiably get certain thrills of pride for some of the things he has done. But when he is thinking about those things, he will also probably recall the time when the overcrowded and poverty-stricken denizens of the East End of tendon were looking to him to stand by them in their claims for decent housing conditions. and he will remember that when they looked to him to stand by them he deserted them and left them to their fate; and I cannot help thinking that that memory will be to him a matter of shame and humiliation.
  Sir K. WOOD: It is now my duty to make some observations on the course of the Debate and to ask the House to come to a decision. The hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle), who has just spoken, has devoted a great deal of his speech to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. My right hon. Friend needs no defence from me. I only desire to say that when the time comes for the history of this Parliament and time to be written, I think he will occupy a very honourable place so far as housing and health matters are concerned, and certainly so far as housing is concerned, as having made perhaps the most valuable contribution to the housing problem of our time. The hon. Gentleman also gave, in another irrelevant passage, a recital of cases which I know as well as he does. He must not think that we, on this side, do not know as much about housing conditions in London and the country as he does. He has recited a number of
  2258
  pathetic cases in the constituency of Shoreditch. Anyone who knows the position of housing in Shoreditch knows that the remedy for those cases is the one of what we call slum clearance, and he knows as well as I do that there is no room for building new houses there. He is also aware, or perhaps he is not aware, that under these proposals to-night there is no question of interfering with the assistance which the State is now giving in connection with slum clearances.
  I will now endeavour to deal with a few of the arguments which have been raised of a more relevant character. The right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, paid a well-deserved tribute to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) for his very able speech, as he described it, when he followed my right hon. Friend. It is true that he had a very formidable task, in view of the facts and statements which were then presented to him. I rather thought, however, the right hon. Gentleman might have paid a similar tribute to the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley). Whether he is such a kindred soul as is the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, I do not know, but it is only fair to the right hon. Member for Shettleston that I should remind the House that it is due to his wise forethought in this Act of Parliament that we are considering this question of a reduction of the subsidy to-night, because it is one of the most valuable features of the Act of Parliament which he placed upon the Statute Book that under Section 5 of that Act this House has, at stated periods, to consider whether or not, having regard to the expenses incurred by local authorities in connection with the building of houses, both under the Act of 1923 and under the Act of 1924, a reduction in the subsidy should take place.
  I should rather have gathered from the speeches that have been made to-night that most hon. Members opposite resented the fact that we are considering this matter to-night, hut this is a duty that is cast upon the House of Commons at the instigation of the right hon. Member for Shettleston himself. He certainly was under some misapprehension. Perhaps he has not studied this Act of Parliament recently,

  2259
  but he was under the impression that his intention in introducing this Section of the Act was that at some time or other the subsidy should be raised; and he referred to pledges that he had given to tenants in the country and to the building trade in that particular connection. I should like to call attention to Section 5 of this Act, because it certainly does not carry out what apparently were the desires of the right hon. Gentleman. Section 5 lays it down that, after considering the expenses actually incurred during a period of a particular two years, and after the suggestions shall be approved by the Treasury, the order is then to be made,
  "and shall not exceed the respective amounts and periods fixed by the Housing, &c., Act, 1923, or … by this Act, unless Parliament otherwise determines."
  Therefore, it is clear that what we have to consider in this connection, and what was always the intention of Parliament, as it appears in the Act itself, is not under any circumstances whether an increase in the subsidy should he made, but whether a reduction shall be made, and it is for that particular Section of that Act that the right hon. Member for Shettleston should have due credit. In considering whether a reduction of the subsidy should or should not be made, we should consider, as many speakers have endeavoured to do, what is the exact position of the housing problem to-day. It is true that we have the very grave problem of the slums confronting us in this country. It is true that during the last year or two we have in fact cleared more slums than in any recent time in housing history, though no one would say that the progress has by any means been satisfactory. But the real problem with which we are confronted is whether we can get houses erected at such a cost as will enable them to he let at rents that can be paid by the poorer paid workers of the country.
  The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, two years ago, paid a very high tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health when he said that the Act of 1923 had done its work, and that it had virtually solved the problem of the lower middle class and similar class houses of the country. Therefore, what we have to face to-night as a House is
  2260
  how we are to provide housing for the lower paid workers of the country at such rents as they can afford to pay. There is a very sharp division of opinion as to how that should be done. As far as I can gather from the speeches of hon. Members opposite, they think that houses can be obtained at lower rents by increasing the subsidy. On the other hand, we, on this side of the House, believe that the only way in which you can obtain houses at rents suitable for the poorer paid people of the country is by reducing the cost of housing. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne said that the way to stop building in this country was to reduce the subsidy, and he apparently overlooked the fact, which is well known to anyone who has studied the problem, that when we announced the reduction of the subsidy on the last occasion, the reduction in housing costs did not wait the Order, but preceded it by a considerable period. This remarkable thing happened. No sooner was the announcement made by the Minister of Health in this House that the subsidy was to be reduced, than housing costs began to fall. I had a letter placed in my hand some time ago, and, for obvious reasons, I will not give the name of the writer, but he was a builder, and he wrote to the local authorities about this period. His letter gives some revelations of what happened when the subsidy was reduced. He wrote:
  "Dear Sir,
  In order to meet the reduced subsidy on houses, we have brought down the price of tiles, machine-made quality, by 9s. 6d. per 1,000. We hope this will enable you to continue with any further housing schemes that may he under consideration, and will also assist in preference being given to British-made tiles in place of those of foreign manufacture."
  I do not think there is any question that anyone who gives impartial consideration to the history of both the increase of the subsidy and the reduction of the subsidy, must come to the 2enclusion that the higher the subsidy, the larger has always been the cost of the workingman's house; certainly the reduction in the subsidy has produced houses at a lower cost, and what is, I think, more beneficial still, especially from the point of view of cases of which we have heard in this Debate; it has already produced

  2261
  lower rents. My right hon. Friend stated that the average price of houses in this country at the present time was £350. In taking the average, a large number of houses which are costing considerably more have been included, but it is now possible in some parts of the country to find houses costing only £280, £290 and £300 each.
  What has been the result'? It is true that at the Ministry of Health we do not have returns of the rents of these houses, but anyone who goes about the country or reads the newspapers can see the facts. I have here a few instances, taken from reputable newspapers, of what is happening in regard to houses for the poorer paid workers as a result of the cut in the subsidy. I find, for instance, at Derby that on 1st November this year the corporation housing committee proposed to reduce the rent of the two-bedroom type of house by 5d. per week, making the charge Us. 6d. plus 3s. 4d. for rates. I find that in Staffordshire houses are now being let at 4s. 6d. per week, or, with rates, 7s. per week. I find that at Leigh the town council resolved that the rents of the corporation houses should be reduced from 9s. 2d. to 8s. 8d. a week. Anyone who is going about the country knows that one of the direct consequences of a reduction in the cost of houses must be to bring about—and eventually, I hope, much more than is the case at the present time—a reduction in the rents themselves.
  It has been said by several hon. Members, without a single instance of proof, that the reduction in the cost of housing has nothing to do with the subsidy, but is due to a variety of reasons, such as were specified by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. Several hon. Members said it was due to the fact that bad materials, of a poor quality, are being used, and that the houses are not up to the specification required, we will say, before the subsidy was cut. There is not a word of truth in any of those allegations. The specifications for housing have not been altered. We have many opportunities at the Ministry of Health of conferring with local authorities upon their housing problems, and what do they tell us? As a result of the reduction in the cost of houses and of houses being now obtainable at an average of some £350, they tell us that in many eases they have found themselves
  2262
  in a more favourable position to improve the standard of their houses, and they also tell us that they are able to put in fittings and other amenities which previously they were obliged to forgo. What truth is there in the allegation made to-night that as a result of the cut in the subsidy tenants have suffered in any way?
  I want to give this assurance to the House, that no attempt whatever has been made to lower the standard of quality in housebuilding. I think it is perfectly natural—I say so at once—that the local authorities are turning at this time to smaller houses, but the average reduction made in the size of houses since the cut in the subsidy has simply been a reduction of 25 square feet. In the face of that evidence, who can say, at any rate as regards the standard of quality or the materials wed, that the cut in the subsidy has affected people in any way, except to the good? Because if local authorities can build houses at a reduced price as a result of the action of Parliament two years ago, we know that they must be in a better position to meet the wishes of prospective tenants.
  The hon. Member for Nelson and Come gave as the reason for the reduction in the cost of houses the fact that these local authorities have reduced their houses in size by 25 square feet. What does that amount to in the actual cost? It amounts to a figure of £12 10s., and in that connection I claim that we are entitled in respect of the reduction of the subsidy to claim that particular allowance on that account. The hon. Member also said that the reduction in the cost of building has been due to the price of materials being lowered, but that has nothing to do with the cut of the subsidy which only accounts for £20. The last thing which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne said was that this lowering of the cost and the price of houses in the country is due, first of all, to a reduction in size; secondly, to a reduction in the price of materials; and thirdly, to a reduction in wages. What does the reduction in wages amount to? The reduction in wages during the last two years simply accounts for the sum of £5. Therefore, if you add those three items, the only items which the hon. Member for Nelson

  2263
  and Colne could think of, they simply account for £37 10s. out of a total of £88.
  Hon. Members have heard the statement made by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) as to the position of the local authorities in the country, and the position of the London County Council. How do they stand so far as the reduction in the subsidy is concerned? If we take the proportionate reduction in the rate contributions of the local authorities, the reductions actually amount to £37 10s., leaving a balance of £50 10s. already available to go towards reducing subsidies from rates and taxes without prejudicially affecting the position of the tenant in any way whatever.
  Mr. HARRIS: Exactly the reverse is the case; the right hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong.
  Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green came forward with a deputation, and he spoke of the position in London. He admitted that in London there has been no diminution in house-building during the last two years, and that the authorities have steadily gone on with their programmes. Therefore, so far as housing in London is concerned, it cannot be said that the reduction in the subsidy has stopped the rate of house-building. Secondly, the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green made the admission that even so far as London is concerned the cut in the subsidy has resulted in a reduction in the cost of houses of £25. In face of those facts, how can anyone get up with any pretence of dealing fairly and impartially with this question, and say that London has suffered in that respect?
  Mr. HARRIS: It is due to the drop in the price of materials and wages.
  Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green came forward with a deputation and asked for special terms for London. No Minister of Health, and no Government, Liberal, Labour or Conservative, has ever assented to the giving of special terms to London in connection with housing. Therefore, I suggest that at any rate London can go forward with confidence with its programme, and can rely, as my
  2264
  right hon. Friend stated in the course of his speech, upon a continuous programme, with the great advantage of the reduction in prices. I should have thought that, instead of the kind of speeches that we have heard to-day, we should have heard speeches of apology from hon. Gentlemen opposite. They seem to have forgotten all that they said two years ago. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green practically repeated word for word the speech that he made two years ago in this House. He then said, and so did hon. Gentlemen opposite, including the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, that the whole building industry in this country was going to collapse. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston, not to he outdone in language of that kind, said that the proposal made on that occasion would wreck the building industry and plunge us back into the chaotic conditions from which we escaped in the harmonious year of 1924.
  The hon. Gentleman who spoke last, and who talked about the record of my right hon. Friend and of the Ministry of Health and this Government, might have remembered one or two things in this connection. At this moment, despite all that has been said to-night, we are building at the rate of 188,000 houses a year, which was inure than was reckoned upon by the right hon. Gentleman in his famous housing programme. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley said to-night that it was necessary to get over 100,000 houses before you began to eat into the shortage. He, at any rate, will be able to contradict the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, who said that we were doing nothing at all in that connection. There is no doubt that we are steadily going on. I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite, who speak, no doubt, quite sincerely about the necessity of helping the more poorly-paid workers of the country, what is their programme? Is their suggestion that we should increase subsidies? I know, and so does almost every Member of this House, that the worst time in this country, from the point of view of the prospects of the more poorly-paid workers in regard to getting decent housing accommodation, was when building costs were highest, and I say that it would be far better, from the point of view of good housing in this

  2265
  country, to erect 100,000 houses at a cost of 2350 apiece than to erect 200,000 at a cost of £1,000 apiece. That is the policy that we are pursuing. So far as this country is concerned, and so far as this Government is concerned, we need not be ashamed of our record. We have contributed to and stimulated house-building in this country much more extensively and vigorously than any other Government has done, and I think we can with confidence accept the recommendation of my right hon. Friend, in the interests of good housing, in the interests of the lower-paid workers of this country, and in the interests of slum clearance, and ask the House to approve of this Order.
  Mr. HARDIE: I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add the words:
  "subject to the omission of Articles 4 and 5, and paragraph (I) of Article 6."
  In listening to this Debate, it is quite evident that from the Government side there has been no point of view in regard to providing houses for those who want them. All we have had to-day has been simply the point of view of finance. The retention of the subsidy, which this Amendment seeks, is something that can, as far as Scotland is concerned, be dealt with quite apart from finance. If the housing question is going to be solved, that must come from those who are prepared to consider the housing of the people, apart from £ s. d. We had it from the right hon. Gentleman that slums were something apart, just as if the people in the slums were not to be considered as being worth rehousing, and were not to be considered as human beings to be dealt with in any housing scheme. That was his final word. But we had some rather interesting ideas from hon. Members opposite as to what is in the Government's mind. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle) made it quite plain that, if the Tory Government comes back, the first thing it is going to do is to remove the Rent Restrictions Act, and that is worth keeping in mind. If the Government had been sincere in regard to housing, without going into the details, which have already been thrashed out, if they had taken action in regard to rings and prices, there would not have been these sad cases which have been quoted one after another from all parts of the country.
  2266
  Our health report in Scotland draws attention to what is taking place in house-building, putty being used where lead should be used and there being all forms of fraud. If we had been going to deal with the matter thoroughly, we should have been dealing with these things, not from the point of view of putting them in the health report, but from the point of view of housing the people.
  The question of unemployment in the building trade has been referred to. I wait to give the figures for Glasgow at the end of November. Unemployed joiners, 71; bricklayers, 77; masons, 94; plasterers, 43; slaters, 34; painters, 685; plumbers, 90; labourers, 765; others, 953; a. total of 2,816. While we have this army of unemployed men in the building trade, we are being told that things are going on well. Since 1919, in Glasgow we have had over 14,000 houses. Of that number, 3,000 are in regard to slum clearances, which cost the city over £1,000,000, hut all we received from the Government was £72,000. That involved a rate of 3d. on Glasgow. My constituency is outside the city, where there is room to build, and not like Shoreditch. where there is no room at all. We are finding that the occupants of these new houses are not the type of people who were visualised by this House and for whom they passed this Act. The rents are much too high for those whom we should like to see changed from their slum conditions. They are so high that we are having in these places just the same thing that happens in other congested areas. We have two families to one house because the income of one family is not sufficient to meet the rent. Even under this proposed new scheme, the same sort of thing is going to be produced.
  The whole basis of the housing idea is that houses should be built so as to be accessible to the poorest paid workers. You are not solving the housing question by building a type of house which still leaves those whom we desire to relieve in the same position. If you take any city in Scotland, the same argument applies. We speak now of taking away part of the subsidy as the only means of enabling the Government to do something better. It was understood, in the first instance, that the subsidy was to provide the houses of which the people could pay the rent.

  2267
  What has happened. The subsidy has gone into the pockets of the private contractors. Not long ago, in my own constituency, I was called to see a number of houses where the ceilings had fallen, and I found just that kind of materials had been used which rendered it impossible to make a good job. We talk about the subsidy, but, when you put out the work to private enterprise, it means that the Corporation have to have an inspector to stand behind every man to see that specific materials are used. A great deal has been said about specifications, but in Glasgow we know from sad experience that unless we take money from the rates in order to pay an inspector to stand behind every man in order to see that the right materials are used, we shall be robbed every time. These houses in my constituency are dreadful evidence of that. For those reasons, I am moving the Amendment which is on the Paper, and I hope that those who are really interested in housing will show that they are determined that we shall have houses for the people. The national health is at stake, and a healthy population is the biggest asset that we can create.
  Mr. TINKER: I beg to second the Amendment for the purpose of put ting a question. I understood from the righthon. Gentleman that Leigh is having reduced rents. I do not follow the point of his argument, for I received a letter from the Leigh Town Council this morning asking me to oppose the Motion of the Government. They want the present subsidy to be continued, so it is evident, therefore, that the town council believe that good can come from money granted by the State. Surely, anyone with a knowledge of slums, and who is convinced of the necessity for the removal of slums, must realise that the Government will have to continue to give subsidies. Most hon. Gentlemen believe, as I do, that environment plays a great part in the life of the individual. A slum environment means that you will have a poor class of citizen; give better housing accommodation and you will have better citizens altogether. Unless there is some State help for the purpose of clearing slum property, I cannot see
  2268
  how it can be brought about. I support the Amendment on behalf of the Leigh Town Council.
  Mr. GILLETT: I just want to reply to a point raised by the Parliamentary Secretary in his closing speech. In his answer to the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) on the question of slums he said that the problem was one of land—
  Sir K. WOOD: I said that it was not a question so far as Shoreditch was concerned of erecting new houses, because we continue the subsidy as far as slum clearances are concerned.
  Mr. GILLETT: And the Parliamentary Secretary went on to refer to the question of land. I think he will find that is so when he refers to the OFFICIAL REPORT. I refer to it because a neighbouring town council has found it impossible to obtain land at a price which would be worth their while to erect houses. A landlord of Finsbury offered them a site, and they declined it. Finsbury is one of the most overcrowded parts of London. Afterwards, when the Home Secretary wanted to erect houses for the accommodation of the London police a site closely adjoining the one offered to the borough council was accepted. The Home Secretary thought it was worth while spending money in order to house the London police whereas the borough council. said that the land was too expensive for them to buy. To my mind the Government, if it is going to tackle the problem of slum clearances properly, will have to get out of their minds the idea that it can be done on what is called a financial basis. We shall never make any headway by considering this problem on purely business lines. A block of tenements has been erected in Finsbury, and when I went and saw one of the tenants, he told me that they liked the accommodation but that they had to nay in rent and rates £1 per week. The man was making little over £2 per week and on that he had to keep himself, a wife and three or four children. The right hon. Gentleman must not think that he is going to tackle the slum problem without putting down a large sum of money. Only in that way shall we ever be able to make any headway. The London County Council as their housing policy

  2269
  have built houses on the outskirts of London. It has barely touched the problem in the centre of London. The London County Council has closed the list of applicants—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not strictly relevant; this refers to the housing subsidy.
  Mr. GILLETT: The houses to which I am now referring are in the housing estates of the London County Council, for which they are making provision under one or other of their schemes, and what I was wishing to point out was that although I recognise the work that has been done by the provision of these houses, the Government must understand —I know the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary is always very complacent and self-satisfied—that as far as the Borough of Finsbury is concerned, what has been done by the Government and the London County Council under the various schemes has not touched the housing problem. There are thousands of people who want accommodation, and I hope if it is not in order to discuss the slum problem now, the Parliamentary Secretary will understand that there is still an unsolved problem awaiting him in Central London.
  Mr. MacLAREN: The question before the House, as Mr. Speaker has reminded us, is as to whether the subsidy should be continued or not. In listening to the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary one would have made the deduction that pro rata with the reduction of subsidy the cheaper would houses become. Let us be quite fair on this matter and try to put the Government's point of view, which is, that over a number of years there has been a sustained flow of subsidies into houses. The tendency with that flow has been to aggravate prices and rather to feed the maw of those who are forming combinations and putting up the prices for housing material. That being so, they have made arrangements to reduce the subsidy in order to bring down the price of materials. It is not irrelevant to remind the House that for the last fortnight or three weeks we have heard from the Treasury Box, and from no less a person than the Minister of Health himself, of the devastating effect which rates have upon industry and how they have
  2270
  brought some industries to the verge of bankruptcy. Here is the question of housing. If we are trying to solve it by subsidies, I would say quite openly, with- out fear of contradiction, that you will never solve the housing problem by subsidies. Indeed, I go as far as to say would abolish the housing subsidies at once. I know that may seem a heresy on this side and a novelty on the other side of the House, but I would at the same time take precautions to cut down any contributory cost that would increase the rent charged to the tenants of the houses.
  Let me give my own experience in Stoke-on-Trent. We can build houses there, to let, with three rooms, kitchen and bathroom for 10s. a week. We have made inquiries this last mouth or so and we have had to clear out 250 people living in wooden shacks and caravans, with no lavatory accommodation and no water laid on. The thing has become a menace to the entire city. We have had to enforce by-laws and to say to these people: "Within six months you must cleat out of these ramshackle erections," but we have no houses to put them into. We have made inquiries and we find the people are paying 10s. a week for railway carriages, and caravans and things that have previously been used as War huts. They have told us, before the town planning committee of which I am a member, that they are willing to pay 10s. if they can get houses.
  It is true that the cost of building material has come down recently, and naturally that would be so, because the more they know that the Government are feeding them with subsidies, the more those gentlemen will sweat the Government. We found we could let three rooms and a kitchen at 10s. a week; but, when we add rates, the rent of that house is 17s. 6d. a week, and it is thrown out of the grip of the working man. The statesman and politicians say, "Solve the problem by means of subsidy." You collect money from the taxpayers and send a subsidy to the local authorities, who send it to the builders, and then you send the rate collector to collect rates on the house—a system the like of which you could not find outside a lunatic asylum. If you are to abolish subsidies, then abolish also the rates upon houses which are making them dearer than they ought to be. At Stoke-on-Trent our rates are 20s. in the 2; and, so long as

  2271
  you continue this heavy impost there is no alternative left but the subsidy. It will not solve your problem. I support this Amendment not because I believe that by giving more subsidy you will solve the housing problem—I would rather follow the Government in its reasoning and de-rate houses—but because I believe that, as long as you create by your rating system a scarcity of houses, I am in favour of more subsidy.
  Mr. BECKETT: When the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health reads his own speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow morning, he will not feel any happier about it than, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shore-ditch (Mr. Thurtle) said, the Minister of Health will feel when he reviews the whole of his legislation on this subject. The speech was based on the Gilbertian theory that the less money you spend on houses the better the houses are going to be. While I have considerable sympathy with the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. MacLaren), at the same time, while we allow our house-building to be the miserable piece-
  meal thing it is now, while we reject the obvious common-sense process of putting up houses for the community on a community plan and thus allow landlords and other sharks to extract profit from it, while we go on with this system out of Bedlam, it is absolutely necessary that proper subsidies should be given.
  I rose only to say that this proposal to reduce the subsidy is going to have an immediately disastrous effect on all the housing schemes on which local authorities are now engaged. In Gateshead we have already had to abandon one scheme because of the reduction that took place two years ago. This further reduction will make it practically impossible to get on with the big schemes of housing that are absolutely necessary. I want Members to divide with the full knowledge that when they vote for this reduction they are making it even more difficult than it was before for overburdened local authorities to meet the strain of rehousing the industrial population.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The House divided: Ayes; 149; Noes, 245.

  Division No. 55.]

  AYES.

  [11.2 p.m.

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

  Gibbins. Joseph

  Lowth, T.

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

  Glllett. George M.

  Lunn, William

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

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

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

  Amnion, Charles George

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

  Macklnder, W.

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Greenall, T.

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Baker, Walter

  Greenwood. A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Barnes, A.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  MacNeill-Welr, L.

  Barr, J.

  Griffith, F. Kingsley

  March, S.

  Batey, Joseph

  Grundy, T. W.

  Maxton, James

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Hall, F. (York. W.R., Norm-nton)

  Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

  Bellamy, A.

  Hall. G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Montague, Frederick

  Benn, Wedgwood

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Morris. R. H.

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Hardle, George D.

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

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Harris, Percy A.

  Mosley, Sir Oswald

  Briant, Frank

  Hayday, Arthur

  Murnin, H.

  Broad. F. A.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Bromfield, William

  Hirst, G. H.

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

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Hollins, A.

  Owen, Major G.

  Buchanan, G.

  Hore-Bellsha. Leslie

  Palin, John Henry

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Paling, W.

  Cape, Thomas

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Cluse, W. S.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Potts, John S.

  Connolly, M.

  Johnston. Thomas (Dundee)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Cove, W. G.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Riley. Ben

  Cowan. D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Ritson, J.

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

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

  Dalton, Hugh

  Kelly, W. T.

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

  Davles. Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Kennedy, T.

  Saklatvala, Shapurll

  Day, Harry

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

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Dennison, R.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Duncan, C.

  Lansbury, George

  Sexton, James

  Dunnico, H.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Fenby, T. D.

  Lawson, John James

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Gardner, J. P.

  Lee, F.

  Shlels, Dr. Drummond

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Shinwell, E.

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

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

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Sltch, Charles H.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Whiteley, W.

  Smillie, Robert

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhiths)

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Smith, Ronnie (Penlstona)

  Tomlinson, R. P.

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Snell, Harry

  Townend, A. E.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe}

  Stamford, T. W.

  Vlant, S. P.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Windsor, Walter

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Strauss, E. A.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

  Sullivan, Joseph

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Sutton, J. E.

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles

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

  Westwood, J.

  Edwards.

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

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

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. sir Richard Harman

  Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Lumley, L. B.

  Albery, Irving James

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Fanshawe, Captain G. C.

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Allen, Sir J. Sandeman

  Fermoy, Lord

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

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

  Fleiden, E. B.

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

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

  Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

  MacIntyre, Ian

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

  Forrest, W.

  McLean, Major A.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Foster, Sir Harry S

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Atkinson, C.

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Balniel, Lord

  Ganzonl, Sir John

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Gates, Percy

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

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

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

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

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

  Bennett, A. J.

  Golf, Sir Park

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Berry, Sir George

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

  Bethel, A.

  Grace, John

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Bevan, S. J.

  Grant, Sir J. A.

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

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

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

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

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Morrison-Bell. Sir Arthur Cllve.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hen. John

  Murchison, Sir Kenneth

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Grotrian, H. Brent

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

  Brass, captain w.

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Nuttali, Ellis

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Hacking, Douglas H.

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

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Hamilton, Sir George

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh.

  Brocklebank. C. E. R.

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Hanbury, C.

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Pennefather, Sir John

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

  Harland, A.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Bullock, Captain M,

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Burman, J. B.

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Carver, Major w. H.

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

  Perring, Sir William George

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

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

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

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivfan

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Heneage. Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Preston, William

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Radford, E. A.

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Hilton, Cecil

  Raine, Sir Walter

  Clayton, G. C.

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

  Ramsden, E.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Holt, Capt. H. P.

  Held, D. D. (County Down)

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Remer, J. R.

  Cohen, Major J. Brunei

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

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

  Cooper, A. Duff

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

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Couper, J. B.

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

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Courtauld, Major J, S.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

  Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

  Ropner, Major L.

  Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Hurd, Percy A.

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

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

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

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

  Rya, F. G.

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Salmon, Major I.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Kindersley, Major Guy M.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

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

  King, Commodore Henry Douglas

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Dlxey, A. C

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Dlxon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

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

  Sandon, Lord

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Long, Major Eric

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.,

  Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

  Looker. Herbert William

  Savery, S. S.

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Lougher, Lewis

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Ellis, R. G.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vera

  Shepperson, E. W.

  2274

  2275

  Skelton. A. N.

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

  White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

  Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

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

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Smithers, Waldron

  Tlnne, J. A.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Withers, John James

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Cot. K. P.

  Wolmer, Viscount

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

  Waddington, R.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

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

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

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Wright, Brig.-General W. D.

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Watts, Sir Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  Major Sir William Cope and Sir

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Wells, S. R.

  Victor Warrender.

  Main Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 241, Noes, 146.

  Division No. 56.]

  AYES.

  [11.12 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte. Lieut.-Colonel

  Dixey, A. C.

  King, Commodore Henry Douglas

  Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

  Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

  Kinioch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Albery, Irving James

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Allen, Sir J. Sandeman

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

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

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

  Ellis, R. G.

  Long, Major Eric

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

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

  Looker, Herbert William

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

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Lougher, Lewis

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Lucas-Tooth. Sir Hugh Vere

  Atkinson, C.

  Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Fermoy, Lord

  Lumley, L. R.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Fielden, E. B.

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Balniel, Lord

  Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Forrest, W.

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

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Mc Donnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Bellalrs, Commander Carlyon

  Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E.

  MacIntyre, Ian

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

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  McLean, Major A.

  Bennett, A. J.

  Ganzeni, Sir John

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Berry, Sir George

  Gates, Percy

  Mac Robert, Alexander M.

  Bethel, A.

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

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Bevan, S. J.

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.

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

  Goff, Sir Park.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

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

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Grace, John

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Brass, Captain W.

  Grant, Sir J. A.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

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

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

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

  Hacking, Douglas H.

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Hamilton, Sir George

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

  Burman, J. B.

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Hanbury, C.

  Nuttall, Ellis

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

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Harland, A.

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Oman Sir Charles William C.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Chapman, Sir S.

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

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Headlam, Lieut-Colonel C. M.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

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

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Clayton, G. C.

  Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Perring, Sir William George

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Cohen, Major J. Brunel

  Hilton, Cecil

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

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

  Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Preston, William

  Cope, Major Sir William

  Holt, Captain H. P.

  Radford, E. A.

  Couper, J. B.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Raine, Sir Walter

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Ramsden, E.

  Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

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

  Reid. D. D. (County Down)

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

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

  Remer, J. R.

  Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Galnsbro)

  Hume, Sir G. H

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Hurd, Percy A.

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

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

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

  Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Can't)

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Kindersley, Major Guy M.

  Ropner, Major L.

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

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

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

  Watts, Sir Thomas

  Rye, F. G.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  Salmon, Major I.

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

  Wells, S. R.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Windsor-Clive Lieut.-Colonel George

  Sandon, Lord

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

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Withers, John James

  Savery, S. S.

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

  Wolmer. Viscount

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Womersley, W. J

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Tinne, J. A.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Skelton. A. N.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Wright, Brig.-General W. D.

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

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Waddington, R.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Smithers, Waldron

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Captain Bowyer and Sir Victor Warrender.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

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

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  NOES.

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

  Hardle, George D.

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

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

  Harris, Percy A.

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

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

  Hayday, Arthur

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hirst, G. H.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Sexton, James

  Baker, Walter

  Hollins, A.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Barnes, A.

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Barr, J.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Batey, Joseph

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Shinwell, E.

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Bellamy, A.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Benn, Wedgwood

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Smillie, Robert

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Bowerman. Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Briant, Frank

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Snell, Harry

  Broad, F. A.

  Kelly. W. T.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Bromfield, William

  Kennedy, T.

  Stamford, T. W.

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

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

  Stephen, Campbell

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Kirkwood, D.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Buchanan, G.

  Lansbury, George

  Sullivan, J.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

  Lawrence, Susan

  Sutton, J. E.

  Cape, Thomas

  Lawson, John James

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

  Charleton, H. C.

  Lee, F.

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

  Cluse, W. S.

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Connolly, M.

  Lowth, T.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Cove. W. G.

  Lunn, William

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

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

  Tomlinson, R. P.

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Mackinder, W.

  Townend, A. E.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Viant, S. P.

  Day, Harry

  March, S.

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Dennison, R.

  Maxton, James

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Duncan. C.

  Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

  Dunnico, H.

  Montague, Frederick

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

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

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Fenby, T. D.

  Mosley, Sir Oswald

  Westwood, J.

  Gardner, J. P.

  Murnin, H.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Whiteley, W.

  Gibbins, Joseph

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

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Gillett, George M.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Owen, Major G.

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

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

  Palln, John Henry

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Greenall. T.

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Pethick- Lawrence, F. W.

  Wilson, R. J. Marrow)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Windsor, Walter

  Griffith, F. Kingsley

  Potts, John S.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

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

  Riley, Ben

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.-

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Ritson, J.

  Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Paling.

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

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

  Resolved,
  "That the Draft of the Order proposed to be made by the Minister of Health and the Scottish Board of Health, with the
  2278
  approval of the Treasury, under Section 5 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924 (presented 6th December, 1928), he approved."

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME).
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question, as amended [11th December],
"That in the case of the Local Government Bill and the Local Government (Scotland) Bill (which Bills are hereinafter referred to as 'the English Bill' and the Scottish Bill,' respectively), the Committee stage (including any Motion for an Instruction), Report stage, and Third Reading, shall be proceeded with as follows:
(A) In the case of the English Bill:
(1) Committee Stage.
Thirteen allotted days shall be given to the Committee stage of the English Bill, and the proceedings in Committee on each allotted day shall be as shown in the second column of the following Table, and those proceedings, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at the times shown in the third column of that Table:

Table I.—Committee Stage.

Allotted Day.

Proceedings.

Time at which Proceedings to be brought to a conclusion.

P.M.

First

Instructions and Clause 1

7.30

Clauses 2 to 4

10.30

Second

Clauses 5 to 8

7.30

Clauses 9 to 12

10.30

Third

Clauses 13 to 16

7.30

Clauses 17 to 28

10.30

Fourth

Clauses 29 to 38

7.30

Clauses 39 to 53

10.30

Fifth

Clauses 54 to 56

7.30

Clauses 57 to 67

10.30

Sixth

Clauses 68 to 70

10.30

Seventh

Clauses 71 and 72

7.30

Clauses 73 and 74

10 30

Eighth

Clauses 75 and 76

7.30

Clauses 77 to 79

10.30

Ninth

Clauses 80 to 82

7.30

Clauses 83 to 85

10.30

Tenth

Clauses 86 to 92

7.30

Clauses 93 to 110

10.30

Eleventh

Clauses 111 to 115

7 30

New Clauses and Schedules I. to III.

10.30

Twelth

Schedule IV., Parts I. and II.

7.30

Schedule IV., Parts III. and IV.

10.30

Thirteenth

Schedules V. to X.

7.30

Schedules XI. and XII., New Schedules, and any other matter necessary to bring the Committee state to a conclusion.

10.30

(2) Report Stage.
Three allotted days shall be given to the Report stage of the English Bill; and the proceedings on each of those allotted days shall be those shown in the second column of the following Table; and those proceedings, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at the times shown in the third column of that Table.

Table II.—Report Stage.

Allotted Day.

Proceedings.

Time for Proceedings to be brought to a conclusion

P.M.

First

New Clauses

7.30

Parts I. and II.

10.3O

Second

Parts III., IV. and V.

7.30

Parts VI.

10.30

Third

Parts VII. and VIII. and Schedules I. to III.

7.30

Rest of Bill and any other matter necessary to bring the Report stage to a conclusion

10.30

(3) Third Reading.
One allotted day shall be given to the Third Reading of the English Bill; and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at 10.30 p.m. on that day.
(B) In the case of the Scottish Bill:
(1) Committee Stage.
Nine allotted days shall he given to the Committee stage of the Scottish Bill, and the proceedings in Committee on each allotted day shall be as shown in the second column of the following Table; and those proceedings, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at the time shown in the third column of that Table.

Table I.—Committee Stage.

Allotted Day.

Proceeding?.

Time for Proceedings to be brought to a conclusion.

P.M.

First

Instructions and Clauses 1 and 2

10.30

Second

Clauses 3 to 7

10.30

Third

Clause 8

7.30

Clauses 9 to 11

10.30

Fourth

Clauses 12 and 13

7.30

Clause 14

10.30

Fifth

Clauses 15 to 19

7.30

Clauses 20 to 24

10.30

Allotted Day.

Proceedings.

Time for Proceedings to be brought to a conclusion.

P.M.

Sixth

Clauses 25 to 29

7.30

Clauses 30 to 32

10.30

Seventh

Clauses 33 to 36

7.30

Clauses 37 to 39

10.30

Eighth

Clauses 40 to 44

7.30

Clauses 45 to 61

10.30

Ninth

New Clauses and Schedules I. to IV

7.30

Schedules V. to VII., New-Schedules and any other matter necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion

10.30

(2) Report Stage.
Two allotted days shall be given to the Report stage of the Scottish Bill, and the proceedings on each of those allotted days shall be those shown in the second column of the following Table, and those proceeding, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion ate the times shown in the third column of that Table.

Table II.—Report Stage.

Allotted Day.

Proceedings.

Time for Proceedings to be brought to aconeluBion.

P.M.

First

New Clauses and Clause 1

7.30

Clauses 2 to 9

10.30

Second

Clauses 10 to 16

7.30

Rest of Bill and any otter necessary to bring the Report stage to a conclusion

10.30

(3) Third Reading.
One allotted day shall be given to the Third Reading of the Scottish Bill, and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at 10.30 p.m. on that day.
On the conclusion of the Committee stage of either Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without Question put.
Any day after the date of the passing of this Order on which either Bill is put down as the first Government Order of the Day shall, for the purposes of this Order, be considered an allotted day as respects that Bill, and either Bill may be put down as the
2282
first Order of the Day on any Thursday, notwithstanding anything in any Standing Orders of the House relating to the Business of Supply.
Provided that where art allotted day is a Friday this Order shall have effect as if for reference to 7.30 p.m. and 10.30 p.m. there were respectively substituted references to 1 p.m. and 3.30 p.m.
For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion on an allotted day and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall, at the time appointed under this Order for the conclusion of those proceedings, put forthwith the Question on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules moved by the Government of which notice has been given, but no other Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules, and on any Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded, and, in the case of Government Amendments or of Government new Clauses or Schedules, he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made or that the Clauses or Schedules be added to the Bill, as the case may be; and on the Committee stage of either Bill the Chairman, in the case of a series of consecutive Clauses to which no notice of amendment has been given by the Government, shall put the Question that those Clauses stand part of the Bill without putting the Question separately as respects each Clause.
A Motion may be made by the Government to leave out any Clause or consecutive Clauses of either Bill before consideration of any Amendments of the Clause or Clauses in Committee; and the Question on a Motion made by the Government to leave out any Clause or Clauses of either Bill shall he put forthwith by the Chairman or Mr. Speaker after a brief explanatory statement from the Minister in charge and from any one Member who opposes the Motion.
Any Private Business which is set down for consideration at 7.30 p.m., and any Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10, on an allotted day shall, on that day, instead of being taken as provided by the Standing Orders, be taken after the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill in question or under this Order for that day, and any Private Business or Motion for Adjournment so taken may he proceeded with, though opposed, notwithstanding any Standing Orders relating to the Sittings of the House.
On a day on which any proceedings are to le brought to a conclusion under this Order, proceedings for that purpose shall not be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.
On an allotted day as respects either Bill no dilatory Motion on the Bill, nor Motion that the Chairman do report Progress or do leave the Chair, nor Motion to postpone

2283
a Clause, nor Motion to re-commit the Bill, shall be received unless moved by the Government, and the Question on such Motion, if moved by the Government, shall he put forthwith without any Debate.
Nothing in this Order shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings which under this Order are to be concluded on any particular day being concluded on any other day, or necessitate any particular day or part of a particular day being given to any such proceedings if those proceedings have been otherwise disposed of; or

(b) prevent any other business being proceeded with on any particular day, or part of a particular day, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, after any proceedings to be concluded under this Order on that particular day, or part of a particular day, have been disposed of.

Question, as amended, again proposed.
Mr. HARDIE: I beg to move, in line 112, to leave out the word "One" and to insert instead thereof the word "Two."
When the discussion was adjourned yesterday, I had practically concluded all I had to say, and I content myself now with moving my Amendment.
Mr. WESTWOOD: I beg to second the Amendment.
Question put, "That the word One 'stand part of the Question, as amended."
The House divided: Ayes, 231; Noes, 135.

Division No. 57.]

AYES.

[11.22 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Hume, Sir G. H.

Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

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

Hurd, Percy A.

Albery, Irving James

Dawson, Sir Philip

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen't)

Allen, Sir J. Sandeman

Dixey, A. C.

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).

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

Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

Kindersley, Major Guv M.

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

Edmondson, Major A. J.

King, Commodore Henry Douglas

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

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Atholl, Duchess of

Ellis, R. G.

Lamb, J, Q.

Atkinson, C.

Everard, W. Lindsay

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

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

Balniel, Lord

Fanshawe, Captain G, D.

Long, Major Erls

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Fermoy, Lord

Looker, Herbert William

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Fielden, E. B.

Lougher, Lewis

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

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

Fraser, Captain Ian

Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Bethel, A.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Lumley. L. R.

Bevan, S. J.

Galbraith, J. F. W.

MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

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

Ganzonl, Sir John

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

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

Gates, Percy

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Boothby, R. J. G.

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

MacIntyre, I.

Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

Goff, Sir Park

McLean, Major A.

Brass, Captain W.

Gower, Sir Robert

Macmillan, Captain H.

Briggs. J. Harold

Grace. John

MacRobert, Alexander M.

Briscoe, Richard George

Grant, Sir J. A.

Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

Brittain, Sir Harry

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Grotrian, H. Brent

Margesson, Captain D.

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

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

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

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

Bullock, Captain M.

Hacking, Douglas H.

Meyer, Sir Frank

Burman, J. B.

Hamilton, Sir George

Milne, J. S. Wardlaw.

Carver, Major W. H.

Hammersley, S. S.

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

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

Hanbury, C.

Monseil, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hoa. B. t

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Saltsbury)

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Harland. A.

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Hartington, Marquess of

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

Chapman, Sir S.

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

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

Nuttall, Ellis

Clayton, G. C.

Headlam. Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

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

Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

Haneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Penny, Frederick George

Cohen, Major J. Brunel

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Cooper, A. Duff

Hilton, Cecil

Perring, Sir William George

Cope, Major Sir William

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

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Couper, J. B.

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Power, Sir John Cecil

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Holt. Captain H. p.

Pownail, Sir Assheton

Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Preston, William

Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Radford, E. A.

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

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

Raine, Sir Walter

Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey.Galnsbro)

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

Ramsden, E.

Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

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

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Reid, D. D. (County Down)

Skelton, A. N.

Waddington, R.

Remer, J. R.

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Wallace, Captain D. E.

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

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

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

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

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

Smithers, Waldron

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Watts, Sir Thomas

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Wayland, Sir William A.

Ropner, Major L.

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Wells, S. R.

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

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

White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torqsay)

Rye. F. G.

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

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Salmon, Major I.

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Wilson, R. R. (Stafford. Lichfield)

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Storry-Deans, R.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl

Sandeman, N. Stewart

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Wolmer, Viscount

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Womersley, W. J.

Sanderson, Sir Frank

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Sandon, Lord

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Tinne, J. A.

Wright, Brig.-General W. D.

Savery, S. S.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Shepperson, E. W.

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

Mr. F. C. Thomson and Sir Victor

Warrender.

NOES.

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

Hamilton, Sir H. (Orkney & Shetland]

Riley, Ben

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

Hardle, George D.

Ritson. J.

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

Harris, Percy A.

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

Ammon, Charles George

Hayday, Arthur

Saklatvala, Shapurji

Baker, Walter

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Barnes, A.

Hirst, G. H.

Scrymgeour, E.

Barr, J.

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Sexton, James

Batey, Joseph

Hollins, A.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Bellamy, A.

Hudson, J. H. (Hudderfield)

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Benn, Wedgwood

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Shinwell, E.

Bondfield, Margaret

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Sitch, Charles H.

Briant, Frank

Johnston, Thomas (Dundue)

Smillie, Robert

Broad, F. A.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Bromfield, William

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Snell, Harry

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Stamford, T. W.

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Kelly, W. T.

Stephen, Campbell

Buchanan, G.

Kennedy, T.

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Cape, Thomas

Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M

Sullivan, J.

Charleton, H. C.

Kirkwood. D.

Sutton, J. E.

Cluse. W. s.

Lansbury, George

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

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Lawrence, Susan

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

Crawfurd, H. E.

Lawson, John James

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Platstow)

Dalton, Hugh

Lee, F.

Thurtle, Ernest

Davles, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Lowth, T.

Tinker, John Joseph

Day, Harry

Lunn, William

Tomlinson, R. P.

Dennison, R.

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

Townend, A. E.

Dunnico, H.

Mackinder, W.

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

MacLaren, Andrew

Viant, S. P.

Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

Fenby, T. D.

March, S.

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

Forrest, W.

Maxton, James

Wellock, Wilfred

Gardner, J. P.

Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

Westwood, J.

Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

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

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

Gibblns, Joseph

Mosley, Sir Oswald

Wiggins, William Martin

Gillett, George M.

Murnin, H.

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Naylor, T. E.

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

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

Oliver, George Harold

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Greenail, T.

Owen, Major G.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Paling. W.

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Windsor, Walter

Griffith, F. Kingsley

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Grundy, T. W.

Ponsonby, Arthur

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

Potts. John S.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Whiteley.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I beg to move, in line 131, to leave out the words "but no," and to insert instead thereof the words "and any."
It may be convenient to the House if this Amendment and the next. one standing in the names of myself and
2286
others of my hon. Friends—In line 132, after the word "Schedules," to insert the words
"of which notice has been given and which lie may select"—
are taken together, but taking two separate votes on the matter when it is put to the House.
Mr. SPEAKER: Of these two Amendments, one is consequential on the other.
Mr. JONES: The point, briefly, is this. As the Motion now stands, the proposal is that the only business not previously discussed that shall be taken when the Guillotine falls will be Government business—new Amendments, new Clauses, and so on. We submit that that is rather unjust to the Opposition. We think that, having reduced our opportunities for discussing these proposals, the Government ought to allow us to record our convictions in regard to Amendments to which we attach great importance; but, if this Motion be carried as it is, we shall be precluded entirely from moving Amendments to which we attach importance. That, we submit, will be an injustice to the Opposition over and above the injustice of limiting the time for discussion in other respects.
Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not quite sure whether the hon. Member appreciates the full effect that this Amendment would have if it were carried. It would, of course, mean that any points of substance raised by Amendments moved by private Members and not by the Government would be selected for discussion and would have to be voted upon. While it is quite true that that would give an opportunity of voting upon more Amendments than would otherwise be the case, it would be at the expense of further discussion on other Clauses, because, when the Guillotine fell at 7.30, instead of going on, after voting on Government Amendments, we should have to go on voting on all the private Members' Amendments of substance. Therefore, we should spend our time in tramping round and round the Lobbies, instead of in discussing the questions which would arise in the later part of the day. I cannot think that the hon.
Member has really contemplated that, and perhaps, in view of it he may not think it necessary to proceed further with the Amendment.
Mr. JOHNSTON: I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that we should obviously only endeavour to have votes taken after 7.30 on Amendments which we considered to be of such substance that we should be prepared to have our time limited in order to get a vote on them, while, on Amendments which would come after 10.30, we should obviously not be eating into any time at all. What we are seeking to secure by these two Amendments is that under this Guillotine, where we are going to have little or no opportunities for discussing some very important alterations in local government in England and Scotland, we shall at least have upon the records of this House Divisions in which hon. Members will require to sort themselves out for or against, and if the Government not only decide to limit our discussions, or to prevent our having discussions, on important matters, but, in addition, propose to prevent us, and to prevent you, Mr. Speaker, from selecting proper subjects for voting upon in this House, then we regard it as an added tyranny which we shall oppose in the Division Lobby.
Mr. E. BROWN: I feel bound to support the Amendment. It must be obvious to any who have given careful consideration to it that there are issues arising in almost every Clause of the Bill that ought not to pass the House without actual decisions being taken in the Lobby and at half-past ten the Opposition ought to have a right to have their Amendments selected for decision equally with the Government, and I feel bound to say we ought to have the Amendment.
Question put, "That the words 'but no' stand part of the Question, as amended."
The House divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 128.

Division No. 58.]

AYES.

[11.37 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Balniel, Lord

Briggs, J. Harold

Alnsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Briscoe, Richard George

Albery, Irving James

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Brittain. Sir Harry

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

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

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Allen, Sir J. Sandeman

Bethel, A.

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

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

Bevan, S. J.

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

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

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

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

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

Boothby, R. J. G.

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

Atholl, Duchess of

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

Bullock, Captain M.

Balfour, George (Hempstead)

Brass, Captain W.

Burman, J. B.

Carver, Major W. H.

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

Remer, J. R.

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

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Holt, Captain H. P.

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

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

Chapman, Sir S.

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

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

Ropner, Major L.

Clayton, G. C.

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

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

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Hume, Sir G. H.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Hurd, Percy A.

Rye, F. G.

Cockerill Brig.-General Sir George

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

Saimon, Major I.

Cooper, A. Duff

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

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Cooper, J. B.

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Kindersley, Major G. M.

Sandeman, N. Stewart

Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

King, Commodore Henry Douglas

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Sanderson, sir Frank

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

Lamb, J. Q.

Sandon, Lord

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

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

Savery, S. S.

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Long, Major Eric

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

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

Looker, Herbert William

Shepperson, E. W.

Dawson, Sir Philip

Lougher, Lewis

Skelton, A. N.

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Dixey, A. C.

Luce, Major-Gen, Sir Richard Harman

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

Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

Lumley, L. R.

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

Smithers, Waldron

Elliot, Major Walter E.

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

Somerville. A. A. (Windsor)

Ellis, R. G.

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Southby, Commander A. R. J,

Everard, W. Lindsay

Maclntyre, Ian

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Faile, Sir Bertram G.

McLean, Major A.

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

Macmillan, Captain H.

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

Fermoy, Lord

MacRobert, Alexander M.

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

Fielden, E. B.

Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

Storry-Deans, R.

Fraser, Captain Ian

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Galbraith, J. F. W.

Margesson, Captain D.

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Ganzoni, Sir John

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Gates, Percy

Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, south)

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

Meyer, Sir Frank

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

Golf Sir Park

Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

Tinne, J. A.

Gower, Sir Robert

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Grace, John

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

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Grant, Sir J. A.

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Wallace, Captain D. E.

Grattan, Doyle, Sir N.

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

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

Greene, W. P. Crawford

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

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Grotrian, H. Brent

Nuttall, Ellis

Watts, Sir Thomas

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

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

Wayland, Sir William A.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

O'Neill. Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

Wells, S. R.

Hacking, Douglas H.

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

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

Hammersley, S. S.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Hanbury, C.

Penny, Frederick George

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

Harland, A.

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Hartington, Marquess of

Perring, Sir William George

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Wolmer, Viscount

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

Power, Sir John Cecil

Womersley, W. J.

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

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

Preston, William

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

Radford, E. A.

Wright, Brig.-General W. D.

Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

Raine, Sir Walter

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Ramsden, E.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Sir William Cope and Sir Victor

Hilton, Cecil

Reid, D. D. (County Down)

Warrender.

NOES.

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

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

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

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Gibbins, Joseph

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

Buchanan, G.

Gillett, George M.

Ammon, Charles George

Cape, Thomas

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Baker, Walter

Charleton, H. C.

Graham, Rt. Hon. Win. (Edln., Cent.)

Barnes, A.

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Greenall, T.

Barr, J.

Crawfurd, H. E.

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Batey, Joseph

Dalton, Hugh

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Griffith, F. Kingsley

Bellamy, A.

Day, Harry

Grundy, T. W.

Benn, Wedgwood

Dennison, R.

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

Bondfield, Margaret

Dunnico, H.

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Briant, Frank

Fenby, T. D.

Hardle, George D.

Broad, F. A.

Forrest, W.

Hayday, Arthur

Bromfield, William

Gardner, J. P.

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

2290

2291

Hirst, G. H.

Mosley, Sir Oswald

Stamford, T. W.

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Murnin, H.

Stephen, Campbell

Hollins, A.

Naylor, T. E.

Sullivan, J.

Hore-Bellsha, Leslie

Oliver, George Harold

Sutton, J. E.

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Owen, Major G.

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

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Paling, W.

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Thurtle, Ernest

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Tinker, John Joseph

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Ponsonby, Arthur

Tomlinson, R. p.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Potts, John S.

Townend, A. E.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Riley, Ben

Viant, S. P.

Kelly, W. T.

Ritson, J.

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

Kennedy, T.

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

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

Kirkwood, D.

Saklatvala, Shapurji

Wellock, Wilfred

Lansbury, George

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Westwood, J.

Lawrence, Susan

Scrymgeour, E.

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

Lawson, John James

Sexton, James

Wiggins, William Martin

Lee, F.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Longbottom, A. W.

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

Lowth, T.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond.

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Lunn, William

Shinwell, E.

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

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

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Windsor, Walter

Mackinder, W.

Sitch, Charles H.

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Smillie, Robert

Maxton, James

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

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

Snell, Harry

Whiteley.

Main Question, as amended, again proposed.
Mr. E. BROWN: I only wish to say, before the Division is taken, that I think the time allotted is utterly insufficient to enable us to discuss the provisions of these two huge Bills. The right hon. Gentleman has been like Pharaoh; he
has hardened his heart; and the Secretary of State for Scotland will regret having linked his fortunes in this Bill with the English Pharaoh.
Question put.
The House divided: Ayes, 219; Noes, 121.

Division No. 59.]

AYES.

[11 46 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Couper, J. B.

Hanbury, C.

Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Albery, Irving James

Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

Harland, A

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Hartington, Marquess of

Allen, Sir J. Sandeman

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

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

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

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Galnsbro)

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

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

Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

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

Curzon, Captain Viscount

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

Atholl, Duchess of

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

Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Dawson, Sir Philip

Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

Balniel, Lord

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Dixey, A. C.

Hilton, Cecil

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

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

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

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Bethel, A.

Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

Holt, Captain H. P.

Bevan, S. J.

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Hopkins, J. W. W.

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

Ellis, R. G.

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

Everard, W. Lindsay

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

Brass, Captain W.

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

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

Briggs, J. Harold

Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

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

Briscoe, Richard George

Fermoy, Lord

Hume, Sir G. H.

Brittain, Sir Harry

Fielden, E. B.

Hurd, Percy A.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Forrest, W.

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Fraser, Captain Ian

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

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

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

Galbraith, J. F. W.

King, Commodore Henry Douglas

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

Ganzoni, Sir John

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Bullock, Captain M.

Gates, Percy

Lamb, J. Q.

Burman, J. B.

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

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

Carver, Major W. H.

Goff, Sir Park

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

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

Gower, Sir Robert

Long, Major Eric

Cazalet, Captain victor A.

Grace, John

Looker, Herbert William

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Grant, Sir J. A.

Lougher, Lewis

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Lucas-Tooth. Sir Hugh Vere

Chapman, Sir S.

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Luce, Major-Gen. sir Richard Harman

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Lumley, L. R.

Clayton, G. C.

Grotrian, H. Brent

MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

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

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D

Gunston, Captain D. W.

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

Hacking, Douglas H.

MacIntyre, Ian

Cooper, A. Duff

Hammersley, S. S

McLean, Major A.

Macmillan, Captain H.

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

MacRobert, Alexander M.

Remer, J. R.

Storry-Deans, R.

Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. steel-

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

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray, Fraser

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Manningham-Buller, sir Mervyn

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Margesson, Captain D.

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Ropner, Major L.

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

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

Tinne, J. A.

Meyer, Sir Frank

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemooth)

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

Rye, F. G.

Tryon, Rt. Hon, George Clement

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Salmon, Major I.

Wallace, Captain D. E.

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

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

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

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Cllve

Sandeman, N. Stewart

Warrender, Sir Victor

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

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Sanderson, Sir Frank

Watts, Sir Thomas

Nuttall, Ellis

Sandon, Lord

Wayland, Sir William A.

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

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Wells, S. R.

O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

Savery, S. S.

White, Lieut.-Col Sir G. Dalrymple

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Shepperson, E. W.

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Penny, Frederick George

Skelton, A. N.

Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

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

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Perring, Sir William George

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Wolmer, Viscount

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Smithers, Waldron

Womersley, W. J.

Power, Sir John Cecil

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Preston, William

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Wright, Brig.-General W. D.

Radford, E. A.

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Raine, Sir Walter

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Ramsden, E.

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

Sir George Hennessy and Sir

William Cope.

NOES.

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

Hardle, George D.

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

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

Hayday, Arthur

Saklatvala, Shapurji

Ammon, Charles George

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Baker, Walter

Hirst, G. H.

Scrymgeour, E.

Barnes, A,

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Sexton, James

Barr, J.

Hollins, A.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Batey, Joseph

Hore-Bellsha, Leslie

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Shiels, Dr. Drummond.

Bellamy, A.

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Shinwell, E.

Benn, Wedgwood

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Bondfield, Margaret

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Smillie, Robert

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Smith, Rennie (Penlstone)

Briant, Frank

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Snoll, Harry

Broad, F. A.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Stephen, Campbell

Bromfield, William

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Sullivan, J.

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Kelly, W. T.

Sutton, J. E.

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Kennedy, T.

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

Buchanan, G.

Kirkwood, D

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)

Cape, Thomas

Lansbury, George

Thurtle, Ernest

Charleton, H. C.

Lawrence, Susan

Tinker, John Joseph

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Lawson, John James

Tomllnson, R. P.

Crawfurd, H. E.

Lee, F.

Townend, A. E.

Dalton, Hugh

Longbottom, A. W.

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Lunn, William

Vlant, S. P.

Day, Harry

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

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

Dunnico, H.

Mackinder, W.

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Wellock, Wilfred

Fenby, T. D.

Maxton, James

Westwood, J.

Gardner, J. P.

Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

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

Whiteley, W.

Glbbins, Joseph

Mosley, Sir Oswald

Wiggins, William Martin

Glliett, George M.

Murnin, H.

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Naylor, T. E.

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

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

Oliver, George Harold

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Greenall, T.

Owen, Major G.

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Windsor, Walter

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Griffith, F. Kingsley

Ponsonby, Arthur

Grundy, T. W.

Potts, John S.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Mr. Benjamin Smith and Mr.

Halt, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

Riley, Ben

Wilfrid Paling.

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Ritson, J.

Whereupon Motion made and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again,"— (Commander Eyres Monsell)—put, and agreed to.

Ordered,
"That in the case of the Local Government Bill and the Local Government (Scot-
2294
land) Bill (which Bills are hereinafter referred to as 'the English Bill' and 'the Scottish Bill,' respectively), the Committee

2295
stage (including any Motion for an Instruction), Report stage, and Third Reading, shall be proceeded with as follows:—
(A) In the case of the English Bill:—
(1) The Committe Stage.
Thirteen allotted days shall be given to the Committee stage of the English Bill, and the proceedings in Committee on each allotted day shall be shown as in the second column of the following Table, and those proceedings, if not previousy brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at the times shown in the third column of that Table:—

Table I.—Committee Stage.

Allotted Day.

Proceedings.

Time at which Proceedings to be brought to a conclusion.

P.M.

First

Instructions and Clause 1

7.30

Clauses 2 to 4

10.30

Second

Clauses 5 to 8

7.30

Clauses 9 to 12

10.30

Third

Clauses 13 to 16

7.30

Clauses 17 to 28

10.30

Fourth

Clauses 29 to 38

7.30

Clauses 39 to 53

10.30

Fifth

Clauses 54 to 56

7.30

Clauses 57 to 67

10.30

Sixth

Clauses 68 to 70

10.30

Seventh

Clauses 71 and 72

7.30

Clauses 73 and 74

10.30

Eighth

Clauses 75 and 76

7.30

Clauses 77 to 79

10.30

Ninth

Clauses 80 to 82

7.30

Clauses 83 to 85

10.30

Tenth

Clauses 86 to 92

7.30

Clauses 93 to 110

10.30

Eleventh

Clauses 111 to 115

7.30

New Clauses and Schedules I. to III

10.30

Twelfth

Schedule IV., Parts I. and II

7.30

Schedule IV., Parts III. and IV

10.30

Thirteenth

Schedules V. to X.

7.30

Schedules XI. and XII., New Schedules, and any other matter necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion

10.30

(2) Report Stage.
Three allotted days shall he given to the Report stage of the English Bill; and the proceedings on each of those allotted days shall be those shown in the second column of the following Table; and those proceedings, if hot previously brought to a conclusion shall be brought to a conclusion at the times shown in the third column of that Table.

Table II.—Report Stage.

Allotted Day.

Proceedings.

Time for Proceedings to be brought to a conclusion.

P.M.

First

New Clauses

7.30

Parts I. and II

10.30

Second

Parts III., IV, and V.

7.30

Part VI

10.30

Third

Parts VII. and VIII. and Schedules I. to III.

7.30

Rest of Bill and any other matter necessary to bring the Report stage to a conclusion

10.30

(3) Third Reading.
One allotted day shall be given to the Third Reading of the English Bill; and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at 10.30 p.m. on that day.
(B) In the case of the Scottish Bill:
(1) Committee Stage.
Nine allotted days shall be given to the Committee stage of the Scottish Bill, and the proceedings in Committee on each allotted day shall be as shown in the second column of the following Table; and those proceedings, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at the time shown in the third column of that Table.

Table I.—Committee Stage.

Allotted Day.

Proceedings.

Time for Proceedings to be brought to a conclusion.

P.M.

First

Instructions and Clauses 1 and 2

10.30

Second

Clauses 3 to 7

10.30

Third

Clause 8

7.30

Clauses 9 to 11

10.30

Fourth

Clauses 12 and 13

7.30

Clause 14

10.30

Fifth

Clauses 15 to 19

7.30

Clauses 20 to 24

10.30

Sixth

Clauses 25 to 29

7.30

Clauses 30 to 32

10.30

Seventh

Clauses 33 to 36

7.30

Clauses 37 to 39

10.30

Eighth

Clauses 40 to 44

7.30

Clauses 45 to 61

10.30

Ninth

New Clauses and Schedules I. to IV.

7.30

Schedules V. to VII., New Schedules and any other matter necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion

10.30

(2) Report Stage.
Two allotted days shall be given to the Report stage of the Scottish Bill, and the proceedings on each of those allotted days shall be those shown in the second column of the following Table, and those proceedings, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at the times shown in the third column of that Table.

Table II.—Report Stage.

Allotted Day.

Proceedings.

Time for Proceedings to be brought to a conclusion.

P.M.

First

New Clauses and Clause 1

7.30

Clauses 2 to 9

10.30

Second

Clauses 10 to 16

7.30

Rest of Bill and any other matter necessary to bring the Report stage to a conclusion

10.30

(3) Third Reading.
One allotted day shall be given to the Third Reading of the Scottish Bill, and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at 10.30 p.m. on that day.
On the conclusion of the Committee stage of either Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without Question put.
Any day after the date of the passing of this Order on which either Bill is put down as the first Government Order of the Day shall, for the purposes of this Order, be considered an allotted day as respects that Bill, and either Bill may be put down as the first Order of the Day on any Thursday, notwithstanding anything in any Standing Orders of the House relating to the Business of Supply.
Provided that where an allotted day is a Friday this Order shall have effect as if for reference to 7.30 p.m. and 10.30 p.m. there were respectively substituted references to 1 p.m. and 3.30 p.m.
For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion on an allotted day and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall, at the time appointed under this Order for the conclusion of those proceedings, put forthwith the Question on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules moved by the Government of which notice has been given, but no other Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules,
2298
and on any Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded, and, in the case of Government Amendments or of Government new Clauses or Schedules, he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made or that the Clauses or Schedules be added to the Bill, as the case may be; and on the Committee stage of either Bill the Chairman, in the case of a series of consecutive Clauses to which no notice of amendment has been given by the Government, shall put the Question that those Clauses stand part of the Bill without putting the Question separately as respects each Clause.
A Motion may be made by the Government to leave out any Clause or consecutive Clauses of either Bill before consideration of any Amendments of the Clause or Clauses in Committee; and the Question on a Motion made by the Government to leave out any Claus or Clauses of either Bill shall be put forthwith by the Chairman or Mr. Speaker after a brief explanatory statement from the Minister in charge and from any one Member who opposes the Motion.
Any Private Business which is set down for consideration at 7.30 p.m., and any Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10, on an allotted day shall, on that day, instead of being taken as provided by the Standing Orders, be taken after the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill in question or under this Order for that day, and any Private Business or Motion for Adjournment so taken may be proceeded with, though opposed, notwithstanding any Standing Orders relating to the Sittings of the House.
On a day on which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, proceedings for that purpose shall not be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.
On an allotted day as respects either Bill no dilatory Motion on the Bill, nor Motion that the Chairman do report Progress or do leave the Chair, nor Motion to postpone a Clause, nor Motion to re-commit the Bill, shall be received unless moved by the Government, and the Question on such Motion, if moved by the Government, shall be put forthwith without any Debate.
Nothing in this Order shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings which under this Order are to be concluded on any particular day being concluded on any other day, or necessitate any particular day or part of a particular day being given to any such proceedings if those proceedings have been otherwise disposed of; or

(b) prevent any other business being proceeded with on any particular day, or part of a particular day, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, after any proceedings to be concluded under this Order on that particular day, or part of a particular day, have been disposed of."

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
Read the Third time, and passed.

NORTHERN IRELAND LAND [MONEY].
Resolution reported,
"That it is expedient to authorise, the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such additional expenses of the Land Purchase Commission, Northern Ireland, as may be entailed by any Act of the present Session to amend the Northern Ireland Land Act, 1925."
Resolution read a Second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
Mr. BUCHANAN: I only wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury if he cannot see his way to delay this Motion. Some of us have one or two points to put forward, but we do not want to raise them to-night. We did not oppose the Committee stage last night, and we should be grateful if this matter could be delayed until a more convenient time.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): Perhaps I can explain to the hon. Member. The Second Reading of this Bill has already been taken, and there was then ample opportunity for discussion. This Motion is a very narrow one and purely formal, because eventually the charge will not fall on the British Exchequer at all, but will be repaid by Northern Ireland. It is almost impossible to raise anything at all on this Financial Resolution.
Mr. BUCHANAN: I was aware of the Second Reading and also of the Committee stage of the Money Resolution. We could have objected on those stages had we so wished. We did not want to do that, but we do ask, in return, that we should have fair treatment. This matter might be delayed until a more suitable time in order that one or two points might be cleared up. If the Motion is too narrow for this purpose, the Chair will decide. All I am asking is that the Parliamentary Secretary to
2300
the Treasury should extend to us the same courtesy as we have extended to him in the past. It is of my colleague that I am thinking to-night. I do not want to delay them beyond 12 o'clock.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Commander Eyres Monsell): I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
We are always ready to meet hon. Gentlemen, and, as long as we can get this Motion before Christmas, it will be quite all right. We will put it down for Friday and give hon. Members a chance of raising any questions which they desire to raise.
Mr. BUCHANAN: Thank you, very much.
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

PENSIONS (GOVERNORS OF DOMINIONS, ETC.) [CHARGES].
Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.
[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That it is expedient to amend the Law relating to the payment of pensions to governors and persons holding similar offices who have served within His Majesty's Dominions or in British Protectorates or Mandated Territories; and to authorise the payment out of moneys to be provided by Parliament of any charges which may be incurred by reason thereof"—(King's Recommendation Signified).—[Sir Vivian Henderson.]
Committe report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at one minute before Twelve o'clock.

POST OFFICE.
  INLAND TELEGRAMS (CHARGES).
  INLAND TELEGRAMS (CHARGES).
  ADVERTISEMENTS.
  ADVERTISEMENTS.
  FACILITIES, PORTADOWN.
  FACILITIES, PORTADOWN.
  TIN MINES.
  TIN MINES.
COAL INDUSTRY.
  FUEL RESEARCH.
  FUEL RESEARCH.
  OUTPUT, FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
  OUTPUT, FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
  ORGANISATION.
  ORGANISATION.
TRANSPORT.
  TOLL BRIDGE, WYLAM.
  TOLL BRIDGE, WYLAM.
  ROAD WORKS (BRITISH MATERIAL).
  ROAD WORKS (BRITISH MATERIAL).
  FORTH AND CLYDE CANAL.
  FORTH AND CLYDE CANAL.
  TRAFFIC CONTROL (CONFERENCE).
  TRAFFIC CONTROL (CONFERENCE).
  ROAD ACCIDENTS (MORTUARIES).
  ROAD ACCIDENTS (MORTUARIES).
  ELECTRICITY SCHEMES.
  ELECTRICITY SCHEMES.
ROYAL NAVY.
  SINGAPORE BASE (CONTRACTS).
  SINGAPORE BASE (CONTRACTS).
  TRISTAN DA CUNHA (WARSHIP, VISIT).
  TRISTAN DA CUNHA (WARSHIP, VISIT).
  SUBMERSIBLE PUMPS.
  SUBMERSIBLE PUMPS.
  PAINTING AND CLEANING.
  PAINTING AND CLEANING.
  NATIONAL DEBT (REDEMPTION GIFTS).
  NATIONAL DEBT (REDEMPTION GIFTS).
  INCOME TAX (SOLICITORS, DUTIES).
  INCOME TAX (SOLICITORS, DUTIES).
  OTTOMAN LOAN.
  OTTOMAN LOAN.
  CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (CUSTOMS REGULATIONS).
  CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (CUSTOMS REGULATIONS).
  SUPER-TAX AND SUR-TAX.
  SUPER-TAX AND SUR-TAX.
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (OVERTIME).
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (OVERTIME).
  KENYA (GIRL LABOUR).
  KENYA (GIRL LABOUR).
  STEAM TRAWLER "AMETHYST."
  STEAM TRAWLER "AMETHYST."
  FACTORIES (FIVE-DAY WEEK).
  FACTORIES (FIVE-DAY WEEK).
  HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS, LONDON (ALIEN PROPRIETORS).
  HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS, LONDON (ALIEN PROPRIETORS).
  CLERK OF THE PEACE, ESSEX.
  CLERK OF THE PEACE, ESSEX.
  AFFORESTATION, DEVON AND CORNWALL.
  AFFORESTATION, DEVON AND CORNWALL.
  LICENSED PREMISES, PAISLEY (POLICE).
  LICENSED PREMISES, PAISLEY (POLICE).
  ORTHOPŒDIC TREATMENT (SCHOOL CHILDREN, HAMPSHIRE).
  ORTHOPŒDIC TREATMENT (SCHOOL CHILDREN, HAMPSHIRE).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  WOMEN WORKERS.
  WOMEN WORKERS.
  COTTON AND WOOLLEN INDUSTRIES (INSURANCE FUND CONTRIBUTIONS).
  COTTON AND WOOLLEN INDUSTRIES (INSURANCE FUND CONTRIBUTIONS).
  COTTON TEXTILE INDUSTRY (INSURANCE).
  COTTON TEXTILE INDUSTRY (INSURANCE).
  ENTERTAINMENTS AND SPORTS INDUSTRY.
  ENTERTAINMENTS AND SPORTS INDUSTRY.
  BENEFIT, BOURNEMOUTH.
  BENEFIT, BOURNEMOUTH.
  ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES.
  ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES.
  MINING INDUSTRY, FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
  MINING INDUSTRY, FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
  SANKEY SUGAR WORKS, EARLS TOWN (EMPLOYES).
  SANKEY SUGAR WORKS, EARLS TOWN (EMPLOYES).
  INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OR GANI SATION.
  INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OR GANI SATION.
  DISTRESSED AREAS (LORD MAYOR'S FUND).
  DISTRESSED AREAS (LORD MAYOR'S FUND).
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RATING.
  ASSESSMENTS.
  ASSESSMENTS.
  HOLMHEAD FARM, LESMAHAGOW.
  HOLMHEAD FARM, LESMAHAGOW.
  POOR LAW (EXPENDITURE).
  POOR LAW (EXPENDITURE).
  RAILWAY FREIGHT REBATES.
  RAILWAY FREIGHT REBATES.
  BREWERS AND DISTILLERS.
  BREWERS AND DISTILLERS.
  REVENUE OFFICERS (INSTRUCTIONS).
  REVENUE OFFICERS (INSTRUCTIONS).
  HOUSING (HAMPSHIRE).
  HOUSING (HAMPSHIRE).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LAW OF PROPERTY [AMENDMENT] BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

ROAD VEHICLES REGULATION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I am going to ask your Lordships to read this Bill a second time, because I think I can show you that the evil which at present exists is of the most serious possible character, and is growing every year, and that therefore some step ought to be taken to abate that evil. Whether every proposal that I make in this Bill is right is a different matter altogether. I am not asking your Lordships on this occasion to approve of every proposal; I am asking your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading, so that it can be thoroughly discussed in a Committee of your Lordships' House, and I venture very respectfully to say that there is no body in the country which is more capable of discussing a Bill of this kind than a Committee of the House of Lords.
The evil really is of almost incredible seriousness. I am very anxious not to use extravagant language in this matter, but I have to point out that more than 5,000 people are killed every year by accidents on the road, of which the immense proportion of five-sixths or seven-eighths are due to motor vehicles; 150,000 are injured every year, and it is calculated in a very interesting paper by Colonel Pickard, which I happen to have read, that not less than 300,000 accidents to persons or property occur on the roads every year. I will not trouble your Lordships with the calculation, but it is based on serious figures and as far as I can see it is irrefutable. It is difficult to say
528
anything which will increase the gravity of those figures. It is worth while pointing out perhaps that four-fifths of these accidents occur during the daylight hours. Taking as an average all over the year twelve hours daylight per day, that gives you about ten people killed each day, or nearly one for every hour of daylight. Nearly one every two minutes is injured and every minute, or very nearly every minute within a fraction, there is an accident to person or property. So that in the few minutes that I have had the opportunity of addressing your Lordships on an average several more accidents have already occurred.
That is a very serious state of things. It is growing year by year. It gets worse every year, not because the proportion of accidents to motors is getting worse—that may not be so—but because the number of motors is growing and the accidents, the total toll of suffering and injury, are growing every year. It is very difficult to institute any comparison with railways or anything of that kind; but it is perhaps worth pointing out to your Lordships that even in really bad years on the railways 400 people killed by moving vehicles is the most, and 7,000 injured, a mere fraction, a twelfth of the people killed and a twentieth of the people injured by motors. That includes all sorts of operations, such as shunting and so on, which are really not comparable to anything that motors have to do. It is a very much smaller matter, but it is worth mentioning to your Lordships, that in addition to the number of human beings injured there is an enormous unknown tale of dogs and other animals killed. I do not say that the slaughter of a favourite dog is comparable to injury to a human being, but if it happens to have occurred to any of your Lordships' dogs, I think you will agree that it is not a negligible addition to the grievance which the people of this country feel.
It is not only the injuries, but in effect the free use of the road is denied now to a great section of the subjects of His Majesty the King. The infirm, the old, and children, if they use the roads at all, use them with miserable precautions. It is really almost pathetic to see the children cowering into ditches when a motor passes, no doubt continually warned by their parents of the grave danger which they are running. Not

529
only the pedestrians but all prudent motorists have an equal grievance, for a very large proportion of these accidents are not to pedestrians but to other motorists.
I hope I am not expressing myself too strongly for your Lordships, but it is astonishing that in this state of things so little has been done so far to remedy it. The facts are absolutely notorious. They are taken for the most part from official papers published by the Government. Little, or very little, or nothing has yet been done, certainly nothing effective has been done to diminish the evil. It is true that the Government have drafted a Bill and at a later stage I may have to refer to the clauses of that Bill. But the Bill has not yet been introduced into either House of Parliament. It has only been printed and published. It is true that a few speeches have been made by Ministers of the Crown; but as reported—of course I cannot tell whether they are accurately and completely reported—they consist for the most part of admonitions to pedestrians to be more careful. It is very much to be desired that pedestrians and everybody else should use the roads with care and caution; but, after all, the carelessness of pedestrians is no excuse for the motorist. The motorist knows the kind of people who use the roads and it is his business to take care that they are not injured or killed even if they are careless. After all, you have no right to kill a man because he walks across the road carelessly or confusedly, which is the phrase I see used in this matter.
It may be said that admitting that there is a grave evil—and I do not see how that can be denied—can it be cured? I venture to submit to your Lordships that it can without doubt be very greatly alleviated. I have seen figures, which I believe to be accurate, which show that the state of things in the United States and in Canada is far less serious than it is here. I do not know the number of motor cars in Canada, but it is very considerable. In the United States it is enormous. I believe that out of 27 million motor cars in the world 22 million are in the United States, yet the proportion of people killed to each thousand motors is far less.
LORD NEWTON: Oh, no.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Far less; I have the figure.
LORD NEWTON: For which year?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I think the year is 1926 or 1927. I have the whole graph in this paper of Colonel Pickard. I am much obliged to my noble friend Lord Newton for having challenged it. Here is the graph. In the year 1914 the death rate per thousand motors was about the same as it is here. Since that date it has steadily gone down. It was then 2.5 persons killed per thousand motors. In England it is 2.44 now. It went steadily down since then and it is now one person killed per thousand motors. In Canada it is one person per two thousand motors, so that it is two and a half times as dangerous here as it in the United States, and it is five times as dangerous as it is in Canada. Those are the facts taken from the official reports of the Government of the United States and Canada, so I understand, though I cannot pretend to have verified the sources from which Colonel Pickard derives his information.
That is not the only thing. It may be said that conditions in different countries are different and you cannot compare one country with another. There is a very interesting fact about our own country, which I think calls for the attention of your Lordships' House. If you look at the returns from the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis—even my noble friend Lord Newton will not dispute this—you will see that one of the vehicles which is almost free from blame is the taxicab. The private motor car and the commercial motor car are the chief offenders. There are a good many accidents caused by public service vehicles, but the taxicab, though it does cause a certain number, causes very few indeed. I see that in one recent year actually there were fewer people killed by taxicabs than by pedal bicycles. That, to my mind, is a very striking fact.
What are the principal distinctions between the taxicab and the ordinary private car, the principal mechanical and other distinctions? In the first place it is a very light vehicle. In the second place it is not very fast. The engine power is generally low and it cannot go very fast. In the third place, it turns with great rapidity. No doubt that has some, but I do not think much influence. In the

531
fourth place, being light and not going very fast, and having strong brakes, it can be stopped with great rapidity. I believe that to be the most important single engineering factor in its relative safety. In addition to that, the driver of every taxicab is examined. Before he is allowed to drive he has to pass an examination as a competent driver. I do not know whether it is a strict examination, but I understand he has to pass an examination. He also, of course, has to know the ordinary rules of the road and things of that kind, and, above all, there is this peculiarity about his case—if he drives recklessly and that is brought home to him his licence will probably be taken away from him. That is a very important matter for him and one which I venture to commend very closely to your Lordships' attention. I believe it is the great reason why on the whole taxicabs are driven with caution and skill.
That is the broad case for the Bill—I do not say for every detail of the Bill, but for a Bill of this kind. It is right that I should explain to your Lordships the provisions which I have included in this Bill and which I am prepared to defend. In the first place, under Clause 1 no one is to be permitted to drive without a licence—that is of course the case now—and the licence is not to be issued until the road authority, which I have taken to be the county council, has been satisfied, first, as to the physical fitness of the driver. There is not a very large number of accidents due to want of physical fitness, but one does occur occasionally. Somebody who is quite unfit to drive does so and an accident occurs. A certain number of people have been killed in that way. Secondly, there is to be some test of his skill. As to the physical fitness it will probably be sufficient to have a statement from himself, or at any rate a statement from a doctor that he is physically fit. As to his skill, it is suggested in the Bill that the Government might be prepared to accept some certificate from authorised clubs and associations who might be prepared to say that they were satisfied the applicant has sufficient skill to drive a car. Of course, provisions are made with respect to people who are already driving.
Thirdly, he must show that he has adequate knowledge. I believe one of the causes of the accidents—it is difficult
532
to say how many of the accidents—is want of knowledge of and adherence to the ordinary rules of the road—driving on the wrong side, passing people going round curves, and things of that kind, which no person who knew anything about it would venture to do. I was speaking to an experienced motorist who told me that it constantly happened that cars of much less power than his would pass him under conditions which were highly dangerous and when he got into the open country where he could go faster—I do not know if I should agree with him as to this—he was able to outdistance them quite easily. That kind of thing is a very serious matter. It is due apparently to recklessness and partly, I am satisfied, simply to pure ignorance of people who do not know what they ought to do. I think a very short examination would be able to show them what they ought to do.
In connection with that, I suggest that the Ministry ought to lay down the principal rules for the guidance of people driving along the public road in very much the same way as the Board of Trade has laid down rules for the guidance of shipping at sea. Of course, they would be very different rules—I am not suggesting that the same rules would do—but I believe that the rules for preventing collisions at sea have been very useful for preventing them, and that a series of rules as to proper behaviour on roads would be very useful for preventing accidents on the roads. I have even gone so far as to suggest in the Schedule of the Bill the kind of rules I have in mind, not as complete—I do not pretend to be in a position to lay down complete rules of that kind—but as an illustration of the kind of things that I have in my mind, and to suggest that the Ministry should be given authority to extend and modify those rules as they should be advised is right. I believe an examination of that kind would be of positive and direct value, but I attach even more importance to its indirect value.
I think, owing to a variety of circumstances, we have got into this position. There are a number of people who drive cars who do not seem to have any sense of responsibility at all. They do not really recognise that they are under any duty to show prudence in command of a vehicle weighing—I do not know what

533
these cars run to—I imagine tons, and going at a tremendous speed, the speed of an express train. Of course, the least touch to any living person will inflict a fearful injury, if it does not kill him outright. Therefore, it requires the utmost care, the utmost sense of responsibility in driving these very dangerous vehicles—dangerous, that is, to others. I believe that if they had to go through an examination and the rules of the road were pointed out to them, the indirect psychological effect would be of immense value, quite apart from the indirect effect of greater competence for the drivers. That is the first provision.
Then I come to the extremely difficult question—I quite admit it is an extremely difficult question—about the speed limit. I believe every one of your Lordships will agree that the present position is most unsatisfactory. The present position with regard to the speed limit on roads is really a very serious scandal to this country, You have a law—technically, I suppose, a criminal law—which nobody who drives a motor car thinks of obeying. That is the literal truth. I doubt whether there is any driver of a private car who thinks of not going more than twenty miles an hour. I should be very much surprised to hear of one unless he had a very old and infirm car. Here is the law that no car shall go more than twenty miles an hour and you see advertised all over the country that particular cars will go forty, fifty, sixty, eighty, or even 100 miles an hour. I have even seen a car advertised to go 120 miles an hour. It is a supreme outrage that such a state of things should be allowed to continue for an hour.
I was told—I admit this is gossip and it may not be true—that even the police recognise that there is no hope of getting the law as it stands enforced, and there is a standing order by many police authorities that the police are not to interfere with a car unless it goes more than thirty-five miles an hour, or, in a ten-mile an hour speed limit area, more than twenty-five miles an hour. I do not know whether that is true, but I was positively assured that it was so. At any rate it is perfectly notorious that the law is not obeyed. Again, I think that that state of things is psychologically simply disastrous. It makes the motorist despise the whole thing. He says:
534
"Here is a ridiculous law which nobody obeys, which nobody thinks of obeying, and which practically is never enforced. Why should I obey any of the laws? I do not care a brass farthing about the lot. I shall drive as I think right." And that is too often the temperament you meet among motorists, not all motorists of course but a large proportion, and the kind of people who produce the accidents.
I know we are accustomed sometimes to hear in this House and elsewhere expressions of regret that in the United States the Prohibition Laws are constantly evaded. I have heard observations to the effect that whatever may be thought about Prohibition nothing can be worse than having a law which is not obeyed. But we have, in this country, in the speed law a much more striking instance of a law which exists and which nobody thinks of obeying. I believe that it is an extremely bad thing, not only for motorists, not only for their victims, but for the whole conception of the sanctity of law in this country. If anything could make the thing worse it is the system, which I believe is being abandoned, of police traps. It is as bad a system as you could possibly devise when you select a section of road not remarkable because it is dangerous but often remarkable because it is safe, and arrest a certain number, selected haphazard, of the motorists who go along the road and who do not happen to have been warned of the police trap. It is the worst way of enforcing the law, purely arbitrary, fortuitous and uncertain, the very way to get the law despised and disobeyed.
I venture to think that if you are to maintain the speed limit at all you must devise some new system by which that speed limit will be observed. If your Lordships should be of opinion and Parliament should be of opinion that it is better not to have a speed limit I understand that, but if you are going to have one at all you must have one which can be enforced. It is in reference to that that I have ventured to bring these proposals before your Lordships. I propose in the first place that the speed limit of twenty miles an hour should be repealed, and that in its place there should be a speed limit enacted or decreed or regulated for each particular

535
class of motor by the Ministry, and that cars should be so constructed that they cannot exceed that limit from an engineering point of view. I am quite willing to admit that that proposal has objections. I am aware of them and if your Lordships should be good enough to read this Bill a second time and we get into Committee, it is a matter on which I should hope your Lordships would be able to make and discuss suggestions of a very valuable and important character. But I venture to submit it to your Lordships as the alternative to the present disgraceful state of things. Another possible method has been suggested to me—that you might have connected with the speedometer which you find on many cars, if not on all, a larger dial which would be visible from the outside and would show the actual pace at which the car was going. I think that would be better than the present state of things but I cannot pretend that I think it would be a very satisfactory solution.
In connection with this I come to another provision, which I notice my noble friend Lord Denman, who has put down a Motion for the rejection of the Bill, singles out for objection in an interview which he gave to the Press. Your Lordships will find the provision in Clause 6 of the Bill and perhaps I had better read it in order to avoid any misunderstanding:—
"Any highway authority may, with the approval of the Minister, make, across any section of a public highway which is in their opinion dangerous or upon which accidents to pedestrians or vehicles are in their opinion specially liable or likely to occur, such alteration in the level or surface of the road as will make it impossible for any vehicle to be driven over it at an excessive speed."
Your Lordships will understand exactly what I have in mind. It is that some slight depression should be made in the road, not sufficient to interfere with cars going at a reasonable speed of ten or fifteen miles an hour, or whatever may be reasonable in the circumstances on that particular bit of road, but which would be a very serious inconvenience, to put it mildly, to cars going fast and perhaps even more than that if they were going very fast.
There is nothing new about that idea. I believe in France it is quite common
536
to find—for other purposes, I admit—ditches made across the road, and there is a well-known road sign which is erected by the sides of French roads warning motorists that they will come to such a ditch. That, of course, is rather a haphazard way of doing things, particularly as it is not designed to deal with particular road difficulties and also because it is not a standardised ditch so that motorists can know what they are going to meet. But it is the same kind of thing, and I do not believe it produces serious inconvenience. In our country you find something of the same kind of thing in level crossings, where every motorist who values his car will drive prudently or, if he does not, will find great inconvenience to himself and the springs of his car.
The conception that underlies these two clauses, the speed limit clause and this clause, is that there is a speed beyond which in a crowded country like this no car ought to go on any road. It may be not always the same speed from year to year. It certainly is difficult to lay down one speed which is applicable all over the country. But I think there is one, and I do not think that motorists ought to exceed that speed wherever they are or in whatever circumstances they may be. But, in addition, and this is the really important thing from the point of view of speed, it is of the utmost importance that there should be no speed which, in the circumstances of the particular road and the particular conditions, is excessive. It must evidently be a much lower speed than the maximum speed for the whole country. I do not believe any one who looks at the statistics will doubt that driving at an excessive speed in that sense, excessive in the circumstances, is the cause of an immense proportion of the accidents. In the paper to which I have referred I find that inquiries were addressed, I believe through the Safety First Association, to a large number of coroners throughout the country as to what they had found in reference to fatal motor accidents, and returns were obtained regarding some 600 cases. Of those 600 cases, 100 were thought to be due primarily to excessive speed in the circumstances—the very considerable proportion of 16 per cent. In addition, from 300 to 350 were said to be due to careless or confused crossing by the unhappy

537
pedestrian. I am not surprised that he is confused in the circumstances. At any rate, 300 or 350 of these unhappy, careless or confused persons, some of them children and some adults, were killed in consequence of their carelessness or confusion.
I am satisfied in my own mind, though I admit that I cannot prove it, that in a very large proportion of those cases, though from the point of view of the coroner the principal cause may have been the carelessness of the pedestrian, a contributory cause was that, when the accident became imminent, the motorist was going so fast that he could not pull up. I am satisfied that, if you examine the full history of a great number of other cases, you will find the same thing—that it is excessive speed, in the sense of speed excessive in the circumstances, that is probably the greatest single cause of fatal and other accidents in this country. This is very much borne out by an interesting little fact to be found in the same return. It is said that four-fifths of the accidents took place, not on roads that were very crowded with traffic, but on roads on which there was not very much traffic. What does that mean? It means that where the road is crowded motorists cannot go very fast and, if an accident becomes imminent, the car can be stopped before the accident occurs, while on roads on which there is not a great deal of traffic the driver can go at such a speed that he is unable to stop when an accident becomes imminent. I think that this is the explanation of a very striking fact, and probably it is for the same reason, partly if not altogether, that more than four-fifths of the accidents take place during the daytime, when high speeds are much easier than at night. It is for that reason that I attach enormous importance to the proposal that we should be able so to change the surface of the roads at particular places that it is impossible to drive faster than is reasonably safe at those places.
There are a number of other provisions with which I need not trouble your Lordships. The proposed licensing of cars, which is linked up with the proposal for the speed limit, would also, of course, enable other things to be in-
538
sisted upon with regard to those cars, but possibly a good deal of this could be done under existing legislation. But there are two points that I should like to mention to your Lordships. One is that, under Clause 4, it is proposed that any applicant for a licence shall show that he is insured against what are called third party risks, and he is not to drive unless he is so insured. That is to meet the very real hardship that constantly occurs when a wretched man is disabled or killed and those who are entitled to compensation find, when they sue the driver, that he is a man of no means and that they are unable to recover any compensation at all. This is a very serious evil, which I think calls for a. remedy. I know that there are objections to it on the ground that it would make people still more careless, knowing that they are insured, but I think this objection is met by the fact that insurance companies will take very good care not to insure people who are known to be careless and you will get greater control over them than you have at present, just as in marine insurance care is taken not to insure captains who are known to be reckless or criminal.
The other provision to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention is that, in the case of any one who, to put it broadly, is found guilty of dangerous driving, the court shall suspend his licence for three months, unless in the particular circumstances of the case the court finds that for particular reasons the licence ought not to be suspended. I attach enormous importance to that provision, or to something like it. The details are capable of modification, but the principle is important, because to fine these people is usually useless. Many of them are wealthy, and in any case the imposition of a fine of a few pounds is not going to be a very serious deterrent. There is great difficulty in sending them to prison. I speak in the presence of those far more familiar with the administration of the law than I can pretend to lie as things now are, but I believe they will bear me out when I say that courts are very reluctant to send to prison motordrivers who have been guilty, as the vast majority of them are, not of wickedness but of carelessness. When it comes to the point, you may rage as much as you like against the motorist outside of the

539
court but, when the man is in whatever answers to the dock, it is proved that he is a very good fellow, a perfect character and all the rest of it, that he was careless, no doubt, on that particular occasion, even negligent, if you like, but not criminally negligent.
I took a little cutting from the charge of a learned Judge the other day. Mr. Justice Rowlatt said that a man was answerable civilly in damages for any neglect which caused injury to another, although it might be a mere error of judgment or want of skill, but to make a man criminally responsible there must be some moral delinquency. The occasion of this was a case of manslaughter, and I assume, of course, that the statement of the law was correct. The feeling that underlies the provisions of the law with regard to criminal negligence and manslaughter pervades all our ways of looking at the administration of criminal justice, and the result is that you cannot get Judges or jury to send motorists to prison. I am bound to admit that I share their views. I think that in the vast majority of cases it would be an improper penalty. You can easily imagine cases where the thing got so bad, that the man ought to go to prison, but in the majority of cases it is not so.
On the other hand, everybody will feel that it is right that a man who is incapable of managing a car with safety to other users of the highway ought not to go on driving a car. That is elementary justice and, unless there is some special circumstance, his licence ought to be suspended. I have put the suspension at three months in the first instance, and more later, but the details, of course, are a matter for discussion. I believe that suspension of the licence would be a very effective remedy, and the only effective remedy, against negligent and careless driving causing danger to the other users of the highway.
I am sorry to have detained your Lordships so long on this matter, to which I attach enormous importance. I was anxious to lay the full case, so far as I am capable of laying it, before your Lordships. I am not asking you for approval of every detail of this Bill, but I am asking you to approve its principle. That is the only thing that is in issue on the Second Reading. If your Lordships ap-
540
prove the principle, and the Bill goes to Committee and the details are modified or not modified, as the case may be, then, when it comes up for Third Reading, your Lordships will have to say whether the Bill as it stands ought to be put on to the Statute Book; but at this stage I venture to submit that the only issue is: Ought there to be a Bill of this kind, ought something of this nature to be put upon the Statute Book? What is the principle of the Bill? I submit that it rests on three broad propositions. The first is that there is a grave and growing evil. I do not think that anyone will doubt, after hearing the figures that I have ventured to lay before your Lordships, that this is a very serious matter—a matter far more serious than many that are dealt with by legislation in this House and the other House of Parliament. The question where 5,000 lives a year and 150,000 injuries are concerned, is a very serious matter. I need not labour that. The second proposition is that it is remediable. The figures to which I have ventured to call your Lordships' attention in reference to the United States and Canada, and the striking facts about taxicabs, do show that by proper regulation you can very greatly ameliorate the present evils of the road traffic. Thirdly, and I think this is involved in the second, the proposition is that that remedy can be applied by Act of Parliament.
Those are the principles—a growing evil remediable by Act of Parliament—and I venture to submit, if you are of opinion that that is so, that there are suggestions in this Bill (I will not put it higher than that) which are worthy of close and careful examination by your Lordships in Committee—then I submit your Lordships' proper course is to adopt the Second Reading and allow the Bill to be examined. I have tried, I do not know whether successfully, to state my case with moderation and to avoid any strong language. I think it is necessary to do that in debate in your Lordships' House, but I must be allowed to say in conclusion that it does seem to me that this is an evil which ought to be dealt with, and that it is, without exaggeration, at present an outrage on humanity and a disgrace to our civilisation. I do not think that those words are too strong. For those reasons I ask your Lordships

541
to read the Bill a second time. I beg to move accordingly.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
LORD DENMAN LORD DENMAN, who had given Notice to move, as an Amendment, That the Bill be read 2a this day six months, said: My Lords, the main idea that I understand runs through the clauses of the Bill of the noble Viscount is to diminish the number of accidents which take place on the road every day, and to make the road a safer place than it is to-day for pedestrians, motorists and other users of the King's highway. That is an object which will command general sympathy, but when we come to examine in detail the proposals whereby the noble Viscount seeks to achieve his purpose, we are bound to dissent from some of them and I think, perhaps, from the majority of them. I trust that the eloquence of the noble Viscount, and the air of sweet reasonableness with which he has explained the provisions of his Bill, will not disguise from your Lordships the very drastic nature of some of his proposals. So far as I have been able to ascertain, this Bill is certainly regarded with scant favour by the motoring public of this country, and I am authorised by certain motoring societies, notably, the Automobile Association, whose network of scouts all over the country has prevented so many accidents, the Motor Legislation Committee, the Society of Motor Manufacturers, and other societies in England and Scotland, to state that they are opposed to its main provisions. I particularly regret the absence this afternoon of my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, who is a recognised authority on the question of road transport. My noble friend has asked me to say that illness alone has prevented him from being in his place to oppose the provisions of the Bill.
Before I endeavour to state the main objection of the societies for which I speak to this Bill, I would like to indicate the points on which I find myself in agreement with the noble Viscount. In the first place, I agree with him that the penalties for dangerous driving should be far more severe than they are to-day, and I do not think you will find that the average motorist will dissent from that proposition. There should be
542
a drastic stiffening-up of the law with regard to dangerous driving on the roads of this country. Another point on which I am in agreement, at all events in principle, with the noble Viscount, is in Clause 1 of the Bill. I think it is desirable that some check should be placed on the issue of licences to people suffering from certain physical defects. The proposal in the Bill is, I think, for a medical examination. I think there is a simpler and better plan, and that is that every applicant for a licence should make a declaration as to whether or not he is suffering from certain physical disabilities. He would have to sign a form every year when he applies for his licence, and there should, I think, be severe penalties for making a false statement in this regard. I think I am right in saying that that is the proposal which the, Government placed in their last year's Traffic Bill. The objection which I see to a medical examination is the great expense that it would entail. I think over two million licences are issued yearly, and I assume that that would mean two million medical examinations. That, no doubt, would be welcomed by the medical profession, but I think the expense would bear hardly either upon the motorist or the public.
Now I come to another point, that of the driving test. At first sight it may seem desirable that every applicant for a licence should undergo a test as to his skill in driving. Of course, the object here is to reduce the number of accidents on the road, and I am not quite sure that this would do so. I do not think that the beginner is the cause of many accidents on the roads. I think far more accidents are caused by the skilful driver, who gets into a tight place and relies on his skill to get him out, and sometimes fails to do so. The noble Viscount alluded to two classes of driver in the London area who undergo tests in driving. They are the London omnibus driver and the taxicab driver. In my humble opinion the London omnibus driver is quite the best driver on the road to-day. He is skilful, courteous and considerate of other users of the road. The noble Viscount produced figures to prove that the taxicab driver is also a very cautious driver. I occasionally drive a car in London, and I cannot say that that is always my experience. Frequently I have been driving round the Queen Victoria Memorial

543
at Buckingham Palace at what I consider a moderate speed and have been passed by taxicab drivers driving at certainly twice the pace. I agree that taxicab drivers are very skilful, but I should not take them as good examples of considerate driving as a result of having passed the driving test.
In this connection, we are fortunate in having the experience which obtains in France. As you know, in France there is a test, and a fairly strict test, for every driver on the road, but I believe I am right in saying that there are more accidents per thousand cars on the French roads than there are on the English roads. I have driven in France myself, and I have seen far worse cases of dangerous driving there than I have in this country. I know that I feel less secure in this respect in driving on roads in France than I do in driving on the English roads. Then you have to consider the expense and the number of officials who will be required under this clause. I believe it to be the case that independent Committees appointed by the Government or some Department have inquired into this question and have reported against the proposal. I understand that the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, is going to reply for the Government, and perhaps he might be able to give the House some information on that point. Though, no doubt, there are advantages in this driving test, on the whole I think the balance of advantage is in favour of the law as it stands to-day.
Now I come to Clause 3, which I will say at once I regard as one of the worst provisions of the Bill. This clause seeks to place a mechanical check on motor vehicles, so that they cannot go beyond a certain maximum speed. I am advised by the technical adviser of the Automobile Association that it is impracticable to fit a petrol motor with a reliable device limiting the speed to a low maximum rate, but any such device, if practicable, could very easily be tampered with by any mechanic. Supposing that it were possible to fix such a device, what would happen? Let us take the case of a driver of a motor coach or char-a-bancs—and in my view there are some parts of England where this class of vehicle constitutes a very real danger on the road. They are sometimes tied down by a time-
544
table, and have to make up speed, and they do go far too fast on certain stretches of road. Supposing you have a control on the engine of such a vehicle: I see nothing to prevent the driver letting his clutch out at the top of a hill, putting his car out of gear and coasting down the hill, going down much faster than he ought to travel in order to make up time. That would be an almost certain cause of accidents.
I believe that motor manufacturers are entirely opposed to this particular provision of the Bill. I asked the opinion of a well-known manufacturer, Mr. Morris, who has built up a big industry in the last few years in light cars in this country. The point I particularly put to him was this: supposing this Bill were carried what would be the effect on the export trade, which we hope may one day be developed, from this country to the Dominions and to foreign countries? Mr. Morris writes me in these terms:—
"Both I and other British manufacturers are struggling hard to create employment by building up in face of the difficulties of the horse-power tax and other burdens an export trade in motor vehicles, where throughout the Empire we are faced with the competition and resources of the United States."
And he adds this:—
"I can imagine no better method of stifling our export trade in motor vehicles than to impose such a restriction as Viscount Cecil suggests, nor a better means of yet further aggravating the national problem of unemployment in one of the essential industries of the country."
That the Legislature, and especially this branch of the Legislature, should hamper British traders in an endeavour to develop an export trade to our Dominions is really an unthinkable proposition.
Now let me say a few words with regard to the question of speed. I think there is a fallacy underlying several of the clauses of this Bill, and it is this, that high speed is the main cause of accidents on the road. In my view traffic congestion is a more prolific cause. I think statistics show that in London, at all events, the highest percentage of accidents take place at from five to ten miles an hour. That is shown by a Return issued by the Ministry. Your Lordships, no doubt, realise what a very serious problem is presented by traffic congestion to-day. Those of you whose business takes you into the City on a

545
week-day know from experience what traffic congestion in the City is like, and at the week-end, on Saturdays and Sundays, when large numbers of cars go down to the coast in the South of England, the traffic congestion becomes a very serious matter indeed. There are few bridges—too few, I think, in proportion to the volume of the traffic with which they have to deal, and these are narrow. I will take Putney Bridge as an example. I think the roadway is ten yards wide and the approaches had at either end. Into this kind of bottle-neck thousands of motor vehicles pour during the week-end and go very slowly, because they have to cross the bridge and somehow disentangle themselves from the traffic block on the other side. I suggest that this is a very serious cause of accidents, and for my part I think it is really unfortunate that the life of this Parliament is coming to an end without, so far as I know, any attempt being made to deal with this matter, or to pass into law the Road Traffic Bill which was printed by the Government last year.
To go back to the provisions of the Bill, I hope I may have convinced some of your Lordships that the mechanical check proposed in Clause 3 is really an impossible suggestion, and, if that be so, I would ask you to refer to Clause 2 (3) which I will read:—
"The Minister may make regulations prescribing the maximum rate of speed at which a mechanically propelled vehicle may be driven on a public highway, and may prescribe different maximum rates of speed in respect of different mechanically propelled vehicles or types of mechanically propelled vehicles, and may prescribe different maximum rates of speed beyond which any mechanically propelled vehicle may not be driven on different roads or portions of roads."
I take it that the meaning of that subsection is that there is to be a different rate of speed for different kinds of vehicles—for the motor omnibus, the motor lorry, the motor chars-a-bancs, the large car, the two-seater car and other kinds of car. If that is so, I confess that I am sorry for the men in a garage who have to bear in mind all these different rates of speed.
The noble Viscount has said that he is not in favour of the system of police traps. If a mechanical check is im-
546
possible, I do not know how you are to regulate all these different rates of speed except by police traps. With regard to those traps I should like to say that motorists owe it to the Minister that the law is interpreted in a more reasonable way than was the case only a short time ago. The rates in localities along main roads are no longer paid out of fines inflicted upon motorists, but the ratepayers pay the rates themselves. If I read this clause correctly, the result would be enormously to increase the number or the setting up of a new system of motor traps all over the country. That, I think, would be the inevitable result of this particular provision in the Bill.
Clause 4 deals with insurance against third party risks, and the noble Viscount spoke in favour of such insurance. Everybody agrees, I think, that there is certainly a strong case to be made for that. But there is an objection, and I do not think it is met in the clause as it stands. It is easy to say that all motorists shall be insured against third party risks. Most prudent motorists are, I think, already so insured; but I see this objection to the clause as it stands. There is nothing in the law to compel insurance companies to insure risks which they do not want. Under this provision insurance companies might be placed in a position almost of monopoly and might be able to demand unduly high premiums from the motorist. There is, of course, the further possibility that the Government should step in behind the insurance companies; but that would be a form of national insurance which would raise very large questions and it is not the proposal in the Bill. It is, I think, a very real objection to the clause, but I do not see how you can compel insurance companies to take risks. There are whole classes of cases, like motor cyclists for example, that insurance companies do not like to take, and I do not see how you can compel them to take such cases if they do not wish to do so.
I would say only a few words about Clause 6, which is, I think, a very unusual proposal. The noble Viscount seeks to break up the really excellent surface of our roads and to make depressions in order to slow up the speed of traffic at those points. That, I think, might be

547
very hard on horse-drawn traffic in frost or snow; I do not know whether the noble Viscount has considered that. I think, too, it would be within the bounds of possibility that some means could be devised by motor mechanics, some patent shock absorber, which would enable the car to ride faster over these depressions in the roads. The noble Viscount says in the Memorandum to the Bill that in other countries, I presume he means in France, these depressions are placed in the roads without serious inconvenience to the users of the roads. If the noble Viscount had heard, as I have heard, the observations of English motorists whose back axles have been smashed by these particular devices I do not think he would have committed himself to that exact statement. And I think I am right in saying that the policy of the French Government is to do away with these channels upon their main roads.
I would summarize in a sentence my main objections to this Bill. I believe that it would increase rather than decrease the accidents on the roads; that it would do nothing to remedy traffic congestion; that it would set up a new Army of officials and thereby involve great expenditure; that it would not clarify the law as the noble Viscount desires but would add to the already existing complication and confusion; and that it would hamper manufacturers at home and possibly cripple them in their endeavour to develop an export trade abroad. For those reasons I ask your Lordships to reject this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and at end of the Motion insert ("this day six months).—(Lord Denman.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I regret to say that I dissent from my noble friend Lord Denman. I should have concealed my disagreement were it not for the fact that I feel very strongly about the value of the service which the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, has rendered in bringing this matter before your Lordships' House. The main purpose of this Bill is to secure as far as possible the comfort and the safety of pedestrians. I suppose there is hardly a member of your Lordships' House who does not own a motor car. Surely, therefore, this of all assemblies ought to be
548
the body most anxious to secure the comfort of those who do not. There can be no doubt that there has been a growing tendency seriously to interfere with established common law rights possessed by people who use the King's highway. I would beg your Lordships to bear in mind that for the ordinary man there is only one place, apart from public spaces, where by law he is entitled to be. That is the King's highway, and along that every one has an equal right to travel. Everyone has an equal right to use it. The idea which seems to have possessed motor car people, that they are entitled to a monopoly of the road and that all pedestrians have to scurry out of their way like black beetles avoiding a broom, is a complete perversion of the law.
The motor car driver is exactly as much bound to consider the comfort and convenience of the person on foot as the person on foot is bound to consider the convenience of the motor car driver. A noble friend behind me says "Hear, hear." Go into any one of our London roads and see if that consideration is given! Cross the road on foot and see how many of the cars will expect you to get out of their way instead of you expecting them to get out of yours. Yet that is what you are entitled to demand. I can tell you one or two instances in my own experience. I nearly always travel on foot, because I prefer that form of locomotion to any that has ever been devised, and when I travel in a motor car I do it for the same reason for which I travel in the Tube, not because I like it, but because I want to get from one spot to another. If I want to enjoy myself I walk, and I walk a great deal about London. Naturally, I am anxious as far as I can not to impede motor traffic. It is the rarest thing in the world to find a motor car that pays the least consideration to the passenger on foot.
I remember a time when it was very difficult for me to move and my infirmity was obvious to everybody. I was walking across the road just outside here and there was a block of motor cars held up by a policeman. He had not seen me or he would have held up the cars longer, but he thought he had held them up long enough and took down his arm. Did any one of the cars stop? Certainly not; they all advanced in a solid

549
phalanx without the least regard for me. I had to get out of their way as best I could. Had I liked I could have been run over and then explained that they had flagrantly defied my common law right to use the road. That is what they had done; that is what they do every hour and every minute of the day. I think this is a matter that needs very careful attention and that, whether by the express means the noble Viscount has proposed—and no one could be more fair and generous than he in saying they were all open to revision—or some other means, we ought to show that we are not going to permit the motor cars to take charge of this country and, having cut ugly black scars right through the whole face of a most beautiful country, which they call their new motor roads, to prevent us either from using those roads or any other road when they choose to drive down it.
The noble Viscount's Bill really depends upon four principles, any one of which can be accepted and considered without really offending any one of the arguments put forward by the noble Lord [Lord Denman]. He says there should be some qualification for the grant of a licence. He says there should be some regulation with regard to safety. He says there should be some provision with regard to insurance, and some regulation as to the character of the vehicle and the use of the road. Take those four broad general propositions: what can be the objection to them? Take the first. To-day any person can have a licence who likes to ask for it. He cannot ask for one if he is dumb, but he can get it if he is deaf, and I believe he can get one if he is blind. He may be subject to any form of infirmity, mental or physical, yet he is entitled to a licence which puts him in charge of a machine that, unless carefully controlled, moves at the hazard of the life and limb of other people. The extent of that hazard was well shown by the figures the noble Viscount quoted. Is it not only right that you should take some steps to see that the person to whom you grant a licence to do a dangerous thing is qualified to have charge of a dangerous vehicle? That is all the first provision asks; and, indeed, I did not gather from the noble Lord, Lord Denman, that he has any very real objection to that.
550
How the licence should be dealt with is another matter. I do not think these licences are suspended with nearly sufficient severity. I should make quite a different rule if a man were found drunk in charge of a motor car, an offence which I myself would punish unhesitatingly with imprisonment, subject only to this one thing; if it were shown that the man's weakness was due to some trouble that he had received during the War I would make that a special exception, but subject to that the man should go to gaol. What does happen? Let me again give you an illustration. At the back of my motor car, which I do not examine very carefully myself, a policeman, who must have had eyes like those referred to by Sam Weller in the celebrated trial, observed that the plate was a quarter of an inch or half an inch too small. Nobody had noticed it for two years, but that did not matter. I agree it was a technical breach and I make no complaint when I have broken the law, however innocently, of having to pay the penalty, and I paid the penalty for having a plate that served all the purposes which any plate ever could be devised to serve yet which none the less had not satisfied the mathematical measurements required. Be it so. I have forgotten whether it was the same day, but if it were not it was two or three days afterwards, a man was found guilty of having, while drunk, driven a motor car down the Edgware Road. What was the fine? Two pounds. Those are the facts.
It really is time that there should be established something which will prevent what I regard as a flagrant travesty of justice, and, I think also, a cruel indifference to the lives and safety or the people. If a man had gone down the Edgware Road firing off a pistol he would probably have been sent to gaol for six months, but the danger caused by driving while drunk down the Edgware Road in a motor car is far greater than merely firing off a pistol, and yet you can do that, apparently, for two pounds. As far as I can see there is nothing that enables the magistrate to interfere with you if, instead of being drunk, you are merely under the influence of drugs. You are much more dangerous, but you are not drunk. Nor can he touch you if

551
you are under the influence of drink and are not drunk. As everybody knows the definition of what is being drunk is an astonishingly difficult thing to establish. If a man can once prove he is not drunk, then, on the charge of being drunk in charge of a motor car, he is entitled to be acquitted. Surely that is a thing that ought to be put right. Those are the things covered by the regulations referred to by the noble Viscount.
Let us consider another matter. If any of you have driven down a road, say the Brighton Road, in the evening, you have been met by car after car with dazzling lights, absolutely unveiled, which leave you completely blinded and paralysed for seconds after they have passed. They can lower their lights if they please, but do they? You know they do not. I know they do not. I was only the other day in this condition. It happened to be the day of that very violent gale when travelling was difficult. I can assure your Lordships that there were only two cars—I counted them—of the numbers we passed that ever thought of veiling their lights when we went by. What is the result? The result is to be seen in what happened quite recently, as reported in the newspapers. A man driving a car at no greater speed than ten miles an hour was passed by one of these vehicles with blinding lamps. He was blinded and he drove into a man who was just in front of him and killed him. Whose fault was that? It was the fault of the man with the lights. I would beg your Lordships to remember that the men with those lights know the danger well enough. They are simply indifferent to the safety of the people who are using the road and a Bill like this is necessary to bring them to some knowledge of the duty they owe to the public.
The most rev. Prelate, the Bishop of Southwark, brought before your Lordships' House a little time back a Question with regard to the wholesale maiming of children in his area by the use of these cars. Anything done? You know perfectly well, unless you can establish severe regulations and have them severely enforced, the children in our streets are bound to be injured. Only the other day I heard of one man who had had two of his children run over by cars in the street. I know quite
552
well you say that they have no business to be there. Well, my Lords, the Government in its wisdom thinks it is not right to tell women how to control their families, and therefore they have to have babies, and when they have the babies in a little house fronting the street I ask you where are the children to play? Where are they to go? To what other place can they go except the street? And when they are in the street they are liable to be run over by cars. I know perfectly well that the noble Viscount does not agree with my views of what should be done in the case of these families, but that does not make my support of the Bill less sincere.
The complaint of the noble Lord, Lord Denman, really is that you are going to attempt to interfere with the mechanical construction of vehicles, but if you look at Clause 3 you will find that that provision is nothing but a subsection and could be excluded without affecting in the least degree the whole structure of this Bill. If you thought, and I am bound to say I think, that that is an undesirable proposal, it would be easy enough to take it out. It does not affect the main purpose of the Bill. It is ridiculous to wreck the Bill merely because there is a provision like that with which you disagree. So also as regards speed. I do not agree with the provisions as regards speed. What I think is that you should abolish speed limits altogether and substitute a strict provision against driving to the public danger, and one of the first and most important pieces of evidence should be the pace at which a man was travelling. That really seems to me to be the way in which the pace of motor cars should be regulated.
I do not quite agree either with making these depressions in the road, although I am bound to say I should be very glad to take some steps to bring home to these people who so flagrantly defy, not only the law but the safety and comfort of their fellow subjects, that if they drive at too great a pace it might lead to greater disadvantage than merely being shaken up. I agree that there is a great deal to be said also against the system of insurance. The system of insurance now protects a man against his own wrongful act. It is not a thing I like. If you are not to blame in an accident the insurance does not cover the result. It is

553
only if a man who is injured can recover from you that insurance may indemnify you against loss. I am not sure that I entirely approve of that, but that again is essentially a matter that should be discussed. So also with regard to the regulations with regard to noise, which I think of great importance. There really is no reason why cars should be allowed, very often in the early hours of the morning, to go racing down a road with all their exhausts cut out, making a din which wakes everyone whose room is adjacent to the main road. This is a Bill which I feel is full of really good and valuable provisions to do a thing which all of us must above all things desire to do, that is to avoid the use by rich people of their comforts and conveniences so as to interfere with the comforts and conveniences of the people who are poor.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I intend to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill although I do not approve of all the things in it. I would point out to the noble Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill that his speech really was a Committee speech dealing with Committee points, and that it did not really touch the question which is before us at the present moment, whether or not we should accept the principle that something must be done to prevent the enormous loss of life and injury to people which are occurring at the present time. I can bear out the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Buckmaster, as to the danger of walking in London streets at the present time. Like him, though perhaps for different reasons, I have been accustomed for some years to walk a good deal about London and I do it at the peril of my life. If there is one thing which adds to the danger it is one-way traffic. You get to a refuge when you wish to cross a street, you look round and you see cars coming up on one side but nothing on the other. You begin to cross and immediately somebody cuts in in front of the car you have seen, comes on the wrong side of his road and unless you are very active, which I unfortunately am not now owing to old age, you are knocked over and possibly killed.
What is the reason for these accidents? I have driven myself, I suppose for more than fifty years, with horses about London and about the country. Pedestrians are careless. Pedestrians will step
554
off the pavement without looking round. I saw that over and over again in days long before motors were invented or thought of. Why was it that they were not killed? It was because you were going then at such a pace that even if you did knock a man over the result would be probably that he would not be injured severely. It is the pace which is the cause of these accidents. You get a motor car weighing a ton or a ton-and-a half and going at thirty or forty miles an hour: it runs into something and what is the result? What you get is a very bad injury. And is there any necessity to go at thirty or forty miles an hour?
If you want to do that, why not patronise the Great Western Railway or some other excellent railway which will carry you at an excessive speed in very much greater comfort than going in a motor car. The real reason is that people have got into the habit of saying: "I want to go, say, thirty miles. To do it comfortably, without risk to myself and without any risk to other people, I ought to take an hour and a half." But for some reason, because they want to write a letter or to read a book or to look at a newspaper, they keep on waiting and waiting until they have only got about forty-five minutes. Then they say: "Very well, we must go at a greater pace."
As the noble Viscount said, manufacturers make motor cars which can go up to sixty miles an hour, and a man, having bought one of these cars at an enhanced price because it goes so fast, thinks he has a right to go at that pace. My own hope is that there may be some regulation which will prevent motor manufacturers making these cars. The noble Lord, Lord Denman, said that would interfere with the export trade. Are we going to sacrifice human life in order to gain a certain amount of money for certain people who want to export cars? I say that if it is necessary to export cars there is no reason why you should not make cars for exportation only. They could be exported, the maker would not lose his money and we should not suffer in following our legitimate business of walking to this House or going home after listening to the noble Lord this afternoon.

555
There is no reason why we should not vote for a Bill because we do not accept all the clauses of it. Personally, I believe the most dangerous motorist is the skilled driver. I have been myself, because I did not like to refuse, with a very skilled driver in London. It very nearly finished my life—perhaps I ought not to use the word—from fright. He was an extraordinarily skilled man, and knowing how well he could drive and what a fine car he had he ran the most extraordinary risks. I agree with an examination for physical fitness, but I do not believe that an examination for skill will have very much effect in decreasing accidents. The noble Lord said something about rules of the road. I used to have to learn something of the rules of the road in the days when I drove horses. One of the things that you have to learn is distance in passing—can you pass something that is going a little slower than you in time to avoid a collision with something coming the other way? You have to learn that. No examination will teach you that, and one of the causes of these accidents is that people do not understand distance. They want to pass and they pass when they ought not to do so. That is one of the reasons for the great number of accidents. Even then, if they were going slowly, nothing very much would happen. I sincerely hope that something will be done. When one comes to consider that 5,000 people were killed last year and 150,000 people injured—in round figures, 160,000 people killed and injured in one year—what would noble Lords opposite say if two countries went to war and they were told that 160,000 people had been killed and wounded? We should hear all sorts of stories about Geneva and the League of Nations and a variety of other things of that sort, and they would hold up their hands in horror at 160,000 people being killed and wounded. Yet they think nothing of it when it is happening in this country, and when we can stop it by some such Bill as that of the noble Viscount.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I hold no brief for the motor manufacturer, and still less, as I think your Lordships know, do I hold a brief for the reckless motorist, a person whom I have always consistently opposed. I listened, as did all your Lordships, with very great in-
556
terest to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster. With very large portions of it I found myself, as usual, in complete agreement, but with other portions, as is less usual when the noble and learned Lord speaks, I found myself in some disagreement. I should like to deal with one or two of those points.
First of all the noble and learned Lord made a great point about dimming headlights when you approach other cars. I think probably the noble Lord is not aware that this has been the subject of discussion for very many years, and that the conclusion at which those whom I think I may call experts in the subject have arrived is that it is far more dangerous to dim your headlights and then switch them on again than to keep your headlights on and to pass very slowly, watching your own side of the road. Of course it is perfectly true that the moment these dreadful headlights meet you you are dazzled. I sometimes drive at night, though as seldom as I can, and I have that experience. But it is really better than that you should be suddenly plunged into unexpected darkness in which you can see nothing at all. In the case which was quoted in which a pedestrian was run down because the driver had been passed by a car and had been dazzled, if he had kept sufficient illumination he would still have seen the pedestrian in spite of the headlights, provided he had slowed down when he was passing. I must say that for my own part, when I am met by these headlights, I always take what I think is the only safe course, get as close as I can to my own side of the road and go as slowly as possible until the glare has passed. I am sorry that this course is not universally adopted, but on the whole I believe that both the bodies that now advise motorists are convinced that it is a greater danger to dim your headlights than to keep them on in those circumstances. That, however, is a comparatively small point.
Then the noble and learned Lord, and I think also the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill, spoke about the necessity of stiffening the law. The true fact is, not so much that the law requires stiffening as that it requires administering. The law is quite sufficiently stiff now, if only the magistrates would administer it. The

557
noble Lord himself gave the instance of the drunken man driving down the Edgware Road. Your Lordships know that I took part some time ago in dealing with the question of the drunken driver and succeeded in getting an automatic penalty inflicted upon him, though this did not altogether meet with favour in all quarters. But what happens is that the majority of the London magistrates, very properly as I think, invariably give a man a month's hard labour for being drunk in charge of a motor car. That seems to me an eminently proper thing to do. What happens? If the man is able to appeal, he goes to Quarter Sessions and, almost without exception, they reduce the penalty to a fine of £5 or £10. Can you wonder that the magistrates get tired, as one of them has said publicly, of doing what they consider to be their duty, when they are corrected time after time by Quarter Sessions on appeal? It is not the law that is at fault, but the administration of the law. The penalties for dangerous driving are now very high. I am not sure that they do not even include imprisonment, as the law stands. But they are seldom sufficiently enforced.
Let me say on that point that I agreed entirely with the noble Lord who said that the licences of dangerous drivers ought to be suspended. That is in the noble Viscount's Bill. There is nothing which I think will more bring home to a man the fact that he has driven improperly than to be forbidden to go on the road with a car again. The noble Viscount suggests an automatic disqualification, a method as to which your Lordships were good enough by a small majority to agree with me in the case of the drunken driver. But there are great objections to this automatic disqualification. I think it is not too much to say that nearly all lawyers disagree on principle with not leaving the whole thing to the discretion of the magistrate, but I confess that I think that the penalties are now so much too small that I should be willing to see it adopted. I shall congratulate the noble Viscount if he succeeds in persuading the Home Office that it is the proper thing to do.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: May I be allowed to point out to my noble friend that I say that the magistrate, if he is quite sure that it ought not to be
558
done, will be entitled not to do it, but that he must then give his reasons?
EARL RUSSELL: The proposition of the noble Viscount does impose an extra duty of care upon the magistrate because, instead of the magistrate having to declare that the licence shall be suspended, he has to apply his mind and ask whether there is any reason why the licence should not be suspended. That is the effect of the Bill and I think it is so far to the good.
I should like to give your Lordships two examples of which I have personal knowledge. I took upon myself to report to the police a man against whom they took action. In a crowded street in London he was driving very fast and very well—the noble Lord opposite spoke of the skilled driver—and dodging in and out of the traffic, coming sometimes on one side and sometimes on the other, trying to get through where there was no room to pass. The police were good enough to take action against him, and the magistrate said—I do net blame him for it—that as there was only oath against oath he felt that it was not right to convict, and so the man escaped. There was another ease which perhaps may surprise your Lordships still more. I reported to the police a case of a motor lorry whose official speed was twelve miles an hour, which I followed on the road for two miles. It was going at forty miles an hour, swinging from side to side. This lorry weighed, I suppose, two tons, and I ask your Lordships to consider the sort of danger that it constituted to other users of the road. After the matter was laid before the Chief Constable, your Lordships may be surprised to hear that I received a reply that in the circumstances he did not think that an offence had been committed.
Your Lordships will agree that it is not the law that is at fault but the administration of the law. I have frequently said before—and I think it is only right to say it again, because it cannot be said too often—that in my view the whole reason for this is that attention from the beginning has been paid to speed limits and speed limits only, that the attention of the police has been concentrated on something which was comparatively unimportant and has been diverted from

559
that which was really important—namely, the manner of driving. Incidentally I should like to say that I do not agree with the noble Viscount that there is no road in this country upon which there ought not to be a limit of speed. There are roads upon Salisbury Plain and upon the Wiltshire Downs where you can see the road for half a mile ahead, where there are no hedges and you can see what is beside the road for a quarter of a mile on each side. The only danger that you can possibly cause with such a clear road is danger to yourself. There could be no danger there, at whatever speed the car goes, when there are no cross-roads, no hedges and nothing can possibly appear upon the road.
Much as I sympathise with the objects of the noble Viscount, I think that in this Bill he has gone rather too far. I think that he has proposed some provisions which will not be very successful. As to satisfying the licensing authority as to your fitness, I think it will be found a very difficult question for it is rather hard to know what they would require to be satisfied with. I think I am right in saying that your Lordships know, as I do, of one case of a man absolutely deaf who has been driving a car for years with perfect safety, because he is a very careful driver and uses reflecting mirrors. He has driven thousands of miles with perfect safety. I think I am also right in saying that more than one man, wounded in the War and deficient in either a leg or an arm, is able in a special car to drive with safety, although you can hardly say that he is physically fit. I doubt whether a prior examination will do any good—certainly not an examination as to skill. I believe that it is the reckless and over-confident driver, very often with a good deal of practice, who causes accidents.
Then I come to the remarkable provision about a mechanical device. Apparently the answer to that objection is that it can be left out of the Bill, but there it is, and so long as it remains in the Bill it seems to me that it is a quite unworkable Bill. It will cost a great deal to fit the device, and it will not be of any real safety because it can be easily tampered with. The same clause gives the Minister power to approve a type of vehicle. That will necessarily impose a considerable burden upon manu-
560
facturers. They want to make their own designs and to alter them from time to time, and if they are to be subjected to a kind of Scotland Yard inquiry, with all the official inquiry and delay which will be involved, it means that they must end by increasing the price of the car by a very considerable amount. In Clause 4 the noble Viscount has adopted a very favourite scheme of my own, as to compulsory insurance. I brought that before your Lordships two years, if not three years, ago, and I introduced a Bill for that purpose, and I am still of the opinion that every motorist ought to be compulsorily insured against third party risks.
I think it is really ridiculous to say that if a motorist is insured it is going to make him a reckless driver. If he has an accident he will lose the use of his car, and will have the discredit of having been in an accident, and will also have a certain amount of legal costs to pay; but the effect upon an innocent person who may be injured is really most disgraceful. A man takes one of these dangerous machines upon the road, drives recklessly, wad injures some third party, and then when he is cast in damages he cannot pay. When I brought this matter before your Lordships it was suggested that these cases were few in number. In fact the cases in which this happens are very large in number, but the interest which I took then in the subject, and the discussions which I had about it with those who are informed, satisfied me, as also apparently the noble Viscount, that there are difficulties which are quite considerable difficulties. I withdrew from any further attempt to carry out a scheme upon my own because I received an assurance that the Government were going to apply it to commercial vehicles. That was at least two years ago and the Government have done nothing.
The Roads Bill was first drafted and printed nearly three years ago, and really it is because the Government have neglected their duty of introducing the Roads Bill that we are having this discussion to-day. The situation is becoming increasingly acute, and it is obvious that individual members of this House have felt that they cannot wait for something to be done by the Government. One knows that it is impossible to hope

561
for anything to be done during the remainder of this Session, but I think the Government have been to blame for not having dealt with the matter in the time which they have had.
In Clause 5 we come to the regulations which may be made, and I think these are the regulations in the Schedule. These are all matters of detail, and I do not propose to go into them very much, but one of them, I think, concerns the white line. Your Lordships may remember that I suggested to the Minister of Transport some time ago that it would be of advantage if the official white line could be given statutory sanction, so that a man who disregarded it could be punished for dangerous driving. I am bound to say that, so far as my observations go, motorists do on the whole regard the white line, but not entirely, and at present there is no legal compulsion upon them to do so. I think it would be desirable if these white lines were made statutory, and that that would do a good deal to prevent accidents.
I do not know whether I really need discuss the noble Lord's suggestion of a dos ďâne such as they have in France though the noble Lord really proposes something more in the nature of a saucer trap. There are many objections, and one is that the condition of the traffic might vary at different times of the day. Take for instance the village of Stevening upon the great North Road. There is a very wide street there, and to drive through that street, say, at one a.m. at thirty-five miles an hour would not be a dangerous thing to do, but to drive through that same street at twenty-five miles an hour in the day time, when children might be coming out of school, would be an extremely dangerous thing to do. Yet you would have your saucer trap there all the time. I think it is impracticable, and I think your Lordships must recognise that here again attention requires to be diverted from the speed limit, and that if you station your policeman, or even two policemen, in the village, to summon any one who drives dangerously there, instead of hiding him behind hedges in the country—a practice which is dying out in nearly all the counties—you would do much more good than by this artificial means.
562
I do not like to have a law upon the Statute Book which is not enforced. The law says that twenty miles is the maximum speed at which a car shall go at any time, anywhere. I do not suppose that there is any noble Lord, or any magistrate sitting upon the bench, who has not broken, and does not continually break, that law. I should not like this country to get into the habit of having laws upon the Statute Rook and having them habitually disregarded. The time is long passed when the Government ought to have dealt with it, when our laws ought to be amended or enforced. With the penalties in the Bill I have already dealt, and I cannot help saying that I am in sympathy with nearly everything which the noble Viscount and Lord Denman have said, but I do not think really you ought to allow this Bill to go forward in this or anything like this form. Also, it is not a complete solution of the question. Many of the questions involved are difficult and in any case want thrashing out in Select Committee. This amendment of the law which is long overdue ought to be dealt with by the Government. It is perfectly obvious that even if we pass this Bill here nothing can be done this Session, and if we do not pass this Bill and the Government do not give facilities, then I think the Government must bear the responsibility for introducing some legislation, because the time is overdue by at least two years when this ought to have been done.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, I feel that at this stage of the debate you will wish to hear the views of the Government with reference to this Bill. I am not quite sure, after the speech which the noble Earl has just delivered, that there really is left much more for me to say, because I would urge upon the noble Viscount not to proceed with his Bill. The noble Earl, while he has supported the noble Viscount, has, I think, more or less torn the provisions of the Bill to shreds and tatters. My noble friend introduced his Bill with his usual eloquence, and it is a matter of great regret to me, because I have been associated with him for many years, that, although the occasions when I have had the opportunity of addressing your Lordships are comparatively few, I

563
have more than once found myself in opposition to him.
I do not disagree with him on principle, but rather on the practical method of carrying out the suggestions which he has put forward. If he had brought forward this question merely for the purpose of discussion I should have been fully in agreement with him, because I think it has been of great advantage to your Lordships to hear all the arguments which have been put forward on a problem which is so acutely exercising all our minds. I should like to say, in case any of your Lordships are not aware of it, that this is a matter to which the Government are fully alive and to which they are directing their attention very much at the present moment.
EARL RUSSELL: They have been doing that for three years.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Well, if the Government were to endeavour to pass all the measures which the noble Earl thinks we ought to pass we should reach the end of our lives before we could satisfy him. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, put forward his views in his usual forcible manner, and I think most of your Lordships must have agreed with him. We all know the motorists to whom he refers, and all of us would wish to see some regulations brought forward for controlling the activities of those who contribute very little to the good of the community. The noble Lord, Lord Denman, is fully qualified to speak on this question. He speaks for the various associations throughout the country which have considered this question, and which feel that this measure is not one which is really necessary, nor one which will carry out the objects which we desire. We all agree that a Bill dealing with motor traffic is necessary, but the view of the Government is that this particular Bill is not the one which is likely to conduce to the objects which we all have in view.
I would infinitely prefer to ask the noble Viscount to withdraw his Bill, and I will venture to put forward the reasons which I hope will persuade him that all that can be done at the present moment is being done. I think we must all agree that the regulation of motor traffic must be sympathetic rather than oppressive, and must not hinder the development of
564
a comparatively young and certainly a flourishing industry. The noble Lord who moved the rejection of the measure spoke of the export trade. That is a matter of considerable importance. We certainly wish to hold our own in this country in the motor industry, and we should be very wrong if we put on one side any endeavour on our part to develop that industry to the fullest extent, and in accordance with the necessary evolution of that industry. But I will put before your Lordships the reasons why the Government cannot accept this Bill. The first difficulty, which I know the noble Viscount will appreciate, is that unfortunately there is no time available to pass such a Bill. The Government have been far from inactive in this matter, and the draft Road Traffic Bill, to which the noble Earl opposite referred, has been in existence for some time.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: It has been considered by various authorities throughout the country. It is a very comprehensive Bill, and I believe my noble friend rather favours a small Bill in preference to a comprehensive Bill. But the subject is a wide and complicated one, and I feel that none of your Lordships would desire that we should have hurried or piecemeal legislation on this question. I am not sure whether your Lordships are aware that there is a Royal Commission sitting at the present time, considering all the points which have been put forward in this debate. They are investigating the whole problem of the regulation of motor vehicles and the co-ordination of all forms of road transport. They are fully considering all those measures dealt with in the Bill of my noble friend. A vast amount of evidence has already been taken on the many points which have been put forward in this debate, and the Government feel that it is undesirable to promote a Bill pending at least an Interim Report.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Is there going to be an Interim Report on the dangers of the road?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I cannot say that for the moment, but that is the intention of the Ministry of

565
Transport. Perhaps I might be allowed to go through the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 indicates a very elaborate, machinery for testing applicants for drivers' licences, for the provision of medical certificates, and for imposing tests of skill and of knowledge of the machine The noble. Viscount also speaks of instructors' licences, and adumbrates a provision for interim licences for persons learning to drive. All that involves most expensive machinery, and it also postulates an enormous body of officials. It is also very questionable whether examination of licences is ever very effective. But that whole matter is being considered very closely by the Royal Commission.
In Clause 2 the noble Viscount deals with speed limits. This is, of course, a very debatable point. Speed in itself, within reason, is not dangerous; speed at improper times is very dangerous. But speed, in so far as it makes a motor vehicle more handy, is also a considerable factor of safety. In Clause 3 the noble Viscount; deals with the examination of vehicles before they can be licensed. The cost of the machinery to examine 2,000,000 motor cars—and continually to examine the 2,000,000 motor cars—would be so great that this is a proposal which the Government cannot possibly favour. Your Lordships this afternoon have heard a good deal about mechanical governors for the speed of motor cars, and I am inclined to think that there is hardly any necessity for me to go very deeply into that matter. It seems to me to be a completely impracticable idea, besides being very expensive. Really it is a retrograde measure, and one which your Lordships, if you consider it carefully, will see could not be adopted. Speed is by no means the greatest factor in motor street accidents, and I will venture to trespass upon your Lordships' indulgence by quoting some figures which show conclusively that these accidents which we all deplore are not the result of excessive speed. In 1926, 20 per cent of the accidents occurred at a speed of from one to five miles per hour; 22 per cent of the accidents occurred at speeds ranging from ten to fifteen miles an hour, and the percentage of accidents at over twenty miles per hour was 4½. That shows that the bulk of the accidents are caused by
566
vehicles in traffic moving at a slow rate of speed.
LORD LAMINGTON: Are those accidents to pedestrians?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: When the accident actually occurs the car is not, of course going very fast.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Might I ask whether those are the statements of the motorists? It is my experience as, a magistrate that nobody ever does travel at more than fifteen or twenty miles an hour.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I am afraid I cannot follow my noble friend into that matter.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Where are these figures to be found?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The noble Viscount can see them for himself in the Report on Street Accidents in Greater London, 1927. The great danger to pedestrians lies in crossing a line of traffic which is moving at an irregular rate of speed. As your Lordships are aware, it is impossible with horse-drawn, heavy and light motor vehicles in one stream to keep a uniform pace. One of the greatest factors for safety is the possibility of acceleration and I am sure your Lordships will see that if there was a mechanical governor for the purpose of arresting an acceleration which might obviate an accident that mechanical governor could not be looked upon as an advanced form of motoring in this or any other country.
Clause 4 deals with compulsory third party risk. The noble Earl opposite referred to this, which is not at all a simple matter. The Bill avoids the difficulty by imposing upon the Minister the necessity of making regulations. Your Lordships will agree, I think, that this is not really a subject for Ministerial regulation. It is a matter which should be dealt with by Parliament, and the provisions should be laid down by Parliament. In New Zealand an Act dealing with this particular matter has been passed, containing no fewer than eighteen clauses, which shows that it is a most complicated question indeed. State insurance is included in that measure. The whole subject requires most earnest and most

567
searching consideration. Compulsory insurance probably involves State control of the insurance company, and the insurance must cover the vehicle rather than the driver, otherwise a person would require a very comprehensive policy to cover himself while he is driving any and every form of road motor vehicle.
Clause 6 is one into which I think there is hardly any need for me to go and to which I hardly think the noble Viscount would adhere. It has a relation to what are called the caniveaux on many roads at the entrance to villages in France. These were not destined as traps for the over-speedy motorists; they were destined for other purposes altogether and most of them are being filled up. When the noble Viscount considers the proposal which he has put forward, I am sure he will see that it involves a far greater danger from the fact that the driver in most cases would probably lose control of his car and it would go in any direction to the danger of any pedestrian who is at the side of the road and of any other car which may be passing at the moment.
Those are the provisions contained in the noble Viscount's Bill, and I think I have touched upon all the operative clauses. But the general objection I would venture to make to the provisions of the Bill is the enormous powers which are given to the Minister of Transport. The Bill is necessarily a very bureaucratic measure. Parliament is practically asked in this Bill to hand over motor transport bound hand and foot to the mercies of the Minister of Transport. I feel sure that your Lordships will agree that that is what I might call a very unfair responsibility to place upon any Minister.
In conclusion, I would draw the attention of your Lordships to the enormous increase in the use of roads. That is the reason why the noble Viscount has brought in this Bill, why the Government have set up a Royal Commission and why they hope at no distant date to introduce legislation. I do not feel that I should be entitled to-day to give your Lordships figures on that point, but there is one correction I should like to make, if the noble Viscount will allow me, in his comparison of the figures in England and the figures in the United States. He will find that in the year 1920 the fatal accidents in the United States were 14.4
568
per 100,000 of the population and that in Great Britain they were 7.24. I can give him the figure for 1923. In the United States the fatal accidents were 18.4 per 100,000 of the population and in Great Britain they were 7½. I will certainly give the noble Viscount this, that for 1924 and 1925 the figures are higher than 7½. That is a sinister feature which I hope the regulations which may be brought out will be able to overcome.
I have not got the American figures, but if I may say so—I know quite well that the noble Viscount would have no intention of making an unfair point on any occasion—the figures which he took per car are very misleading, because there is a far greater number of cars in the United States. It is true that a far larger number of cars belong to individual owners in the United States than in Great Britain. Americans as a rule own more cars individually than are owned individually in Great Britain; so that the figure which the noble Viscount gave is, if I may say so, very misleading. But the figures which I have given to your Lordships per 100,000 of the population are very conclusive that the fatal accidents in this country as compared with America are a great deal fewer. For those reasons I hope that the noble Viscount will see his way to withdraw the Bill which he has introduced.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I cannot see why we should not give a Second Reading to this Bill as a sign that we recognise the importance of the matter, although, as other speakers have aid, the Bill will go no further and will not have any practical effect in the present condition of Parliamentary time. But that does not affect the question and we ought to emphasise the point that something ought to be done to remedy this frightful slaughter which is going on. One person every two hours in each day of twenty-four hours is killed by a, motor vehicle. My noble friend the Marquess of Londonderry said that one objection to the Bill was that it would give such tremendous power to the Minister of Transport. Surely tremendous power was given to the Board of Trade or the Government Department concerned when railways first came into operation. The most

569
stringent precautions were taken then for the safety of the people using the roads alongside the rails and so on. Therefore, anything that could be done by this Bill or any such measure to give greater safety ought to be done.
One point made by my noble friend Lord Denman in his objection to the Bill was, as he stated, that most accidents took place in the congested or crowded areas rather than in the more open streets and thoroughfares. I repeatedly have drawn attention to this subject in your Lordships' House as regards the Metropolis, and I remember quite distinctly that of the total of 1,000 fatal accidents last year in the City of London the number in the most congested part of that area was only something like twenty-one, which is infinitesimal compared to the total number of accidents. Upon another occasion it was clearly brought out that most of the fatal accidents occurred in the less crowded areas where high rates of speed obtain. I asked the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, to issue a chart by the Government showing where the most fatal accidents took place. I do not know whether that suggestion has been considered, but I think it desirable that such a thing should be done, and I do not see why it should not be extended to the whole country, so that people could realise where are the dangerous points. I do not want at this hour to delay your Lordships from saying what you wish to do with this measure, but I think it ought to be given a Second Reading. Whatever may be its future form, or even if it should never be passed at all, I think the noble Viscount has done good service by framing the measure.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I would like to say a few words in reply. I will make them as short as I can. The principal opponent of this Bill, apart from my noble friend Lord Londonderry, was my noble friend Lord Denman. I think his speech lacked, if I may say so—and I am not saying it in any kind of impertinent way—precision. There were almost no figures given as to what was in his opinion the least dangerous form of driving. He expressed au opinion which no doubt is of extreme value—we know he has great knowledge of these
570
matters—but after all you must go to the figures, and here I have the record of the reports of 617 cases before coroners, and they show quite distinctly that 22 per cent. Only of the accidents happened where there was much traffic on the road; and 77 per cent. Where there was little traffic on the road. That does seem to be almost conclusive that it is not the crowded, congested traffic that causes the great mass of the accidents, but that most accidents occur where there is a certain amount of traffic and undue speed prevails in consideration of the traffic.
One other observation about my noble friend's remarks about Mr. Morris. I do not believe for a moment that this Bill would interfere with the motor trade in the least. I believe there are far more safe and prudent motor drivers than there are reckless motor drivers, and anything that makes it easier and safer for the respectable motor drivers would help the motor trade and not injure it. I will say a word about. speed limit in a moment, but as to the suggestion that it is impracticable to have a mechanical deice to limit speed, I am informed—the noble Lord [Lord Denman] will probably be able to tell me if I am correctly informed—that Mr. Morris himself sends out his cars with a check on the speed in order to prevent them being driven for the first 500 miles beyond twenty or twenty-five miles an hour. If that can be done for 500 miles it can be done altogether. Therefore it cannot be true that there is any mechanical impracticability with regard to it.
As I said in moving the Second Reading, I am not wedded to the provision about speed. I think it is a thing which ought to be discussed carefully in Committee, but, in my judgment, the Bill does not depend on that provision at all. It is only one or many provisions which I think would be of value, but not of chief value, in the prevention of accidents. I will not trouble your Lordships by attempting to review everything that has been said, and I am not going to deal with all the criticisms made by my noble friend Lord Londonderry as to details. He will agree they do not touch the principle of the Bill. If the Second Reading is passed we shall have,

571
of course, to discuss the details. I come to the main arguments which he adduced against the Second Reading. What were they? First that there was not time to pass this Bill. Why is there no time? I believe that a Bill of this kind, possibly simplified as a result of discussions in Committee, would not take more than two or three days to pass through the House of Commons. That is my own belief at least, and I was in that House for a considerable time. My own belief is that, with the support of the Government, a Bill of this kind would have behind it such a vast mass of popular opinion that nobody would venture to obstruct it. That is my belief, but if there is no time, who is to blame for that? If we are to go into that question, the Government for not introducing this Bill much earlier.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Why did you not do it earlier?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I was not in charge of that particular branch. There were a great many things happening when I was a member of the Government of which I was not altogether approving.
A NOBLE LORD: There always are!
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: You cannot resign for everything. Then my noble friend, with what I thought extraordinary skill and persuasiveness considering the argument he was using, submitted that we ought to have a comprehensive method of dealing with this matter. That is what the Government always say: "You must not have this Bill because it is too small; it does not deal with the whole subject." But if you bring in a big Bill they say: "It is too big; we will never be able to get it through." Therefore no legislation results at the suggestion of anybody except the Government. I beg your Lordships to consider what this question is. It is a very serious question indeed. Five thousand people are being killed every year—the number is increasing every year—and the Government say: "We cannot deal with it now; we must have a comprehensive Bill." I turn to the Road Traffic Bill, never actually introduced. It has 92 clauses, 66 pages and 3 schedules. What chance is there of a measure of that description being passed in the next five years? Twenty-
572
five thousand more people killed before the Bill is passed !
This is an emergency Bill. I dare say it will turn out that it requires amendment on examination and further experiment, but I do say: "Here is a tremendous evil; you ought to deal with it now, and not put it off for the Report of a Royal Commission and then have a Bill which deals not with road dangers only but with a hundred other things." Why, it is equivalent to saying you are not going to deal with it for years and years. Everybody knows in this House that is what it means. I venture to say with the greatest respect this is not a case of hurried legislation. We have waited for years for something to be done. I hoped very much that the Government, after the debates which have taken place in this House, would have taken the matter up and produced a very simple Bill, not longer than the one I have had the honour of moving before your Lordships to-day. That I firmly believe could have been done. They have not done it, and it is only because they have not done it that I have introduced the Bill which is now before your Lordships.
There is one final argument which my noble friend used against the Second Beading. It was that this would give too much power to the Ministry of Transport. That is a novel objection from a Minister of the Crown. I have never heard it made before—that too much power was going to be given to a Ministry. But really if I had time, and it would not weary your Lordships to go; all through the Bill, I am sure you would agree that it does not give any great power to the Ministry of Transport. It lays down exactly what you want to do and leaves the Ministry to carry out the details. If there is a clause here and there which goes too far I should be most anxious that it should be modified in Committee, but I do not believe there is such a clause. I honestly believe that any reasonably competent official would know what had to be done under the Bill and would do it. That is why I think it very desirable that the Second Reading should be agreed to. After all, your Lordships, if I may say so respectfully, have a duty to the country. Here is a great evil brought before you according to the rules of the House and I ask

573
your Lordships to deal with it as far as you can by reading this Bill and considering it in Committee after the Recess, so that we shall have plenty of time to consider what clauses ought to be put in and what not. It is not always impossible for a Chamber of the Legislature to act without the direction and leading of the Government, and in this case I think the evil is so great that we ought to take action. I am sorry I cannot agree to withdraw, and I venture very respectfully to ask your Lordships to read the Bill a second time.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, my noble friend has intimated his wish that the Bill should be read a second time. On every ground I should have the greatest reluctance in resisting a Bill which is designed for such a purpose as lie has explained. I am equally sure that there is no member of your Lordships' House who does not agree with the main attitude which my noble friend takes up, and which I think every speaker has taken up, whether he has spoken in favour of the Bill or against it. But the Bill is evidently very contentious in its details. There is no noble Lord who has addressed us who has not found fault with one or other of the clauses. We had a very eloquent speech from the noble and learned Lord opposite. He did not approve of several of the clauses in the Bill. I am not sure that he approved of any individual clause, but he approved of the principle of the Bill. I am not quarrelling with the noble and learned Lord for a moment. His speech was a most candid speech and he carried great weight with the House, as he always does.
But that was the case with nearly every speaker. They found fault with each provision of the Bill. I have not the least doubt what, in normal circumstances, would be done with a Bill of that description—a Bill dealing with a very difficult subject, upon which the House was anxious that if possible something should be carried into effect, but upon which there was the greatest doubt as to many of the clauses. Indeed, even the facts upon which the argument depended were very gravely called in question. Take the question of headlights. I do not know how far they are dealt with in the Bill, but supposing they are, it is clear from the speech of the noble
574
and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, and from the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who is a great authority on the subject, that there is profound difference of opinion as to whether headlights should be dimmed or not in passing. But it is perfectly evident that no Bill of this kind could ever be allowed by the Government to go through without inquiry.
The normal course would be to send it to a Select Committee. I am quite sure that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred when we had before us a Bill the principle of which was unexceptionable, the need for which was very great., but the clauses of which were extremely contentious and the facts of which were in dispute, the course taken would be to send it to a Select Committee, and I should have been inclined to make that suggestion but for one circumstance. That is, that there is a Royal Commission actually sitting on this subject. It does seem to me rather astonishing, when a Royal Commission has been appointed and is actually sitting for the very purpose of inquiring into a subject, that a Bill should be carried through Parliament dealing with that very subject. It. is like our old friend "Alice in Wonderland"—verdict first, trial afterwards. I suggest that would not be a very wise course. I need not say—my noble friend knows as well as I do—that I have no personal knowledge of this particular Department of the Government. These matters only come before me at a very late stage of the proceedings. But any one who listened to my noble friend the Marquess of Londonderry must realise that the Government act with a very great sense of responsibility in this matter. We cannot advise Parliament to pass a Bill unless we are really satisfied that its provisions are such as would be workable, and such as would really do good.
These being the facts I would make this suggestion. I do not know whether my noble friend will accept it. I am sure he has immense support in the House at this moment, and not only in the House but in the country, I suggest that we should advise your Lordships, instead of rejecting the Second Reading, to read the Bill a second time upon the condition that my noble friend does not press the matter further but that the Bill is sent before the Royal Commission. The actual Bill, with his own proposals,

575
should be submitted by the action of the Government to the Royal Commission now sitting. Then the Royal Commission would be able to deal with it. They are in a position to go into the matter, they are in a position to estimate whether my noble friend's proposals are workable and whether the statistics which he has brought forward can be sustained. They have the machinery for doing this. A Committee of your Lordships' whole House could not do it. I agree that a Select Committee could do it, and that would be the normal procedure, but it would be absurd to appoint a Select Committee when a Royal Commission is sitting. I submit that that is the most workmanlike method of doing it. I am sure that after the expressions of opinion in the House to-night, and the eloquence with which those opinions have been sustained, a considerable advance will take place in opinion—I do not mean in public opinion but in official opinion, which is, after all, what my noble friend and those who support him must appeal to—and that they will not lose by bringing forward this Bill, but it may ultimately result in something really useful for the country being carried into effect.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I need not say I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for the suggestion he has made. As he knows, and as I trust all your Lordships know, I have only one object in introducing this Bill—namely, to diminish a very great evil which now affects us. If the course he recommends can be shown to me to be one which will conduce to that object being realised in a reasonable time I should be very ready to accept it, but at present I feel this difficulty about it. Here is a Royal Commission which is appointed, not to consider road dangers. Indeed, I should not have thought on the actual wording of the reference that road dangers were within the province of the Commission, but I understand they have taken evidence which seems to affect the question. I should have thought they had nothing whatever to do with road dangers. They were appointed to consider co-ordination of traffic on the road. That is my recollection. What I feel is that the inquiry may go on for months and months, and then perhaps the Commission will recommend legislation of the
576
most elaborate kind dealing with every kind of problem.
I venture to suggest to my noble friends on the Treasury Bench that if they will amend their offer in one respect I think your Lordships might be prepared to consider it. I ask whether they will ascertain from the Chairman of the Royal Commission whether he will present in a very brief period an Interim Report dealing with this question of road dangers. That would be a reasonable and workmanlike solution. I realise that my noble friend cannot answer that on the spur of the moment, and I suggest that your Lordships should agree to read the Bill a second time now and defer further consideration at any rate for some weeks, until the noble Lords on the Treasury Bench have had an opportunity of ascertaining whether the suggestion that I have made is a practicable one. Then it would be for your Lordships to decide, in view of that decision, whether you would desire to proceed with the Bill pending the Report of the Royal Commission on this question. For myself I entirely agree that it would be very much more satisfactory to have the Report of such a body as that before the details of the Bill were considered, if that is practicable. If that could be arranged, I think it would be a most reasonable course. In the meantime I venture respectfully to suggest to my noble friend that the proper course is to give the Bill a Second Reading this afternoon and then to consider whether some other step, such as is suggested by my noble friend, is practicable or not.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, it is only by leave of the House that I can address your Lordships again, but as my noble friend has appealed to me I will say this to him. We will do our best to carry out the suggestion that he makes, to see how far it is possible for the Royal Commission to produce an Interim Report dealing with this subject. Supposing we find a difficulty in the way, that will not relieve us of the responsibility of allowing a Bill of this kind, which is so much in dispute, to go through without examination, and therefore, if I take that course, my noble friend must not complain if at a later stage, when he desires to proceed with the. Bill, we find that we cannot do as he suggests and I move to refer the Bill to

577
a Select Committee in order to have the matter properly considered in that way before the Bill is carried through. I do not think that any great difference ought to exist between my noble friend and ourselves so long as it is well understood—I do not want there to be any difference of opinion—that either this matter will be referred to the Royal Commission with a view to an early Report or, if that fails, it will go to a Select Committee.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Bill read 2a.

SAFEGUARDING DUTIES.
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD rose to ask His Majesty's Government—
(1) Whether it is not the fact that nothing has happened to alter the situation since the Prime Minister said in December, 1925, when refusing to allow an application for Duties on iron and steel:—
"It became clear in the course of our investigations (by the Committee of Civil Research) that the Safeguarding of a basic industry…would have repercussions of a far wider character which might be held to be in conflict with our declarations in regard to a General Tariff. In all the circumstances…we have come to the conclusion that the application cannot be granted;"
and such being the case, will the Government. in view of the Prime Minister's pledge at Yarmouth that Safeguarding will not be used to introduce a General Tariff until the question of a General Tariff has been submitted to the country, either submit the question of a General Tariff to the country at the forthcoming General Election or else give a pledge that if they are returned to power they will not put Duties on iron and steel?
(2) Whether it is not the fact, as stated by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, that there are no official home prices of
578
any of the manufactured goods now subject on import to Safeguarding Duties, and such being the case what was the basis for the statement made by the Prime Minister in his letter to the Conservative candidate for Ashton-under-Lyne as follows:—"Our experience of Safeguarding has shown that it is possible to protect British industries without increasing prices to the consumer"; and does this statement take into account the factor of inferior quality and also the general fall in prices which has occurred during the last few years?
and to call further attention to the Safeguarding Duties and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope it is not necessary to apologise for bringing forward again, after a brief interval, the question of Safeguarding Duties. The Questions that I have put upon the Paper were really put there at the invitation of the noble Marquess who leads the House. In the course of a debate not very long ago I asked these Questions and they were not answered. The noble Marquess said that if more notice had been given they would have been replied to. Therefore I have put them down and given plenty of opportunity for the Government to frame a reply. I hope that to-day we shall get a definite reply. Before I put the Questions, I should like to make some remarks about the matter with which they deal and also to discuss certain other questions in connection with the Safeguarding Duties. It will be noticed that I have not merely put Questions upon the Paper but have also a definite Motion. I do not merely move for Papers, but I also call attention to the Safeguarding Duties, and therefore, within the forms of the House, I am perfectly at liberty to discuss these questions in any shape. In particular I wish to refer to, and to challenge before I sit down, a speech dealing with the Safeguarding Duties made by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, because there, is much feeling in Free Trade circles about that speech, coming as it did from a man of his high authority, and we hold that the statements in it are incorrect and cannot be substantiated. I gave the noble and

579
learned Lord notice of this point yesterday so that he might know that I should be raising the matter.
With regard to the first Question upon the Paper, I surmise that the Government will say something, as the noble Marquess did a fortnight ago, about the suggested arrangement in the steel trade. If that is so, I should like trade If that is so I should like to put a few points on the matter. The noble Marquess, in Kindly terms, asked me to apply my mind to this question of an arrangement in the steel trade As a matter of fact I had done so before he made the suggestion, and since then I have looked still further into this matter. The more I go into it the more unsustainable, in my view, the whole idea becomes. We are told that there is a new situation and that an arrangement is proposed between steel makers and steel users under which there would be an increased output of steel. But what would happen about prices? That, of course, is of paramount importance in any such connection. If the Government is relying upon this as a new fact in a new situation, I hope they will tell us to-night what they mean by steel makers. What body has come forward with this proposal, and is this body unanimous? I do not believe that even steel makers are unanimous about any such suggestion. I will not go over the happenings in regard to the application under the Merchandise Marks Act which was made by certain persons in the steel trade, but in the end it came to nothing. The conflicting interests were so great that in the end the proposal was dropped. That is not a very encouraging augury for this suggested arrangement, even so far as steel makers are concerned.
Still less do I believe for a moment that the users of steel are unanimous in regard to any such arrangement, or that they ever will be, because there the conflicting interests are very many. And what about the consumers of steel, the retail consumers, who include practically every man, woman and child in the country? They certainly are not, and never will be, in favour of any such arrangement, because steel enters into the price of nearly everything in this country aid this arrangement would tend, as I shall show, to make things dearer and to put up the cost of living. Protectionists have never, I think, sufficiently realised
580
the fundamental importance, in all trade matters, of price. No doubt the claim which is made for this arrangement is that the price of British steel would not be increased but, owing to larger output, would even be reduced. Personally I do not believe that there is the smallest chance of the price being reduced after foreign competition has been largely stopped by a Safeguarding Duty. On the contrary, I have no doubt that prices will be increased, and no guarantee to the contrary is worth a scrap of paper. In any case a considerable proportion of the imports of foreign steel are of a kind not made in this country, and they cannot be made here except at a somewhat higher price. Those familiar with the steel trade will, I am sure, bear me out in that.
I repeat that Protectionists leave out of account the element of price. They assume that business will go on, that the demand will continue just the same at higher prices. That, of course, is not so, and under this suggested arrangements prices are bound, in fact, to be raised. In those circumstances, living will be made dearer at home and a large proportion of our business will be lost on the Continent in two ways: (1), owing to increased prices we shall be less able to compete in export markets—I think that is clear; and (2), there will be intensified competition in export markets, because some of the steel not now coming here will find its way there in one form or another. I emphasise again that if the price of British steel under this suggested arrangement is not increased, foreign steel will be increased in price by the Duty, and as the price of the corresponding British product is higher, for a considerable proportion of the steel trade, the net result will be an increased price of steel to large numbers of users of steel because they will have to use something which costs more than that which they have used before. Further, if you once begin to protect steel, you will have to go right through with it and protect not only the makers of steel but everybody having anything to do with the manufacturing of steel as well—in fact the whole of the metal and engineering trades.
I should like to read a very brief passage from the speech made by Mr.

581
Arthur Chamberlain at the recent general meeting of Tube Investments, Limited, dealing with this question of Safeguarding. He said:—
"We are unanimous in considering that safeguarded steel without simultaneous safeguarded tube is fraught with so much menace to the fortunes of this company that we should feel compelled to oppose any such proposal by every means in our power. We can hardly see how, under the present regulations, the safeguarding of steel could be made contingent on the simultaneous safeguarding of steel tubes, nor dare we accept any promise, or any assurance, that if only we let steel be safeguarded our protection will surely follow. It looks, therefore, as though we shall be forced to oppose the safeguarding of steel. In this matter the interests of this company, as we conceive them, are paramount.
Having regard to the varying political beliefs held by your directors, I think this common agreement is very significant, and indicative of what is likely to happen all over the country if Safeguarding is to be generally extended. So far we have only been playing with it, and its consequences, good or bad, have passed almost unfelt by the community, but, with its application to our important trades I think every manufacturer will be seriously affected and will quickly come to the conclusion at which we have been forced to arrive. It must be all or none. Whether Free Trade or Protection suits this country best is a debatable point, but that half the trade should be protected and the other half left out in the cold is, think, certain to cause the maximum of upset and commercial instability, and will be found to be absolutely unworkable."
There you have a quite definite statement put into most excellent language by a very experienced man of what everybody who has knowledge of these things was aware before—namely, that if you begin then you must go on and give protection not only to the makers and users of steel, but to the metal and engineering trades. I will not say more about steel to-night, for it is impossible to deal fully with the suggested arrangement now, but I hope I have said sufficient to show how untenable and dangerous the whole proposal is. I have a Motion down for Papers and I have a reasonable request which I should like to make to the Government—namely, when they say that the makers of steel have come forward with this proposal, will they lay all the Papers which have been submitted to the Government relating to the suggested arrangement with those industries? That is one of the requests that I want to put
582
to the noble Ear] opposite [Lord Plymouth].
Now I come to the second Question on the Paper, which has to do with the matter of prices, and I there quote the statement made by the Prime Minister recently that:—
"Our experience of Safeguarding has shown that it is possible to protect British industries without increasing prices to the consumer."
I do not think that a statement like that ought to be made by the Prime Minister unless it can be proved right up to the hilt. The Lord Chancellor made precisely the same statement. It is a perfectly definite statement without qualification or reservation of any sort or kind, that in no case have prices been increased to the consumer. What does this mean? It means that for the first time in history Duties have not raised prices, that everything which has gone before is wrong, that all the teaching of economics is wrong, and that the statistics for scores of years are wrong. I could bring before your Lordships a return showing that; as far back as 1840 the effect of a Duty upon a quarter of wheat as compared with the price in other countries was to cause the price of a quarter of wheat to vary about in proportion to the Duty put on. This statement; of the Prime Minister means that Mr. Balfour was wrong in his famous dictum and that Lord Melchett was wrong when he said, speaking in support of the Government, that these Safeguarding Duties would increase prices and were intended to do so. Now we are told that this is wrong.
On two previous occasions I have dealt with this matter and given figures, and no attempt has been made to controvert my figures. Those figures were not official and I never said that they were, but I believe that they are absolutely correct and uncontrovertible. It is no answer to say prices are not higher. Prices ought to be lower, because wholesale prices have fallen generally and prices would in many cases be lower but for these Duties. I hope the Government are not going to quote figures relating to artificial silk and motor prices. As I have pointed out before, these are not Safeguarding Duties. The artificial silk trade was increasing by

583
leaps and bounds before the Duty was put on and is it not the fact that Courtaulds, the principal people in the trade, did not want the Duty? Is it not the fact that the motor trade had a time of great prosperity during the period when, owing to the Labour Government, the Motor Duties were taken off? We all know that these are exceptional industries catering for an exceptional demand and bound to grow anyhow with or without the Duties, and in my view they would have grown and expanded more without the Duties. It does not help in the least to quote the prices of artificial silk and motors as compared with years ago. You are not comparing like with like. There is no standard as there is in the case of a quarter of wheat. The Government, I know, did once give statistics with regard to the export price per pound of artificial silk yarn but it is well known that there are far more concerns making artificial silk now than in 1925. It is also well known that some of the artificial silk being made now is of such poor quality that it is not used in this country but is exported to countries where they do not need such good quality. Therefore, you are not comparing like with like, and I hope the Government will not put forward figures of that kind.
Then I come to motors. It really is ridiculous to compare the price of a motor car now, as the Government have done, with the price of a pre-War motor, and say that some conclusion can be drawn from that. They are totally different things. In the intervening years, for instance, mass production has very much developed. That has affected prices. I did, though, on a previous occasion, put some figures to the Government, and I will give one again. I pointed out that the price of the new Ford car in Detroit is nearly half the price in London. I pointed out that the roadster in Detroit was £78 f.o.b., and in London the price was, £150; and I said, making all allowances for freight and intermediate profits, agents' charges and so forth, it was clear that the full amount of the Duty had been added to the price of the car. Does the Government deny that? The whole point is not what is the price now, but what would the price be without the Duty? Without the Duty on these various articles
584
the price would be lower still. Therefore it is not true to say that prices have not been increased to the consumer.
Let me come to the Duty on gloves. Now, that is a Safeguarding Duty. I would ask the Government to give some statistics relating to the real Safeguarded industries—gloves, cutlery and so forth—not about exceptional industries, like artificial silk and motors. I have said before, and I say again, that the price of gloves has been affected adversely by the Duty, either through higher prices, or indirectly through a decline in quality, or through a combination of both of these factors. The figures which the Government have given about certain foreign gloves are entirely misleading, because, there again, you are not comparing like with like. In order to prove that, let me quote from the Drapery Times of July 28, 1928. That is right up-to-date. That is not a Party organ, it is a trade organ. They say:—
"A very considerable trade in kid and glace goods which was done with Belgium and France has been greatly decreased to the advantage of Italy, the latter country supplying gloves of an inferior quality, which are supplied to the retail trade at somewhat similar prices to the better qualities they obtained previously, the difference in quality making up to some extent for the imposed Duty. Any one with experience of the retail glove trade must admit that the lower end of the leather trade has suffered greatly in the matter of quality since the imposition of the heavy Duty."
I leave that there. I am informed that, before the Duty was put on, the price of a lady's two-fastener nappa glove was 2s. 11d. a pair, but to-day the price of a similar glove is 4s. 11 a.
Then, again, I am given to understand that a woman buying a pair of fabric gloves at 1s. 11½d. is getting an inferior article to the one she purchased before the Duty at the same price. I have also given an instance in regard to china, and I said there, according to information which I have, before the Duty the price of a certain china set was 8s. 6d., after the Duty it went up to about 11 s. Is that denied by the Government? We come to enamelled hollow-ware. The instance has been given of a trade catalogue which definitely stated that owing to the Safeguarding Duty there would be 25 per cent. increase in the price of the enamelled hollow-ware articles in that catalogue.

585
What has the Government to say about that? Does not that increase the price?
I think I have said quite sufficient to show that prices have been adversely 'affected when everything is properly gone into. Not only is the price of foreign imports increased, but if they are competing with exactly the same article in this country the price of that will also be correspondingly increased. That must be so if you are comparing like with like, owing to the simple economic law that you cannot have two prices for the same thing in the same market at the same time. Protectionists will sometimes admit that the prices of foreign imports have been increased, but they say that home prices have not been increased. That is the case which they are now putting forward. I do not admit, taking into account the general fall in prices of which I have spoken, that home prices have not, at any rate in a large number of cases, been increased.
But look at the position. Foreign imports are often the cheaper kind of goods—those most bought by the poorer classes, and the prices of foreign imports unquestionably have been increased by the amount of the Duty. Nearly all Safeguarders will admit that. But, whether they admit it or not, of course everybody knows it to be true. Such being the ease, it is no satisfaction to a working woman to tell her that the foreign gloves which she used to buy are now dearer, but that the English gloves, which are much more expensive, are no dearer—even if that is so. She cannot really afford to buy the expensive English gloves. I am told the price of English-made tan leather gloves per pair is 5s. 11 d. Working women cannot afford to pay those prices, and, as the one article which she has been accustomed to buy is dearer than it used to be, owing to the Duty, she is being injured by the Duty. That is my argument. I say that what has happened is what so often happens under Protection: the consumer is being forced in some cases to buy something at a higher price, or else to so without the article, or else he is getting something of worse quality. Prices, therefore, are being raised against the consumer. Even if, for the sake of argument, it were admitted that some home prices have not been increased, the general effect is to raise prices and make
586
living dearer, and statements to the contrary are untenable.
Before I leave gloves let me give certain figures which I think prove this matter beyond the possibility of doubt and dispute. 1 say that foreign imported gloves have been affected in price, and f do not think that is denied. Their place—and I think this applies not only in the case of gloves, but in the case of other safeguarded industries—has not, generally speaking, been taken by British goods to any considerable extent. Take fabric gloves. The great mass of people are still buying the foreign goods at the higher price. In 1924, which is the proper year to go back to, because that is the complete year before the Safeguarding Duties were either introduced or expected, the retained imports of fabric gloves were 840,997 dozen pairs. We come down to 1928, when these Duties have been in force which were to keep out foreign imports, and we find that in the eleven months of 1928 the retained imports of fabric gloves are 1,314,000 dozen pairs; that is to say, about 470,000 dozen pairs more than they were in 1924. And these increased imports are being weighted with the Duty. Now I believe that even the Safeguarders themselves only contend that the home production of fabric gloves is somewhere about 300,000 dozen pairs, and if that is so, as I believe it to be, it means that four persons out of five are paying the higher price. For, if you import 1,300,000 at the higher price, and your home production is only about 300,000, I think my arithmetic is not far wrong when I say that four persons out of five are either paying the higher price or getting a less good quality.
Before I sit down I want to deal with a speech which the Lord Chancellor made. Speaking at the London Habitation of the Primrose League—this is reported in The Times of November 26, 1928—the Lord Chancellor said:—
"By Safeguarding our exports in safeguarded industries have gone up 10 per cent. in three years, while in non-safeguarded industries they have gone down 10 per cent. In safeguarded industries imports have gone down 30 per cent., while in non-safeguarded industries they have gone up 12 per cent. That means by Safeguarding we have increased employment in trades which were threatened with extinction. We have been able to do that without increasing prices."

587
From the point of view of those of us who have opposed these Duties—I have read what we hold to be the offending passages—there are a great many mis-statements in those sentences. In fact, there is almost a maximum amount of misstatement in a minimum amount of space. That is why I bring this matter before your Lordships' House, that we may really get to the bottom of these statistics which are being broadcasted all over the country by persons not only of high authority but by countless paid orators of the Safeguarding campaign.
I will take these passages, and I will dissect them and show how very misleading they are. I will take them by instalments. The first one is:—
"By Safeguarding our exports in safeguarded industries have gone up 10 per cent. in three years."
That statement is not correct. I hold in my hand a Board of Trade reply. I suppose the Lord Chancellor will accept the Board of Trade reply. This is the Board of Trade reply given in another place on March 21, 1928, relating to the safeguarded industries, lace, gloves, gas mantles, china and pottery, and so on, as far as they had been in existence for any space of time. I will not go through the figures in detail, but the fact is that so far from exports having gone up by 10 per cent., the reply of the Board of Trade, a Government Department of the same Government as that of which the Lord Chancellor is a member, is that as a matter of fact exports were 11.2 per cent. less in 1927 than in 1924; that is, that. in the three years to which the Lord Chancellor refers there was not an increase of 10 per cent. but a decrease of 11.2 per cent. If you choose to go to 1928 and bring the figures right up to date the result will be worse still from the Lord Chancellor's point of view.
Next the Lord Chancellor says:—
"In safeguarded industries imports have gone down by 30 per cent…"
I cannot understand that statement on any proper analysis of the matter or of the situation. Safeguarders, I know, sometimes arrive at queer results about imports by taking 1925 as the year from which to start. That is clearly wrong because 1925 is the year in which some of these Duties were either imposed or were proposed, and, therefore, imports
588
were rushed into the country so as to get them in before the Duty was put on. Therefore, it is obvious that it was an abnormal year and not a fair year to take for purposes of comparison. Obviously the proper year to go back to is 1924, before there were any Safeguarding, Duties and before it was known that there would be any. Going back to that year let me give two or three figures. I have already given them in regard to fabric gloves. In 1924, the imports were 840,000 dozen pairs. In 1928, in eleven months they were 1,314,000 dozen pairs. Therefore, so far from the imports having gone down by 30 per cent. they have gone up by about 50 per cent. If we take lace and go into the figures and compare 1924 with 1927 we find that the imports are very nearly the same in 1927 as they were in 1924, £500,000—I am speaking, of course, of retained imports which is the proper figure—in 1924 and £465,000 in 1927.
What is the explanation of all this? I think it is that the Lord Chancellor has been doing what so many other Safeguarders do—he has been including in the figures he has given the statistics relating to motors and to artificial silk, which are not safeguarded industries at all. I think that is what he has been doing. Even so, I cannot arrive at such a result as he reaches. If I take 1924 and 1928, the first ten months of each year, which is the fairest I can do, I do not rind that imports have gone down by 30 per cent., even including everything and making the Lord Chancellor a present of motor cars and artificial silk for this purpose, but that they have gone down by about 15 per cent., which is about the average fall in wholesale prices in the period. I have those figures here and so far as I know they are quite correct.
I think I have made it clear that the Lord Chancellor ought not really to have included artificial silk and motors. He in particular is estopped from doing so by his own words, because if you read on in his speech you will see that he talks of these figures relating to trades "threatened with extinction." Does he contend that the motor trade and the artificial silk trade are, or ever were, threatened with extinction in the last few years? When I called the attention of a distinguished Free Trader to this passage he asked leave to get up from

589
his chair and have a good laugh. He said: "Really, this surpasses anything which has yet been put forward by the Safeguarders. Threatened with extinction, the motor trade and the artificial silk trade! Two of the most booming and rapidly expanding trades in the whole country!" Clearly then, the Lord Chancellor cannot really include motors and artificial silk in what he says, because he is only referring apparently to trades "threatened with extinction." If you take out those trades you arrive at a totally different result from that which he gave.
Let me take the Lord Chancellor on his own ground. Take the motor trade. The whole argument of the Lord Chancellor, as I understand it (in fact he says so), is that by Safeguarding our exports have gone up by 10 per cent. What are the facts? For nearly a year the Motor Duties were taken off by Mr. Philip Snowden and we were then threatened with all kinds of disasters to the trade. As a matter of fact, the expansion of exports in that period was very great indeed. I will give your Lordships some figures. I give the figures for ten months because those are the most which can bring for 1928. The exports of motor cars, parts and accessories, in 1923, amounted to 3,068,000; in 1924, £5,116,000; in 1925, when the Duties were off during most of the time and when disaster was to come, £7,650,000; and in 1926, that is the time after the Duties were reimposed, £7,041,000. In 1927, in the first ten months, the exports were £8,557,000, and in 1928—and this is the point to which I would like to call attention—the exports have fallen in the first ten months to £7,194,000.
Why did not the Lord Chancellor tell the Primrose League that if he wanted to give them the facts about the exports, even if he included motors which ought not to have been included? As a matter of fact, I need not go through all the figures but if they are denied I can produce them. They clearly show that when Mr. Philip Snowden took off the Motor Duties there was a great increase in exports. The exports in the period of nearly a year during which the Motor Duties were off were about one and a half times as much as the average exports of the previous eighteen months. How then
590
can it be said by any stretch of imagination that exports of motors have been increased by the Safeguarding Duties? The matter will not bear any serious investigation. At the present time—I am sorry it is so, but I am not surprised if you will go in for Safeguarding; I think it has a good deal to do with it—at the present time our exports of motors are, as I have shown, unsatisfactory and are declining. The more this speech is gone into the more vulnerable it becomes. I think the Lord Chancellor ought to explain the figures.
As further refutation of what he has said I will read a passage from the Spectator because it seems to be almost framed to meet what the. Lord Chancellor said. It is in the current number and it says:—
"Most Safeguarding speeches contain the assertion that in whatever trades Duties have been imposed, imports have decreased and exports hare increased, and unemployment has been reduced."
This article refers to certain investigations which have been made on behalf of the Economist, which has published a series of articles containing, as is pointed out, enlightening results. The article in the Spectator goes on:—
"As against this claim—
the sort of claim the Lord Chancellor made—
"the figures examined by the Economist demonstrate:—

"(1) That in many instances imports have been substantially increased;

"(2) That in few, if any, cases has the flow of imports been arrested without an actual decrease in our exports;

"(3) That in no single case have exports been increased except where there has been, also, an increase in imports;

"(4) That in, at least, one case exports have almost disappeared and imports remarkably increased.

"(5) That in every single case, the re-export trade has been damaged."

The article concludes by saying:—
"Direct employment figures show remarkably slight improvement and indirect employment has, in some cases, been inevitable."
To bring this whole matter to an issue—that is what I want to do; now we have it on the floor of Parliament not in the Primrose League I would like to put some questions to the Lord Chancellor of which I will give him a copy. I do

591
not think he will object because they are perfectly fair. I will read them:—

"(1) Does the Lord Chancellor adhere to his statement that Safeguarding has been effected without increasing prices? If so, what is his reply to the facts and considerations which I have adduced to the contrary?

"(2) Does the Lord Chancellor consider that the prosperity of the artificial silk industry is due to the Safeguarding Duties? If so, how was it that the artificial silk industry was growing by leaps and bounds before the Duties were imposed, and how was it that Courtaulds, who practically comprised the industry, were opposed to the Duty, and how was it that the Chancellor of the Exchequer put an Excise Duty on artificial silk?

"(3) Does the Lord Chancellor consider that the prosperity of the motor industry is due to the Safeguarding Duties? If so, how is it that the motor industry, contrary to Protectionist predictions, had a time of great prosperity in the period when the Duties were taken off?

"(4) Is it not the fact that the President of the Board of Trade has stated that the Silk Duties are not Safeguarding Duties, and that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour has stated that the Motor Duties are not Safeguarding Duties?

"(5) Does the Lord Chancellor think it fair to give the public to understand that the motor and artificial silk industries were trades threatened with extinction' and that it was since the Safeguarding Duties were put on that they have prospered, and that it was because Safeguarding Duties were put on that they have prospered? If not, and if, accordingly, figures relating to these two industries should not be included at all in statistics in the Safeguarding controversy, is it not the fact that the figures which he gave in his speech to the Primrose League would have been totally different? Such being the case, is it not the fact that his speech to the Primrose League conveyed an entirely wrong impression to the public?"

Those are the questions I should like the Lord Chancellor to reply to and I will give him a copy of them the moment I sit down. I hope he will reply.
We have made a previous attempt to get a reply on the floor of this House to Safeguarding statements, which, I am sorry to say, was singularly unsuccessful. I refer to the statements made by the noble Viscount, Lord Chaplin, who did not say a word when he was challenged. I am sure the Lord Chancellor will not take refuge in silence. We are entitled to a reply to these questions. It would not be a proper thing, I am sure your Lordships would agree, that statements should be made at meetings in the country by responsible Ministers unless
592
they can be substantiated on the floor of your Lordships' House. I am only asking what is fair and proper in regard to the speech of the Lord Chancellor. If any Socialist Minister in a Labour Government, particularly one in such high authority, had made a speech about some important item of Labour policy such as the Lord Chancellor has made about the Safeguarding Duties, I am quite sure that in your Lordships' House that Labour Minister would have been most severely criticised. Your Lordships know what I say is true. I will not say any more now, but I will move for Papers in order to keep open my right of reply and also because I should very much like to have the Papers about the arrangements in the steel trade. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, the noble Lord asked some questions on certain specific points in connection with the Safeguarding Duties, and I intend to confine my reply strictly to those points as far as possible. A few days ago the noble Lord was kind enough to speak to me about the Questions he had on the Paper, and he conveyed to me then that it was not his intention to speak for more than a very few minutes in supporting them. Yesterday he informed me that he had added to those Questions in order to give him greater freedom in what he was going to say, but at the same time he did not think it likely that he was going to make a speech of any length. I look at the clock and I find that the noble Lord has spoken for almost exactly three quarters of an hour, and I think, in view of the fact that only a week or two ago he made an even longer speech on this subject in your Lordships' House, that what he has done has been hardly fair, and, indeed hardly civil to your Lordships' House. I have not the slightest intention of following the noble Lord into the realms of the theoretical effect of what might be the result of imposing Duties here and there. The noble Lord, the whole time he is calling our figures in question, at the same quotes a number of figures himself, but he has brought forth no proof whatever that those figures can be substantiated.
I should like to say right away, dealing with the first part of the Question, that the Government does not accept the view of the noble Lord that nothing has hap-

593
pened to alter the situation since December, 1925, when the Prime Minister made the statement; with regard to safeguarding iron and steel which is quoted, although not fully quoted, in the Question the noble Lord has put, down on the Paper. In connection with this matter, I really think that the noble Lord is suffering under a misapprehension. Ho speaks as if this was a, question of whether a Duty should be imposed or not. It is nothing of the kind. The point at issue is merely this—ought there to be an inquiry into the question of whether a Duty on from and steel should be imposed? That is a very different thing indeed. It is true that the Government refused in 1925 to allow the safeguarding application in respect of this industry to go forward, on the ground that the safeguarding of the iron and steel industry would have repercussions of a wider character and might lead to the demand for dutying generally all the varieties of goods into which iron and steel entered. But the iron and steel manufacturers now put forward the claim that the increased output which a Safeguarding Duty would assure them would enable them so to reduce their costs that the industries using iron and steel as a material would not be prejudiced. This, if it can be established, would remove the fear that using industries would find themselves obliged to press for the extension of any Duty on iron and steel to all goods in which it was used and would naturally very materially affect the situation.
In substantiation of my suggestion that the opinion of people generally has been modified with regard to this subject I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to a, statement issued by the Council of the British Engineers' Association in March last. This statement reads as follows:—
"Subject to proper regard to the interests of the engineering industry, the general feeling of the council is sympathetic towards the safeguarding of iron and steel as a contributory means of assisting the iron and steel industry to improve its economic efficiency and thereby preserve in a state of robust vitality that great basic industry which, in their opinion, is indispensable to this country."
Well, my Lords, all I can say is that the situation has changed. The position is modified and in all these
594
circumstances I maintain that it is only reasonable and fair that the iron and steel industry should be given the same opportunity as any other industry of making, out its case before the tribunal which it is proposed to set up under the new procedure. All they ask is that an inquiry should be held into the question, and I would like to remind the House that one of the essential questions which this tribunal will be called upon to consider will be whether the imposition of a Duty would exert a seriously adverse affect upon costs of production in any other industry. The industries using iron and steel will be entitled to be represented at this inquiry and to give evidence there. I repeat that it is really a very different question—whether, on the one hand, you are going to settle once and for all whether a Safeguarding Duty should be imposed in the case of iron and steel, or whether you are going merely to give that industry the same opportunity as other industries have of making out their case.
I hope that as a result of what I have said I have made it clear to your Lordships that the Government have no intention at all of giving the undertaking asked for by the noble Lord in the first part of his Question. The noble Lord deliberately ignored all the conditions which govern the imposition of a Safeguarding Duty. No one can honestly pretend that a Duty imposed in special circumstances after an inquiry bears any resemblance to a General Tariff.
I pass for a few moments to the second part of the noble Lord's Question. It is true that the home prices of goods of the kind which are subject to Safeguarding and McKenna Duties are not collected by Government officials or established under Government auspices, but the noble Lord, after all, has been quoting numerous figures himself to-day in which, no doubt, he has the greatest belief, and he is surely entirely mistaken if he supposes that there is no reliable information as to the course of prices of these goods except such as you can get from Government sources. I really think that the noble Lord is not on sound ground if he claims that the only facts which can be depended upon are those which are produced under the auspices of some Government Department. I will give him one or two examples of the kind

595
of information that is available, which I think your Lordships will all admit is definite information and well authenticated information.
Before I do so, I should like to say a word or two about another point. The noble Lord in the course of his remarks referred to the fall in the general level of prices during the last few years. I quite admit that undoubtedly there has been some fall. The Board of Trade index number of wholesale prices has fallen by eleven points since 1925 when the McKenna Duties were reimposed and the first Safeguarding Duty enacted, and by a little over four points since 1926. It is obviously extremely difficult and rash to attempt to apply such figures to any particular manufactured commodities, but even if we take that into full account there is ample justification in many cases for the statement made by the Prime Minister in the letter which the noble Lord quotes in his Question.
I am going to take first the case of motor cars. The noble Lord has already said he hoped I would not do so, but I should like to call his attention to a statement which he made himself on July 18 this year. He said then that—
"So far as effect on prices is concerned, it does not, of course, matter whether an Import Duty is a Safeguarding one or not."
Therefore, I trust he will raise no serious objection to my taking the case of motor cars. The actual prices of different makes of cars are publicly announced by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, the recognised trade association in the industry. That society has prepared an index of prices of British cars, taking the price in 1914 as a basis and calling it 100. On this basis the average price of twelve typical models of private cars in 1924 was 99.1 and in the first six months of 1928 82.1. Similarly the average price of typical models of commercial vehicles in 1924 was 108.9 and in 1928 102. The noble Lord also referred to what he calls the factor of inferior quality. I really am not quite clear as to exactly what he means in this respect, but I can assure your Lordships there is no reason at all to suppose that the quality of British goods which enjoy the benefit of a Duty has fallen off in the last few years. Certainly in the case of motor cars it is common knowledge that
596
there has been a great advance in design, in performance, and in equipment both of private cars and of commercial vehicles.
I take another example, this time, from tyres. A Duty was imposed on tyres in 1927. Just after the Duty came into force one particular foreign company increased the prices of some of their tyres by about 10 per cent. In November, 1927, however, a few months later, this company reduced its prices by 15 per cent. By the present year the company in question had established a factory in this country on account of the imposition of the Duty, and last September it made further reductions in the prices of its tyres, which are now manufactured for the British market in Great Britain. Generally it would seem that on the whole the prices of both British and foreign tyres at the end of 1927 were on about the same level as at the beginning of that year. Reductions were announced in price lists issued this year, due perhaps partly to the fall in the price of raw rubber which occurred in the course of 1928 and partly to the competition in this country from the new factories established here tinder the stimulus of the Duty.
I will pass for the moment to leather gloves, a safeguarded industry. The figures that I am going to quote have been compiled by the joint industrial council for that industry, and I feel certain that the noble Lord will not take exception to that body as an authority. The Duty was imposed in 1926. I really cannot go into any great detail and I will not describe the different types of gloves in question, because I do not think that I should convey very much to your Lordships. In one type of glove the price fell from 52 s. 6d. a dozen pairs in 1925 to 48 s. in 1927; in another the price fell from 60 s. to 58 s.; in another there was a fall of 4s.; in another of 3s. 6d.; and so on. The averages for 1928 are not yet available, but I am prepared to admit that they may show a tendency to increase, entirely as a result of the fact that in recent years the prices of raw skins, which are the material of the industry, have shown substantial increases.
I take another example, that of wrapping paper. The Duty was imposed in this case in 1926. The National Association of Packing and Wrapping Paper

597
Makers have supplied a schedule of wholesale prices which shows that the standard prices for the classes of British paper which are most subject to competition from abroad have shown a substantial decline since the beginning of 1926. Nor has this been accompanied by any depreciation in the quality of the British article. It has constantly been alleged that the kraft paper made in this country was inferior to the foreign article, but great advance has been made in the last eighteen months in the quality of British kraft, which is now made in strengths which have proved amply sufficient for purposes for which formerly imported kraft was necessary, and this advance has been accompanied by a reduction of from £1 to £2 per ton in price. I could quote other instances, but I think that after what I have said it is not necessary to go into further detail. I only hope that the facts that I have brought forward this evening will induce your Lordships to take the same view as I do—namely, that the Prime Minister was fully justified in making the statement contained in the letter to the candidate for Ashton-under-Lyne which the noble Lord brings into his Question.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM): My Lords, I had not proposed to intervene in this discussion. The noble Lord yesterday told me that he proposed to challenge some of the figures that I had given in a Primrose League speech. He did not mention which they were, but I obtained the only figures that I could find that I had mentioned, and he has quoted them to-day. He did not tell me that he intended to proceed to a kind of Shorter Catechism, which he has been good enough to hand to me, but I will do any best even to answer that. It does seem to me that the noble Lord at some time—it must have been in his extreme youth, because they are such antiquated theories—was long ago, by some very efficient tutor of the Free Trade persuasion, instructed in certain Free Trade doctrines. He has never been able to learn anything about economics since, and he therefore comes down to this House and propounds, with an air of profound assurance, these doctrines as being universally accepted, and then he asserts that, since these doctrines are true, the facts must fit into
598
them, and if the facts do not fit into them the facts must be wrong. Let me give an illustration. The noble Lord said that everybody knows that putting on a Duty must raise prices. If, therefore, you have put on a Duty, prices must have gone up; and if they have not gone up, why then, the quality must have gone down. Assuming his premisses, the conclusions follow, but unfortunately his premisses have long ago been disproved in almost every civilised country in the world, and no really serious thinker now supposes that the law of economics is as he states it.
However, I do not rise to discuss the noble Lord's economic theories. I rise to answer the particular questions that he put. The figures that he challenged were these. I said that in the three years from 1925 to 1927, the last three years for which figures were available, exports had gone up in the safeguarded industries by 10 per cent. and had gone down in the non-safeguarded industries by 10 per cent. I said that imports had gone down in the safeguarded industries by 30 per cent., and had gone up in the other industries by 12 per cent. I have the figures. Your Lordships will find them set out in about seventeen pages of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the House of Commons debates for March 21, 1928. The noble Lord has a copy. I add to these figures only one, because it was not included in the question put in 1928—namely, that concerning hosiery made of silk and artificial silk.
The actual figures are these. In regard to retained imports, which the noble Lord particularly mentioned, in 1925 the imports in the safeguarded manufactures amounted to £59,873,000; and in 1927, £41,675,000; a reduction of 30.4 per cent. I said it was 30 per cent. In other manufactures the figure for 1925 was £228,300,000; in 1927, £255,598,000; an increase of 12 per cent. I said that it was not less than 10 per cent. Now let me turn to exports. In safeguarded manufactures these amounted in 1.925 to £34,352,000; in 1127 to £37,902,000; a percentage increase of 10.3. I said that the increase had been 10 per cent. The figures for the other manufactures are, in 1925, £582,256,000; and in 1927, £526,063,000; a percentage drop of 9.7. I said 10 per cent., which was the nearest whole figure. The noble Lord asked why I did not take the 1928 figures. For the

599
very good reason that nobody knows, in November when the year is not over, what the 1928 figures are.
Then he said that, if you took the motor trade for 1928, you would find that the ten months of this year showed a decrease as opposed to 1927. I have not the figures, so I assume that the noble Lord is correct, but he must see that it has no relevance at all to my argument. The point which was being made, and which your Lordships see that these figures establish, is that, if you compare safeguarded and non-safeguarded manufactures, you find that the safeguarded manufactures are steadily increasing in their exports, while the non-safeguarded manufactures are going down. What you want to know, at the end of 1928, is not whether the 1928 figures in motors are better or worse than those of 1927, but whether the comparison between 1928 and 1927 is better in the safeguarded than in the non-safeguarded industries, which I have no doubt will prove to be the case in this year, just as it was in preceding years. So far, then, as the figures are concerned, your Lordships will see, I hope, that I have exactly justified the statement that I made, and I have justified it on the floor of the House. The noble Lord keeps on telling us that we must exclude the Motor and Silk Duties——
LORD ARNOLD: Hear, hear.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:—he says it again—because they were not put on for safeguarding purposes. If the noble Lord would only try to think the thing out for himself, instead of merely adopting parrot catchwords, he would realise that the point is whether or not the imposition of a Duty increases exports or diminishes imports, and whether or not it raises prices. It does not for that purpose in the least matter whether the motive with which the Duty was imposed was to save a dying industry, or further to improve a flourishing industry, or even to raise revenue. What we are discussing is the effect of the imposition of the Duty, and it is idle to say you are going to cut out figures which do not suit you, because it happens that these trades were very flourishing at the time when the Duty was imposed.
The noble Lord asks:—
"Does the Lord Chancellor"—
I have not had notice of these questions—
"adhere to his statement that Safeguarding has been effected without increasing prices?"
Certainly, I do.
"If so, what is his reply to the facts and considerations which I have adduced to the contrary?"
Lord Plymouth has given the answer to the so-called facts and considerations. I do not think the noble Lord has adduced any consideration "to the contrary," except that his economic theory says that it cannot be true. Then he asks:—
"Does the Lord Chancellor consider that the prosperity of the artificial silk industry is due to the Safeguarding Duties?"
That the artificial silk industry has been a great deal benefited by the Safeguarding Duties I have no doubt at all. The question continues:—
"If so, how was it that the artificial silk industry was growing by leaps and bounds before the Duties were imposed?"
Why should it not be? No person in favour of Safeguarding ever contended that no trade would increase without Duties. The question proceeds:—
"If so, how was it that Courtaulds who practically comprised the industry, were opposed to the Duty, and how was it that the Chancellor of the Exchequer put an Excise Duty on artificial silk?"
The Chancellor of the Exchequer put a Duty upon artificial silk because he wanted to get more revenue, and he did not want to give an undue advantage to artificial as opposed to natural silk. Courtaulds objected to any Duty at all, I believe, on artificial silk, and of course having a Duty on natural silk and not on artificial silk would, I dare say, have been found a very convenient plan.
Then the noble Lord asks:—
"Does the Lord Chancellor consider that the prosperity of the motor industry is due to the Safeguarding Duties?"
I consider that the prosperity of the motor industry has been enormously increased by Safeguarding Duties, and, a hat is more important—it is not my own view, because I do not pretend to be an expert, any more than does the noble Lord, on the motor trade—what is more important is that those who do know are unanimously of the same opinion. Under the McKenna Duties the motor industry benefited enormously and greatly prospered, and it takes time, even for

601
such an industry, to be destroyed by the follies of Free Trade. The noble Lord also asks:—
"Is it not the fact that the President of the Board of Trade has stated that the Silk Duties are not Safeguarding Duties and that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour has stated that the Motor Duties are not Safeguarding Duties?"
I did not give my views on the question and I do not carry in my mind everything that any other Minister may have said on every other occasion. If my colleagues asserted that duties were not of the nature of Safeguarding procedure, of course their statement was entirely accurate, but it has no relevance to the question.
Then the noble Lord asks:—
"Does the Lord Chancellor think it fair to give the public to understand that the motor and artificial silk industries were 'trades threatened with extinction'?"
Of course not, and nobody ever said it. The question proceeds:—
"and that it was since the Safeguarding Duties were put on that they have prospered, and that it was because Safeguarding Duties were put on that they have prospered?"
I think it is an entirely fair thing to say, because it is no doubt, true, that since the Duties were put on they have prospered, and, if they were prospering, they have because of the Duties had increased prosperity. The question proceeds:—
"If not, and if, accordingly, figures relating to these two industries should not be included at all in statistics in the Safeguarding controversy, is it not the fact that the figures which he gave in his speech to the Primrose League would have been totally different?"
I have already pointed out that I cannot admit that premise. If the figures should not be included, the answer is, "of course not." But they should have been included, and any statement which left them out would have been most misleading. The question concludes:—
"Such being the case, is it not the fact that his speech to the Primrose League conveyed an entirely wrong impression to the public?"
No, my Lords, it certainly was not, and is not, the case.
I think I have gone through the whole of this list of questions. It reminds me of what very young solicitors used some-
602
times to do at the beginning of their experience, when they furnished you with a long list of questions ending up: "Then you must be a liar." Answer, "I suppose so." Unfortunately, that method never succeeded, because the witness very seldom gave the desired reply, and I am sorry if the noble Lord's experiment has not been more successful. I do not want to take up more of your Lordships' time, but I could not resist a direct challenge. Having answered the noble Lord, I hope your Lordships will appreciate that the figures given are entirely accurate, and that the Safeguarding policy has been proved to be of a great benefit to the country, and is going to be the one thing to save us from the disasters of unemployment which are threatened by the Socialist policy.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, I should like to say a word in reply to what the noble Earl has said with regard to my having spoken for three-quarters of an hour. As a matter of fact I did not speak for quite so long, but I made it perfectly clear to the noble Earl this afternoon that I had new material which had come into my hands, and that I could give no estimate of the time which would be required. Moreover, it was expected that the previous Bill would have ended much earlier than it did. I asked the noble Earl if he objected to sitting until half-past seven or eight, and he said that he had no objection. I explained that I could net postpone my Motion because at this stage of the Session it could not be done, and I really think that it was not quite a fair thing in the circumstances to say that I was not treating the House with civility. I told him perfectly clearly that I must take some time, that I was not going to divide the House, and that I did not want anybody to remain, but simply wanted the matter to be put in the OFFICIAL REPORT. We have had only four Safeguarding debates in three years, and I really think that the noble Earl should not make a statement like that. Moreover, I have always understood that conversations of that nature would not be repeated in public. I shall not give any undertakings in future. I told the noble Earl distinctly that this, debate would last for

603
some time, and I do not think it was a proper thing for him to charge me with not being civil to the House. I have very little to reply to in what the noble Earl said. I will not go into the question of what he said about steel, because he practically said nothing. I gather that he has no Papers about any suggested arrangements, and therefore I will not press for them.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Will the noble Lord excuse me and allow the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, to take my place on the Woolsack? I am already an hour overdue.
LORD ARNOLD: Certainly, and I should like to thank the Lord Chancellor before he goes for being so full in his reply. Of course, the noble Earl has wholly failed to substantiate the statement of the Prime Minister. Neither did he shake in the slightest particular any figure or fact which I put forward. Nor did he attempt to do so. And yet he finished up by saying that everything the Prime Minister said was justified. I really do not think that that view can be sustained.
Then I come to the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor said it was not necessary to reply to me on the question of prices, because the noble Earl had done so. As a matter of fact, he had not done so at all, and the Lord Chancellor did not attempt to shake a single figure I gave, or a single argument I used. In the speech to which I referred the Lord Chancellor distinctly said he was dealing with a three-year period. Now he comes to your Lordships and takes from 1925 to 1927, taking as his first year 1925, which was an abnormal year. Moreover, if he is dealing with a three-year period he should take from 1924 to 1927, which would be the proper way. He is now dealing with a two-year period. However that may be, 1925 was an entirely abnormal year, and if you take the proper years the results come out very differently. If you take the eleven months of this year also they come out very differently. The Lord Chancellor said he did not take the year 1928 because you could not take it yet, but he could have taken eleven months of this year. He did nothing of the sort.
604
And, of course, to contend that the motor and the artificial silk industries have prospered because of Safeguarding is to go entirely in face of the facts and entirely in face of the figures which I gave. He did not make the smallest effort to disprove the figures about the way in which exports increased when the Duties were taken off. He did not attempt, or did not attempt in any scientific way, to deal with the argument, but he did claim that it is the effect of these Duties which has led to the great prosperity of the artificial silk trade and of the motor trade. All I can say to that is that it is very difficult to deal in entirely Parliamentary language with a claim of that sort. Neither did he in the least degree meet the point that he had implied in his speech that these industries were "threatened with extinction" And if you take these figures out as you ought to have done, the results are exactly what said, and totally different from those which the Lord: Chancellor mentioned.
We are getting on, however. It is interesting to know that the Lord Chancellor is not merely a Protectionist; he talks now about the follies of Free Trade. We shall really have a right to ask where this Government stands. Is it a Free Trade Government at all? It was returned as a Free Trade Government. It is a long time since I heard a member of the Government say a single word in favour of Free Trade, except, I think, in the last week of July, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a rash moment in the House of Commons, did say something which might be held to be favourable to Free Trade; and I understand he got into great trouble with his Party. Very well, we are getting on; we know where we stand; and we shall be quite prepared to take this issue to the country, and to abide by the result. As the noble Earl has no Papers, I will not go to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

ALDEREY EDGE AND WILMSLOW ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1928.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Order, and that there is nothing
606
in this Order to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read, and order to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at five minutes before eight o'clock.