Sitting of 20 November 1928

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

THE KING'S SPEECH (ANSWER TO ADDRESS).
The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Mr. F. C. Thomson) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Loyal and Dutiful Address as followeth:
I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I have opened the present Session of Parliament.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    ST. MARY STEAMSHIP COMPANY.
    Mr. MARDY JONESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now received any Report from the Public Prosecutor regarding the affairs of the St. Mary Steamship Company; and, if so, will he inform the House what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The matter is one for the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions, who has caused some inquiry to he made locally and has received information but not sufficient at present to enable a decision to be arrived at.
    Mr. JONES: Am I to understand that the Department have no powers until the Public Prosecutor is satisfied?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: The point is, that the President of the Board of Trade cannot he satisfied until the Public Prosecutor has obtained all the information which is necessary.
    Mr. JONES: Then I understand that he hats not yet completed the inquiry. If I put a question on the Paper three weeks hence will that do?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I will do my best to give an answer.

    LOSS OF STEAMSHIP "VESTRIS."
    The following question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY:
    "5. To ask the President of the Board of Trade what form of inquiry will be held into the loss of the s.s. 'Vestris'; whether the adequacy of the lifeboats and the arrangements for lowering them will be particularly examined into; and whether he can now give the probable cause of the sinking and of the loss of life."
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I put this question on the Paper before certain aspersions were cast on the officers and crew of the "Vestris." I dissociate myself from those aspersions.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The form of the inquiry into the loss of the "Vestris" is not yet decided, but of course it will cover all material points, including those mentioned in the question. This being so, I am sure the hon. and gallant Member will realise that it would not be possible for the Board of Trade at this stage to attempt to express any opinion as to the probable cause or causes of the loss.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What action did the Department take when the Inquiry was ordered in New York, prior to the appointment of a British nautical assessor by the Board of Trade? Did the Board of Trade take any steps through our Consul-General to be represented at the Inquiry, particularly with a view to defending the reputation of the dead Captain?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: A. cablegram was sent at the earliest possible moment to our Consul-General in New York, giving him appropriate instructions.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What were those instructions? Were they to the effect that the Board of Trade should be directly represented at the Inquiry, particularly for the purpose of defending the officers and crew?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I would point out that our position in relation to a foreign tribunal is not one that is entirely easy, and perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will not press me unduly.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is not the holding of the Inquiry in New York likely to prejudice any Inquiry which may be held here later?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Clearly, I cannot properly answer a question like that. We have no control over the Government of the United States. We can only take the appropriate action open to us.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Was not the ship registered here?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Yes.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Then ought not the Inquiry to have been held here first?
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Has the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade been able to gather from the reports of the New York Inquiry whether State Attorney Tuttle was the President of the Court or the Prosecutor? Have representations been made to ensure that the good names of British sailors are protected?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.
    Mr. R. MORRISON: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether the scope of the Inquiry will cover the efficiency or otherwise of the wireless service?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Quite clearly, the Inquiry must cover everything that is pertinent to the cause of the disaster.
    Mr. HAYES: Is there any real status in regard to the Court now sitting, for the legal representation of British mercantile interests?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I should not like to answer that question without notice. My recollection of previous Inquiries is that whatever legal assistance was necessary was provided.
    Mr. HAYES: Have instructions to that effect been given?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: The form of the Inquiry has not yet been settled. No
    1516
    Tribunal has yet been set up, and none of the witnesses are at this moment in this country.
    Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: Is it not a fact that any British vessel carrying passengers out of United States ports is bound to have a certificate from the United States stating that she is fit and seaworthy?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Broadly speaking, every foreign country issues passenger certificates for ships which are carrying passengers from ports of that particular country, except that in some cases where ships are coming here they may recognise our passenger certificate.

    FOG (SOUND APPARATUS).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to cases of inefficient sound apparatus carried in many steamships for the purpose of giving the authorised warning signals in fog under the international regulations for the prevention of collisions at sea; what steps are taken to inspect and test this apparatus; and, in the case of foreign ships, whether any international action is possible where the apparatus is known to be defective or inefficient?
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: A general complaint as to the inefficiency of whistles on some ships was received by the Board of Trade from a shipmaster a short time ago, but as particulars were not given, it was not possible to say how much foundation there was for the complaint. On passenger ships the sound signal apparatus is inspected every year. In the case of cargo ships it is inspected at the time of registration and afterwards as opportunities occur, or when there is any reason to think the apparatus may he defective. All foreign ships in British ports are subject to inspection like British ships, and compliance with the requirements of the international collision regulations can be secured either by reference to the proper national authority, or, if this should be necessary, by detention.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the hon. Member look into the question of a more frequent inspection,

    1517
    especially of cargo vessels, and, also regular inspection of their sound apparatus?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: There is some difficulty in that respect, because cargo vessels may be absent from this country for very considerable periods.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Can the hon. Member say whether there has been any increase in inspectors in the last four years? There was a move to increase the number.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I must ask for notice of that question.

    STEAMSHIP "EDINBURGH CASTLE" (SEAMEN'S WAGES).
    Mr. SHORTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that although under the Merchant Shipping Acts seamen disputing deductions from wages are entitled to sign Form of Release M, certain seamen on discharge from the steamship "Edinburgh Castle" at Southampton last week were refused such forms; and will he instruct Board of Trade superintendents to issue Form M in all such cases?
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I am informed that when the crew of the "Edinburgh Castle" were discharged at Southampton on the 12th November, none of the crew asked for facilities to sign the release on Form M. If any seaman had wished to reserve a claim against the owners or master he would have been permitted to sign on Form M. Board of Trade Superintendents have standing instructions that this is to be done in such cases, and no further instructions on the subject are necessary.
    Mr. MARDY JONES: Have any steps been taken to inform the sailors that they have these facilities?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I think every sailor is perfectly familiar with the fact.

    SAFETY REGULATIONS.
    Captain GARRO-JONESasked the President of the Board of Trade who is responsible for carrying out inspections and for the enforcement of Board of Trade rules in respect of British ships sailing between foreign ports?
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Consuls at foreign ports have limited powers for securing compliance with the Merchant Shipping Acts, and can generally arrange for a ship to be surveyed where this is necessary or summon a Naval Court to deal with a specific complaint, but they have no technical staff and do not make regular inspections. Where inspections take place they are generally made by surveyors of the classification societies or similar bodies or by officers appointed for the purpose by foreign Governments.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: In view of the inadequacy of the powers which are possessed by Consular officials, will the Parliamentary Secretary take steps to improve the law in this respect, so that it shall be the duty of British Consular officials, or other foreign officials to see that the Board of Trade regulations are put into force on ships sailing into foreign ports?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Regulations with regard to ships leaving foreign ports are imposed by the legislation of the foreign Government itself, and I ask the hon. and gallant Member to realise that we cannot enforce British laws quite freely in other countries, however desirable it may be to do so.
    Sir ROBERT THOMAS: Is it not the case that Lloyds Register has a surveyor in every important port in the world and that such surveyor has perfect liberty to go on board all ships registered at Lloyds in any port in the world?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: That, obviously, is the case, and the Classification Society has rendered valuable services by the inspections that they are constantly making.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: In view of the fact that the Board of Trade has powers over foreign vessels sailing from British ports, may I ask whether foreign countries have full power over British vessels sailing from foreign ports, and whether these powers were exercised in the case of the steamship "Vestris"?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Broadly speaking, every country is presumed to enforce its own laws, and as far as I know the United States enforced its own laws in this case.
    Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: May I ask whether steps can be taken by which the

    1519
    captains of British ships must submit their papers to the Consul in a foreign port? A case occurred some years ago in which the Board of Trade instructed a British captain that he need not submit his papers to the British Consul.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I must have notice of that question.
    Sir WALTER de FRECEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether tests as to the efficiency of boats on ocean-going liners are carried out prior to each voyage; and whether ocean-going liners are expected to carry sufficient boats, apart from rafts, etc., to accommodate, in case of need, all the passengers and the crew?
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: All passenger vessels trading to or from ports in the United Kingdom are thoroughly surveyed at least once a year by Board of Trade surveyors, and ocean-going vessels carrying large numbers of third-class passengers undergo a further survey before the beginning of each voyage from the United Kingdom. All the British ocean-going liners trading from this country carry boats for all, and, in addition, rafts for 25 per cent. of the persons on board.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Is the hon. Gentleman's Department satisfied that the boats on passenger liners are all inspected before each voyage?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I am not certain that the boats on passengers liners are all inspected before each voyage.
    Mr. SHINWELL: If the Parliamentary Secretary is not satisfied that a regular and efficient inspection of such boats takes place, will he take steps to see that such inspection is carried out in future?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: The question refers to the efficiency of boats on passenger vessels and not necessarily to any particular item of the equipment of such vessels.
    Mr. HAYES: May I ask whether the Department is becoming disturbed by the frequent complaints of overloading?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: That point does not arise out of the question. I do not accept the suggestion as true.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Will the hon. Member take it from me—[HON. MEMBERS "No!"]—that these boats are not properly inspected?
    Sir R. THOMAS: Is it not the case that every passenger liner has boat drill during every voyage—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]and that the boats are put into the water during the voyage? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
    Sir W. de FRECEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the inspectors of his Department have any responsibility for the proper storage of cargo below decks; and, if so, of what nature?
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The responsibility for the proper stowage of the cargo rests on the persons concerned in sending the ship to sea. The Board of Trade surveyors do not intervene unless there is reason to think that a ship is improperly loaded and cannot go to sea without serious danger to life.
    Mr. HAYES: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say how many complaints have been received this year?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Not off-hand.
    Mr. HAYES: Is he satisfied that the complaints are more numerous?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I have not had my personal attention drawn to any.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is there any guarantee that the cargo is properly stored away and tightened up before the vessel leaves?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: The primary responsibility is laid quite properly on the master of the ship. His own life is at stake, and he is therefore likely to be much more careful than anyone else.
    Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Have we not up to the moment been accustomed to trust the mercantile marine?
    Mr. B. SMITH: May I ask whether any limitation is placed on deck cargo, and whether any inspection is made to see that the regulations are carried out?
    Sir W. de FRECEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether pasenger life-saving drill is prescribed on each voyage of all ocean-going steamers; and how often the crews of such boats are trained in boat lowering?
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Although there is at present no power to require boat drill to be carried out on passenger ships, standard regulations on the subject were drawn up some time ago by the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee, on which all the shipping interests are represented, and these are in substance followed on all ocean-going passenger vessels, although the details vary in different lines and in different trades. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the standard regulations.
    Sir W. de FRECE: Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that the life-belts provided on these liners are inspected at the same time as the boats?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I should imagine that they are not examined in detail. They are all of an approved pattern.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Should not the recommendations of this important advisory committee in respect of life-boat drill be made compulsory?
    Mr. HURD: Is it not within the knowledge of the Parliamentary Secretary that there are certain lines on which boat drill for passengers does not take place until the voyage is nearly over?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: The question does not refer to boat drill by passengers, but to what is more important, boat drill by the crew. On some ships, there are no arrangements, deliberately, for boat drill by passengers, because the companies prefer to assemble the passengers at stated points rather than opposite the boats, because some of the boats may happen to be damaged and not available.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    RUSSIA.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed unanimously at a meeting of the fish trade at Yarmouth, on Saturday, 10th November, to the effect that no substantial or permanent improvement in the industry could be secured except by the reopening of the Russian market, and demanding that the British Government take steps to facilitate trading relationships with Russia; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on 14th November to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton), a copy of which I am sending him.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I have seen the answer. Is not the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in the past we have done a pretty considerable business with these people and that the organisation with which I am connected has done a great deal of business without, losing money? Cannot outside trade be encouraged by means of credit, and create a better market for British fisheries?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I think that raises a point which was dealt with in the Debate yesterday.

    IRON AND STEEL TRADES.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, with a view to a better understanding of the economic condition of the iron and steel industries, he will cause a memorandum to be compiled and circulated giving authoritative statistics as to production, imports and exports, prices, costs, and employment in those industries?
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: A very thorough memorandum on the iron and steel industry, including particulars of production, imports and exports, and numbers employed over a period of years, with some discussion of prices and costs, is included in the "Survey of Metal Industries" published this year by the Committee on Industry and Trade. Moreover, the more important figures relating to the industry are regularly published in the Annual Reports and Monthly Bulletins of the National Federation of Iron and Steel Manufacturers. In these circumstances, I do not think that a further memorandum is necessary at the present time.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not possible to bring these figures up to date?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: These figures are published monthly by the National Federation of Iron and Steel Manufacturers, and the figures are never more than a few days out of date. The figures in the document published by the Committee on Industrial Trade are also comparatively recent.
    Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: Is it not a fact that those figures show rapidly decreasing imports of iron and steel into this country and an increasing production of iron and steel in this country?

    ARTIFICIAL SILK FABRICS (IMPORT DUTY, CANADA).
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to make any representation to the Government of Canada respecting its proposal to impose a special duty of 9d. per lb. on artificial silk fabrics entering Canada from Great Britain?
    Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have asked His Majesty's Senior Trade Commissioner in Canada to obtain some further information as to the manner in which it is intended to carry out this proposal.

    MOTOR CAR INDUSTRY.
    Sir JOHN POWERasked the President of the Board of Trade how the present rate of production of motor cars compares with the rate in the period in 1924 and 1925, when the import duty was not in operation?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Figures relating to the production of motor cars in this country during the period in 1924 and 1925, when the import duty was not in operation, are not available. According to estimates of production for calendar years published by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (which do not include cars assembled in this country from imported parts), the output of motor cars and chassis in 1927 exceeded the average annual output during 1924 and 1925 by about 40 per cent., commercial vehicles and their chassis being excluded, or by nearly 50 per cent. if such vehicles be included in the comparison.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: Would not a comparison of the present production and the figures of 1850 show a still further increase?
    Mr. A. V ALEXANDER: Has the Parliamentary Secretary the figures for 1923 with him?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I am afraid I have not.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Is not the Parliamentary Secretary surprised that an hon. Member on this side of the House should put such a question as that put by the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson)?
    Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary think that hon. Members who have made statements in their own constituencies are entitled to express the same view on the Floor of this House?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can you, Mr. Speaker, do anything to check these differences of opinion in the Conservative party?

    HERRING (BRANDING).
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Fishery Board are prepared to revise their Regulations regarding the branding of crown medium herring?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): The Fishery Board for Scotland see no reason at present for altering their Herring Branding Regulations, which were revised only in April last, but the matter will he kept in view and duly considered when further experience of the working of the present Regulations has been gained.

  FOOD COUNCIL (TRADERS' EVIDENCE).
  Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the London Flour Millers' Association has now agreed to the request of the Food Council that their accountants should be allowed to examine the books of the association; if not, what alternative information has been received by the Food Council; and whether the Food Council are now satisfied that the official prices of flour published by the London Flour Millers' Association are the actual prices charged to the trade?
  Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Members of the London Flour Millers' Association nave undertaken to provide the information requested by the Food Council. The Council will not be able to express an opinion on the information until the returns from the millers have been considered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: Will the hon. Member answer whether the original request of the Food Council has been acceded to, and when they are to have access to the books to discover whether the actual prices of flour is that which is quoted as the current price?
  Mr. WILLIAMS: The London flour millers have agreed to supply the information asked for, and that information will be extracted by the accountants. That is all that the Food Council desire.

  BREAD PRICES, NEWPORT.
  Mr. R. MORRISONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether there has been any practical result from the correspondence which has passed recently between the Food Council and the Newport Master Bakers' Association with reference to an allegation that supplies of flour had been withheld from a retailer by two milling firms because he was selling bread at 7½d. per 4 1b. loaf, a price lower than that recommended by the association?
  Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The result has been that the Newport Master Bakers' Association have announced that, although the price of flour has advanced 4s. per sack, equivalent to ½d. per quartern on bread, the present price, 8½d., will not be advanced until a further rise in the price of flour takes place. Thus the Newport Association's price is now the same as the recognised price in London, although for over a year preceding the Food Council's recent statement in the Press, it had been from ½d. to 1½d. above the London price. In addition, the retailer referred to in the question states that he has been making increased sales in consequence of the publicity occasioned by the Food Council.

  FUEL AND POWER (INQUIRY).
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in instituting the inquiry recommended by the National Fuel and Power Committee?
  Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Steps are being taken to appoint a committee to make this inquiry, and I hope to be able shortly to make a further statement on the matter.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    PATENT OFFICE.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the President of the Board of Trade what has been the surplus of revenue over expenditure of the Patent Office in each year from 1922?
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The surplus of receipts over expenditure as shown by the Annual Reports of the Comptroller-General of the Patent Office for the years 1922–27 was as follows:—1922,£74,074; 1923,£81,798; 1924, £75,203; 1925, £88,540; 1926, £98,813; 1927, £112,939.

    SCOTTISH BOARD OF HEALTH.
    Mr. E. BROWNasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if any ex-service P-class officers in the Scottish Board of Health have yet been promoted to the established clerical grade; and whether, in view of his reply of 19th July last, he proposes to assign to ex-service P-class officers any of the remaining posts in that grade?
    Sir JOHN GILMOUR: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part the question of the promotion of "P" class men to the clerical grade in the Scottish Board of Health is still under consideration.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    FILMS (PRODUCTION AND ASSISTANCE).
    Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for War if any of the regular officers or soldiers who have been employed in making films have met with serious injuries, and will he give particulars?
    Mr. PENNY (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The only such cases which have been brought to my notice were connected with the production of the film "Mons" in 1926 and with the film "Balaclava" last month. In the former case, one soldier was killed and one had his right leg fractured and an eye severely injured; in the latter case, one soldier fractured a thigh bone. I am informed that in this case the invalid is progressing satisfactorily.
    Mr. DAY: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether any compensation was paid to this man?
    Mr. PENNY: I could not say off-hand, but I shall bring the question to the notice of my right hon. Friend, who will give it due consideration.
    Mr. DAY: Will the hon. Gentleman also bring before the Secretary of State for War the suggestion that in making contracts for the production of these films all the film companies should have the men thoroughly well insured, so that in case of a claim arising they can be guaranteed compensation?
    Mr. PENNY: That suggestion will be brought before my right hon. Friend.

    BANDS (POLITICAL GATHERINGS).
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for War, whether it is the practice of the War Office to sanction the use of military bands at political fetes and garden parties; and whether his Department granted permission for a portion of the band of the Suffolk Regiment to play at the Conservative garden party on 23rd August at Boxted Hall?
    Mr. PENNY: Individual applications for the services of Army bands are not referred to the War Office but are dealt with by the regimental authorities subject to certain general rules. The general rule is that Army bands should not play at political gatherings, but I am informed that in the case to which the hon. Member refers, it was not clear when the engagement was accepted that the occasion was a political one.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: But is the hon. Gentleman aware that Boxted Hall is in the Division represented by the Secretary of State for War, and will he tell us why the Minister is not present to-day, so that he may answer this question?
    Mr. PENNY: I regret to say that my right hon. Friend is away owing to illness. That is the reason why I have been asked to reply. Boxted Hall, as the hon. Member says, is in my right hon. Friend's constituency, but I might say that while the speeches were being made the band was taking tea.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that in all cases where military bands are permitted to attend Conservative galas, the members of the band are always at tea while speeches are being made?
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: Was there a keyhole to the door of the place where the band were taking tea'?

    RECRUITMENT.
    Mr. WELLOCKasked the Secretary of State for War the numbers of men and boys recruited to His Majesty's Forces during each month from July, 1926, to date?
    Mr. PENNY: I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the number of recruits taken on the strength of the Regular Army each month since July, 1926.
    Following is the table:
    Number of recruits (men and boys) taken on the strength of the Regular Army each month since July 1926:

    Month.

    Regular Army.

    July, 1926

    …

    …

    2,084

    August, 1926

    …

    …

    3,107

    September, 1926

    …

    …

    2,828

    October, 1926

    …

    …

    2,434

    November, 1926

    …

    …

    2,456

    December, 1926

    …

    …

    1,734

    January, 1927

    …

    …

    4,045

    February, 1927

    …

    …

    2,649

    March, 1927

    …

    …

    1,934

    April, 1927

    …

    …

    1,926

    May, 1927

    …

    …

    1,883

    June, 1927

    …

    …

    1,729

    July, 1927

    …

    …

    1,555

    August, 1927

    …

    …

    2,697

    September, 1927

    …

    …

    2,560

    October, 1927

    …

    …

    2,279

    November, 1927

    …

    …

    2,421

    December, 1927

    …

    …

    1,687

    January, 1928

    …

    …

    4,132

    February, 1928

    …

    …

    2,827

    March, 1928

    …

    …

    2,358

    April, 1928

    …

    …

    2,432

    May, 1928

    …

    …

    2,214

    June, 1928

    …

    …

    2,118

    July, 1928

    …

    …

    2,003

    August, 1928

    …

    …

    3,053

    September, 1928

    …

    …

    2,882

    October, 1928

    …

    …

    2,753

    ESTIMATES.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for War what savings he anticipates in next year's Army Estimates as a result of the signing of the treaty for the renunciation of war, signed in Paris, commonly known as the Kellogg peace pact?
    Mr. PENNY: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given on the 24th July last to the hon. Member for Anglesey (Sir R. Thomas).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: But since then has not the Pact been signed, and is there no further reply available?
    Mr. PENNY: Not for the moment.

  CHINA (BRITISH TROOPS).
  Sir R. THOMASasked the Secretary of State for War how many British troops are at present stationed in Shanghai; and what has been the cost of the occupation up to the most recent date available?
  Mr. PENNY: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply on the 13th instant to the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Mr. Wellock). As regards the second part, the extra cost involved in the employment of additional troops in China up to the end of November, 1928, is estimated at approximately£4,250,000,

  SCOTLAND.

    LAND RECLAMATION.
    Mr. E. BROWNasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the recent official statement that a beginning has been made with a scheme, planned in secret, which will eventually bring about the complete reclamation of the waste places, and especially the bog lands, of Great Britain, he will say whether such a scheme has been discussed at the Scottish Office; whether the details were there given; and what conclusion was arrived at?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I have no knowledge of any official statement or scheme of the nature referred to in the first part of the question. The Board of Agriculture has, for some time past, been
    1530
    carrying on experiments in reclamation in Dumfriesshire; and I am aware that, following on an inspection of these experiments, a generous offer of funds has been made with the object of enabling further experiments to be made in the reclamation of peatlands. The matter is under consideration but I am not in a position to make any statement at this stage.
    Mr. BROWN: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the fact that the Chairman of the Board of Agriculture in Scotland did make a statement to certain selected Press men? May I send him a, copy of the report?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I have seen that newspaper report, which I confess I have not, read in detail, but I do not think it can be taken that it is the official report.

    NATIONAL LIBRARY.
    Sir PATRICK FORDasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has received representations from the Incorporation of Architects in Scotland in regard to the proposed new buildings for the Scottish National Library; and, in view of the statement made for the First Commissioner of Works on 4th July, 1928, is he prepared in this instance to invite designs for approval from architects outside Government employment?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; as regards the second part, due consideration will, of course, be-given to the representations from the Incorporation of Architects in Scotland' when the time arrives, but in the opinion of the First Commissioner this is premature at the present time as it is improbable that the erection of the Scottish National Library can be commenced for several years.
    Sir P. FORD: Is it not possible for the Government to arrive at some definite policy that would give satisfaction to the interests of Scotland?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: I do not know quite what my hon. Friend means, but, if he is referring to policy in regard to this matter, we have a definite policy.
    Sir P. FORD: Is it possible to disclose that policy?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: Yes, Sir. The site of the library is at present occupied by the Sheriff Court. That court will have to be rebuilt on another site and completed for occupation before the site is available for the library.
    Sir P. FORD: What I want to know is, are the Government going to get the best possible architectural work in this building, or are they going to leave it to a Government department? I want an assurance on that point.
    Sir V. HENDERSON: It is too premature yet to make a statement on the subject.
    Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Are the Government responsible for this building?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: As far as I remember, it is partly paid for by voluntary contributions, but that does not alter the statement that I have made.
    Sir JOSEPH NALL: Is there anything to prevent the Incorporation of Architects in Scotland from submitting plans voluntarily?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: Not as far as I am aware.

    OSCAR SLATER (APPEAL).
    Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total cost and expenses in which the Government were involved in the Oscar Slater appeal?
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the total costs of the Government in the Oscar Slater appeal case; and if he has any information as to the total costs of Oscar Slater in the same action?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The total costs incurred by the Crown in respect of the Slater appeal amounted to£272 2s. 11d. I have no definite information as to the total costs incurred by the appellant.
    Mr. DAY: Do these costs include the cost of the various American investigations?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: As far as I know, the Crown did not hold any American investigation.
    Mr. DAY: Is it not a fact that investigations went on in America for many years in connection with various witnesses in this case?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Does that sum include any payment either to the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor-General, who conducted the case for the Crown, other than that passed by this House?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: With regard to the first supplementary question, if the hon. Member will put down a question on that subject I shall endeavour to answer him. As regards the second question, the Lord Advocate does not receive any fee.
    Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for Scotland to state the precedents which influenced the Government's decision in arriving at the amount paid to Mr. Oscar Slater as an ex gratia payment for the wrongful imprisonment he endured for 18½ years; and whether, in taking into consideration these precedents, the amount of costs and expenses incurred by the persons concerned in establishing their innocence were taken into consideration?
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can state the precedent on which he based the amount of the ex grotia payment to Oscar Slater: what was the period of imprisonment imposed; the amount of the compensation awarded; and whether the precedent was under the jurisdiction of the Scottish Office?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: In determining the amount of the payment to Mr. Slater, regard was had to previous cases where it appeared that persons who had served a period of imprisonment should not have been convicted. The Scottish Office has a record of only two previous cases where payments were made by the Exchequer in respect of wrongful convictions in Scotland. In neither of these cases were the circumstances very comparable to the Slater case. Regard was therefore had to various English cases, including the cases of Brannaghan and Murphy, who in 1888 each received a free pardon and£800 after serving nine years; Beck, who in 1904 received a free pardon in respect of two convictions and£5,000 after serving about 5½ years; Edalji, who in 1907 received a free pardon but no compensation after serving about 3½ years;

    1533
    and Mrs. Gooding, whose two convictions were quashed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in 1921, and who received£250 after spending rather over eight months in prison. Consideration is given to all the circumstances of individual cases, including the possibility of expense having been incurred by the person concerned.
    Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in any of these cases the prisoner was almost executed—almost went to the gallows?
    Mr. MACLEAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to make any inquiry into the legal costs of the appellant in having his sentence quashed, so that the House may have some definite information as to the actual sum received by him as compensation? The House will then be in a position to compare that sum with the precedents quoted by the right hon. Gentleman.
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir. I see no reason to take that course. The compensation which was given was given to cover all the circumstances and was so accepted.
    Mr. MACLEAN: How can the right hon. Gentleman intimate to this House that it was given after taking all the circumstances into consideration, when he admits that he does not know what were the legal costs of the appellant? Is it not an important point in the consideration of the amount of compensation to be determined? Compensation is surely not payment for expenses incurred?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that a Supplementary Estimate will shortly come before the House in Committee, and that would be the proper time at which to debate this subject.
    Mr. MACLEAN: In order that the House may be in a position to judge the Supplementary Estimate and debate it with all the facts before them, is it not necessary that the costs of the appellant should be made known to the House?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is probably so, but I felt that the hon. Member in his Supplementary Question was going rather beyond that point.
    Mr. WELLOCK: Arising out of the precedents mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, if they are to be taken into
    1534
    consideration, will he also consider the fact that£5,000 in 1904 is to be regarded as something like£8,000 to-day?
    Mr. B. SMITH: In regard to the precedents quoted, can the right hon. Gentleman also say whether in any of these cases expenses had to be incurred on anything like the scale involved in the Slater case?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Of course, in judging of these matters, there is a certain element of knowledge in the Department of what the ordinary run of costs may be in particular cases. Naturally, all these things are taken into consideration, but this payment must not be taken as being divided into heads and sub-heads. It is a lump sum paid to cover all the circumstances.
    Mr. DAY rose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has had the facts for which he asked.

    WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS (EX GRATIA PAYMENTS).
    Mr. CECIL WILSONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can give, for the last 25 years, the number of cases in Scotland in which a convicted person has been released after serving a portion of the sentence owing to its being ascertained that the conviction was wrong, and in each case the term of conviction, the portion served, and the amount of any ex gratia payment made; whether in any case it was, or was not, specified that a part of such payment was for legal or other expenses incurred by the convict or his friends in securing his release, and the general principles upon which the amount of ex gratia payments is arrived?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: As the reply is long and involves some figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. WILSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the number of cases; and can he state whether in any case anything has been specified as to the costs incurred; and what are the general principles on which the ex gratia payment, are made?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: If the hon. Member waits until he has the reply in his hands, I think he will find that it deals with all the points set out in the question.
    Following is the reply:
    During the last twenty-five years three persons have served period of imprisonment and have subsequently been granted Free Pardons in respect of wrongful convictions in Scotland. The sentences and, other particulars are as follow:—

    Sentence.

    Length of Detention served.

    Payment made

    12 months

    …

    5¾ months

    …

    None.

    21 days

    …

    21 days

    …

    £50

    60 days

    …

    26 days

    …

    None.

    In addition, there has been one case, apart from that of Mr. Slater, where a payment was made by the Exchequer to a person who served a period of imprisonment and whose conviction was subsequently quashed on appeal. The sentence in this case was 30 clays, which was served in full, £250 being paid as an act of grace.
    In one of the two cases where a payment was made it was not specified that part of such payment was in respect of expenses incurred in getting the conviction set aside; in the other case no such expenses were incurred, but the letter intimating the payment contained a general intimation that it was made in full settlement of all claims, whether for costs or otherwise.
    The Government is not responsible for the verdicts of juries, and ex gratia payments have only been made in rare cases where the results of an erroneous conviction have borne very hardly upon the individual concerned. In fixing the amount of such payment account is taken of all the circumstances, including the grounds on which the conviction is set aside: the length of detention in prison; any element of error on the part of the Crown; any way in which the person concerned may by his own conduct have tended to bring his conviction upon himself; and other relevant considerations.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. PARKINSONasked the Secretary for Mines whether he will furnish a Return showing, for the week ended 6th October, 1928, the number of collieries in operation, the number of workers, the
    1536
    number of workers on short time, the number working less than 48 hours, the number working 48 hours, and the number working more than 48 hours?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): During the week ended 6th October, 1928, 2,106 pits were in operation. The total number of wage earners on their books was 897,200, of whom it is estimated that 422,500 were prevented from working on one or more days during the week through want of trade or through transport difficulties. I regret that information is not available or readily obtainable to enable me to answer the last part of the question.

    COLLIERY, IBSTOCK, LEICESTERSHIRE.
    Mr. RYEasked the Secretary for Mines whether he has any information regarding the closing of a colliery at Ibstock, Leicestershire; whether this colliery has been permanently closed; and, if so, what steps are being taken to assist the workers concerned to find other employment?
    Commodore KING: I understand that a part of this pit was closed last week, and I am informed by the owners that it is impossible to make any statement at present as to the prospect of reopening. It is hoped that the majority of the men affected will be able to obtain work at neighbouring collieries, and the local Employment Exchanges and the management of the collieries are working together with this object. I understand that work has already been found for several hundreds of the men.
    Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the reason given for the closing down of this pit was that it was owing to the competition of the sea-borne coal from Northumberland and Durham; and can he exercise a little pressure on the coalowners of Durham and Northumberland to induce them to abstain from this cut-throat competition which is closing down mines in the Midlands?
    Mr. LAWSON: Has the competition not been intensified by the Eight Hours Act for which hon. Members opposite were responsible?
    Commodore KING: I am afraid that these points do not arise from the question, and ought to be put down.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the coalowners in Northumberland and Durham are endeavouring to keep their pits open by working at a loss?
    Captain STREATFEILD: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman also aware that the owners in Northumberland and Durham will, very shortly, be still further hit by the effects of the de-rating scheme?

    PIT HEAD BATHS, LANCASHIRE.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Secretary for Mines the number of pit-head baths sanctioned by the welfare committee to be erected in Lancashire; and the names of the collieries and the progress made?
    Commodore KING: The Miners' Welfare Committee have up to the present approved plans for six pit-head bath schemes in Lancashire. These schemes relate to the following collieries: Raven-head, Chanters, Gibfield Arley, Parsonage, Nook and Agecroft. It is hoped that building will commence shortly in the case of the first three named. In regard to the other three, active negotiations are in progress.
    Mr. MARDY JONES: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman have inquiries made for purposes of comparison as to the position in Germany and other countries?
    Commodore KING: I should require notice of that question.

    UNDERGROUND WORKERS.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Secretary for Mines what is the total number of underground workers at present employed in the mines of the country; what percentage are boys under 16; and the percentage of accidents which occurred to those over and under 16 years, both fatal and otherwise, for the year 1927?
    Commodore KING: On the basis of information relating to December, 1927, it is estimated that 728,700 wage-earners are employed below ground at coal mines at the present time, of whom 3.6 per cent. are boys under 16 years of age. During 1927, 96.6 per cent, of the fatal accidents below ground occurred to those over 16 and 3.4 per cent. to those under 16, the corresponding figures in respect of acci-
    1538
    dents causing disablement for more than three days being 95.9 per cent. and 4.1 per cent. respectively.
    Mr. MARDY JONES: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman's attention been drawn to the practice of certain coal-owners who employ boys at these ages to do men's work underground?
    Commodore KING: No, Sir. I know of no justification for that statement.

    BOYS, DURHAM (HOURS OF WORK).
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Secretary for Mines what is the earliest and the latest times of shifts at which boys of under 16 years of age are taken into the mines in Durham county, and at what time the latest shifts leave the mines?
    Commodore KING: The most recent information in my possession relates to April, 1927. The times at which the various shifts in Durham start and finish vary from pit to pit, and instances can he found of shifts which include boys either ending just before, or starting just after, midnight. In April, 1927, it was found that 838 boys under 16 years of age were working after 9 p.m. and 1,076 before 5 a.m.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that boys are taken into the pits at one or two o'clock, and do not come out until between two and three next morning; and does he consider that those are reasonable hours?
    Commodore KING: I think the hon. Member will realise that, with regard to pit-boys, it is very often the fathers who like to have their sons working with them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] That is what I am informed, and that is my answer—that in these circumstances I cannot see any reason why it should be stopped.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: If the father happened to be a criminal, would the Government be justified in that view?
    Commodore KING: I see no comparison with this matter at all. It is merely a question of working shifts which work through the night. If the father is working on the night shift, in some cases he may wish to have his own boys working with him.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware of what nearly every miner knows, namely, that these boys are working in no connection with their fathers at all? They may be working miles apart, and these are the regular hours for taking the boys into the pits and letting them out?
    Miss WILKINSON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that the argument he has just used is the argument used by Indian coalowners for having women and babes employed in the mines in India?
    Commodore KING: I am not aware of that fact.
    Mr. LAWSON: Who gave the hon. and gallant Gentleman that information? Is he aware that there is not a single case such as he has mentioned in the North of England?
    Mr. BATEY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that these long hours for the boys have only commenced since the Government passed the Eight Hours Act?

    ACCIDENT, FOLDFORTH COLLIERY, DURHAM.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Secretary for Mines if his attention has been called to the accident at Foldforth Colliery, Woodland, County Durham, by which two people, father and son, lost their lives; and will he cause an inquiry to be made into the whole circumstances attached to this matter?
    Commodore KING: The circumstances were fully investigated at the inquest, which was attended by one of His Majesty's Inspector of Mines, who had previously made an independent investigation. I have no reason to think that a further inquiry would serve any useful purpose.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that in many of these small pits, such as the one referred to in the question, no regard is paid to the regulations; and will he ask the inspectors to take extra precautions in these mines?
    Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: In view of the fact that both father and son in this case lost their lives, does it not show that the father was working with the son at the time?
    Mr. MARDY JONES: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say what was the age of the son in this case?
    Commodore KING: No, I cannot.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RATING.

    COAL INDUSTRY (YORKSHIRE).
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary for Mines (1) the estimated reduction in the cost of production of coal in Yorkshire and the percentage according to the de-rating proposals, differentiating between tonnage that will benefit by the reduction in freightage proposals;
    (2) the approximate quantity of coal produced in Yorkshire and its percentage of the total output for that county that will qualify for a reduction in freightage under the Valuation and Apportionment Act?
    Commodore KING: The output of coal in Yorkshire is approximately 44,000,000 tons per annum, but I have no definite information of the quantity which is used at iron and steel works or shipped abroad and therefore entitled to benefit by the proposals for reduced railway freights. As I informed the hon. Member for Roth-well (Mr. Lunn) yesterday, the estimated average reduction in the cost of production of coal commercially disposable in Yorkshire due to de-rating of the collieries themselves would be about 4d. per ton or 2½ per cent.
    Mr. T, WILLIAMS: How does the hon. and gallant Gentleman reconcile that figure with the reply that he gave in this House on 2nd May of this year, when he stated that the average rate per ton paid by colliery owners in Yorkshire was 2.57d.?
    Commodore KING: I am certainly not aware that I ever gave such an answer. Anyhow, at the present time the reduction in rates will amount to an average of 4d. a ton for Yorkshire.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: On a point of Order. On 2nd May of this year the hon. and gallant Gentleman replied to a question—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's question shows how inconvenient it is in a supplementary question to refer to an answer given by a Minister some time ago which he cannot be expected to carry in his mind.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Information is sought from the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and, when the reply is forthcoming, we find that the figures given by him have no relation—[Interruption.]
    Mr. SPEAKER: That really is not a point of Order. It is a matter of argument.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: But when erroneous statements are made and circulated throughout the country, are we not entitled to have them corrected?
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is a matter for another question at another time.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: He is giving the wrong figure again to-day.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should put the question down.

    LOCAL GOVEUNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENNasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to refer the Local Government (Scotland) Bill to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills, and, if not, for what reason?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, the Local Government Bills for England and Scotland are so closely inter-related, especially as regards finance, that it is necessary that both the Bills should be dealt with in Committee of the whole House.
    Mr. BENN: Does not the Prime Minister think that it would be more appropriate that the Members for Scottish constituencies should be consulted on details of the changes in Scottish law?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he can give further consideration to the answer which he has just given, in view of the fact that this Bill is purely Scottish and
    1542
    that the appropriate body to discuss Committee points of the Bill is the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think it has always been the custom of this House that Bills of the very first importance so far as possible shall be kept on the Floor of this House.
    Mr. BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman state any recent precedent where an important' Scottish Bill of this character has been kept on the Floor of the House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think the latter part of my reply answers that, namely, that as there is much of the Bills in common and they are so closely inter-related, they are Bills on which the verdict of the whole House should he taken, just as we have the assistance of the Scottish Members in regard to English Bills.
    Mr. BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman say, therefore, that it is necessary to bring in the opinion of English Members in order to override the opinion of Scottish Members?
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: In view of the fierce opposition in Scotland to this Measure, will the Prime Minister reconsider the question of cutting out this Bill from Scotland altogether?
    Mr. SHINWELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman's reason for not sending it to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills that he is afraid to face the verdict of the Scottish Members of his own party?
    Mr. MACLEAN rose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: There will be a Motion put to the House as to whether or not the Bill should go to Committee of the whole House. That will be the occasion when Members, if they think fit, can vote against the Motion.
    Mr. MACLEAN: This is a matter which affects Scotland, and I want to ask the Prime Minister if, in view of the fact that there are so many changes made by him in the Bill that he is making applicable to Scotland, due to the difference that exists in Scottish law and assessment matters, he will not reconsider the reply which he has just given and allow Scotland to discuss the

    1543
    matter in the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills which was set up in order to give Scotland the opportunity —[Interruption].
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Prime Minister has already answered that question, and he can only give the same reply again.
    Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. For your protection, Sir, but for the interruptions from the other side my question would have been ended before you rose to your feet, and if you are going to protect Members of the other side, I am going to ask you to extend the same protection to Members upon this side.
    HON. MEMBERS: Order!
    Mr. SPEAKER: I shall treat all Members alike.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I wish to ask the Prime Minister if it is not the case that the Secretary of State for Scotland personally went and appealed to the Prime Minister in order that he—[Interruption.].
    Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot debate the question now.

  PANELLED ROOM-INTERIORS (EXPORT).
  Sir MARTIN CONWAYasked the Prime Minister, whether his attention has been called to the frequent exportation from this country of panelled room-interiors and, in particular, of the famous Elizabethan room in Whitehall, Shrewsbury, recently sold for export to the United States; and whether the Government will introduce legislation to prevent such diminution of the national inheritance?
  The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend's suggestion has been noted.

  DEFENCE FORCES (STRENGTH).
  Sir J. POWERasked the Prime Minster the present total strength of the armed forces of the Crown, including Reserves and Territorials, now and on 1st July, 1914.
  The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend will appreciate that it is extremely difficult to give in a concise form figures which will reflect accurately the comparative strength of the armed forces of the Crown on the dates specified, having regard to the developments and changes which have taken place in the intervening 14 years, and in particular the emergence of the Royal Air Force as a third independent Service. In so far as personnel can be accepted as a gauge for this purpose, the approximate comparable figures are: —

  1914

  …

  …

  …

  …

  940,000

  1928

  …

  …

  …

  …

  674,000

  The above figures cover all forces (including reserves and auxiliary forces) for which provision is made in the Estimates of the Service Departments.
  Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: Is there any reduction comparable to that in the forces of the Allied and Associated Powers?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I should want notice of that question.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    COMMITTEE OF INTELLECTUAL CO-OPERATION.
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Prime Minister whether he can see his way to make a grant on behalf of the British Government to the work of the Committee of Intellectual Co-operation in close association with the League of Nations?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): I have been asked to reply. Provision for the work of the International Committee on Intellectual Co-operation is already made in the general budget of the League of Nations, of which this country, of course, bears its share. A sum of approximately 250,000 Swiss francs has been allocated for this purpose in the budget for 1929.

    INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.
    Mr RENNIE SMITHasked the Prime Minister if he has given further consideration to the recommendations of the International Economic Conference with a view to the early removal of barriers to international trade?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the Resolutions of the Conference was fully explained to the House by the President of the Board of Trade on the 20th July, 1927. Since that date His Majesty's Government have continued to associate themselves with the steps taken by the League of Nations through its economic organisation to give effect to those Resolutions, and, in particular, have taken part in the Conference on import and export prohibitions and restrictions. This Conference resulted in the International Convention which has been signed on behalf of His Majesty's Government and will shortly be ratified.
    Mr. RENNIE SMITH: Does the Prime Minister think that his proposed policy of extended safeguarding is likely to assist the work of the International Economic Conference?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am in favour of more reciprocity.

  INTER-ALLIED DEBTS AND EPARATIONS.
  Sir F. HALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the annual sum now being paid to the 'United States of America in repayment of war debt and how much of that is in respect of expenditure incurred directly on behalf of allied Governments; what are the respective war debts of the Allies to this country; what are the respective amounts now being repaid annually on account of those debts; and what is the annual sum which Great Britain is receiving under the German reparations scheme?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): The annual sum now being paid to the United States Government in respect of our war debt is£33 millions. Our receipts from allied war debts during the current financial year should be£12,800,000 (in- eluding£8 millions from France and£4 millions from Italy) and our reparation receipts should be£19 millions, making a total receipt of about£32 millions as against our payment of£33 millions. The annual payment to the United States Government rises to£38 millions for the
  1546
  52 years after 1933; but our receipts from allied war debts should also rise, in accordance with the scales of settlement agreed upon, so as to cover (together with reparations) our increased payments. Details of the various war debt settlements will be found in the Funding Agreements, which have been presented to Parliament. With the exception of a small amount re-lent to Russia, no part of the British War Debt to the United States Government is in respect of expenditure incurred directly on behalf of other Allied Governments. It can nevertheless he said that if we had not lent£2,000 millions to the Allies, we should not have had to borrow£1,000 millions from the United States.
  Sir P. HALL: Does the£33,000,000 to which the right bon. Gentleman refers include all the interest that we have to pay, and is there any truth in the suggestion that it is proposed that there shall be some reduction made with regard to the amount that Germany has to pay?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The figure which I have given includes the interest and the sinking fund to amortise the debt in a period of 62 years. I have nothing to add to the public statement which I made on the subject of the inquiry into reparations.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to have these war debts, which are paralysing the trade of all countries, wiped out?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I should be very glad to see them wiped out, but it is hardly within my power.
  Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is it not the case that in 50 years' time Europe will be paying £82,600,000 a year to the United States?
  Mr. CONNOLLY: Are the Government thinking of a basis of discussion for the settlement of the Russian debt, or is it the intention of the Government to wipe out that debt?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: By no means are we wiping out any claims that we may have for money lent to Russia.
  Mr. CONNOLLY: I am asking if the Government are seeking a basis of discussion for the settlement of the debt?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It is not a basis of discussion that we want, but some settlement.
  Mr. POTTSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of reparation payments by Germany under the Dawes scheme for the year ending 31st October, 1928, expressed in German gold marks and in British values, showing each separate payment applicable to the British Empire, Army of Occupation, Reparation Recovery Act, and cash transfers, respectively?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: As the hon. Member's question involves a number of figures, I propose to circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the answer:
  The payments made by the Agent-General for Reparation Payments during the year ended 31st October, 1928, to or on behalf of the British Empire were as follow:

  Gold Marks.

  £

  Sums received in sterling.

  (1) Through the Reparation Recovery Act procedure

  302,983,922

  14,852,153

  (2) By cash transfer

  69,259,529

  3,395,075

  Sums utilised in Reichsmarks.

  Payments to the German Government for supplies and services to the British Army of Occupation and on other accounts

  21,149,309

  1,036,731

  Total gold marks

  393,392,760

  £19,283,959

  Of this sum, Great Britain received£14,034,761 for reparations and£3,124,188 for Army of Occupation, Belgian War Debt, etc., and the rest of the British Empire received£2,125,010 for their share of reparations.

  BEER DUTY.
  Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the loss to the revenue of the arrangement made with the breweries in 1923 by which the cost of beer to the consumer was reduced by 1d. per pint?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It was estimated at the time of the 1923 Budget that the reduction in duty by£1 per bulk barrel would, after allowing for a consequential increase in consumption, cost the Exchequer about£16½ millions in the first full year. It is not possible to say exactly what the cost has been, but I see no reason to suppose that that estimate was far out.
  Captain ARTHUR EVANS: In view of the rating relief which the breweries will receive under the Bill which is being brought in by the Government, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether they can see their way substantially to reduce the price of beer?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not see that there is any relevance in the two things.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Has any guarantee been given to the right hon. Gentleman by the breweries that, in view of their enormous profits, they will hand the benefit on to the consumers?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No, I have received no guarantee.
  Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the difference between the dividends paid by the breweries in 1914 and those paid to-day?

  INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the Industrial Assurance Commissioner made an award against an assurance company to pay£216 to Mr. J. T. Wolstenholme, of 3, The Parade, Margate, together with the sum of£54, representing accrued interest, in respect to a War Loan policy which has been declared to be outside ordinary industrial assurance contracts; that thousands of people have been influenced to pay premiums on this class of policy; and if he proposes to take any action to induce the company to return the premiums, with interest, to the policy holders?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): Mr. J. T. Wolstenholme claimed against an industrial assurance company for the return of the premiums paid by him on a policy of endowment

  1549
  assurance issued by the company, under which the sum assured was payable in 5 per cent. War Stock, 1929–47, or cash, at option, with interest on such premiums, on the ground that the proposal was obtained by fraudulent misrepresentation of the terms of the assurance by the company's agent. The Industrial Assurance Commissioner awarded him£216, the amount of the premiums paid, and£54, interest at 5 per cent. on such premiums from their respective dates of payment to the date of the award. The decision was given on the facts of the particular case as proved in evidence. I understand that no conclusion should or can be drawn from it as to any other transaction than that involved in the particular claim. The remainder of the question therefore does not arise.
  Mr. THORNE: Is the Financial Secretary prepared to communicate with the Prudential Society, which is the body in question, as to whether there are not similar claims?
  Mr. SAMUEL: I must ask for notice of any case which the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

  RYE LIFEBOAT DISASTER.
  Mr. R. MORRISON(by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the evidence given at the Coroners' Inquest upon the Rye lifeboat-men that the lifebelts were water-logged and would drown the men instead of supporting them; and in view of the fact that lifebelts of a similar kind are in use on other parts of the coast and the anxiety of those who may be called upon to use them he can make a statement upon the matter?
  Mr. CHRISTIE(by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is proposed to hold a formal inquiry into the Rye lifeboat disaster?
  Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The Board of Trade have ordered an inquiry into the circumstances attending the casualty to the Rye lifeboat, and that inquiry will cover the allegations made with regard to the lifebelts.. I am informed by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution that the lifebelts used by the Rye crew
  1550
  were of the pattern known as No. 3A, and that lifebelts of this pattern were retained at the request of the crews at 14 out of the 205 stations under the management of the institution. The institution inform me that they are causing all the lifebelts of this pattern at these stations to be tested at once, and they are making it known that any crew which feels the slightest misgiving can have these lifebelts replaced by lifebelts of the other pattern.
  Mr. SHINWELL: Are the lifeboats inspected by the hon. Gentleman's Department, and, if so, how frequently?
  Mr. WILLIAMS: I would like to have notice of that question.
  Miss WILKINSON: In view of this appalling disaster, does not the hon. Gentleman think that the time has now arrived to take the whole of this important service from private charity, and to have a thoroughly competent State service?
  Mr. WILLIAMS: This disaster has nothing to do with the form of ownership of the lifeboat, but it has relation more particularly to the depth of the sea at that particular place.
  Captain FANSHAWE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the district inspector of lifeboats inspected this lifeboat and all her gear in February of this year, and that everything was found correct?
  Mr. MACKINDER: Does the hon. Gentleman really think that, if it had been a national service, they would have had a non-self-righting boat?
  Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Is it not a fact that several Royal Commissions have given the opinion quite clearly that the Royal National Lifeboat Institution is far more efficiently run under private enterprise and under voluntary circumstances than it would be under State control?
  HON. MEMBERS: What about the Navy!
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that a non-self-righting boat was chosen by the Rye crew themselves, and that in certain seas a boat need not be capsized but the crew can be drowned, even if it is non-capsizable? Will not the hon. Gentleman answer that question?

HAIRDRESSERS' AND BARBERS' SHOPS (SUNDAY CLOSING).
Mr. STEWART: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the compulsory closing of hairdressers' and barbers' shops on Sundays."
This is a Bill to stop Sunday labour, which I wish once again to submit to the House. There are several reasons why it should be passed. In the first place, it has been supported by nearly every Member of the House. It is a non-party Bill, backed by Members representing every party in the House. It is also the fact that this particular trade is a dangerous trade. The conditions under which the people work are injurious to their health, and in a great many cases the shops themselves are unhealthy places, and if we had a proper standard of inspection of these shops, I believe many of them would not be allowed to carry on. Further, the workers in this trade work longer hours than does the average shopkeeper. As one who worked in the trade from the time when I was a very small boy, I can tell the House that hours have not decreased as they have in other trades. To-day the average hours are from 60 to 70 per week.
Again, I would point out that a large number of young boys are engaged in this occupation. They frequently begin before they have left school, starting in the trade at 10, 11 or 12 years of age to work what we call "half time," and they have to do that for seven days in the week. When they reach the age of 14 years, they become available for working full time in this trade in which they never get one full day to themselves. Conditions generally in the trade are abhorrent, and very few boys who can avoid it will go into the trade. It is the unanimous desire of those of us who are in the trade and are fortunate enough to be outwith these conditions to join with the other people who are compelled to work seven days per week in demanding a higher standard for the people who have to follow this occupation. Again and again during the last 50 years or more we have taken every opportunity of testing the opinion of the trade, and it is to-day as it was long
1552
years ago, and there is a desire that the present conditions should come to an end in this year 1928.
Conditions tend to grow worse. There are more shops throughout the country and more of them are open on Sundays than was the case 20 or 30 years ago, because competition grows ever keener. It is a poor trade, poorly paid, and, as I have said, the work is carried on under conditions inimical to your health as well as ours. In 1914 one out of every five of the persons engaged in this trade died of consumption. When you go to the barbers' shop to be looked after, just remember that one out of every five of the men who are attending to you is a source of infection to you. If you allow them to work under these conditions you are going to pay your share of the price. I do hope this Bill will get the same support from the general body of Members as it had last year, and I would appeal to the Home Secretary's Department to give it the facilities which he denied to it last year. We like him despite the way he sometimes expresses himself with regard to opinions that he does not like, and while he is the mildest man who ever cut a throat, I hope he will show us that in this case he will not cut the throat of this poor little starveling, this poor little ill-faring baby, but will do his best, with that kindness which is characteristic of him, to see that it survives and becomes a Measure that will be a credit to himself and a credit to the humanity of the Members of this House.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Stewart, Mr. Templeton, Mr. Morgan Jones, Mr. Barr, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Sutton, Mr. R. Morrison, Mr. J. Jones, Sir Samuel Chapman, Lieut.-Colonel Moore, Mr. Womersley, and Mr. Broad.

HAIRDRESSERS' AND BARBERS' SHOPS (SUNDAY CLOSING) BILL,
"to provide for the compulsory closing of hairdressers' and barbers' shops on Sundays," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 14.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPERANNUATION (DIPLOMATIC SERVICE) [MONEY].
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it is expedient to provide for the application to persons in the Diplomatic Service of the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1919, and to authorise in the case of such persons the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of allowances and gratuities under those Acts as so applied "—(King's Recommendation signified).—[Mr. A. M. Samuel.]
  4.0 p.m.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): The reason why I am asking the Committee to pass this Resolution is in order that the Government may have authority to bring in a Bill to place all officers of the Diplomatic and Foreign Office Services on the same basis so far as pensions are concerned. I think hon. Members have in their hands a White Paper which we have prepared, number 3224, which will give them all information needed about the proposal which I shall lay before them. I think it is within the knowledge of the Committee that the Diplomatic Service and the Foreign Office Service were amalgamated into one Service in 1919. The duties of the services are now interchange able. The personnel are regarded as liable to take duty at home or abroad in any country as His Majesty may require. But the result of this amalgamation has been that the pension arrangements both of the Diplomatic Service and Foreign Office, which have always been difficult to work, have now become unworkable. I would like to show the Committee how difficult the position has become. Members of the Foreign Office appointed before 1919 are pensionable under the ordinary Civil Service Superannuation Acts as long as they remain at work in the Foreign Office, but if they go abroad permanently they come under the 1869 Act, and the result is if they should unfortunately die abroad on service, they lose the benefits of all their service in the Foreign Office.
  1582
  On the other hand, let us take the other branch of the amalgamated service—the Diplomatic Service. Members of the Diplomatic Service, old as well as new, are pensionable under the old 1869 Act. All officers appointed to the combined services since 1919 are legally members of the Diplomatic Service, and for that reason come under the 1869 Act. Under that Act, which now covers the appointment of all officers since 1919, the only thing which counts for pension is service abroad. We desire to straighten out the difficulties, and put pensionable diplomatic service and Foreign Office service on one and the same basis, namely, on the basis of the Civil Service Superannuation Acts. There is no compulsion with regard to old servants in the Diplomatic Service. They can, if they like, remain as before under the 1869 Act.
  All Officers appointed, as I have just said, in the combined services since 1919 come for pension under the Act of 1869. Let me show how unfairly that operates. Under the 1869 Act the only service which counts for pension is service abroad. If they have any service in the Foreign Office at home, it does not count at all for pension, even though an officer may be required to spend a great part of his total service in the Foreign Office. If he has been appointed to this service since 1919, he may be prevented from obtaining sufficient service abroad to qualify for pension, and this wholly unfair and unreasonable result arises, that after a lifetime in the service of the State, he may not get any pension at all. Of course, hon. Members will perceive that that is an intolerable position, and this hardship will fall particularly severely upon those officers who have entered the Service after 1919 when the means qualification was abolished.
  I will state another difficulty of the way in which this operates. Let us suppose that an officer appointed to the Foreign Office before 1919 dies on service. If he dies while on service at home, his widow and family will be eligible for a gratuity under the Civil Service Superannuation Acts. But if he has been sent abroad permanently and dies on service abroad, he will then come under the Act of 1869, and no gratuity will be payable to his dependants. That is a grave injustice,

  1583
  and it is a state of affairs which, I think, the Committee will assist me to remedy. We are, therefore, seeking by this Resolution to place all officers in the combined services under the Civil Service Superannuation Acts.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I ask the Committee to reject this Financial Resolution. I really do not know how my hon. Friend can stand at the Treasury Box and make such an eloquent appeal on behalf of the widows of civil servants of this character, because of the straits in which they may be left. The hon. Gentleman comes here and asks for pensions for the Diplomatic Service, for individuals who have far more wages than the miners or engineers. I want the country to understand that we are going to express our point of view, no matter what it costs us. Here we are asked to give pensions to people who have never paid a penny for those pensions. No contributory scheme is suggested here. It would be a different thing if it were members of my class. This is proof again that there are two nations in this country—the rich and the poor, those who have and those who have not. The Diplomatic Service comes under the category of those who have, because we are told on all hands—some tell us with tears in their eyes, and a tremendous halt in their voice—how those individuals who go out to represent this, the most wonderful Empire on which the sun ever shone, away in foreign parts they are stripped bare as the result of the lavish expenditure that that service entails upon them. We say that if there is expenditure of that character, it should be borne by the State, and not by individuals. Until that is done, then those services never can he carried out by anybody else than those who have money.
  We on these benches are representing the working classes. Many of us represent thousands who have never known what it is to have a square meal this year, and the year is about finished. If everybody in this country was well, was comfortable, I would be the last man to raise my voice against anybody getting anything, but we are here representing the workers who, at the moment, are being driven from pillar to post. There is a great agitation in Scotland at the moment over the standard on black, the
  1584
  background yellow, with rampant lion. The rampant lion of Scotland to-day is poverty. The fiercest lion that ever was in Scotland is abroad to-day, and we here, representing those poor folk, are being asked in cold blood, quite calmly, by a distinguished Member of this House, who commands the respect of this House, to agree to pension off individuals who have reached the age of 60 years—I am bordering on that myself. We are being asked to give them £1,700 a year pension by the same Government who forced the miners of this country, at the point of starvation, to accept a reduction in wages and increased hours.
  The CHAIRMAN: This really cannot be gone into on this Resolution. The hon. Member is not in order now.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am very sorry you have risen to bring me to order at this point, because that is exactly the point I covered last time, and was complimented because you did not pull me down.
  The CHAIRMAN: It is hardly a compliment to suggest I was guilty of negligence on the last occasion.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: No, it was simply that you were more tolerant than you are to-day. I am going to discuss this with you, Mr. Hope. The point I am raising is this—and I have as good a right to raise it on the Floor of the House of Commons as anybody else in the House. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury says that the country can afford £1,700 per annum as a pension. I say it cannot, on their own showing, and I am trying to show you why. Surely that is in order. Sir Douglas Hogg, before he was created a Peer, stood at the Treasury Box in my hearing, and said on behalf of the Government, that after careful consideration and much deliberation the Government had come to the conclusion that the country could not afford to support the mining industry any further, and he said that they would require the miners to work longer hours.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member will see, that, if he were allowed to proceed on those lines, it would be possible to raise the whole question of the controversy of 1926, and he must confine himself to the question of pensions to persons in the Diplomatic Ser-

  1585
  vice. The hon. Member may embark upon an illustration, but, if he is going to raise the whole of the mining controversy, he will not be in order.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I have no desire to follow that line of argument any further, and I was only using it as an illustration. I have been told by those who claim to be the greatest authorities in this House on procedure that to do what I have done would always be in order. Hon. Members belonging to every section of this House will have to face this question in the country whether they are Tories, Liberals or Labour representatives. What is now being proposed represents a state of things which no man can justify. I am not a better man now that I am getting £400 a year as a Member of Parliament than I was when I was working as an engineer on the Clyde. I claim that I am as good a man as any other man in this House, and I render service to my country to the best of my ability.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now advocating an increase in the salaries of Members of the House of Commons. The question we are discussing is whether some civil servants should receive the same pension rates as other civil servants. The Members of the House of Commons are not civil servants, and, therefore, that question cannot be relevant to the subject which we are discussing.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: If £400 a year is enough for me, it is enough for the best man who ever left these shores. I am well-fed, well-clothed and well-housed, and I am as healthy looking as anybody in this House. What more does a man want? The proposal which we are discussing is one to enable these officials in the Diplomatic Service to get more than their fellows in order that they may get control over other people. We are being asked to give these individuals an allowance of £1,700 a year, and I wish to ask hon. Members why it is, after all our enlightenment, and remembering that Socialists proclaim the equity of man, the brotherhood of man, and the fatherhood of God, that they come hero and attempt to justify a proposal giving these civil servants £1,700 a year as a pension, and at the same time do nothing for the men who do the absolutely necessary work for the community, and are able to obtain
  1586
  for that work only the barest possible pittance.
  The class I represent do the most onerous work under the most uncomfortable circumstances, and they get the least possible wages, and when an opportunity presents itself for stating their case, we are not allowed to do so. A section of the community have set up a certain standard of living for themselves, and we on these benches are here to protest against that. We are here to prove that that particular section of the community is not at all superior to us, or superior to the working-classes whom we represent. We do not see why a miner or an engineer should be asked to work a whole week for under £3 a week and no pension. What about their widows and dependants? What about the shipyard worker? What about the position of the working-class in general upon whom this country entirely depends?
  The CHAIRMAN: This is entirely a question of civil servants. Some of them receive a certain pension and some do not, and it is now proposed that those who do not receive pensions should receive the same scale of pensions as that which is enjoyed by those who do now receive pensions. This is not a question of a general rate of wages and that subject is out of order.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: My point is that those civil servants have no right to any special treatment. In our view, those officials have been getting special treatment all along, and they have been getting more than the working-classes. This is the only opportunity which presents itself to us when we can explain our point of view and express the sentiments which are surging through the lives of the working-classes, but which are not articulate. We are free from the shackles of wage slavery, and we have been sent here to express the sentiments of the workers and the views of those men who have to work for their daily bread. We have had frequent discussions in this House relating to unemployment. There are large numbers of workers in the country who are unemployed through no fault of their own, and they have contributed to a fund to stave off starvation. They have made those contributions from their meagre in-

  1587
  come in order to safeguard their loved ones from starvation. I am speaking of the state of things not in Russia or China but here in our native land where women and children are existing on about 17s. a week; and yet these civil servants who contribute nothing towards the pension scheme, who have "cushy" jobs, are going to have these large pensions.
  I am told that some of these civil servants are individuals related to the Government of the day and particular friends of the Government who have been given jobs. If this had occurred in Chester-le-Street it would have been held up as graft, but it is eternally going an. I do not wish to pursue this discussion any further, because there are other hon. Friends of mine who wish to speak from the same point of view. I may say that we intend to divide the House on this question, because we think it is a very serious business. This is a question upon which we are in real earnest, and we make a distinct challenge to the ruling class. When the Labour party come into power, we are going to do what we have been putting forward for the last 30 years. When we get the opportunity, we are going to overturn the whole of your system, and this proposal is one of the chances which we have of overturning your rule without shedding any blood. When we come into power, we shall change all those things. Only look at that joker Thomson from Aberdeen, walking down the floor of the House in all his gold braid representing the King. The whole thing is humbug, and we are going to alter it.
  Mr. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has committed a serious breach of order in his reference to an hon. Member. I must ask him not to do it again, or I shall be obliged to take more serious notice of it.
  Mr. TINKER: I oppose this Resolution. Before I come to the main point, I want to commend the Financial Secretary for having brought the Resolution before the Committee at a reasonable hour. On the previous occasion he brought it in at midnight. We opposed it then, and also on another occasion when it was brought in late at night. We are anxious that this Resolution
  1588
  should have the full light of day, so that people outside may know what is taking place. My object in rising is to draw comparisons and point out what this means. It may not be known to the Committee that the present cost of diplomatic pensions is £50,000 per annum, and this Resolution is going to increase that amount. I put down a question with reference to ex-members of the Diplomatic Service who were on pension, and was told that there were 44 of them, receiving on an average £1,093 per annum. That was the statement made by the Financial Secretary last July, and we are now being asked to increase that amount.
  If hon. Members have an idea of what this means in effect, they may agree with Members on these benches that it is unfair, at a time like this, to talk about increasing pensions. I have heard it said that it does not mean any extra cost to the Exchequer, and I would like to know about that before this Debate is over, because, according to my figures, it means an increase for the first five years of 23 per cent., then a further increase of 11 per cent., and then a further increase of 6 per cent., gradually settling down to 4 per cent., or an annual expenditure, after 10 years, of £2,000. Therefore, putting the three figures together, that is to say, the 23 per cent., which represents £11,500, the 11 per cent., which represents £5,500, and t5e 6 per cent., which represents £3,000, we get a total, after 10 years, of £20,000, and the average, which I am trying to arrive at now, is £6,000 for each year. That is for the first 10 years, and it will settle down, as I have said, to an average expenditure of £2,000 per annum.
  I want, in opposing this grant, to draw the attention of the Committee to these matters. I contend that, at a time like this, when we are in such financial difficulties, we have no right in the House of Commons to grant any further pensions or increases of pensions while these people are doing so well. If the amount were small, I would not argue as my hon. Friend has argued, and, indeed, I could not very well argue that everyone must be treated on equal lines. I realise that that cannot be done. I could not argue that these people are not deserving of some kind of pension, but it is wrong to come forward at this

  1589
  time to increase pensions which are already so very big. If I may be allowed to draw the comparison, only last Session I asked a question of the Minister of Pensions in regard to need pensions being taken into consideration when the old age pension was being paid, and I was told then that they had to have regard to the amount of money coming in when the old age pension was being paid, and, therefore, the thing had to be equalised.
  These are points which cause us to rise on occasions such as the present and point out to the House of Commons that, when there is the opportunity of doing something for the very poor people, we are always met by the statement from speakers on the other side that the financial position will not allow it to be done; and, when we are asked to grant big increases to a number of people who, to my way of thinking, are certainly not in need, these matters strike us very keenly, and we are anxious that everyone, should be aware of what is being done. If the Tory party or the Government seek to justify this kind of thing, I, for one, will do all I can to try and show our people that, in my view at least, it cannot be justified while so many people are suffering as they are. I trust that, as was the case last year, the Government will not press this Resolution. The position that we took up last year was the cause of the Bill being withdrawn, and I hope that on this occasion also the Government will realise that this is the wrong time at which to bring it forward, and that they will withdraw it and leave the matter over until the financial situation of the country is much better, and it is possible to make an attempt to put these men on a better footing. I, for one, will do all that I can to stop this Measure from going through.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not think that anyone in the Committee will doubt the personal sincerity of the two hon. Gentlemen who have spoken from the Labour Benches, however much one may disagree with the views which they have expressed. I have on more than one occasion said in this Chamber that I regarded pensions as deferred pay, and that applies to pensions in this Service just as much as to pensions in any other Service.
  Mr. J. JONES: What do you mean by service?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Any branch of the Civil Service.
  Mr. JONES: What about the national service?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I agree with what was said by my hon. Friend who moved this Resolution, and I think that, whatever individual views may be, the Committee as a whole will accept the view that it is reasonable and right that one branch of the Service should be placed in the same position as every other branch of the Civil Service. It is well to remember that the Foreign Office Service, or Diplomatic Service, has, until quite recently, been what might be regarded as a close Service.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: What about the Pensions Service that you were at the head of? Make a comparison with them.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I will make that comparison on the proper occasion, but I think the Committee will agree with me that, whatever individual Members may say, it is not lair or reasonable that one branch of the Civil Service should be left out in the cold.
  Mr. JONES: No branch of service should be left out.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: What I am now going to say will, I think, appeal to the working-classes of this country. It is well to remember, when we are discussing the Diplomatic Service, that until quite recently it was a closed service, that is to say, it was a service practically reserved either to what are called the upper class or to the very rich people of this country. Recently, however, it has become more democratic, and there is no reason why a clever young man of humble parentage should not have the same career in the Diplomatic Service to-day as the son of any other person in the country.
  Mr. JONES: Do you know of anyone?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Only the other day the name of a very distinguished young man was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Quite recently, and, as I gather, it is to be expected in the future, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Ramsay

  1591
  MacDonald) was at the head of this service, and I am perfectly certain that he did his level best to give any man of ability, to whatever class he might belong, the chance of a career in that service. I say, however, that it is perfectly impossible, however willing a Foreign Secretary may be to see a young man of poor circumstances make his way in that service, for such a marl to have that chance, unless he is assured by means of a pension that it is safe for him to enter upon that career. Therefore, upon these broad general grounds, I support this Resolution. In the first place, I think it is right and reasonable that this service should be placed in the same position as every other branch of the Civil Service, and, secondly, I say that, without the hope of a pension, which is merely deferred pay, this still remains a closed service to the son, or it may be the daughter, of a member of the poorer classes of the community. On these grounds I support the Resolution.
  Mr. SAMUEL: The case is even worse than is indicated by the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson). I do not disagree with a word of what he has said, but I do not think the Committee has realised that this matter of pension has become unworkable, and that great difficulty is caused by the amalgamation of these two Services. I want to put the point as strongly as I can before hon. Gentlemen opposite, so that their sense of justice may cause them to see that we are bound to take the action that we are now taking. If a man is appointed now to the combined Service as it has existed since 19193 he may be prevented by the terms of his service, if he is called upon to serve in the Foreign Office at home, from obtaining sufficient service abroad to enable him to qualify for pension. The result is a condition of gross injustice. Owing to the impasse at which we have arrived, a man may, after a lifetime spent in the service of the State, be unable to get a pension at all. That is an injustice that we must put right, and I appeal to the Committee to consider it.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: There are millions of people of our class always in that condition.
  Mr. CONNOLLY: I want to continue the point which was raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson). I raised this question two years ago, and the Financial Secretary, in reply, said that this question of a blind-alley occupation in the Diplomatic Service was causing the Government deep anxiety, and they promised, two years ago, to give it consideration. I am glad to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is here, because I want to ask what has been done. I called the attention of the House then to the fact that in our consulates in Europe, particularly in Belgium, a state of things existed which was most deplorable. The personnel there received a fixed scale of wages, on which they remained during practically the whole of their service, and they were not open to get superannuation in the ordinarily accepted way. According to the White Paper that we have now, an alteration is, apparently, going to be made, because it says:
  "Existing members of the Diplomatic Service will be brought under the new Act unless they prefer to remain under the Act of 1869."
  I have been looking at the Act of 1869, and there is no reference whatever to them in that Act.
  Mr. SAMUEL: The Consular Service is already under the Civil Service Superannuation Acts.
  Mr. CONNOLLY: I am taking the Financial Secretary back to his own answer to me on the 9th November, 1926, when I brought this matter before him. The question is whether anything is going to be done, in the Consular Service in Europe, to make employment in the Diplomatic Service something other than a blind-alley occupation. The admission was made that that was causing the Government anxiety, and that it was under consideration at that time, two years ago. I do not know whether the reference here means that something has been done, or is going to be done. I see that further down on page 4 of the White Paper it says:
  "Until it is known how the option given to existing officers is exercised, no certain estimate can be formed of the immediate cost of introducing the new system."
  Mr. SAMUEL: Is the hon. Member referring to the Consular Service? I am not clear what he means.
  Mr. CONNOLLY: I am speaking of the personnel at the consulates—people who are debarred from coming under the superannuation scheme at all, or were up to 1926, at any rate.
  Mr. SAMUEL: If the hon. Member means that the Consular Service does not come under any pension arrangements, let me assure him that it does come under the Civil Service Superannuation Acts as regards pensions.
  Mr. CONNOLLY: I am speaking of the personnel at consulates on the near coast of Europe. I may be under a misapprehension, but I was not under a misapprehension two years ago, in 1926, and, if necessary, I will refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT, which I have here, in order to bring back to the Financial Secretary his own answer to my question.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think there must be some misapprehension in regard to this matter. The hon. Member seems to be referring to employés at consulates who are not civil servants at all. If that be so, the matter can hardly be raised here, because the whole question here is one of different classes of people who are already civil servants.
  Mr. CONNOLLY: That is exactly the point that I am bringing forward, that they have not the opportunity, which they ought to have, of belonging to the Civil Service. I would remind the Financial Secretary of the form in which I raised the matter. I raised it, first of all, on the question of the currency. These employés at the Consulate, who ought to be civil servants, were being paid not at sterling rates, hut at the rate of the currency. The Financial Secretary said that was a technical consideration. Then I drew attention to the anomaly of the personnel of these consulates not being brought in on proper Civil Service regulations, and I am asking now whether this White Paper, when it speaks of existing members of the diplomatic service, includes these people. Is there some part of this Estimate to cover a proposal to bring these people in? I want to raise it as a matter of urgency, because the treatment that has been meted out to these people in the consular service is a by-word.
  Mr. BARKER: This proposal is peculiarly obnoxious to this part of the House. When we contrast the pensions of these members of the Diplomatic Corps with the pensions given to working men after 60 or 70 years' hard work, the whole thing is outrageously and monstrously unjust. It is impossible for anyone with any sense of justice and fairness calmly to acquiesce in a proposal of this kind. The working classes, if they are thrifty, are saddled with all kinds of disadvantages. I had an answer from the Secretary to the Treasury yesterday with reference to a question sent up to me by the Monmouthshire County Council Pensions Committee, where the money saved by certain people who had been thrifty is estimated to bring in an interest of 10 per cent., and though it may be in the Post Office Savings Bank only bringing 2½ per cent., they are charged on a 10 per cent. basis. Evidently that is monstrously unjust to those people. We have to-day a proposal under which a person who may have done 10 years' service in the Diplomatic Corps may obtain a pension of £2,000 per annum, whereas those who are getting the meagre wages they are receiving to-day will get an old age pension of 10s. per week, and every time they strike a match they will be contributing something to the pensions of these other people. We on this side of the Committee cannot possibly support a proposal of this character. It is striking at the very root of equality between one man and another. The day is very nearly drawing to an end when a Minister will dare to make a proposal of this character to the House of Commons. It is time those who are down and out had some consideration from this House rather than creating an aristocracy. That is what it means, because these diplomats will get some kind of a title, and then they must have pensions from the State to live up to the title the State has given them. By that means the workers are continually exploited by the Treasury and by the House. I hope the strongest opposition will be given to this proposal. I shall certainly vote against it and I do not know how it can be supported by anyone who has any sense of equity and justice as between man and man.
  Mr. J. JONES: There is an old adage which runs:
  "For he that hath, to him shall be given; and he that bath not from him shall be taken even that which he hath."
  Most of the people who are going to benefit by this proposal are already well provided for. The question of pensions for services rendered is a principle with which all of us would agree, but the ordinary working man before he can get a pension at 65 has to be an insurable person under the national health and unemployment insurance scheme, and before he can get an old age pension he must have given a certain number of contributions. Who are these people who are going to get special treatment? The Lord Tomnoddies, people who could not get a job in the ordinary labour market and are pitchforked into our foreign offices in various parts of the world. One of the conditions under which they get their jobs is that they must have passed through a university and must have certain degrees.
  Captain EDEN: No.
  Mr. JONES: How many bricklayers are foreign representatives? They must have passed through the schools, or through the associations connected therewith. It is no good talking humbug. When ice get down to brass tacks we know that all the higher positions in the Foreign Service are at the disposal of only certain classes of the community. There are boys getting education at a school just opposite here who are being trained for the Diplomatic Service. It is part of the curriculum of the school. The ordinary workman's son does not stand a cat in hell's chance of getting one of these jobs. An hon. Member below the Gangway pointed to our late Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, talking as if Labour was going to have a hand in the arrangement, and he found the very people he was trying to help sold him a pup. Where did the Zinovieff letter come from if not from that class of people, who are out for all they could get without giving anything in return? I am not going to hold the candle to the devil. If we are going to have pensions, let us have pensions all round. These people never subscribe to any pensions scheme. It is called deferred pay when they do not pay anything.
  Captain O'CONNOR: On a point of Order. Is it in order for the two hon. Baronets opposite to maintain a conversation while the hon. Member is talking?
  Mr. JONES: I am not troubling about who talks when I am speaking. Who are these people who are going to get pensions? Are all the servants of the State employed in this line going to receive equal treatment? Are all the messengers who are sent out going to be put on the same basis as the people who order them about? Are the workmen connected with the various establishments that we control in foreign countries, going to have the same kind of treatment? Will the Minister tell us that they are? If he did, a good deal of our opposition might be averted, but after all who is going to foot the Bill? The people of this country have to find the money to pay all the pensions. Now we are told these people are getting simply deferred pay. If the old age pensioners got deferred pay, it would not be 10s. but 30s. at least for the service they have rendered to the nation in the production of wealth. Therefore, we are opposing this Motion not because we want to prevent any man getting a pension, but, if pensions are paid to those who do the least of the work, there ought to be pensions for those who do all the work. We protest against special treatment for special classes of people.
  Mr. MACLEAN: I feel I could not allow this matter to go through, more particularly after having heard the explanation of the Financial Secretary. The hon. Gentleman said this matter should appeal to our sense of justice. That is just the reason why we are opposing it, because it appeals to our sense of justice. These people for whom we are asked to provide pensions come from a particular class in society. To enter the Diplomatic Service one must have certain qualifications. One of them is the accident of birth. One must be born in a particular stratum of society before he is admitted to the Diplomatic Service, one must have a certain kind of education and a certain income. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] One must have an income of not less than £400 a year. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] That used to be the case. However, I withdraw that. But I notice that no one interrupted me or questioned me when

  1597
  I said that those who enter the Diplomatic Service are drawn from a particular station of society and must have a certain kind of education.
  Captain EVANS: A short while ago the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs pointed out, in reply to a question put by a Member of his own party, that the First Secretary of one of our embassies abroad is the son of a cleaner of locomotives.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. MACLEAN: That is the one lily in the bed of wheat. That is the one exception that is quoted to us in order to induce us to vote for the proposal. That is one, out of the many who are in the Diplomatic Service, who has sprung from the ranks of the working class to induce us to vote pensions to all the rest. They are asking the impossible. I have a question on the Order Paper to-day relating to a woman in my constituency who is in receipt of a need pension from the Ministry of Pensions. What has happened? Upon obtaining the old age pension of 10s. a week, her need pension of Os. 2d. was reduced by 4s. 2d. to 5s. a week, making the total income of this pensioner 15s. per week. Women and men in Govan come to me and produce papers from the Ministry of Health showing that they have been refused the old age pension on the contributory basis because of being on the borderline. There is, perhaps, some little anomaly regarding contributions. Widows are refused pensions there of 10s. a week. Appeals are made to us across the Floor of the House by Members sitting on the Government Benches to the effect that there is not sufficient Money in this country to give certain little concessions for which we ask from time to time with regard to unemployed people and to old age pensioners. Yet the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who has made appeals to us not to press claims for concessions on the ground that this country cannot afford them, now comes before us and appeals to our sense of justice to give him power to award pensions of £1,700 per year or nearly £36 per week. If £1,700 were given in a lump sum to any of the old age pensioners in this country, it would, if invested at 5 per cent., provide an income of
  1598
  approximately £80 per year. From what I can see, there is on these Benches a feeling against this proposal, and hon. Members want to utter their protest. As I said at the outset, I cannot allow this thing to pass in silence, and, if it is pressed to a Division, I shall certainly vote against the passage of this particular Resolution. I could not face the people at Govan who are being refused pensions, I could not face the men and women in Govan who have been refused unemployment benefit by the Ministry of Labour if I allowed such a proposal as this to go through unchallenged and allowed the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to obtain it without a final protest on my part.
  Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I hope that we shall not allow this matter to get out of its proper proportions. The very important and germane points which have been raised by my hon. Friends behind are founded on very fine experience, and it is absolutely impossible for Labour Members who come into close contact with the industrial conditions and the human conditions of everyday life not to make reflections such as those which have been made by my hon. Friends this afternoon. I am not at all sure, however, that when we turn again and again in this House and in this Committee to exposing those points that our case will not be all the stronger if we give fair play irrespective of the conditions in which men and women find themselves. I am perfectly certain that the arm which is going to strike injustice out of the high places ultimately is going to be the arm that has struck injustice, irrespective of class, out of conditions that have been exposed before the final blow has been struck. Therefore, this afternoon I am going to support this Resolution. This is not a Resolution asking for new pensions. I am quite clear about that. It is not a Resolution asking that men shall be pensioned who in the eyes of the law and in the spirit of the law ought not to be pensioned now—[Interruption.] No, I know what I am talking about. It is something in my own experience that compels me to support this Resolution.
  Mr. MACLEAN: May I say that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in presenting this Resolution to the Com-

  1599
  mittee, said that there were certain members of the Diplomatic Service in the Foreign Office who had served their whole time in this country and did not give service abroad who are not receiving pensions, and that it was in order to give them pensions that this proposal has been brought in.
  Mr. MacDONALD: As a matter of fact, these men now but for certain discrepancies in the law would have their pensions, and they belong to a service which is legally a pensionable service. Let me justify myself by drawing an analogy. I am not sure that it is a very practical one, as it only comes to me without preparation. Supposing my hon. Friend happens to leave this House for a week and if he goes to Scotland his pay of £400 is continued, but if instead of going to Scotland he goes down to Devon for a week he gets none of his pay owing to some curious and unforeseen and undesigned provision of the law—supposing that were the wording of two rather incongruous Acts of Parliament, then if this Committee were to amend the Devonshire residence disqualification it could only be said that it was adjusting what really was an absurd, unfair and unjust anomaly in the law of the country. The intention of the House all the time was to pay Members of Parliament. That was its intention all the time, but by certain laws it was found that if a Member of Parliament was in a certain place he would get his pay and if he was in another place doing exactly the same work and, still in the service of the State, he would get no pay at all. I can assure my hon. Friend that that would be very unfair. That is all that there is in this case. Of course, reflections about £1,700 and so on are perfectly obvious, but again the men who are going to get the £1,700 are not going to get an addition of £1,700.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: They are going to get £1,700.
  Mr. MacDONALD: That may be, but let us get at the justice of the thing and deal with the mathematics of the thing later on. The justice of the thing is, that it is not those men who are going to get £1,700. They are going to be taken from non-pensionable status and given a pensionable status, so that, with all the
  1600
  vagaries of the application of the law applying to pensions of the State, they will know when their time comes that it will not be a Treasury clerk or a Foreign Office clerk who will look through their papers, and say: "This man is going to get £500 or that man £700." The effect of this is going to be to declare that those men who are civil servants, who have served in the Civil Service with a certain status, shall have the same pension as their colleagues of exactly the same status in the Civil Service have at the present time. That is the position.
  There is another point which, I think, ought to be explained. It may just be on the verge of Order, but I think that it is within the narrow line. Who are these men? It has been said that only one son of a, working man is in a high official position. As a matter of fact, I think that there are more, and what we have to remember is that we are going to have still more. There is no mistake about that. What is the use of all the elementary school scholarships, going to secondary schools, and going up to the universities if we are not going to use the brains of the working-class in the State service. Moreover, at the present moment those men are selected by a Committee and upon that Committee sits my hon. Friend the Member for South Leeds (Mr. Charleton), who has done extraordinarily good work. Supposing we put one of these men into a Diplomatic office with very great responsibility, and he does his duty well and he retires. Why, if that man belonged to the class which had £400 a year income from private sources he could snap his fingers at our pension. He would be all right. If he were my son or your son, what about it then? These are the men who suffer most of all from the existing law which we are now going to change by passing this Resolution. That is the position. It is more than that. It is a position which I experienced when I was at the Foreign Office, and it is very unfair. If it is a question of revising salaries and that sort of thing, I would remind hon. Members who have been members of Town Councils and local governing bodies, that if they have done their duty they have again and again voted salaries for town clerks and others greater than many of the salaries of those officers whom we are now considering.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Never once.
  Mr. MacDONALD: I said that they have if they have done their duty. The principle is a perfectly settled one and all sections of the Committee and all parties will have to recognise it. The State Service must be very well paid if we are going to retain the people whom we want to be in that service. One of the things that we are constantly complaining about—and if we complain about it we ought to face the facts—is that there is too much leakage from our Civil Service into private industry. I say to this Committee, perfectly frankly, and to the Civil Service itself perfectly candidly, that if I expect great ideals in regard to the Civil Service, and if it is my intention to use the Civil Service in a way in which the Civil Service has never yet been used—for the purpose of advancing national interest and building up a very fine national organisation—I am going to say to the civil servants, "You stay with us, and we will give you pay, we will give you status, and we will give you an honour which no private outside employer can give you." It is part and parcel of that ideal to welcome this Resolution, for which I am going to vote.
  Mr. BATEY: The Leader of the Opposition has put the cat among the pigeons. I beg to differ from him, and I am unconvinced in regard to my opposition to this Resolution. A fortnight ago, we were told that the Government needed all the time of the House, and on that ground they took all the time of private Members, the argument being that that course was necessary in order to get through the business of the Session. Notwithstanding, we have scarcely started the Session when they bring forward this Resolution, which is to be followed by a Bill. Last year, for six months, there stood upon the Order Paper a Bill dealing with this question, but the Government allowed it to lapse and the finish of the Session killed the Bill. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury remarked that a gross injustice was being done at the present time to the men in the Diplomatic Service. I would be the last, if I knew it, to do a gross injustice to anybody, but I do not believe that we are doing the least injustice to these men in the Diplomatic Service.
  1602
  We are paying them pensions to the extent of £50,000 a year and this Resolution means that we are going to increase that amount. I would ask the House to remember that this is public money and that we are not justified in giving public money to a certain class at the expense of another class.
  The White Paper says that it is proposed to give these people pensions of £1,700 per annum, after 15 years service. I would ask the House to compare that with the position of my own class. I came to this House in order to keep the interests of my class before my eyes and I think of them before anything else. The men who work in our Durham coal-pits are fortunate if they earn a wage of £100 a year. After 15 years service, what pension do they get? They get no pension at all. After 25 years service they get no pension. If we reverse the 15 and make the figure 51 we find that. after 51 years service they may get a pension of £26 a year. These Durham, coalminers are men just as are the people in the Diplomatic Service, but they have not the same chance of saving. They have no opportunity of providing for a rainy day. These men in the Civil Service, who are so much better circumstanced, are to be entitled after 15 years service to a pension of £1,700 a year, while the men of my class after 51 years service are fortunate if they get a pension of £26 a year. That is a gross injustice. The Financial Secretary talks about a gross injustice. The gross injustice is to the working classes of this country and not to the members of the Diplomatic Service.
  The Leader of the Opposition used one argument which rather tickled me. He said that at the present time there are sons of the working class in the Diplomatic Service. One swallow does not make a summer. The right hon. Gentleman added that we are to have more of the sons of the working classes in these high positions. God forbid, because in most cases to raise up men from the working class and to put them into service like this, with these huge pensions, simply makes them snobs. It makes them forget their own class. I am not anxious that the sons of the working class should be put into these positions and I would not vote for it, because one's experience is that if we

  1603
  put them there they would be no better than the others. Therefore, I will not vote for putting them there. The White Paper says that this pension system is unsatisfactory in itself and quite unsuited to modern conditions. That argument does not apply only to the Diplomatic Service. It applies to the pensions of the working class. Until we get the pensions of the working classes increased, I will not vote for any members of any service to have these pensions.
  Last year we introduced a Bill into this House to give pensions to women of over 65 years of age whose husbands had reached the age of 70 years. The proposal was to give them a pension of 10s. per week. Hon. Members opposite killed that Bill. They would not allow us to have a Second Reading. They prevented these women of over 05 years of age, whose husbands were 70 years of age before the 2nd January, 1928, from having pensions. They said to these women of the working class: "We cannot give you a pension of 10s. a week," yet they will go into the Lobby to-night to vote for pensions of £1,700 a year to members of the Diplomatic Service. They will do that, after their treatment of the working class women. If the pensions in the Diplomatic Service are not. suitable to modern conditions, equally the pensions of the working class are not suitable to modern conditions. We have thousands of working men and working women who cannot get a pension. They have been prevented by one thing or another from getting a pension of 10s. a week and they have to exist on the Poor Law. Until these people can get a pension, I shall vote against any diplomatic pensions. With all the present trouble and distress in the coal industry it would be a good thing if we could give an adequate pension for the miners when they reach the age of 60. We are told in the White Paper that an Ambassador or Minister may be pensioned before attaining the age of 60. If the Government would find the money to superannuate our miners at 60 years of age, instead of feeding the fat sow as they are proposing to do by this Resolution, they would remove from the mining industry a good many men who have no hope—
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is getting very remote from the Question before the Committee.
  Mr. BATEY: I wish to keep in Order, but the statement in the White Paper rather tickled my palate. I refer to the statement that the pension system is unsatisfactory in itself and guile unsuited to modern conditions. The present pension system as regards the working class is also unsatisfactory.
  The CHAIRMAN: We are dealing in this Resolution with a particular class of the Civil Service. The hon. Member cannot go into the whole question of the pension system.
  Mr. BATEY: I am quoting from the White Paper which backs up this proposal. If the Government are entitled to issue a White Paper for the purpose of supporting the proposal, surely I am entitled to criticise it. It is a gross injustice to the working class for the Government to propose to pay such big pensions to a certain class of people and to leave the working class in their present condition. I can, of course, understand the Government doing it, because they know that their time is very short. They know that the judgment day for the Government is coming, just as some of us believe that there is a judgment day for men. They know that the judgment of the country will be passed upon them and that they may pass into outer darkness. Before they go there they want to make sure that they have made provision for their friends. They are not justified in asking us to pass this proposal. I hope that the majority of Members on this side of the House will not only on this occasion but on every occasion oppose a system like this which divides the people of this country into the upper class and the lower class and provides for the upper class whilst neglecting the interests of the working class.
  Mr. CHARLETON: As my leader intimated, I have served on the Committee of Selection for entrants into the Diplomatic Service. I have sat on that Committee for three years and T think this Committee ought to know what takes place, because it may be that there is some slight misconception as to how the young men are selected for the Diplomatic and Consular Service. The

  1605
  young men come before the Committee, and it is our job to examine them, not from the point of view of class but as to their fitness to represent us in the Diplomatic Service. It may be that the Diplomatic Service is wrong—I am not arguing that question—but we simply as men of the world, and we are a pretty well-assorted lot, examine these young men and try to find out what sort of young men they are. We have their references from various sources. We turn some down. You have a spectacle of an engine driver declaring that the son of a lord or a duke is not fit to serve his country in the Diplomatic Service.
  No young man has been passed for the Diplomatic Service with whose selection I have not agreed. I have agreed with the selection of every man who has been passed during the time I have been on the Committee. When the candidates leave us they have to go through a very stiff examination and there, perhaps, some of my hon. Friends are to some degree right when they say that the man with the university training has an advantage. He certainly has, but we have before us bright youths, intelligent youths who have won scholarships—I am not saying that the scholarship system is right—and have gone to the universities and done very well. Some of them were passed; how they got on afterwards is not my business. Some of my lion. Friends seem to have forgotten this point, that for the first time something is going to be done by way of pensions for those in the Diplomatic Service. This is doing what the Labour party would have to do when we come to overhaul the Diplomatic Service.
  At the moment the granting of pensions is open to favouritism; it is an award for service. There is no right. This is a proposal to put it on an equitable basis; a man will get a pension as a right and by virtue of his service, and we shall he able to deal with the matter in the House of Commons. We have not been able to deal with these pensions in the past because they never came before us. We do not know how many men were on pensions. If this proposal is accepted every man will get a pension according to his length of service. The reference in the White Paper to "modern conditions" seems to me to suggest that
  1606
  in this matter we are bringing it into line with what we on this side would desire. In the old days, when a man had to have a private income of £400 before he could enter the Diplomatic Service, he was not much concerned about pensions, but when the individuals for whom hon. colleagues of mine have been pleading get into the Diplomatic Service it will be very necessary that they should have pensions. If a bright lad gets into the Diplomatic Service he will know that at the end of his service he will get a pension which will carry him to the end of his days. That is all I propose to say on this matter: I thought I ought to say it before the Vote is taken.
  Mr. MAXTON: I wish to associate myself with those who are opposing this Resolution. I cannot say that I have been very deeply impressed by the arguments put forward in its favour. A considerable sum of money is involved, something like £20,000, and that is a consideration which the Committee should weigh before letting the matter go out of their grasp. In spite of what the hon. Member for South Leeds (Mr. Charleton) has said I do not think, being a minority on the Committee that he would have a very powerful influence in deciding the types of those who get through the narrow door into the Diplomatic Service. I am very anxious that members of the working class should get into the public service, and the very first step towards that is the abolition of the Board of Selection altogether. There is no special reason why men going into the Diplomatic Service should pass the Board of Selection before they sit for the examination. It does not apply to the men going to the Home Office or the War Office or any other Government Department. It is argued that because sons of the working classes may get into this service at some distant date that we ought to see that when they reach 60 years of age they should be provided with pensions of £1,700 a year. I want to point out this fact in addition, that if a man is going to get. a pension of £1,700 a year he has had, according to the ordinary calculations of the Civil Service, a salary of £3,400 in his retiring year and a sum approximate to that for many years before.
  Mr. CHARLETON: They do not all get it.
  Mr. MAXTON: The lowest figure mentioned in the White Paper is £700, which means that a man has had a salary of £1,400 a year, and the majority of the electors in South Leeds, certainly a majority of the electors in the Bridgeton Division, if they had a salary of £1,400 for one year could make ample provision for a considerable number of years afterwards. And that is not all. According to the Civil Service practice we give a gratuity of 1½ times the amount of his annual salary to a man on his retirement, which means that the Labour party on this side of the House is supposed to agree to a proposal to give a man on the first year of his retirement £1,700 a year as pension and £5,100 in the form of a gratuity, that is, £6,800 in one lump sum. The hon. Member for South Leeds has appealed to us. He has a knowledge of the Diplomatic Service and the excellent work that is done, and he tells us that it will be necessary for a Labour and Socialist Government to pay high rates of remuneration in order to retain in the public service the highest forms of ability. I notice that the Government have been unable to retain the services of one of their most eminent members because of the attractions outside. Every man who wants to desert the public service for higher money outside should be allowed to go, and we should wave him goodbye, but I hope very shortly after the accession of a Labour Government that there will be very few opportunities for a man to desert the public service and enter into private enterprise; I hope the position will be that if they do desert the public service they will be' unemployed.
  I do not think that in the Diplomatic Service, or in the public service generally, there is any scarcity of talent to perform the most difficult tasks. The hon. Member for South Leeds has referred to the necessity which local authorities have felt to pay high salaries to town clerks and other public officials. I know that on many occasions town councils have been persuaded to believe that they ought to pay high salaries in order to get the services of particularly competent men. We had a case in Glasgow, where a public official getting £3,000 a year insisted that he could not carry on unless he got another £500. The town council nearly believed it and thought that he would resign if he did not get it. He
  1608
  did not get his extra £500, and he did not resign. We have had other cases in Glasgow. A certain town clerk who bad been in the public service for many years, highly respected, and was regarded as an irreplaceable man. All the citizens were expecting that the administration of Glasgow would collapse when this old gentleman did retire. He retired. We searched the length and breadth of Great Britain at a fancy salary for a man to take his place. We got him, and retained his services for a short time only. We advertised again and got another man. He went after a short time, not proving very competent; and we then found that the man who had been working as a junior subordinate of the old man was capable of taking his place. He did so; but got the idea into his head that he was absolutely irreplaceable and that we must pay him a fancy price. I have been in the public service myself, and I know that for every man holding a big position there are about 50 underneath him who believe that they are perfectly competent to take his place.
  Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: In politics too.
  Mr. MAXTON: Yes, and it would be a pity for the world if it did not apply to politics.
  The CHAIRMAN: We are getting very wide of the Vote, which applies to a particular class of civil servants.
  Mr. MAXTON: I was trying to argue the point that the type of quality which is required for this work is very scarce and that we must, therefore, pay scarcity prices in order to keep it in the public service. I do not think there is anything in the facts of the case to support that view. An hon. Friend of mine has suggested that if we do the decent thing here hon. Members opposite will be persuaded to do the decent thing towards the working-classes. He knows that that would be a very grotesque thing to expect. I find sufficient justification for opposing this Resolution in the fact that never have I seen hon. Members opposite at any time come into this House with a spirit of generosity towards members of the working-classes. Never once during the seven years that I have been in the House have I seen an appeal of this description made on behalf of the bottom dog in this country, whom we

  1609
  represent, and, therefore, I think it is fair Parliamentary methods to say that if the Government refuse to treat those who are clown at the bottom all the time with decency, let alone with generosity, then we certainly shall do all we can to prevent them giving a very favoured section of the community anything more than they have at the present time. I shall oppose this Resolution.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: No one will complain of the dulness of this Debate. I imagine that everybody will be delighted with the unanimity expressed by silence on the other side of the House, and by the expressions which have been used on this side. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) says that he is going into the Lobby against this Resolution in order to give expression to his disgust that hon. Members opposite have never once done anything for the working classes.
  Mr. MAXTON: Shown a spirit of generosity.
  Mr. THOMAS: lie is going into the Lobby to show his opposition to hon. Members opposite, because he neither believes them nor trusts them, but, in doing so, he forgets that he is consciously doing an injustice to somebody else. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I am dealing with the arguments used; and the statement of my hon. Friend was clear and definite, that his opposition is to the Government, never mind the injustice to the people with whom we are trying to deal. I also agree with previous speakers on this side of the House who say: Why should we support a proposal which gives £1,700 a year pension to someone when at the same time other people are denying 10 shillings a week to members of the working classes? Again, I associate myself with the protest and opposition against their actions in that connection, 'but, after all, the question we have to vote on it this: there are two people in the Civil Service doing precisely the same work, rendering precisely the same service, serving the community faithfully and well, but because of a flaw in the existing law one of them is deprived of rights which the other one enjoys.
  If it is admitted that that is the existing state of affairs, what bearing
  1610
  have the old age pension and all the other grievances got on the removal of that particular anomaly as it exists to-day? That is exactly what is proposed. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition says, "Let us carry it to its logical conclusion." In 1924 there were vacancies for the highest positions in the Dominions and the Colonies. I suppose that my hon. Friends behind me will at least subscribe to the view that brains are not necessarily the monopoly of any class. I, as a Minister of a Labour Government, took the view that in these administrative and big positions we ought not to consider either the special social position or the politics of the individuals chosen. Then why ought we to go into the Lobby with my hon. Friend and perpetuate a system that deprives us of the opportunity of availing ourselves of the brains, even for those positions? That is what you have to answer. [Interruption.] The answer I get is that provision will be made. But as my right hon. Friend said earlier on, you are not here asking for any special favour or privilege. What becomes of the argument that you must not vote for this because these people are getting £3,000 a year As one of my hon. Friends has said, there are people in his constituency not getting anything like it. Hut there are a number in my hon. Friends' constituencies not getting anything like what they get.
  Mr. J. JONES: And there are more in your's.
  Mr. THOMAS: As my hon. Friend says, there are more in mine.
  Mr. JONES: I wish I had half of your's.
  The CHAIRMAN: I really must ask hon. Members to allow the right hon. Gentleman to proceed.
  Mr. JONES: I know. He must not throw bricks or he will get them back.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must allow the right hon. Gentleman to proceed with his argument. If he will not refrain from interrupting, I must ask him to leave the House.
  Mr. THOMAS: The Leader of our party gave expression to his view. No one interrupted him or anyone else who expressed the opposite view. Surely we are

  1611
  all entitled equally to deal with the arguments used in connection with particular proposals. I say that this is neither inconsistent nor unfair. Is it to be argued that we are to oppose the regularising of a pension system that is admittedly unfairly applied to-day? Can it be argued that we must do that on the ground that these people obtain a certain salary for their work, while miners or railwaymen or cotton operatives get a less salary? It is not unfair to say that the logic of that is, "Let us all be on the same salary."
  HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear£
  Mr. JONES: That would be your sacrifice.
  Mr. THOMAS: That being so, we know exactly where we are, and all our town clerks and Prime Ministers and even our Members of Parliament had better give immediate evidence of their anxiety to bring it about. At all events, I shall vote for this proposal, but I refuse to have it said that in voting for it I am in favour of the present miserable pension for the working-classes; I refuse to have it said that I am unmindful of the social and economic conditions of our own people. I shall vote for it for precisely the same reasons as my Leader will vote for it, because I do not think it is a good thing to perpetuate an admitted injustice when that injustice can be speedily removed.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I do not think this is a question over which one need get hot. There is no question of justice involved in this matter at all. We on these benches are not being unjust to the Diplomatic Service, and the Government are not animated solely by the spirit of justice. Every member of the Diplomatic Service on entering the Service knows perfectly well the conditions under which he has to serve. The pension conditions are among the elements considered naturally by every person entering the Service. What we are considering to-day is purely a question of expediency. Are we to pay higher pensions? I noticed in to-day's "Times" the proof of the will of our previous Minister to Jugo-Slavia at £125,000. If all Ministers were as well off as that there would be no need of this increase of pensions. But it is known perfectly well that they are not, that some are well off and some are not.
  1612
  The present system of pensions, I understand, takes into account considerations of that sort, whereas the new system proposed in this White Paper is a hard-and-fast system dependent on length of service.
  As far as I can see from the White Paper, only Ministers and Ambassadors who have served for five years get any benefit under this scheme. It has long been my idea that it would be far better to get, as Ambassadors, people from this House rather than from outside, people who would bring democratic ideas to deal with new countries, not in the old spirit of the old diplomatic service, but in the spirit of the outside world. Such people would obviously be short-term people. Their services would in every case be less than five years. This scheme automatically debars everybody of that sort from getting a pension. That alone is bad from the point of view of this country's interests abroad. I would point out to the hon. Member for South Leeds (Mr. Charleton) that he would not get a pension unless his service exceeded five years, and then he would get only a gratuity. It is only after 10 years that there is a pension. This affects merely the people who enter the service as diplomatists and carry on through life as diplomatists.
  There is another point. We have recently increased the cost of the Diplomatic Service. There have been new Ambassadors appointed in Argentina and the Brazils, and that change has involved additional expense. There are few signs anywhere of Ambassadors being reduced to Ministers. In Turkey we still preserve the fiction that that is a country to which we should send an Ambassador. The expenses of the service, owing to the large number of new countries that have been started since the War—Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Finland—have increased, because additional Ministers have been appointed. If this had been an increase in the cost of the Consular Service, I should have been all in favour of it. That would have been something for our trade. The diplomatic branch seems to me to be a branch on which we might wisely economise. The relations of these small countries to this country are not as important as were the relations of the larger countries to this country before the War. We are in a position of much greater

  1613
  security and independence of the political co-operation of those other countries. We need not spend so much money on diplomacy because we are safer. That may be a small reason, but there is an additional one.
  We are now carrying on a great deal of our diplomacy and our relations with these small countries in Europe through the League of Nations. The League has been a constantly growing expense, and we have not had a corresponding economy in the old diplomatic machinery. We are now at a time when we might reduce the old machinery and use the new machinery more, and thereby save money. Therefore, when this question is brought up, I wish it were brought up as showing an economy instead of an additional expense to the taxpayers. Whenever a Diplomatic Service is brought up I should strongly urge economy, although it would be fighting against a vested interest which is peculiarly strong. There is all the old machinery, all working perfectly smoothly, composed of perfect people who are delightful to meet and do their job perfectly well. It is excessively hard to cut down the expense of that branch of the service. But, in view of the rise of the League of Nations, we should not be asked now to vote an additional £23,000 a year to this particular branch of the Diplomatic Service.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. WRIGHT: I may observe at once that I am opposed to this proposal. Like my colleagues, I oppose it on conscientious grounds, but I do not approach this question from the same point of view as some of my colleagues. I do not regard it purely as a working class question, or from a working class point of view alone. My view of pensions is that they ought to be paid to all men who need them, and that a pension ought not to be paid to any man who does not need it and who has been able to provide for old age out of the salary or wages which he has received. That is the position which I have hitherto taken up and unless some very important argument is advanced against it, that is the position which I shall continue to take up. I have never been satisfied that men like Members of Parliament, or Judges, or members of the Diplomatic Service, are more valuable members of the community than manual
  1614
  labourers—dock labourers, men who cultivate the soil or men who dig coal in the mines. I am not sure that it is a wise discrimination to treat one class with luxury and the other class with hardship. We are quite in order in opposing this proposal. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) was good enough to advance the argument that it was possible for a man, however humble his position to enter this service. It is equally true that it was possible for working men to enter Parliament in 1869 when the Act governing this matter was passed; but it was, in practice, quite impossible for any number of them to enter Parliament then just as it is quite impossible in practice for the sons of working men to enter this service now. Therefore that argument does not carry us much further.
  When we consider that the recipient of a first class pension of £1,700 per annum gets, in a month, as a pension the equivalent of what a highly skilled workman at 50s. a week will earn in a whole year for working, and that the £25 a week represented by a pension of £1,300 per annum is more than the average miner receives for the full year's work, I think it will be seen that we have some reason for our attitude on this matter. The same argument can be applied to other categories of workmen. Representing as I do, to the best of my ability, a very important industrial constituency, and as a member of the Labour party for many years, I could not conscientiously support this proposal, by whomsoever else it may be supported, in view of the fact that this Act was passed at a time when there were no representatives of labour in this House. There is bound to be a revision in regard to many of these questions in proportion as the strength of the Labour party is increased. We have to remember that vast numbers of our people have no provision for their old age and are now living in poverty and distress—indeed in many cases in actual semi-starvation. I should not be doing my duty if I, in any way, recognised the pensions which are proposed here and I am not concerned as to the conditions under which they were originally fixed.
  Much of the ground has been covered in this Debate and some of the arguments

  1615
  advanced in support of the proposal seem to me so flimsy as to be scarcely worth notice. It was with regret that I heard the argument advanced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas). He said that Members on these back benches were receiving more than many of the people in their constituencies. That is perfectly true and it is not very creditable to the industrial system. But there is the further argument that we have much more expense than these men living in our divisions. What is more, the right hon. Gentleman, when he was in office, received a pension of ten times more than back benchers received. Is he ten times a better man than the men who are sitting on the back benches?
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Not a pension—a salary.
  Mr. WRIGHT: I accept the correction, hut the argument holds good. I think the right hon. Gentleman had better have left out that argument entirely. I can scarcely see anything more calculated to check the progress of the Labour party than the attitude of certain hon. Members to-day. If they deliver those speeches in the great industrial centres, they will damn the prospects of the Labour party for the next 20 years.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I have on other occasions when proposals of this kind came before us, taken strong exceptions thereto, and I should be failing in my duty if I did not oppose the present proposal. I came to Parliament to make such efforts as I could on behalf of those who are riot in the position of being able to look forward to a pension of any kind at all. I am not at all surprised at the attitude of the Front Opposition Bench or at the deliverance which has come from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas). We have followed his movements in regard to other things, where those who are in high positions have his very sympathetic consideration. His concern apparently is to start adjusting anomalies and injustices at the top. I thought the Labour representatives came here, first of all, to consider those who are at the bottom. That is the general impression prevalent in the minds of the workers and I agree with the previous speaker that there is
  1616
  every likelihood that many workers will take note of the disparity shown on such an important question as this.
  The right hon. Gentleman asks us to consider tile anomalies or injustices prevalent in this particular connection. My case is that we are dealing here with a grant of substantial pensions to those who have had plenty of opportunity to make requisite provision for their future. It is most natural and most logical that we should consider, in contrast with this proposal, what confronts the mass of workaday people who cannot get any employment at all. We have to remember faithful and ardent toilers who are seeking to serve the best interests of the community in industrial life—that is, speaking of those who are even getting a chance to make a livelihood. But what of those who are not getting a look-in at all? How can any man representing the Labour movement fail to take advantage of this opportunity to emphasise the necessity for a complete readjustment of our pension system. I reckon that these opportunities offer us a special advantage from this point of view—that we can strike the public mind and bring home to the public conscience the fact that Parliament with perfect complacency will vote thousands of pounds to people who are simply wallowing in wealth, while we have sneering and scoffing and ridicule when issues are presented concerning those who have only a dark bleak outlook for the future. To me the thing is appalling.
  I notice when subjects of this kind are introduced, there is a feeling which is expressed in the words, "So-and-so is likely to discuss this question, but it will soon be over and there will be nothing more in it." I can understand the feeling which comes over Members when they get to the House of Commons. There is an atmosphere, there is an influence abroad, that is insidiously dangerous to those who have committed themselves before the body of the public by giving undertakings and entering into obligations. We have our electoral responsibilities; the people think that we are in earnest and that we intend to push forward their interests as far as Constitutionalism gives us the opportunity. There are such striking contrasts in connection with this matter that every

  1617
  conscientious man or woman must feel that sooner or later we must start on a readjustment of these questions.
  When we are being asked by the Government to support a proposal of this kind we should reflect on the pitiful allowance for the old lady who makes the way smooth for Ministers and ex-Ministers in making readjustments on those carpets over which we walk. No pension there—a mere pitiful allowance. An absolute disgrace to the House of Commons. [Interruption.] Yes, after 40 years' service. I can understand the situation of an ex-Cabinet, Minister having difficulty in opposing this kind of thing. Anybody with a cork head could understand that. When we were discussing the late Speaker's pension, an hon. Member who belongs to the Conservative party, but who used to be a Labour Member—there are many and various kinds of Labour Members nowadays—challenged us on the point of whether we would go in for reduction of our own salaries. It was a reference in my direction. I said then, and I say now, that I am prepared to face that challenge and substantially to face it. I would be the last man to make a personal boast. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman one of the leaders of your party, has said it and I am dealing with him just now. He has said that we are getting more than other people. So far as I am concerned I stood for the representation of Dundee in this House before there was any payment of Members of Parliament.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think it is impossible to go into the question of salaries for different classes of public work. I know that some allusion has been made to it, but the hon. Member seems to be pursuing that point to the extent of discussing equality of reward for different kinds of public work. We must confine ourselves to the question of pensions.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I was going along the Derby track and that, of course, is a dangerous line. Still I feel that when we have taunts of that kind put forward, I must in defence, as far as it is in order to do so, say that I am not frightened by anything of that kind, and I am prepared to go as far
  1618
  as any man or woman in this House on that matter. I submit that if there are those opposite who are being urged to face the pensions question by those who are deeply grieved about the situation as it confronts them in their inability to get the Government to go any further, one of the best ways in which they can make an impression upon the Government is, on every occasion of this kind, to go into the Lobby in opposition to it, in order to impress the public mind and conscience of the absolute necessity of getting a thoroughly readjusted system of pensions for all concerned.
  Major OWEN: I have been very much interested to listen to the opposition above the Gangway to this measure of justice to the Diplomatic Service. One is reminded of the very different attitude taken by Members of the Labour party when they were actually in office. I think I can recall to the memory of the Committee that when they came into office in 1924 they had a surplus from the previous Government of about £40,000,000, and that that surplus was available for the use of the Labour Government during that period, but I think I am also within the recollection of the Committee when I say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in those days said he had no money with which to give pensions to widows and orphans, and he could not—
  The CHAIRMAN: This is a very large argument to build on the very narrow question of two kinds of civil servants.
  Major OWEN: The question is why we should perpetuate in this case, where it needs only a comparatively small sum of money, an injustice to men who give public service of a very valuable character to the country. It is an injustice in this sense, that whereas men may join the Diplomatic Service, they do not know when they are joining whether they are to remain at home doing the same work that other men by going abroad are rewarded with a pension for doing. There is that inequality between men joining the service for the purpose of serving the country in that capacity. It strikes me as being rather insincere for Members to object to a small sum of this kind to remove a disability, and what I would like to remind hon. Members

  1619
  above the Gangway is that it would be far easier to remove disabilities in the case of a larger number of people if they started by small degrees of this sort. If you do what is justice to one class, it gives you a precedent to secure justice for a larger section of the community.
  Mr. KELLY: I wonder what has prompted the hon. and gallant Member for Carnarvonshire (Major Owen) to speak as he has just done. His reference to a surplus and to widows' and orphans' pensions I will not follow, except by way of illustration. I remember moving a Motion from these benches in March of 1925 on widows' pensions, but I did not see any of the hon. and gallant Member's friends or colleagues on those benches joining forces with me on that occasion. The injustice that is inflicted by the operation of the present method has not been explained very clearly to us, but even if it has, there are injustices resting upon a great many other employés of His Majesty's Government. Not all the civil servants are assured of a pension. Most of the dockyard men are denied it because the Government refuse to establish them, and the bulk of the employés of the Arsenal are not pensionable, because the Government refuse to recognise the injustice inflicted upon those excellent servants, who have given 20, 30 and 40 years' service to their country; but because there is some anomaly among this particular branch of the Diplomatic Service, we are asked to put it right.
  I have some recollection of what has been done in the Civil Service since 1919, and I remember that when the salaries of the higher paid civil servants were assimilated, everything was done that they desired should be done, but as soon as ever the anomalies among the higher paid civil servants were rectified, we then had the cry for economy and, I am afraid, the assistance of some of those higher paid civil servants to prevent the lower paid having their anomalies put right. I wonder that the hon. Gentleman who introduced this Motion did not explain to us why these particular servants should be so much better treated than any other branch of the Civil Service. Not only are they entitled to a pension after lb and in some cases 10 years' service, but in certain cases there is not
  1620
  even the question of any length of service, because a temporary pension may be awarded should there be a rupture of diplomatic relations. I submit that in this Money Resolution you are treating these people better than you are treating any other branch of the Civil Service.
  Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: What is proposed applies to the whole of the existing Civil Service.
  Mr. KELLY: Is it the suggestion of the Financial Secretary that those in the Consular Service and all other branches of the Civil Service receive pensions, if at any stage it is found necessary to dispense with their services? The question of a pension at 60 years of age does not apply; a pension may be awarded to these individuals before they reach the age of 60, and before they have completed the length of service mentioned in another part of this White Paper. It is not asking that an injustice should be removed, it is not clearing up an anomaly, but it is putting these people into a much more favourable position than that in which you are placing other sections of the Civil Service. In the matter of the gratuity that is awarded by the Treasury to those who have served in the Admiralty and the Army, it is only at the rate of one-fiftieth of their annual salary—at least, I know there is only a week's wages added for each year's service—hut in this case, in addition to the pension, they are to receive a gratuity of one-thirtieth of their annual salary, so that there again the suggestion that we are dealing with these people in a way that is putting them on an equal footing with other branches of the Service is not a fair statement of the case.
  With regard to the amount, I wish that in dealing with the other branches of the Service, with those who have been in your employment and rendered excellent service, you would put up the same scheme for them as you are putting up for these servants. The suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Member for Carnarvonshire that it is only a small section and that it requires only a small sum of money to deal with these people is certainly a begging of the question. If an injustice is being inflicted upon the great bulk of the Service, it ought not to be a question of cost, but of justice. Reference was made to the

  1621
  leakage from the Civil Service. I regret that leakage very much, but as I see many of these people going from the Civil Service into the City and other occupations, I think it does away with the argument of hon. Members opposite who often malign the Civil Service and declare that it is not manned by people who are capable of undertaking business control. I oppose this proposal. I think that if you are determined to remove injustices, you should attempt to remove those which lie so heavily on the shoulders of the weekly wage earners in your employment, and I shall certainly vote against this Motion.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I rise, in common with most of my colleagues who have spoken, to oppose this Motion. I have noticed during the Debate that there has arisen the question of whether the working class are capable of taking these posts, if offered to them. Here you have a Government, supposed to be composed of all the talents that a wealthy Government can have, a Government composed of great men of all types, and yet, in order to save them to-day, not their own Front Bench, but two members of the working class party have had to be produced to bolster up their weak case. I suggest that the Government have had to take two of the most prominent Members of the Labour party in order to save their case. I want to take a different line from that taken by other hon. Members, and to put three propositions before the Committee. The first is this: Is the expenditure of £50,000 at this juncture justified? Secondly, do the people who are going to receive this £50,000 need it? Thirdly, are those who are in this Service so badly paid that it makes legislation on this subject an urgent necessity?
  These are the three propositions. It is not sufficient to say that the sum is small. I have always held that a penny badly spent is far more wasteful than £1,000 well spent. Therefore I maintain that, you must defend the first proposition. I notice that in another place, when this matter was dicussed, we were told that it would not cost the Exchequer a single penny. I find from the White Paper that it will cost a considerable sum of money. In the present state of the finances of this country, whether it be a question of men with
  1622
  £5,000 a year or £500 a year, there is only a limited sum to spend, and the choice that arises, therefore, is how that limited sum is to be spent I am surprised at anybody on this side of the Committee defending the spending of £50,000 out of the national income to people who, comparatively speaking, do not need it. The nation has made up its Budget for the year, and the choice before the Labour party should be not whether this is an injustice or not, but whether with £50,000 the Labour party could not find a better way of spending it than giving it to diplomats. No other issue is involved.
  I am told that we must do this, or an injustice will be perpetrated. Nobody has told us where the injustice is. I am asked to accept it as a fact. I want proof, and we have never been given a bit of proof that anybody would seriously suffer if this Resolution were not passed. Show me a single person who will seriously suffer through lack of food, housing or clothing if this Resolution be not passed, and I will withdraw my opposition. I ask those who support the proposal on what business grounds they justify it? I see the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) in his place. He is one of the leaders of the Diehard group who live for economy, and who come here wanting to know how much the printing department is spending in certain directions, and how much the State is wasting in another direction; usually the amount is £100. How do they justify spending £50,000 of State money on people who do not require it? We were told by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) that the service is open. These men ought to save more than enough to keep their wives and families in decency and comfort for the rest of their lives. The Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty constantly insisted on the necessity of pensions being inquired into before being granted.
  Let me come to my other proposition. Take the case of a man who retires after having an income of £3,300 per year. On his retirement he gets one and a-half years' salary. That is to say, if he retire on 31st December, he has had a year's salary, and then he gets one and a-half years' salary in addition, a, total of

  1623
  £8,000. Just imagine a man on these benches being in that position. I put it to my constituents when I was explaining this to them, and asked them to imagine what their wives would do if they told them that they were going to get £8,000 when their husbands were dead. No one could guarantee a man's life if he told his wife that. I cannot understand men on this side representing the poor working classes saying that this Resolution is urgent, and that it must be passed, and that the Diplomatic Service and the Foreign Office will not be run properly if somebody, in addition to getting £1,700, does not get £8,000. The mockery and the hollowness of it! The shame and the cruelty of it! It is terrible! This nation has this year a limited sum to spend; the Budget runs to about £800,000,000. Some of it is to be used as interest on the National Debt, and some is to be used on unsocial services to keep the Army and the Navy, and now we are told that we have £50,000 more to spend, and that sum has to be taken for 44 diplomats.
  If we have £50,000 to spare let us spend it on those who need it most. That is our first duty. We have constantly to make choices here. Many a time that I was on the Glasgow Town Council I was told we voted for £2,000 salaries and 21,700 pensions. I challenge anybody in this party to tell me of any town council where a Labour man or any Tory has ever voted for a pension of £1,700 to any public official. That is what we are being asked to do to-day, and I hope the House will reject it. There are far more social claims for this money. An injustice may be done if we do not pass this. Let me grant that to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), but injustices could be multiplied a hundred times. The House has a choice how it will spend this £50,000, and it must decide whether this so-called injustice is more urgent than other social injustices. I am convinced that if the right. hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby had not been in a Government for nine months he would not have supported this. If this were the last day I was to be in this House, I would take pleasure in dividing against this cruel Measure.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: A word or two from another point of view would not be out of place. I represent a constituency
  1624
  which is as poor as most, and it would be the easiest thing in the world for me to go to meetings and get cheers by talking in the way that some Members on these benches have talked upon this question. If the question really were whether £50,000 should be spent on pensions to diplomats, or in a better way, I would vote for the use of the money to relieve the destitution of the people. But that is not the question we are to decide.
  Mr. SAMUEL: The amount is not £50,000.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: I took the figure from the speech of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). Whatever the amount, if it were a question of spending the money one way or another, I would rather spend it on destitution than on pensions to diplomats. I am prepared to admit that a discussion of this kind can be justifiably used to point out the inconsistencies of the friends of privilege and wealth on the other side. I am not quarrelling with the use of a debate of this character to bring forward the injustice of the poor and the working people, but I do not want the question of social justice and the question of Socialism, which I am sent here to defend, to be mixed up with a mere question of dividing income or whether this particular type of person gets such and such pension and other people do not get quite as much. That will not solve the problem of poverty. That problem will not be solved by the mere redistribution of existing wealth—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—and that is not Socialism. Moreover, I would like to put to hon. Members who are so ready with their cheers my point of view as a Socialist on this question. Questions of great importance have been raised in this Debate. I believe in better and equal treatment for everyone; I believe in ideals of equality, but ideals of equality are one thing, and the present system is another. If it were a question of dealing with excessive incomes, the most sensible way for a Socialist party would be to deal with them by methods of taxation. It would be the sensible and the just way. At what point are you going to say "This amount of income"—and it is a question of income, whether it be pension or salary—"is unjust, and a pound below that particular sum is

  1625
  just?" You cannot get any such standard under a system of society which is not based upon the spirit and principles of equality. I believe that all work which is equally necessary is necessarily equal, and I believe in a condition of society where it will not be a question of two-penny-farthing Jack looking down upon two-penny Joe. I want to get rid of the snobbery which makes for distinction of salary and income, for it is pure snobbery, this mere question of social status and social position.
  But these are ideals for which I wish to fight upon a very different issue from this one, and I wish to get my people to defend them upon sound economic principles. We are not discussing fundamental economic principles at the present moment, and what I object to about this debate, and about a good deal which has been said in the course of it, is that there is far too much of the slave mentality about it, far too much slave psychology about it. We of the working class ought, not to talk so much about our slavery. We ought not to go down to our people and say, "You are getting 30s. a week; look what so-and-so is getting. That is not the way to get intelligent Socialist opinion. The only way to get intelligent Socialist opinion is by explaining Socialism to the people, and Socialism will not be attained by this method which is advocated to-day. For these reasons I take the line that we should not base and hinge the principles for which we stand upon such a really comparatively trifling thing as this. We have to fight the fundamental principles upon which Toryism and reaction are based; but although I think it is perfectly justifiable to point out the hypocrisy of certain people it is not justifiable to suggest that we ought all to be upon an equal level so long as the level is low enough. That is the kind of equality for which I am not prepared to stand.
  Mr. THURTLE: I would like to explain why I feel it necessary to record my vote against this particular proposal. I would like to assure my hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) that, so far from having anything in the nature of slave mentality, I think I have the mentality of a rebel: and that is one of the reasons why I wish to record my vote in this way. I am
  1626
  not going to attempt to argue the case for equality of income. I am not yet convinced that such a case can be maintained, and I am certainly not going to argue it this afternoon, but what I feel to be an essential point is that we are about to spend between £20,000 and £30,000. Can we afford that amount when there are more urgent claims upon us? I take my mind back to a few months ago, when I had the obligation of leading a deputation to the Minister of Health. It was a deputation representative of about 12 London boroughs, many of them with Conservative majorities, who went to the Minister to plead with him that he should not economise on the milk for the maternity and welfare centres. He had deliberately imposed a form of economy by which he was going to save £19,000 on the Estimates. He did not attempt to prove to the deputation that there had been anything in the nature of wasteful expenditure. He said these maternity centres were doing most excellent work, and had not granted milk in extravagant fashion; but he told us that the Government had to adopt a course of economy, and that the Ministry of Health, in common with all other Departments, had to make a sacrifice. "I have looked round" he said "and I find that the most appropriate direction in which I can save on the Ministry of Health Estimates is by cutting down the amount of milk which should be allowed for infants and nursing and expectant mothers."
  If the Government tell us they are short of money, and that national economy is so imperative that they cannot afford £19,000 for milk for working-class babies and nursing and expectant mothers, we are not going to take it from the same Government that they can afford £30,000 for the purpose of pensioning diplomats. I have to go down to my poor working-class constituents and say to them, "While the Minister of Health cannot afford this necessary money for these maternity and child welfare centres, the Government of the day can afford to spend £30,000 on pensioning diplomats." Presented with a choice like that, I am bound to say that if the Government cannot afford this money for maternity and child welfare centres, that I am certainly not going to grant them a larger sum for the purpose of pensioning diplomats.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 312; Noes, 33.

  Division No. 7.]

  AYES.

  [6.54 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Day, Harry

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Albery, Irving James

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Dennison, R.

  Iveagh, Countess of

  Allen, Sir J. Sandeman

  Drewe, C.

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

  Apsley, Lord

  Dunnico, H.

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

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

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. w.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

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

  Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Baker, Walter

  England, Colonel A.

  Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

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

  Kennedy, T.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  King, Commodore Henry Douglas

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

  Falls, Sir Bertram G.

  Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

  Bellamy, A.

  Falls, Sir Charles F.

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

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

  Fanshawe, Captain G. n.

  Loder, J. de V.

  Bethel, A.

  Fenby, T. D.

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Betterton, Henry B,

  Fermoy, Lord

  Lougher, Lewis

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Fielden, E. B.

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Luce, Maj. Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

  Lumley, L. R.

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Forrest, W.

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Brass, Captain W.

  Frece, Sir Walter de

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

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

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

  Briant, Frank

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  MacIntyre, Ian

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Ganzoni. Sir John

  Mackinder, W.

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Gates, Percy

  McLean, Major A.

  Broad, F. A.

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Gillett, George M.

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Bromfield, William

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

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Goff, Sir Park

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

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

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Grace, John

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Buchan, John

  Grant, sir J. A.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Burman, J. B.

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

  Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

  Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Meller, R. J.

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

  Griffith, F. Kingsley

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Guinness. Rt. Hon. Walter E.

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

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Montague, Frederick

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Hacking, Douglas H.

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Chapman, Sir S.

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

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

  Morris, R. H.

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

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

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Christie, J. A.

  Hamilton. Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Mosley, Sir Oswald

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Hanbury, C.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Clayton, G. C.

  Harland, A.

  Neville, Sir Reginald J.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Harrison. G. J. C.

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

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Hartington, Marquess of

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

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

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

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

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Cope, Major Sir William

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Oakley, T.

  Couper, J. B.

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

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

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Owen, Major G.

  Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

  Henn, sir Sydney H.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Hennessy. Major Sir G. R. J.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Herbert, S. (York. N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)

  Perring, Sir William George

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Hills, Major John Waller

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

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

  Holbrook. Sir Arthur Richard

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Holt. Captain H. P.

  Pilcher, G.

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Ponsonby. Arthur

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  Hopkinson. Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Preston, William

  Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Davies, Ellis (Denbigh. Denbigh)

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

  Raine, Sir Walter

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

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

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Hunter-Weston. Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

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

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Hurst, Gerald B.

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

  Riley, Ben

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

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

  Smithers, Waldron

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

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

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Ropner, Major L.

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

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

  Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynsmouth)

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Watts, Sir Thomas

  Rye, P. G.

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

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall. Northern)

  Samuel. A. M. {Surrey, Farnham)

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

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)

  Sanders. Sir Robert A.

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Sugden. Sir Wilfrid

  Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)

  Sandon, Lord

  Taylor, R. A.

  Wilson. R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Savery, S. S.

  Templeton, W. P.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Sexton, James

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

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

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

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

  Withers, John James

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Womersley, W. J.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Wood. E. (Chest'r. Statyb'dge & Hyde)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

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

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

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

  Tomlinson, R. P.

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

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

  Townend, A. E.

  Wright, Brig.-General W. D.

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Skelton, A. N.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

  Waddington, R.

  Captain Bowyer and Major the

  Marquess of Titchfield.

  NOES.

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Batey, Joseph

  Kelly, W. T.

  Sullivan, Joseph

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Lansbury, George

  Sutton, J. E.

  Buchanan, G.

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Maxton, James

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Grundy, T. W.

  Potts, John S.

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Hardie, George D.

  Purcell, A. A.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Wright, W.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Scrymgeour, E.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Mr. Tinker and Mr. Kirkwood.

  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  Resolution to be reported To morrow.

  APPELLATE JURISDICTION [SALARIES AND PENSIONS].
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.
  [Mr. DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it is expedient—

  (a) to authorise the appointment of two additional members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and of one additional Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, and in connection therewith to authorise the charge on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of—

  (1) yearly salaries not exceeding two thousand pounds to be paid (in addition to such sum, if any, not exceeding two thousand pounds in the case of any person, as may be provided out of the revenues of India by way of increase of salary) to each of the two persons so to be appointed as members of the Judicial Committee of the
  1630
  Privy Council and of yearly pensions not exceeding one thousand pounds to he granted to persons so appointed; and

  (2) a yearly salary to he paid to the person so to he appointed as an additional Lord of Appeal in Ordinary not exceeding in amount the yearly salary now payable to a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and of yearly pensions to be granted to persons so appointed not exceeding in the case of any person the amount of the yearly pension which may now he granted to a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary:

  (b) to repeal section thirty of the Judicial Committee Act, 1833, and section four of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1887"—(King's recommendation signified).—[The Attorney-General.]

  The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): It will be remembered that at the end of last Session there was a Bill which, owing to want of time, was not proceeded with, although it had been three times introduced in another place and three times brought to this House. It was a Bill for reinforcing the Judicial

  1631
  Committee of the Privy Council, and it will be perhaps sufficient if I remind the Committee quite shortly of the present position. The present position of the Privy Council with respect to Indian appeals is that there is only one member who can be said to have any real intimate experience of the administration of justice in India, but it has been the practice until recently for there to be two members who have been more or less at one time or another associated with the administration of justice in that country. Of recent years the number of appeals from India has increased so substantially as to make it necessary that the Judicial Committee shall sit in two divisions. Otherwise, the appeals from the other parts of the Empire would be blocked by the consideration of those from India. The circumstances have caused so much anxiety that in three successive Sessions a Bill was introduced in another place in order to enable two men of intimate and recent experience in the administration of justice in India to be appointed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
  The terms, on which the present Indian member of the Judicial Committee sits, were fixed by the Judicial Committee Act of 1833. He receives under that Act a sum which can hardly be described as salary but which was described by the Act as intended to be an indemnity in respect of the expenses incurred by him. If there are two members, as there may be under that Act, they each receive the sum of £400 by way of expenses. When there is, as at present, only one member, that member receives the sum of £800, being the total of the two sums of £400. It is obvious to anybody acquainted with the work of the Judicial Committee that nobody is going to sacrifice his time or, as so often happens, his time and his health and possibly a career in India for the purpose of earning the very meagre sum which the members of the Judicial Committee who represent Indian experience under the Judicial Committee Act of 1833 are allowed. In those circumstances, it was decided in 1926 that it was desirable to alter the salary and to secure men with a more intimate and more recent experience of India.
  The Bill which was introduced in another place had the ardent support of
  1632
  Lord Haldane who described the existing provision for members of the Judicial Committee in respect of Indian appeals as so scanty as to cause great inconvenience. It is a fact of some pathos that Lord Cave, who was then Lord Chancellor, speaking upon the same Bill, mentioned the fact that Lord Haldane himself was one of those who supplemented the scanty ranks of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council without regard to considerations relating to his own health. One can but think that Lord Haldane, who devoted himself so much to the work of the Judicial Committee as well as to the judicial work of the House of Lords, did indeed shorten his life and his opportunity of service in consequence of the scanty provision, as he himself described it, for hearing the appeals before the Judicial Committee.
  We all remember the position which the Judicial Committee occupies in the Empire. It is a great court. Nobody, even though he is ready to criticise the arrangements of the Judicial Committee, can but fail to recognise that. It not merely redresses personal wrongs and establishes the rights of individuals throughout the Empire, but it interprets constitutions and maintains the justice of the law in the furthest parts of our great Empire. The appeals come, not merely from India, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, but from Palestine and from such parts of our Empire as West Africa. I believe I am right in saying that from every single quarter of the Empire there come proofs of the confidence which subjects of the Empire have in this Judicial Tribunal.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it the case or not that India., which according to the Bill has to contribute £2,000 a year, has refused to do so?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If the hon. Member will be good enough to wait until I come to that point in clue course, I will tell him the facts. The Financial Resolution, which I am submitting, proposes that, in order to remedy this state of affairs, there shall be two additional members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. They are to be paid a sum which, so far as this Committee is concerned, amounts to £2,000 to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. With regard to the rest of the emoluments, they

  1633
  will be provided out of Indian revenues under a vote which has been approved in the Indian Legislature to that effect. It is, therefore, contemplated that they shall receive a salary of £4,000, payable as to half out of the revenues of the Imperial Exchequer and as to the other half out of the Indian revenues. It is provided also by the Motion that they shall be paid a pension of £1,000. That pension will be payable, so far as this Committee is concerned, out of the Consolidated Fund. If other arrangements are made, as may be suggested but of which I have no information, they will be paid out of the Indian revenues. But hon. Members may rest assured that, whether there is any arrangements or not, the extent of the pension payable out of the Consolidated Fund will only be £1,000. That is the substance of the proposal contained in this Motion so far as the additional members of the Judicial Committee are concerned.
  It will be recognised that it is proper and usual that this Tribunal, important as it is, should not sit except when there are five members present to hear an appeal. It is possible, of course, to hear appeals when there are only three members present, but the invariable practice has been, except when man-power was absolutely lacking, that each division of the Judicial Committee should consist of five members of that Committee. In order, therefore, to provide for the hearing of the appeals from India as well as from other parts of the Empire, it is absolutely essential that these two additional members shall be appointed. They will for the time being be in addition to the one member representing India who, as I have stated, receives £800 for his services but in time, when that member retires, these two additional members will be regarded as taking his place.
  The real object of this part of the resolution is to reinforce the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council by securing from India men who have that personal and up to date experience of Indian customs and law which is so essential to enable a fair and just decision to be given in regard to disputes from India.
  The other part of the proposal is that an additional Lord of Appeal shall be
  1634
  appointed to enable the House of Lords to continue the hearing of cases from England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I should like the Committee to understand the present position in regard to the man power available for both these tribunals. It is desirable that each tribunal should consist of five persons. If there be two divisions of the Judicial Committee sitting at the same time as the House of Lords there must therefore be 15 persons sitting. In 1927 Lord Haldane recognised that there was not a sufficient number of qualified men to man the tribunal, and he proposed to provide an additional Lord of Appeal to supplement the services of those who were available. May I call attention to the number available in 1927, remembering that at least 15 persons are required. The Lord Chancellor with six Lords of Appeal made seven members. There were four volunteers—Lord Wrenbury, Lord Phillimore, Lord Darling, and Lord Warrington—all of whom have had a very long judicial experience and have earned the comparative repose to which they became entitled, but all of whom, have given the most ungrudging and willing service in the House of Lords and on the Judicial Committee.
  In addition to those 11 persons there were three Privy Councillors who were ready to sit on the Judicial Committee. They were Lord Salvesen, Lord Sinha and Sir Lancelot Sanderson, making 14 persons. If two new members had been appointed in 1927 that would have made 16 persons to man these three tribunals. That is taking no account of absences on account of illness and the absences which may be expected in the case of persona who have reached the age of 80. There were also three ex-Lord Chancellors which brought the number up to 19. But even 19 does not provide a sufficient margin to provide three tribunals. Let us notice what is the position at the present time. What is the position now? There is the Lord Chancellor and only one ex-Lord Chancellor, Lord Buckmaster, who performs judicial duties, because Lord Haldane is no longer with us to the sorrow of us all. Lord Finlay after a career known to everybody cannot be expected at 86 years of age to continue to give further service on the Tribunal in the House of Lords.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Lord Finlay still sits in the House of Lords.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Lord Finlay has not sat in the House of Lords for some time and it is unlikely that he will sit there again. He is a member of the Permanent Court of International. Justice but no hon. Member can expect a man of that age to continue to give the services which he has given to the country for so long. There are there six Lords of Appeal. As for the volunteers, Lord Wrenbury and Lord Phillimore, although they still enjoy the fullest measure of intellectual agility which they have always exhibited in the course of their efficient public service, are aged 82 years respectively. Lord Darling and Lord Warrington are available from time to time, but not unnaturally they desire according to their private convenience to enjoy the repose to which they are entitled but which they are willing to interrupt in order to give volunteer services on this Tribunal.
  Unhappily Lord Sinha is not now living, and Lord Salvesen and Sir Lancelot Sanderson are volunteers. Therefore, even if you add the two members of the Privy Council whom we propose to appoint to sit on the Judicial Committee, that will only make 14 persons to man three tribunals which require at least 15 persons if they are to be manned efficiently. In these circumstances, it seems sailing as near the wind as we can to ask the Committee to provide the necessary money for only one additional Law Lord. We shall then have only 15 persons, even if all the volunteers come to the rescue who are reasonably able, to man the tribunal. In those circumstances it has been decided to supplement the Bill that was introduced in 1926, 1927 and 1928 by providing that the salary necessary for an additional Lord of Appeal, who will receive the same figure as the other, that is, £6,000 and a pension of £3,750 to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. The Bill will be introduced in due course if the Committee gives the necessary authority for the salaries I have mentioned. I commend this proposal to the Committee because nobody can suppose that it is wise, in the interests either of the country or of litigants, to starve our judicial tribunals. At the present time
  1636
  they are working on a margin of manpower which makes it almost impossible for the Lord Chancellor to make such arrangements as will adequately provide for the administration of that justice which everybody believes to be necessary.
  Sir HENRY SLESSER: I have had opportunities of carefully considering all the data on which the case put forward by the Attorney-General is founded, and I have come to the conclusion that in every particular what he has told the Committee is accurate. That being so, it seems to me that it is absolutely necessary, if these tribunals are to be properly manned and do their business, that the extra appointment for which financial authority is now asked should be made. Many hon. Members on this side have consistently supported for several years the proposal for strengthening the Judicial Committee. Speaking for myself, I was very disappointed that the Government did not see their way last year or even the year before, through the exigencies of time, to put this matter through.
  As the Attorney-General has said in speaking so kindly of my late leader, Lord Haldane did as much as any other man in the country to strengthen the work of the Judicial Committee and the Privy Council, and he was always of the opinion that the Privy Council needed strengthening. The plan before us is one to appoint a new Law Lord, and what the Attorney-General has said is that as things are we are very largely dependent for the manning of these two bodies on the work of ex-Lord Chancellors. That is a very proper thing which we all appreciate, and which arises from the fact that under a Statute of William IV, every Lord Chancellor is paid a pension of £5,000 a year, and very properly has always felt that that pension is paid really, though not actually in law, for the consideration of services in the Judicial Committee. The Government are now proposing the appointment of an extra Law Lord at a cost of £6,000 a year. The Attorney-General has pointed out that of those who are left Lord Finlay is no longer able to serve. I feel sure that I shall be voicing the feelings of a good many members of this Committee and the taxpayers if before we definitely agree to this proposal—and I think we ought to

  1637
  agree to it—I ask the Attorney-General one question. There is one ex-Lord Chancellor, Lord Birkenhead, who is riot, I understand, serving in a judicial capacity. He, therefore, does not give that consideration which we all think fit and proper in an ex-Lord Chancellor who takes advantage of the Statute and draws the £5,000 a year. If, as I hope to hear from the Attorney-General, Lord Birkenhead, holds the view, which all other ex-Lord Chancellors have held, that he is not really morally entitled to draw this £5,000 a year if he does not perform judicial work, and if we could he informed that Lord Birkenhead will not draw the £5,000 a year, as we hope he will not in the circumstances, the amount to be voted would become considerably less, and we shall only be voting actually £6,000 a year for the extra Law Lord. On the other hand, if the State is going to pay £5,000 a year to any ex-Lord Chancellor who does not so serve, we shall be burdened in fact with a cost of £11,000 a year, and shall get no consideration from that particular person. I have no doubt that the Attorney-General will he able to assure us that Lord Birkenhead is going to follow the excellent example of his predecessors and decline to draw this pension when he is not doing judicial work; but we on this side, and I am not sure that I am not speaking for some on the other side, would like to know quite definitely on this matter, aye or no.
  Apart from that, as I have said, the case which the Attorney-General has made out seems to me to be unanswerable. He omitted, however, to say one thing. I understand that, owing to the shortage of Law Lords and members of the Privy Council in the earlier part of this year, the House of Lords was actually unable to hear appeals at a time when it otherwise would have, and appellants in the House of Lords were actually unable to come before that body after, I think, last June, although normally, if the two bodies had been sufficiently staffed, appeals would have been heard right on until the Long Vacation. Appellants, therefore, are being kept out of their decisions because the tribunal is insufficiently equipped, and there can be no case for opposition to this Resolution. The Attorney-General seems to me to have entirely made out
  1638
  his case, and, so far as I and my Leader are concerned; we shall offer no opposition at all.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Perhaps I may answer at once the question which the hon. and learned Gentleman has put to me, but at the same time I do not want to admit that such a question is really germane to the much bigger question whether the Judicial Committee and the House of Lords are properly manned. I cannot conceive that this Committee would fall into such a grievous error as to refuse to provide the service for which we ask, because someone might take advantage of something to which he was entitled by law.
  Sir H. SLESSER: The learned Attorney-General will, of course, appreciate that I make no such suggestion; I shall support the Resolution.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I thought it right to say so much, because I conceive that it would be an unhappy practice if the House of Commons were to complicate questions of great general importance by personal questions such as this is. The hon. and learned Gentleman was good enough to inform me that it was possible that this point might be raised, and I have, therefore, been in communication with my Noble Friend, and have asked him a question, which he, of course, was perfectly free to decline to answer if he thought fit. He has, however, authorised me to say this, that in the course of time he will be undertaking new duties—new employments—and will receive in connection with them emoluments which will be substantial. He proposes to receive the pension to which he is entitled during the period of transition from his old duties to his new duties, and he anticipates that the period during which he will receive the pension will not be at all prolonged.
  At the same time, he makes that statement without derogating in any way from the right of his successors, which he does not want to prejudice or affect, in any way at all, to draw the pension to which they will he entitled by law. I believe I am right in saying that my Noble Friend takes the view—and, so far as my authority carries any weight

  1639
  with the Committee, I respectfully think that the view is right—that these pensions are awarded, not for services presently performed, but as a reward for services already performed; and, indeed, it would be strange if an ex-Lord Chancellor receiving the sum of £5,000 a year were to be expected to sit as a matter of obligation in a tribunal over which, as an ex-Lord Chancellor, he would often preside, with a number of other Law Lords who were in fact receiving £6,000 as salary. The disparity shows that the £5,000 is not intended to be a salary for services performed in the House of Lords or in the Judicial Committee, but is, as my noble Friend says, and as constitutional authorities have always stated, a reward for past services. That statement having been made out of courtesy to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I hope that his advice to the Committee will be accepted, and that we may be allowed to receive this service of public money for the purpose of manning the House of Lords and the Judicial Committee.
  Mr. TINKER: May I ask for what length of time these gentlemen will have to serve before they get their pensions? In two cases the pension will be;.(l1,000, and in one case £3,750. For what period will they have to serve before they get that?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If anyone becomes an ex-Lord Chancellor, he becomes entitled to the pension on vacating his office.
  Mr. TINKER: in the first case he is not an ex-Lord Chancellor.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Did not the hon. Gentleman's question relate to the pension of an ex-Lord Chancellor?
  Mr. TINKER: No; I was asking whether the two gentlemen who are to be appointed, and who will be entitled each to a pension of £1,000 and the Law Lord who will get £3,750 will have to serve before they get those pensions.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: So far as the Financial Resolution is concerned, no time is provided during which a judge will have to serve. It depends, of course, upon the age at which he is appointed to serve. In the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the
  1640
  pension is proposed to be granted at the age of 72, and it is quite obvious that, as the intention is to appoint men in the full vigour of life, a man will not be appointed a member of the Judicial Committee for this purpose a year or two before he becomes entitled to his pension. The persons appointed will no doubt be expected to serve, and will be required to serve, if they are going to earn their pension, up to the age of 72.
  Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD: I would like to take this opportunity of pointing out that the proposal of the Attorney-General falls far short of the views expressed by successive Lord Chancellors as to what constitutes an adequate supreme tribunal of the Empire, namely, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. For many years past counsel and litigants from the Dominions and Colonies have expressed their views to successive Law Officers and Lord Chancellors and other judicial persons, to the effect that the present position is, and the position for years past has been, something approaching a scandal, to use the word used by the late Lord Haldane about a year ago, speaking in another place. The proposal of the Attorney-General goes some way to remedy the present unfortunate state of affairs, but it does not go far enough. I am precluded by the Rules of the House from moving to increase the Vote, but I do regret that His Majesty's Government, every member of which stands for a united Empire and for a strong supreme tribunal of that Empire, should not see their way clear to introduce a Measure which I believe would appeal to all quarters of the House. So far as I know, no Member of the House—and I have canvassed many—has any objection to the strengthening of this tribunal. As it stands now, it is impossible to be certain of getting five men of eminent judicial standing to take respectively the three divisions into which this great Court is naturally divided. You are dependent upon some men who are so aged that it appears to be difficult for them to see or to hear the counsel who appear before them. I am reflecting the view of counsel from the Dominion of Canada when I say—
  Sir H. SLESSER: On a point of Order. Is it in order to say that a

  1641
  learned Judge of this realm is so blind or deaf that he cannot see or hear counsel?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: Of course, I make no personal reference to any judicial person. If I have said something which oversteps the boundaries of courtesy, I withdraw at once. I would put it in this way. Many of these eminent jurists have earned, and long since earned, their pensions and their reward, and it is not fair to counsel and litigants who come thousands of miles from all parts of our Empire that they should have to appear before men who, however eminent in their prime, no longer make that impression upon the litigants or counsel before them which every one of us would like a Judge to make. I have no desire for a moment to reflect upon any Judge, but I am stating what is sincerely felt by men who come to this country, and I am speaking this evening in order to point out that the proposals of the Attorney-General and the Government do not remedy this state of things.
  The state of things, even with this reinforcement, will be worse than it was a year ago, because we have had during the past year an unhappy casualty list among some of the most eminent members of the Judicial Committee. This reinforcement will not make up to the fullest extent the casualties that unhappily have occurred. I would say one other thing as to the actual Resolution that is before us. I am all in favour of the appointment of a new Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. I would appoint several more, and I think it is a calamity that the Government cannot take greater courage, and make, as I think they would successfully make, an appeal to all parties in the House to put this Court once and for all beyond the criticism of anyone in regard to numbers and in regard to its judicial strength. The proposal before the Committee makes, for the first time in our history, a distinction in the appointment and payment of Judges. The two persons of judicial standing to be appointed in connection with India are to be paid, as to half their salary, by a Vote of this House, and as to the other half by a possible Vote of the Indian Legislature—
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): An actual vote.
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: An actual Vote passed annually by an Indian legislature. I think I am right. My point is this. It has hitherto always been the rule to put the salaries of judges on the Consolidated Fund. The appointment is made by the King, advised, of course, by the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General. Now, however, a judge of the Judicial Committee is made dependent for half his salary on the vote of an Indian legislature, a body the decisions of which, or the members of which, might come before him as litigants or as representatives in some issue. I think that that is a most unfortunate suggestion.
  Earl WINTERTON: My hon. and learned Friend is really mistaken about this matter. There is no question of any annual Vote of the Indian Legislature. The Indian Legislature have agreed to this sum being paid; that is all.
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: That is a different thing from putting the Vote on the Consolidated Fund. My point is that the money should all come from the Consolidated Fund voted by the House of Commons. I hope I make myself clear. My point is that. it is not right that, for the first time in our history, in the case of men occupying these posts in the Judicial Committee, one-half of their salaries should be dependent on the Consolidated Fund, which, of course will be unalterable, and the other half dependent, I think I am right in saying, on an Indian legislature.
  My second point on that is this. These new judicial members receive a salary of £4,000 for doing work which is exactly the same as that done by the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, who receive £6,000 with a pension. I think there again it is an unfair discrimination to pay men doing practically the same duties different salaries. I know those men may not sit in the House of Lords. I know they do not rank as Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. My point is that the Government are ill-advised to appoint members of the Judicial Committee with different salaries, of different status, and with the sources of their salaries different.

  1643
  There is another point. You appoint two new members from India,. That is an odious discrimination against the rest of the Empire. This is an Imperial tribunal, the only one, and the case could have been met if the Government would simply have added, if they wished to restrict the number to three, three Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, keeping of course the appointment in their own hands and the payment on the Consolidated Fund. As the plan stands now, I very much regret that they have broken an old tradition. I think they have weakened the prestige of the Judicial Committee, and all for the sake of saving £8,000 to the taxpayers of the country. I do not think this sacrifice of the prestige of the Judicial Committee is worth while. I regret that the Government has not taken this opportunity to strengthen the greatest link of Empire next to the Crown itself, and has brought in a Measure which does not reflect the views of any ex-Lord Chancellors or of any leading jurist in any part of the Empire.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: I want to ask the Attorney-General to make a little plainer the case of the pension of the ex-Secretary of State for India. I understand my hon. and learned Friend below me (Sir H. Slesser) pointed out that the need for these new judges was partly due to the fact that ex-Lord Chancellors might have been available but were not intending to give service, and that gave rise to the question whether the ex-Secretary of State for India was intending to perform judicial services or not. I understand, in the first place, that the ex-Secretary of State for India does not intend to perform any services of this kind. That being so, it is strange that he should say he is protecting the rights of his successors.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I did not say the Noble Lord was protecting the rights of his successors. What I said was that he wanted to have it quite plain that in abandoning, as he proposes, his right to draw the pension he is not to be understood as derogating at all from any rights of his successors. That is a very different position from saying
  1644
  he is taking a course of action in order to protect the rights of his successors.
  Mr. BENN: It is a very important point, but it is more a matter of wording than of intention. In any case the intention of the Noble Lord was that no action of his should derogate from the propriety of a future Lord Chancellor drawing his pension. If anything is calculated to jeopardise the rights of a future Lord Chancellor to draw his pension it is for a precedent to be set up by which the Lord Chancellor draws his pension and does not perform the ordinary judicial service which it has been the invariable practice of ex-Lord Chancellors to perform.
  The second point is by way of question. Here is a transition period. The ex-Secretary of State for India, having been a Lord Chancellor in time past, and having now ceased to be Secretary of State for India, and his salary as Secretary of State having therefore ceased, proposes in his quality of ex-Lord Chancellor to draw his pension as ex-Lord Chancellor for a transition period. What is this transition period? It is not for services on the Bench. We do not know how long it is to be drawn. We have not the least idea. It is apparently to be until he has secured some quid pro quo for his commercial services. He is already director of three large industrial concerns. Will the Attorney-General tell us exactly how many of these directorships are to be accumulated by the ex-Secretary of State before the transition period comes to an end? Then supposing his commercial ventures come to nothing, what is the Noble Lord's intension about coming back and saying. "It may have escaped your notice, but I was Lord Chancellor some years ago and I should, therefore, like again to enjoy the pension to which Lord Chancellors are entitled." It is extremely important, in view of the very frank way in which the ex-Secretary of State has dealt with his own finances and explained everything, that we should have a definite answer to these two questions.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think hon. Gentleman is getting a little beyond the terms of the Motion. The question of whether an ex-Lord Chancellor is going to exercise judicial duties

  1645
  or not is one thing, but the question of the Lord Chancellor's pension is not one that can be discussed generally on this Motion.
  Mr. BENN: I accept your ruling, Sir, and I will put my question in another form. For how long is the ex-Secretary of State going to fail to perform his judicial duties, and is he intending later to come forward in the event of other things failing and offer to perform judicial duties? I think those questions will be in order.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not wish to appear to show any discourtesy to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but his questions really are irrelevant, and I do not think he really expects me to be able to answer them. One of his questions actually was as to what would happen if my Noble Friend wishes, if the time ever comes, to abandon the occupation which he has lately undertaken. That is a hypothetical question requiring a gift of prophecy which I do not possess. The other question is how long what he calls the transition period is going to last? That again is a question which I cannot answer. I have already said, merely repeating the words of my Noble Friend, that it is a period which he does not expect to be of a prolonged nature.
  Mr. BENN: Is it till he gets 30 stamps?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Member has asked me a question which I am endeavouring to answer out of courtesy to him.
  Mr. MARDY JONES: Could an ex-Lord Chancellor who has given up his claim to this pension of £5,000 reclaim it at any later period?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: There have been cases where that has been done.
  Captain O 'CONNOR: As I was successful enough to elude the Ruling of your predecessor, Sir, last year so far as to speak for a moment or so about strengthening the Privy Council, I want to reinforce what I said then on this topic and to regret that the Government have not taken their courage in both hands and attempted a much more radical strengthening of the Privy Council and of the House of Lords
  1646
  appellate tribunal than they have found it possible to do. With much of what the hon. Baronet below me (Sir H. Greenwood) said I am in entire agreement. In the Judicial Committee we have possibly the most illustrious tribunal that has ever been known in history. There is something so spectacular and romantic about that tribunal, its power is so clear and its possibilities so extensive that it seems to me we are failing in our duty if we fail to recognise the opportunity that exists of strengthening it and so cementing the whole bonds of Empire. The only parallel tribunal that occurs to one's mind is that of the Prize Court during the War, when belligerents and neutral nations all over the world were content to lay their case before the Prize Tribunal, and if we are to maintain that ascendancy of the Privy Council which in the real interests of Empire it is desirable that we should maintain, we cannot do it by patching it up with an additional man here and there and in the parsimonious manner in which we have dealt with it to-day. It is manifest that the Attorney-General has understated his case. The mere recital of those advantages ought to be enough to convince not only us, but the young and growing Dominions that something must be done to put that tribunal into something more nearly in accord with the views of the younger parts of the Empire. For these reasons I hope the matter will not be left here, that we shall pass this Resolution without any dissentients at all, but that the Government will recognise that it has only begun upon a task which we hone it will continue to attempt to achieve.
  Mr. ERNEST EVANS: I wish in a sentence to press upon the Government the desirability of taking a little larger view of the functions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I think it very likely that the average layman does not appreciate the full value and significance of the Court. As the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir H. Greenwood) said, next to the Crown, it is really one of the greatest links in the Empire. On all hands tributes are being paid to the impartiality and the great value of the services it renders. On behalf of my hon. Friends and myself I should like to say that, while I believe much more could be done than

  1647
  is being done by this Resolution in supporting the Committee, yet we desire to support this particular strengthening that is now proposed in the hope that it will add still more luster to that body.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. THURTLE: The Attorney-General said just now that he was not able to define the transition period which Lord Birkenhead laid down during which he would draw his pension of £5,000 attaching to the office of ex-Lord Chancellor. In view of that fact, may I take this opportunity in saying from my place in the Committee that there will be very keen disappointment on the part of the tax-paying public if, in view of Lord Birkenhead's many activities, this transition period extends beyond a period of a very few weeks.
  Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: I want to say only a few words from the point of view, not of a lawyer but of a layman. It would be almost indecent, I am afraid, for a mere layman to intervene in a Debate which has so far been sustained with such brilliance by lawyers, but I think, perhaps, it is permissible for one who has taken some interest in the work of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council from the point of view of the maintenance of our inter-Imperial relations to say a few words in a very courteous form on the Motion which is proposed to the Committee. An hon. Friend below me spoke of the work of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as spectacular. That is the very last word which I should like to use, for I never knew any more striking contrast in my life than that between the dingy surroundings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the apparently complete absence of formality in their proceedings and the enormously important work which, as a matter of fact, they are called upon to perform. I imagine that no Member of this House, and that no party in this House, can for one instant doubt that in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council we have an institution of the very highest importance to the Empire as a whole. Anyone who as a layman strayed into the Judicial Committee cannot fail to have been impressed not by the spectacular but by the importance of the work which they are called upon to perform. From
  1648
  the layman's point of view may I, therefore, add my single word in cordial support of this Resolution?
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  WESTERN HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (TRANSPORT SERVICES) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  It will be within the recollection of the House that my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General made a contract with Messrs. David MacBrayne in May of last year seeking for a period of five years to carry out certain services for transportation between the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and giving a subsidy of £36,000 for that purpose. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland brought this contract before the House according to the rules of Parliament, he unfortunately, and to his surprise, encountered a good deal of opposition and a good deal of criticism and eventually—I need not go over the whole of the Debate—it was referred to a Committee of this House for consideration and report. A few days after that was done, Messrs. MacBrayne, owing to the criticisms, I believe, which had been levelled at them—however, this does not very much matter at the moment—said they did not wish to go on with the contract, but that in order to avoid disorganisation of communications they would be prepared to continue on the same terms as they were working under until 31st October. They have been carrying on the service up to the 31st of last month.
  Then the Select Committee found themselves in rather a difficult position. They issued statements to the Press that they would be prepared to consider any offers that were made to them for carrying on this service, and asked for tenders. Unfortunately no adequate response came. As time was getting on they then—I think very wisely—thought of approaching the great railway companies and some of the steamship companies, and they wrote to the London, Midland and Scottish

  1649
  Railway Company, to the London and North-Eastern Railway Company and to the Coast Lines and asking them if they could see their way to make some proposals. Eventually, after many negotiations, the London, Midland and Scottish Railway and the Coast Lines Company put up two alternative propositions to the Committee which were similar in most respects, but differed somewhat in their financial aspect. The Committee, having duly considered them, in their report stated:
  "They do not feel competent to indicate a definite preference for either of these schemes."
  In fact, they left it to the Government to decide which of the two schemes which were very similar, should be adopted. One of these propositions which was I common to both schemes was that a new company should he formed to acquire the business. That company was formed last month under the title of David MacBrayne (1928) and they have under a temporary arrangement with the Government been carrying on the service since the 1st of this month. This company have done what the Committee said should he done, taken over the assets and goodwill of the old MacBrayne company. This company came into existence as I said some time last month. I think I ought to read to the House a paragraph which appeared on page 3 of the Report of the Select Committee stating the views of Sir Josiah Stamp as to the way in which legislation should be carried through, and that will explain why the Government are bringing in this Bill and why the Bill has not been brought in as a Private Bill. The Committee say:
  "It became clear to your Committee quite early in this discussion that the London and North Eastern Railway Company would not be willing to enter into any form of joint undertaking in which they were not completely guaranteed against loss. Sir Josiah Stamp, on the other hand, while he made it clear that the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company would not look on the undertaking as a promising or profitable commercial enterprise, but rather as one into which they would only enter on grounds of public necessity with considerable reluctance, stated on behalf of his Company that they would be willing to submit proposals for undertaking the steamship services in the West Highlands and Islands jointly with Coast Lines, Limited, upon one indispensable condition. This condition was that they should be relieved of all expense involved in any legislation neces-
  1650
  sary to give them requisite powers to invest money in a shipping company, of all need for diplomatic negotiations in securing the necessary passage of any Bill through Parliament, and of all responsibility in the defence of such a Bill against criticisms. Sir Josiah Stamp, both in his memoranda and in his evidence, repeatedly pointed out that, in assuming a service about which at present there was great criticism, he was exposing his Railway Company to opposition from a wholly new and probably fertile field to any Bill that they brought before Parliament for any purpose. His company, as he plainly said, would not proceed with any scheme which involved their promoting a private Bill, with all its attendant expenses and harassments, on their own account. He also said with considerable emphasis that no scheme would be satisfactory which did not as tar as possible combine the chief existing interests which serve the locality both on sea and land;—"
  I think that that seems to be common sense.
  "and both Sir Alfred Read and he made it clear that no new undertaking had any prospect of success which did not take over the whole stock, assets and goodwill of Messrs. MacBrayne"—
  which has been done.
  "After a full discussion, and on the assumption that some way would he found by which the railway company or companies would be relieved by the Government of all expense and responsibility in promoting the necessary legislation, two schemes, on a certain basis common to both, were submitted jointly by Sir Josiah Stamp and Sir Alfred Read."
  That explains why, having accepted the recommendations of the Committee, and the Committee having adopted the scheme put forward by the London Midland and Scottish Railway and the Coast Lines jointly, it is the Government's work to promote the Bill and not that of a private company. The Bill itself—no doubt hon. Members have it before them—is a very short one. The operative Clause says:
  "If there is incorporated, whether before or after the passing of this Act, a company having for its principal objects the provision of mail cargo and passenger services in the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland"—
  That has been done; it was done last month
  "and the acquisition of the assets of any company which prior to such incorporation provided such services"—
  Those have been acquired by the company

  1651
  "it shall be lawful for the Minister of Transport, after consultation with the Secretary of State, by order, to authorise any railway company therein specified to hold shares, stock or debentures in or of any such company so incorporated to such amount as may be specified in the order, and on any such order being made, the railway company so authorised may, notwithstanding anything contained in any enactment, subscribe for, take and hold such shares, stock, or debentures to such amount as aforesaid, and may, with the assent of the Minister of Transport and of such company, provide in the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland any such services as aforesaid, by sea, air or land."
  On that may I say that it is quite a new thing in a Bill of this sort for provision to he made for the railway company to provide air services subject to the assent of the Minister after consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland and with the assent of the Company. I do not see why after the great advance in transportation which has now taken place we should not put in this so that we can eventually establish air services if they are commercially necessary and economic: and so the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company shall be able to provide that means of transportation for these people.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does that mean that these services are to be in the hands of this Company or in the hands of the Government?
  Colonel ASHLEY: The railway company may with the assent of the Minister of Transport and of such company provide in the Western Highlands and Islands any such services as aforesaid by sea, air or land. This appears at the foot of the first page of the Bill, and there the hon. Member's point is answered. It would be convenient if I deal very briefly with the contract. The Secretary of State for Scotland will answer criticisms later.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: Would it not be more convenient to dispose of this Bill first, and discuss the contract subsequently?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: May I suggest that we should dispose of the Bill first? I think that would be much better in the interests of all concerned.
  Colonel ASHLEY: I am prepared to fall in with the wishes of the House. I
  1652
  thought we might have dealt with the whole subject in one Debate, but if the sense of the House is the other way we are only too willing to meet their wishes. I do not think there is anything more to say on the Bill, except that the Government are carrying out the wishes of the Select Committee which was set up to deal with this matter.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: No.
  Colonel ASHLEY: The hon. Member can criticise that statement, later. We are carrying out the suggestions of the Select Committee and I therefore submit the Bill, with confidence, to the House.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: No hon. Member on this side of the House will desire to obstruct this Bill in any way. It is an essential part of the contract and a consequence of the contract. I therefore agree with the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Machpherson) that the whole business would be much more appropriately discussed upon the contract and upon the Amendments which have been handed in to certain portions of the contract. First of all, we should get the Bill out of the way. Therefore, on behalf of those who sit on this side of the House I heartily agree with this Bill and hope that it will have a speedy passage.
  Mr. LIVINGSTONE: I have listened carefully to what has been said, and particularly to the conditions laid down by Sir Josiah Stamp. I want to make a few observations on the Bill itself, but I hope that nothing that I say will delay by one day the proposed improvement in transport in the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland. In my view, the old company of David MacBrayne showed much public spirit in acting as they did in offering to carry on until we were able to make other arrangements. Equally, I think that Sir Josiah Stamp and his directors have shown great public spirit in undertaking what they have already undertaken. This Bill will enable the railway company to participate in the provision of mail, cargo and passenger services in the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland. Two conditions are laid down, both of which are contained in the first paragraph of the Bill. These conditions are:

  1653
  "If there is incorporated, whether before or after the passing of this Act, a company having for its principal objects the provision of mail cargo and passenger services in the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and the acquisition of the assets of any company which prior to such incorporation provided such services …"
  I take no exception to these two conditions in so far as this contract is concerned, but I want to look ahead 10 years, when this contract will come up for renewal. What will be the position then? If the service has been carried out efficiently, no harm will have been done, but it may be that the service will not have been carried out efficiently and many of those concerned may have been thoroughly dissatisfied with the service. What then? Let us imagine that another railway company, 10 years hence, by co-operation with another shipping company, desires to tender to the Government for this service. Perhaps I should make it quite clear now that there can be no successful competition against the subsidised service, but there may be competition for the subsidised service. Let us examine the position 10 years hence, when this question may arise. Two conditions have been laid down. The first one states that it must be the principal object of the company to provide these mail, cargo and passenger services. We can conceive of some big company 10 years hence who might undertake these services efficiently and effectively but whose principal object would not be these services. Are they ruled out? More important still, any would-be competitor must acquire, according to this Bill,
  "the assets of any company which prior to such incorporation provided such services."
  Does that mean that there can be no successor to this new company unless that would-be successor is able to buy the assets of the existing company? Does it mean that the existing contractor can stand by and say: "Yes, but if you want to compete for this contract you must buy my assets"? I need not explain to this House the strong position of an unwilling seller. There is no basis here for purchase. Does it mean that the sitting contractor can charge any price he likes for his assets, knowing that he can have no competition until the other party buys his assets? I hope the Government will make some reply to this question, which is one of great importance. I do not
  1654
  think that can have been the intention of the Government. If they can satisfy me on that point, I will not force a Division; I would shrink from that, for I frankly admit that this Bill and the contract will give some improvement in the transport service, but I think the Government ought to consider what may happen 10 years hence.
  Sir BASIL PETO: I should like to raise one point which has been already alluded to by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). I was not quite satisfied with the answer which was given to him. I have no objection to an air service, but I would like to know whether it is to be definitely set up that a railway company can be authorised by this Bill, provided it has the consent of the company referred to in the second line of Sub-section (1) and of the Ministry of Transport, to convey mails and cargo, if it comes to that, by air as part of the ordinary carrying out of the obligations of a railway company That seems to be rather a strange departure in a small Bill dealing with communications in the Highlands and Islands.
  Colonel ASHLEY: This only refers to services by air in that particular area which the MacBrayne Company might themselves provide if they thought fit, subject to Government assent.
  Sir B. PETO: Only last year we gave special leave to railway companies to travel on the roads on terms of equality with all other organisations of road transport, and I think we should discuss such a grave proposition as the provision of an air service by a railway company on a totally different occasion to the present Bill. Is it the policy of the Minister of Transport to make it part of the duties and obligations of railway companies not only to travel on the roads, which are provided largely by public funds, but also to use the air in competition with other organisations as well?
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I do not wish to oppose this Bill. On the contrary, I want to do all I can to assist the Government if they are prepared to open up the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. MacKenzie Livingstone) talk in the way he did, because

  1655
  he is the one man in this House who has opposed this concession and is in favour of MacBrayne.
  Mr. LIVINGSTONE: On a point of Order. When an hon. Member hears a statement which is definitely and completely untrue regarding his views, has he any immediate redress?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): That is not a point of Order at all. That is a question of fact.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I think the Government are losing a glorious opportunity by handing over the opening up the Highlands and Islands of Scotland to a private company. It was an opportunity for the Government to demonstrate to all and sundry that they are in earnest in their desire to repair the terrible havoc that has been going on in these depopulated areas. When this matter was first discussed in this House, it was said that Messrs. MacBrayne were doing a great thing, and it has been said this afternoon that they have conferred a great boon on the Highlands and Islands in agreeing to continue their service until this new company is in operation. It is no good saying that. MacBrayne could have gone out of existence at any time. The British Navy is there; we have more ships than all the ships of Messrs. MacBrayne and could carry on the transport in these areas more effectively by the Navy until these other ships are brought into the service. I did ask the Minister of Transport whether he was not going a wee bit too far in this Bill and was taking advantage of our anxiety to get something done for these areas.
  I do not want to say harsh things about the Minister of Transport, but here we have an Englishman bringing in a Bill which has to do with Scotland. I think the Minister of Transport has taken advantage of our anxiety in regard to transport in the Highlands and has added something to the Bill. There is a new departure, an unprecedented departure, for it is proposed to give to a railway company control of the air. Railway companies already have control over the waterways and canals and the ferries. They are getting control of the roads, and now the Minister of Transport says they are to have control of the air. I
  1656
  think that is going too far. Why should we have this new proposal in a Bill which we hope is going to benefit the Highlands and Islands of Scotland; an area which produces a hardy and intelligent race, who are being driven across the seas by thousands every year. Here was an opportunity of opening up the country and make it possible to retain them at home, keep them on the land; make it possible for them to cultivate the soil and get a return from it which would keep body and soul together. We are anxious to do that, and because the Government see our anxiety, and because we have been able to carry the British public with us—and the British public are watching the actions of this Tory Government—
  Mr. BUCHANAN: They take some watching.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Yes, they take some watching; but the result of recent by-elections shows that the British public are watching them—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not see how the hon. Member can connect this with a Bill enabling a railway company to participate in the provision of mail, cargo and passenger services in the Highlands of Scotland.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I will try and show you. The Government have added something to this Bill which has never been in a Bill before. They are giving control over an element to a private company. This House has never given the control of the air to a private company, and I am trying to explain to the House what, I think, is the idea of the Government in proposing it. They have taken advantage of our anxiety, but the British public are now on our side and are realising that the people in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland have never had a dog's chance. The only time the Highlanders came into the picture was when you wanted them to fight your battles, and now when you have a chance of showing up this company MacBrayne, who have bled the Highlands white, robbed the Highlands and practically forced thousands of them to go across the sea to Canada and elsewhere in order to seek their fortunes, and allow the Government to get control of this important matter of transport, we get this new pro-

  1657
  posal in this Bill. It must be remembered that transport as regards the Highlands of Scotland is essential for their development.
  Cheap transport was never so easy to obtain as it is at the moment, and the Government ought to have taken advantage of this opportunity and do something in the way of cheap transport for the Highlands of Scotland without giving it away to a private company, no matter how much better it may be than MacBrayne. This company is going into the Western Highlands of Scotland, not with a view of developing that area, but in order to make profit out of the transaction. Do not tell met that this is a philanthropic institution. Never once have they demonstrated that they were prepared to make any sacrifice to develop the country. Time and time again they have exploited their valuable concession. Therefore, I hope that before the Bill passes the House will do all that is possible to tie up the company so that it shall not exploit the Highlanders of Scotland any longer.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I rise to support the Second Reading of the Bill. I am not going to deal with the controversy that has arisen between the last speaker and my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Livingstone), except to say that I am sure it is within the recollection of the House that few people have been more energetic in their desire to improve the transport of the Western Isles, and while on occasion he has condemned the MacBrayne contracts, there has been no one who has argued more successfully the desirability of more ships to give a more efficient service among the islands of the West Coast. I am not sure that the last speaker is right in his view that this new company is out to exploit the Western Islands. I know from the experience in that part of the world in the past that we have now reached a stage when we are careful of any new company entering that sphere, and it will be the duty of this House to see that there is no exploitation of any kind by any new company in the way suggested by the hon. Member, who represents Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood).
  The House of Commons is to be congratulated on the fact that the railway company in this case really came to the
  1658
  rescue, and although I have no very great love for joint stock companies, I think that the London Midland and Scottish Company are really deserving of the thanks of this House, and particularly of the Scottish Office, for coming forward and willingly doing their best to get that part of Scotland out of a very serious difficulty. Consequently I welcome their intervention, and I hope that their taking over of these very important duties will be a very great success indeed. While I say that as a Member for one of the divisions of Scotland more directly concerned, I hope that I shall still continue the vigilance which Scottish Members have shown in the past so far as transport facilities and difficulties on the West Coast of Scotland are concerned.
  I welcome the coming in of a great railway company of this kind for two reasons. I think that the residents in that part of the world will now have a guarantee, not only of greater efficiency, but that the steamers can he run in unison with the railways. You will not now find yourself landed on the mainland in the early morning, from Stornoway or Skye or any of the other islands, two hours after the first morning train has gone. That was an intolerable condition of things. If we give a Second Reading to the Bill and establish the company in the way suggested by the Bill, we shall have a guarantee that in future there will always he a connection between the steamboat and the railway train, and that will be of enormous advantage to the people in the Western parts of Scotland and the islands.
  There is one other matter which comes directly from the powers given in this Bill. I hope the Government will see to, it that there is a through connection from the boat to the train, right to the journey's end, and a through freight for goods and commodities carried by this new steamer service. Take a case in point. I have in my constituency a place called Applecross, on the west coast of Ross-shire. I find that there are very different freights from Glasgow to Kyle and from Kyle to Applecross, a distance of about 15 miles. The freight for the short distance is infinitely greater than that for the much longer distance between Glasgow and Kyle. The advent of the railway company which is guaranteed by this Bill will, I hope, remedy

  1659
  that sort of thing. We owe a debt of gratitude to the company for coming forward at great risk to relieve not only the Government, but that part of the country, from a very great difficulty.
  Mr. SHINWELL: I cannot let this occasion pass without expressing my dissent from the proposals contained in the Clause of the Bill now under discussion. It seems to me that this would have been a favourable moment for the Government to have transformed the existing shipping service into one of a public character. This service can hardly be regarded as complicated. The number of vessels required is small, the service itself is not complex, and the commodities that require to be transported are easily handled. In the circumstances the Government might have experimented with a State-owned service. It was said in the House, when the matter was previously under review, that to convert this service into a public service would be to introduce what is regarded as the pernicious principle of political interference. As to that I have only to say that in the contract which we are about to discuss and the progress of which I have no desire to arrest, there are conditions expressly stipulated in respect of the means of conducting these operations, and these make it essential for us from time to time to interfere politically. If I may anticipate, without transgressing the Rules—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not know whether the hon. Member is arguing that the Government rather than the railway company should control, or contribute to the control of this service.
  Mr. SHINWELL: That is precisely my point. I have no desire to enter into the details of the contract. I am rather discussing the general principle. I was about to point out—and I think you will find that I am not transgressing the rules is doing so—that conditions are laid down in respect of the method of conducting the service, and that those conditions entail, the duty on Members of this House who are interested, of inviting the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland and his friends from time to time to matters arising from the conduct of the service. That is political interference. In some measure it
  1660
  amounts to political control, so that you do not escape the dilemma—if it be a dilemma—of political interference by refusing to transform the existing service into a strictly public service. Therefore, I think that argument must go by the board.
  On the whole, I am bound to say that I feel disappointed that this essentially simple service however important it may be—and it is important—should be left in the hands of a semi-public utility undertaking which, in spite of what has been said regarding exploitation by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson), does, in a measure, continue to exploit since a margin of profit is provided. I am open to correction, but I understand that if a margin of profit is provided for, there is exploitation. True it is limited; nevertheless, the exploitation remains. I do not pretend for a moment that anything that my friends and I may say at this stage will induce the Government to change its mind. This Government rarely changes its mind, and is less liable to do so on this occasion than on any other, but I think it is desirable to express our views regarding the proper method of conducting this important service.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I desire to say only a few words on behalf of the Scottish Office in connection with this Bill. I wish to support what has been said on all sides of the House to the effect that this Bill is the outcome of a great deal of labour and consideration on the part of the Select Committee. They went into the problem with great thoroughness, and they have been able to bring to the solution of the problem, not only a shipping company with a record which is well known to all those who follow the work of great shipping organisations, but they have also been able to induce one of the great railway companies to take a share in trying to improve this service. It is, of course, apparent that the co-operation of the railway service and the sea service, if carried out in the spirit in which this Measure is intended, must be of material advantage to those who are to be served, and I hope that the House will give its approval to the Bill and will give a fair and reasonable opportunity to those who enter into these undertakings to show

  1661
  that they mean to carry out those under-takings for the best advantage of the community in which we are all interested.
  Mr. HARDIE: I agree that there has been a great deal of work and trouble in getting to the point which we have reached but I hold that the rightful claims of the islanders are not being met, even by this Bill. Last summer I visited some of these islands and got first-hand information. The claim of the islanders is sound and honest. They claim that as they pay taxes like other people, they ought to have their produce carried at the same rates as the people on the main-land. That is the only basis on which you can bring a sense of equality to the islanders. It is no use saying that trans-port costs more in their case. If our nation is made up of islands and main-land and if all the inhabitants are citizens alike, they should all be treated alike in the matter of these essential services. My regret is that the Government did not seize this most delightful opportunity of showing what a Government could do for its people in these conditions. This Bill, as I say, will not meet the islanders' claim that their produce should be moved at the same rate per mile as that which obtains on the mainland. In that way a handicap is placed on the islanders and the Government have lost a magnificent opportunity of showing the meaning of real government in this matter.

  WESTERN HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS OF SCOTLAND.
  Motion made, and Question proposed.
  "That the Contract, dated the 16th day of November, 1928, between His Majesty's Government and David MacBrayne (1928), Limited, For the maintenance of transport services in the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and for the conveyance of mails in connection with the said services, be approved."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]
  Colonel ASHLEY: As hon. Members have received copies of the contract, it is not necessary that I should say much, but I should like to point out the main items, as I see them, in this con-
  1662
  tract. The first is that more money is to be devoted to these services than was intended in the contract of last May. Then, the subsidy was fixed at £36,000 a year. Under this contract, when the full sum of £250,000 capital has been put into the business, £50,000 a year will be paid as subsidy instead of £36,000 a year. At first, the whole of that £50,000 a year will not be paid. As long as the amount of capital employed is less than £250,000 10 per cent., of the difference between £250,000 and the actual capital that exists, is to be deducted from the £50,000.
  Having said that and pointed out that undoubtedly more money is being found from the taxes in order to carry on this service, I should like to impress upon the House that the advantage to these areas is infinitely greater than under the old contract of last May. In the first place, the contract is for 10 years instead of five years, so that at any rate you have your certainty of a contract and of an improved service going on for 10 instead of five years; and it will go on until either party gives the other notice in writing of, I think six months to terminate the contract.
  So far as the new vessels are concerned, it is infinitely better, because four new vessels will be built within a period of two years instead of three is five years as provided under the old contract. I am sure the House will see that that is a very considerable improvement from the point of view of the Western Islands. As far as the transportation itself is concerned, the House will recollect that the old contract simply said that there should be a reduction of 12½ per cent. on goods and produce brought from the islands to the mainland and that there was going to be no reduction on produce from the mainland to the islands, but under the present contract you will get an average reduction of 10 per cent., which is calculated at £17,000, on goods and passengers, whether they go to the islands from the mainland or from the islands to the mainland, and that is a very considerable improvement. Then you have the linking up of railway and steamship services which will obviously come about, as the London, Midland and Scottish Company will have a direct interest in maintaining proper connections between steamboat and train services. I think

  1663
  they would propose to have through rail and steam rates for both goods and passengers.
  There are two other points that I want to make. The first is that if the Minister insists on new services, then, of course, the company or the railway companies insist, and quite rightly from their point of view, that they should be guaranteed against any loss that might occur; and the Government, in order to protect its interest, has the right to nominate one director on the board. I think that is all that I need say at the moment.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: May I suggest that on the first Amendment which has been handed in we might have a general discussion on the whole contract and, if we so desire, have our division afterwards? The first Amendment is one dealing with the question of whether there shall be one or two State directors upon the Board. May I say that I agree with every word that has fallen from my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) as to the opportunity that was missed in not inaugurating a State sea service and—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member has made a suggestion which is technically contrary to the rules of the House. I understand he suggests that he should move the first Amendment on the Paper and that the whole contract should be then discussed, and then, if he so wishes, that the other Amendments should be moved and divisions taken upon them, but no further discussion. I see no objection to that, if it suits the convenience of the House, but I must put it to the House informally, and if no one objects we will proceed on that assumption.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, in line 5, at the end, to add the words:
  "subject to the modification that in paragraph 2 for the words 'a person' there shall be substituted the words two persons.'"
  9.0 p.m.
  I was observing that, in my opinion, an opportunity has been missed of not inaugurating a State sea service, and indeed, on the occasion when the last MacBrayne contract was before the House, I had the honour of moving that the recom-
  1664
  mendations of the last Select Committee which sat on this subject should be given effect to in this House. However, that is not the view of the majority of the Members of this House. On the Select Committee, which considered the matter de novo, we were presided over by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Roy Wilson), and I should like, on behalf not only of hon. Members who agreed with me on that Committee, but, I am sure, of all the Members of the Committee, to express our appreciation of the enthusiasm, the earnestness, and the ability with which he fulfilled his duties. The Minister of Transport has very briefly contrasted the two contracts, the contract which was before this House and which was turned down by the unanimous feeling of the House, and the contract which we are now discussing. Under the last contract we had to pay £36,000 a year, but under this contract we have to pay £50,000 a year when, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the maximum amount of capital, £250,000, is put into the business, but only then.
  That is £14,000 more per annum that the State will be paying towards this sea service, and what do we get for it? We are getting, not 12½ per cent, reduction in freights inward, which was excluding cattle, whiskey, and some other commodities; under this contract, we are getting an immediate reduction of 10 per cent. on all commodities, both inward and outward, which is a very considerable difference. But there is one exception to that which I am very sorry to see in the contract, and which was not in the minds of the Committee when we were discussing the contract upstairs. I invite the Secretary of State for Scotland to explain why this exception is in the contract. There is to be no 10 per cent. reduction upon traffic, as I understand it, from the Highlands and islands, inward or outward, to the Clyde ports and to the loch ports off the Firth of Clyde. I cannot see the slightest justification for that exception. Where is the route upon which we most want to develop traffic? Is it not between the great port of Glasgow and the port of Greenock to the outer islands? Yet by the limitation put in the contract here, there is to be no reduction of 10 per cent., inward or outward, between those Clyde ports and the islands.

  1665
  Then the dividend to which this new corporation is limited is 6 per cent. Four new steamers are to be built at once, and they are to be built in the Clyde, as against two new steamers which were to be built under the previous contract, with possibly a third if there were a renewal of the contract at the end of five years; so that we get a considerable advantage in new shipping. Then we are to have inspection of the books and accounts—a very valuable addition. A fair wages clause has been inserted in the contract, and we are to get one Government director on the board of the new corporation. This is again where we fall foul of the Government. It was the express proposal of Sir Josiah Stamp before the Committee, and it was expressly agreed to by all the members of the Committee—and I hope that I am expressing the views of every member of the Committee when I say that when their Report left them, every member believed that the State was to have two representatives upon the new board. We find now that these two representatives have been cut down to one, and we should like to know the reason why. We have another very valuable proviso that half the profits over 6 per cent. are to be put in a contingent liability fund, and when the fund rises to £12,500, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Government will step forward and demand a reduction in fares and rates. In other words, we have the nearest thing to a public utility corporation that we are likely to get out of the present Government. I have here for the purposes of the Debate the only official definition of which I know of a public utility corporation. It is in the Finance Act of 1920, Section 52, where a public utility company is defined as
  "a company which carries on wholly in the United Kingdom any gas, water, electricity, tramway, hydraulic power, dock, canal, or railway undertaking, and which by, or by virtue of, any Act is precluded either from charging any higher price, or from distributing any higher rate of dividend than that authorised by, or by virtue of, the Act."
  Within the limits of that definition we are now to include for the first time a sea service, and let us hope, even with the limitations which the Government have imposed upon this new Corporation, that the Highlands of Scotland will receive a very material advantage, and
  1666
  that the possibility of economic developments are opened up before the Highlands.
  I should refer to one or two points because they are dealt with in the Amendments. In the contract it is specified that only three-quarters of the crew shall be British. We see no reason why the whole 100 per cent. should not be British. We have been told over and over again that the excuse for putting such a proviso in shipping contracts is that ships go through the Red Sea and hot climates, and that it is necessary to have Lascars. You do not want any Lascars in the Western Highlands, and I cannot see why the right hon. Gentleman should have put in this proviso.
  Mr. COUPER: Does the hon. Gentleman object to natives of the South of Ireland being employed on the boats?
  Mr. JOHNSTON: "Keep your ain fish guts for your ain sea maws." I am proposing that, when we have so many unemployed sailors, engineers and dock hands of our own, we might at least provide them with employment before we give it to other people.
  Mr. COUPER: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that many of the firemen who have served on these boats, and in the service which we are discussing, are of Irish origin?
  Mr. JOHNSTON: If the point of the hon. Gentleman is that they should be British subjects, that will suit me, I suppose everybody from a British Colony is a British subject.
  Mr. COUPER: That would include an East Indian.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: We need not quarrel about that, but under the contract you may employ Germans, Belgians, Portuguese, and anybody you choose, and I am only asking that the limiting proviso should be taken out of the contract. If the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Couper) cares to vote against that, he will have an opportunity later on. I should like to ask in regard to Clause 11 whether the right hon. Gentleman has got any further with the London and North Eastern Railway Company that they will link in the fullest possible way with Mallaig and elsewhere. It is not

  1667
  in the terms of the contract, and we ought to know whether that company are in full agreement with this new proposal. In Clause 21 providing for a limitation on the reduction of 10 per cent., places on the Firth of Clyde and the lochs opening therefrom are excluded. Why is that part of the traffic excluded from the reduction of 10 per cent.? We know, for example, that Loch Goilhead was one of the very places which the Argyll County Council specially mentioned in their list of grievances with regard to the extraordinary freight charges that are now being levied by the MacBrayne Company, and if the traffic to Loch Goilhead is not to be subject to the 10 per cent. reduction of freights, there will be very considerable dissatisfaction at Loch Goilhead and in other parts of the Highlands. The Government will thus, by this senseless limitation cramp and stultify the beneficent provisions in other parts of the contract.
  We hope that every step will be taken henceforth to develop trade and commerce between the Ports of Glasgow and Greenock and the Western Highlands. We hope that through this contract a modicum of prosperity will come to the Western Highlands, but if the introduction of these zones and limitations means that these reductions are not to apply here and not to apply there, we shall go right back to the bad old system of the MacBrayne company. On page 13 of the Schedule the right hon. Gentleman has set forth the type of new boat which it is proposed to lay down. On the Stornoway service it is proposed to provide a boat having a speed of not less than 12 knots in moderately had weather and with a length of 175 feet. Since this news got abroad there has been a perfect deluge of telegraphic and other protests from the outer Islands. It is held that the steamer should be capable of at least 14 knots, and that its length should be about 250 feet in order to allow of proper passenger accommodation being provided. Sir Josiah Stamp impressed every member of the Committee with his anxiety to do his utmost to develop this traffic, and now that we are opening up a new era, why should we provide only small-sized boats for this rough Atlantic journey? Why not start the new development on a more efficient scale?
  1668
  I should like to hear the view of the right hon. Gentleman on the unanimous recommendation of the Committee that the piers should be taken over by the County Councils and maintained out of the Road Fund. Why not? As an hon. Member behind me has already pointed out, this is the Islanders' road, this is the road to the Isles, and the people there have as much right to a free highway for their traffic as have the inhabitants of the mainland, have as much right to decent transport facilities as have the people who travel between London and Edinburgh or Edinburgh and Manchester. This is the road to the Isles, and why should the piers, which are a part of the road, be left derelict? In some cases they have been allowed to fall into decay, and are in a highly dangerous condition. They ought to be taken over by the public authorities and maintained out of public funds, as the roads are maintained. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that all the members of the Committee—and the majority of them sit on his own side of the House—were unanimously of opinion that in the interests of the Highland and Islands these piers ought to be taken over by a public authority and maintained out of the Road Fund, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us satisfactory assurances on that point.
  I would like to say this one thing more. We know that about £100,000,000 a year is spent in Switzerland on tourist traffic by the Americans, Britishers and many other peoples who go there. We have a climate in the West Highlands which is drier than the climate in the Isle of Wight; the rainfall is smaller than in the Isle of Wight. We have at least as healthy a climate as there is in Switzerland and we have as beautiful scenery as there is in Switzerland, but this part of Scotland is unknown to the people of our own land. There have never been facilities for them to go to see it, nor was there accommodation for them there if they had gone. I hope to-night will mark the beginning of a new development, and that this new public utility company will do for the West Highlands what the Canadian Pacific Railway have done in Canada, and what has been done in Switzerland and in other European lands. I hope they will erect working-class hostels and open holiday resorts. I

  1669
  do not ask for huge costly buildings with gargoyles and useless ornamentation, but I want them to provide cheap holiday facilities for the people, so that these new steamer services, linked up with the railway services may gradually produce an era of prosperity such as the High-lands have not known for a century or more. If the Government take that view then these small, limiting paragraphs ought to be taken out of the contract, taken out by agreement with everybody concerned; and I hope the House will show, as it did when the MacBrayne contract was before us, that, irrespective of party prejudices or of past policy, it will unite to take a step towards promoting prosperity in the Highlands and Islands. Under this scheme you are doing more to provide employment for our people than all you have done by your transfer boards and all the rest of it. With these new steamers we can open up tourist traffic and can re-populate these beautiful Highlands and Islands—but only if we take out these limiting paragraphs, only if we provide facilities for cheap transport, only if we take over and maintain the piers; and it is because I believe all these things that I, with my friends, have tabled four Amendments, which I trust the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept.
  Mr. HARDIE: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I will take this opportunity of developing the points I put on the Second Reading of the Bill. As I said then, you cannot claim that you are doing anything much for the Islanders unless you put them under the same conditions as the people on the mainland. I spent two weeks on the Island of Tiree, and while there had communication with the neighbouring Island of Coll. One day the boat which arrived at Tiree brought two baskets of tomatoes—small baskets—punnets we call them. The lady for whom they were brought had a little shop up at the top of the road. When I saw her go into the shop with the baskets I followed, because I felt I would like some tomatoes. I said "Might I have some of those tomatoes?" She said "Yon can have some tomatoes, but I want to tell you something. You cannot buy them here as you buy them elsewhere." I said "No, I did not expect
  1670
  that." She said, "Do you believe that," and put down an invoice for 6s., 3s. for each of those two baskets, with about 3 lb. of tomatoes in each basket. She had had to pay 6s. carriage on two small baskets of tomatoes. She said, "Apart from my work in going down to the pier and bringing up these tomatoes and the rent f pay for this little shop, if I were to add nothing more than the cost of the carriage the local people would think I was trying to swindle them and that is why I place my railway carriage bill up on that window." There were also some apples there, and I asked if we could have some. She said, "Yes," but the same thing happened there. There was the carriage bill. If you added the price per pound and took the carriage per pound, you got the retail price. That meant that the apples were 1s. 3d. per pound. I am pleading for the rights of the islander to have his facilities on the same basis as the mainland people, who are able to buy commodities at the same price in Glasgow. That is the only possible way in which you can build up in the Highlands and Islands. It is the only way in which you can keep your population in those areas—by providing them with the very same facilities as the people have on the mainland.
  That is why I say I am sorry the Government have missed this tremendous opportunity of showing what is really meant by government in any country, namely, to see that your people get fair play and justice. Take the Island of Tiree. It is perhaps one of the most beautiful islands of the lot. It used to be famous for rearing the famous Clydesdale horses. The Secretary of State for Scotland is a judge of that kind of horse, though I do not think that he is a very good judge of contracts. Take the land in that island, which I have examined myself. It is plain to see that that island gives great opportunities for becoming a source of wealth production. I discused it for over a week with the farmers and the men who know their business. You can only get your information at the fountain head, and that is why I went up there. This island could overcome all the things which they say prevents its development if it had the same facilities as the mainland. For instance, the structure of that island, geologically, is such that one end forms a basin and there is

  1671
  the difficulty of drainage to the ordinary farmer. That gulf can be pierced at various points, and the accumulated water can be allowed to get to the sea. But there is a danger in that. An examination of the land shows that, if you cut this deep ditch and allow the water to get to the sea, you take away the very quality from that soil which makes it what it is. There is another way out, and that is a less expensive way than cutting through the strata to give a fall to the sea. It is by putting up windmills for controlling pumps. You do not require heavy capital expenditure with windmills because there is always plenty of wind to keep the mills going.
  MR. SPEAKER: I understood that we were to have a fairly wide discussion, but I do not think it ought to include all these details about the merits of these islands to the extent to which the hon. Member is going.
  Mr. HARDIE: I understood that the whole purpose was to try to improve the conditions of the Highlands in regard to trade, and especially to secure the re-population of these areas which have become depopulated through what I have described. These are the central facts. I am saying that these things might have been done and that the people on the islands ought to have the same advantages as those on the mainland. Even if you get all that is provided in the contract, you are still going to leave an essential part of what is necessary to build them up. You want in these Highlands and Islands to establish confidence to begin and build up, and you are not going to do that by simply dealing with this little part of the matter. That is why I am making the plea that, if it is possible to extend or to stretch things in any way in order to get over these difficulties then your shipping and transport arrangements will pay from the very first day when you begin to see that the islands are producing all that they will be able to produce. It seems to me that you have been putting the cart before the horse. The Islanders there are people who understand what is being said, even in English. There is no doubt in their minds at all as to where they are, what they are doing, and what is preventing their development. Do not make any
  1672
  mistake about that, for they understand perfectly how it is that they have been kept back. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will do his best to extract more from the Government and will see that things are made as reasonable as possible, and that he will allow a stretching of every point that may lead to the repopulation of the Highlands and Islands.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: I want to say just a word about this contract. It is different from the previous contracts, because it provides a spirit of public service. My hon. Friends opposite have said that they wish the State had taken the whole thing on. I objected to the former contract because the State just went far enough to make mischief by giving a large subsidy without any restrictions or control. The result was that all the evils of a State service were combined with all those of private enterprise, without the advantages of either. This contract meets all those points. You have the zeal, activity, and keenness of private enterprise with the necessary supervision of the State, which is giving a large subsidy, and you are combining the good of both cases. That is why I have so much hope for this contract.
  I agree with the eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) that it opens up a new future for the Highlands which ought to have been opened up long, long ago. I do not want to say anything unkind about the past because in the old days of the firm of MacBrayne they were largely actuated by a spirit of public service. They realised that you must to some extent satisfy your customers, and they had an honoured name in the Highlands. I think it was wise in this new concern to keep the old name, because of the considerable goodwill. I do not think the points raised by the hon. Member for Dundee are very serious breaches in the continuity of the agreement., nor do I believe that much harm would be done by having a couple of Government representatives. The Minister of Transport will be able to keep a careful supervision over the whole business. He has now got the right of getting hold of the books in order to see what profit is being made out of the contract, and I think that will pre-

  1673
  vent any exploitation. As to what the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwe11) alleged about any profit being exploitation, I think he was quite wrong on that point because a reasonable profit cannot be described as exploitation; only profiteering can be so described, and a reasonable profit is only business enterprise. It think it is only right that there should be a provision by which the books can be examined when the Government provide a subsidy.
  It is quite true that this agreement looks as if something much larger was being given, but I feel quite satisfied that in a very short time very little snore than what was provided under the old subsidy will be required. If you take the average for eight years under the old company I think you will find the amount now proposed is about the same. As the contract is now drawn, I think it will be possible very soon to bring the subsidy down to the old figure. For, instead of being the fag-end of a system of transport, we shall, for the first time, get that system properly linked up with the railway company and backed by them. I feel satisfied that under the new contract the first thing the railway company will do will be to feed the traffic and attract people, and I am sure it will be fully realised that it will be much better to draw people to this part of the country than to attract them to the South and across the Channel. If this is done, any chance of loss to the Treasury will disappear. I think it is a wonderful thing to have achieved to have gat the greatest railway company in the country to co-operate in this project. I am pleased that Sir Josiah Stamp has entered upon this enterprise and has come to the rescue of a part of the country that badly needed his support. I think it is a very big thing to have got Sir Josiah Stamp into this business. There is much to be said for the view taken by the Scottish Office in the past that the railways would not help, but that has changed now, and you have in addition to the railway a part of the steamboat line under Lord Kylsant, who has the biggest shipping interest in the world, and I am satisfied that these great organisations and these two eminent men will make a thoroughly good job of this service.
  1674
  The hon. Member for Dundee urged a reduction of 10 per cent, in the rates to Lochgoilhead. There is one place which is served by a little steamer which needs a much better service and this steamer is not always able to get there in stormy weather. I hope some improvement will be made there and I trust it will be possible to have some reduction in the freights. With regard to Stornoway I have received letters urging the necessity of having more speedy boats. On this matter I rely on the railway company and the steamboat company without the Scottish Office coining in at all, and I feel sure those two organisations will see that it is to their interest to provide speedier boats. Stornoway is one of the finest fishing ports in the world, and I am sure the railway company and the steamboat companies will see that it is a wise thing to give this port some better facilities than it has had up to the present. That is the minimum which is in the contract, but there is nothing to hinder these big companies from giving something much more than the generous provision which is made in the contract.
  The hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) referred to the outlying parts of the country and the urgent necessity of granting them better facilities for conveying their produce at something like the ordinary road rates. There are equalisation of rates tribunals in many parts of the Continent and America, and I think that is the principle on which this contract is founded. With regard to Lismore I understand that fertile island has no accommodation except a small motor boat. The steamboat company should be asked to make proper provision for the transport of goods to Lismore. I think the facilities offered by this contract will open up a new life in our transport system and it will be the means of a regeneration and a very great regeneration indeed.
  Mr. LIVINGSTONE: I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said on behalf of the Port of Stornoway because Stornoway is the chief fishing port in Great Britain. I should very much like to join in the chorus of approval with which this contract has been received, but I find that I am quite unable to do so. I cannot give unqualified approval to the contemplated contract, and I shall

  1675
  tell the House why. I must give the opinions of those people who know the matter best. The Town Council of Stornoway, a very enlightened body in a very enlightened town, ask for two things. They ask for speedy transport and a larger boat to cross the Minch, which is one of the most stormy channels round our coast. They also ask for something which is quite reasonable, and for which they have asked for many years, namely, a restoration of the early morning train connection to the South. They had that before the War, there is no reason why they should not have it now, and I hope it will be given to them. The Lewis District Committee of the Ross-shire, an equally enlightened body, have also asked for these two things. The Inverness-shire County Council, which is no mean body, recently appointed a transport committee, and the chairman of that transport committee is one of the most level-headed men in the Highlands. He is reputed to know more about the Highlands and Highland affairs than any other man, and I am certain that my friends on the other side will listen with respect to what he has to say.
  The Chairman of that Committee is Lochiel, a man who is known personally and by repute to most of us here, and what does he ask? He says in effect that a 10 per cent. reduction in fares is of little or no use to them, and he speaks from actual knowledge. This man of great experience asks for a reduction, not of 10 per cent., but of 50 per cent., and nothing less will suffice. It is my duty to express my constituents' views on this matter. The people of Barra are thoroughly dissatisfied. The people of Benbecula are equally dissatisfied. The people of North and South Uist do not approve, and the people of Harris have expressed their strong disapproval. All these people are dissatisfied because the reductions in freights and passenger fares are insufficient. Will a reduction of 10 per cent, on a freight charge of 6s. for a small box of tomatoes save the Highlands? I would urge this upon the Secretary of State for Scotland. As he must know, transport is the life-blood of the Islands, and without improved transport the people cannot possibly survive. To the House generally I would say this: We have heard a great deal
  1676
  about the road to the Isles. You may take it from me that the road to the Isles is still the road to romance, and I hope that every Member of this House will some day take that road.
  Sir B. PETO: In taking part in this Debate, I shall not be able to contribute anything to the detailed analysis we have had of the potentialities of the Western Highlands and Islands, but I am interested in this contract from the point of view of the men who are going to carry on the new service. The Minister of Transport has immense powers in connection with it. He has to be consulted, and his agreement has to be obtained. I see that the contract provides for four new steamers, to be available within a period of two years. It also provides, as it should, for the usual Fair Wages Clause, and in Clause 7 it provides that each of the steamers shall be commanded by a skilful master. That is the point to which I desire to call the attention of the Minister.
  Under the old MacBrayne service there was no superannuation at all for either masters or officers in these vessels. I was talking with Lord Kylsant only to-day, and he told me that 42 years ago in Scotland he saw one of the MacBrayne steamers, and he said that, while she seemed to be an extraordinarily seaworthy vessel, she looked very old. He was told that she was 40 years old, and he told me that she was still running. In other words, she is 82 years old. I am not, therefore, surprised when I am told, as I have been by the Imperial Merchant Service Guild, that in this old service the masters had no superannuation or pension, and that one of these masters, who was reputed to be over 80 years of age, had actually died at his post. Of course, it was very cheap and convenient to carry on the service without any pensions. I see that the proposal now is, and that in fact a contract has already been made, that Coast Lines, Limited, and their subsidiaries shall carry on temporarily this old service, which is now to be called MacBrayne, Limited. If it were limited to that, I should have no great anxiety with regard to pensions in the future, because no one has done more than Lord Kylsant to inaugurate pensions and widows' and orphans' schemes for officers

  1677
  of the services with which he is connected and which he controls.
  According to the Bill, however, the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company is to participate. There is no limit to the amount of share capital that they may subscribe, and, as far as I can see, they may own the whole organisation. One of my hon. Friends says "No," but I can see nothing in the Bill to limit the amount of capital that they may subscribe, and it is apparently to be a railway-owned, or partly railway owned steamship service. The experience of the merchant marine in connection with railway-owned steamships is not particularly happy or satisfactory, and I think it is regrettable that in this contract, in which nearly everything seems to be provided for, not a word is said about any pension or superannuation scheme for the officers. Naturally, they are anxious to know, and they have asked me to put the point to the Minister, in view of the great powers that he has, and to ask him to see that at least a pension scheme equal to that of the present Coast Line ships is established, under which a master may retire on a pension of £100 a year at the age of 65, when this new service is inaugurated and these new steamships are put into commission.
  The officers and their association, although they have tried their best, have not always had the most happy relations with the companies in the case of these railway-owned steamer services. They met the railway companies three years ago and agreed to a 2½ per cent. reduction in their pay, but, in connection with the Fleetwood-Belfast and Heysham-Belfast services, when they made representations asking that an officer whose services are not required in port should not be required to pay 21s. a week for meals that he never consumed, they never had any reply to those representations beyond an acknowledgment of their protest. Therefore, they naturally regard with some alarm this contract and this Bill, which wilt allow a railway company to own, or at any rate part-own, these steamers, and they want to know that they are going to receive somewhat better consideration than they have received in connection with the Belfast-Fleetwood, which is now the Belfast-Heysham, ser-
  1678
  vice. I cannot expect that in this contract we can insert a Clause which will bind the new company to pay a reasonable pension and have a reasonable retiring age, but I ask the Minister if he will use the great powers he has and will see that these officers have reasonable pension rights under the new service and are not expected to go on commanding these ships as master, navigating these stormy seas and visiting these distant isles in the West, until they reach 80 without any pension on retirement at all.
  Mr. SHINWELL: I hope the Secretary of State for Scotland can see his way to accede to the hon. Baronet's request. The practice of superannuation for the masters and officers of vessels is well known. I hope at the same time the right hon. Gentleman will be able to put in a word for the remainder of the crew. There seems to be no reason why a superannuation scheme should be provided for the master and officers and the crew should be completely excluded.
  Sir B. PETO: Of course, the crew have their ordinary pension rights under the State scheme from which officers and masters would get nothing at all.
  Mr. SHINWELL: In point of fact, the hon. Baronet is not strictly accurate, because some of the junior officers on MacBrayne's vessels and other coasting vessels are insurable and come under the ordinary insurance scheme. In any event it can hardly be said that the pensions provided under the ordinary insurance scheme are adequate for the purpose. The hon. Baronet agrees.
  Sir B. PETO: No, I do not.
  10.0 p.m.
  Mr. SHINWELL: If he says a pension of 10s. a week is adequate I beg to offer a contrary opinion. But we are not here to discuss the merits of pension schemes, except to say there is no reason at all why the officers on the proposed new vessels should not be treated as the officers are treated in the major company, Coast Lines. We had a very interesting speech from the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten), in the course of which he expressed the view that a measure of State control was desirable. I was delighted to hear him say that, because it would appear that he has travelled a long way in our direc-

  1679
  tion. There was a time when he would have been bitterly hostile to any such proposal. I take it that he will agree, having accepted that principle, that when a subsidy is provided for the mining industry, the Government responsible for the provision of the subsidy should exercise a measure of control. I hope on the next occasion when the Government suggests some form of financial relief he will indicate precisely the same view, and it might be mentioned when we are discussing these de-rating proposals. After all that is a form of subsidy, but, I cannot pursue that matter now. On the general principle I have a feeling of disappointment with the contract. It travels in our direction to some extent but it does not go far enough. It would have been much better to have a single scheme not hedged round by all sorts of conditions and stipulations, one which gave the Minister of Transport, the Secretary for Scotland and the Postmaster-General—because he is interested in a matter of this kind—complete control. As it is, they will act the part of policemen in connection with this contract. They will have to be constantly butting in so as to ensure that the contract is being properly carried out, that the mails are being adequately carried, that freights are not unduly high, that the services are adequate for the purpose and the like, and it would be much better in these circumstances, and in such circumstances as are bound to arise when this contract is in full operation, to exercise a full measure of control.
  However, that cannot he dealt with now, because the House has already decided to accept the principle underlying the contract, but there are one or two points on which the right hon. Gentleman may be able to meet us. There is first of all the point raised by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) in respect of the composition of the crew. He asked that the crew should he composed entirely of British subjects. I will direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the members of the board of directors of the contractors must be British subjects. If it is desirable, as appears to he the case, that the contractors should be British subject, why should that principle
  1680
  not be applied to all the members of the crew? I cannot understand why there should be any differentiation. The hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Coupes) expressed the view that some difficulty might arise if the crew were confined to British nationality, but there is no difficulty whatever. Indeed MacBraynes have never employed other than British subjects. From my knowledge of the operations of MacBraynes, which extends over a period of 16 years, in close association with their shipping services, I dare say they have seldom employed any seamen other than Highlanders, but there is a possibility that men might be employed who are neither Highlanders, nor British subjects and something should be done to prevent that arising. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to alter this Clause so that British subjects only shall be employed on these vessels.
  The only other point I wish to touch upon is in respect to the opening up of the Western Highlands. I speak now not so much of the cargo possibilities and the despatch of goods from Stornoway and the Outer isles to Glasgow and the mainland and from the mainland to the islands. It appears to me there is something much more important. If the tourist traffic is to be developed I would say to the right hon. Gentleman—and I assure him this is a point of real substance—that he will not attract tourist traffic unless he provides ample accommodation aboard these vessels for such a possibility.
  We all know, at least those of us who have had some acquaintance with the MacBrayne vessels and with some of the smaller coastline vessels that they are hopelessly inadequate from the standpoint of tourist traffic. Tourists will not proceed on these vessels if there is any suitable alternative. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to include some clause or some provision or come to some understanding with the companies concerned so that the accommodation provided for tourists shall be of a most suitable character. Subject to these details, and to the expression once more of the general principle that it would be desirable to avoid a profit-making concern which is undoubtedly of an exploiting character, for as long as there is profit there is bound to be ex-

  1681
  ploitation, I agree that the contract is on the whole, the best possible contract that we could obtain under the circumstances.
  Mr. ROY WILSON: I should not have intervened to-night in this Debate had it not been for the extremely kind remarks which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) made in his opening speech about me as the Chairman of the Select Committee. I should like to assure him that I accept those remarks not for myself but for the whole of the Committee. We were engaged upon an extremely interesting problem, and I should like to bear my testimony to the whole of the Committee irrespective of party and to the way they threw themselves into the work at the very limited time at our disposal. I would like to say to the hon. Member for Dundee that I would personally be very glad if he did not press these four Amendments to a division, because it is quite obvious that this contract which is now before the House has to stand or fail as it is. The acceptance of any one of these Amendments would be impossible. Having said that, I do not want the House to think that personally I am not in favour of these four Amendments. I think that they are all quite reason-able, but I am quite satisfied in my own mind that the time has gone past when it would be possible or reasonable to put these Amendments into a new contract.
  I should like to reinforce the appeal made by the hon. Member for Dundee to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to do what he possibly can to get the local authorities in Scotland to bring these piers and landing places under the local authorities, and to get such assistance as is possible from the Ministry of Transport. All of us on the Committee regarded that as very important. It does not in any way interfere with the company. It is a matter of arrangement between the departments. I hope that my right hon. Friend may see his way to give us that assurance that that will be done at some future date, and so round off, if I may use the expression, a contract which in my opinion is certainly a considerable advance on the old MacBrayne contract and which I hope and indeed believe will result ultimately in better conditions, and greater prosperity to those very
  1682
  deserving people who live in these remote parts of Great Britain.
  Sir J. GILMOUR: Perhaps it will be well that I should intervene at this moment. I would like to say that I think that what my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Roy Wilson) said can be made clear by dealing with each of these Amendments as they are submitted. Those who were Members of the Committee will remember that in the first instance it was proposed that there should be three nominees of each of the companies and two of the Government. Since that time it has been stated by the companies that they did riot propose to nominate more than two directors each, making four instead of six, and for that reason the Government nominate only one. Let me say at once that there could, of course, under no circumstances be any question of a majority on the part of the Government. All that is really required for the safeguarding of the Government is that there should be a Government Director. I think that the smaller these bodies are kept the more efficient they are likely to be. There is nothing as I understand it to preclude an amicable arrangement at a future time if it should be felt that the board should be enlarged, and certainly if the companies agreed the Government would be within their rights in claiming another director. I hope that in view of that explanation and the added fact that the Government, in addition to having their representative, have access to the books and have the very fullest information as to everything that is being done, the House may feel assured that the interests of the taxpayers and public money are being adequately safeguarded.
  I turn to the next point. That is that three-fourths of the crew should be British. I confess that I sympathise and feel that there is good ground for those of us who are interested in this to suppose that, at any rate, the great majority of these crews should be British. But I would remind the House that this problem of dealing with subsidies, and particularly with subsidies for mail contracts was the subject of an inquiry by a Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1902, and that, after going into the whole problem, that Select Committee recommended that in all contracts which entailed public money these words

  1683
  should be inserted. That is the reason why they are inserted now. But I have not the slightest doubt that the companies concerned will, as indeed in the past they have done, continue to employ only British subjects. With reference to the question of excluding places on the Firth of Clyde, this exclusion only concerns the waters within the Firth of Clyde and it does not include the question of the reduction of rates for goods brought from the outer isles into Glasgow or Greenock, or from Greenock to Glasgow to the outer isles. It was felt by the companies and by the Government that in the actual waters of the Clyde the conditions are entirely different and that with the circumstances of competition between the great varieties of companies who are serving the public within that area it was reasonable and fair, not only from the point of view of the arrangement which we are making with this company, but in fairness to the other companies within that area, that this should be left to the ordinary competition within the Clyde area.
  I come now to the fourth Amendment, the demand that the boat should be "14 knots" instead of "12 knots," and "250 feet" instead of "175 feet." I can understand the anxiety of the people who are living in the outer Islands that they should have a boat of a good speed, seaworthy and able to meet all conditions of weather. It is the intention of the new company to build these four new ships, to provide ships of the most modern construction and with a sea speed which will be infinitely better than we have to-day, but I must point out to the House and to those who are asking for a boat of 14 knots speed instead of 12 knots that what they are asking for means an expenditure which would be extraordinarily high. In the circumstances, they must realise that they are being given a good service and improved boats, and I would ask that until they see these boats, they should withhold their criticism.
  Mr. LIVINGSTONE: Will there be proper working connections between the railways and the steam boats? Will the early morning train connection with the Stornoway mail boat be restored?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I do not doubt that the new company, working as it will be closely in touch with the railways, will do everything in its power to improve the service connections. Not only the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, but the London and North Eastern Railway are really working together in this matter. The London and North Eastern Railway Company have stated that they give an assurance that they will cooperate with the new company and will maintain their services in connection with the steamers. That is of material importance, because a great part of the criticism in the past has been that that intimate connection and interworking has not been carried out. For the first time we have an assurance on the part of the new company and on the part of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway and the London and North Eastern Railway that they will work for a common purpose towards one end.
  Not only are these reductions in rates being given both inward and outward, but provision is being made that if the service improves and warrants the things that are being said about it in this House and outside, and justifies the efforts of the new company, every two years there will be the possibility of a revision and a further reduction, if the service shows good results. Further, the Government are pledged under this contract to assist to improve and delevop the future services. I would ask the House to give a little time for these developments and that they must not either themselves be or encourage their constituents to be too premature in making fresh demands, until we see the developments of this genuine effort at co-operation and improvement. With regard to the question of staff, I do not doubt that so far as the Coast Lines are concerned, who are the main people dealing with this problem, they will do everything that they can to deal fairly and properly with it, but it would not be suitable to insert in the contract at this time any conditions such as have been suggested to-night.
  Sir B. PETO: If the Government have a representative on the Board, could not the Government representative use what influence he has, although he is not in a majority, in favour of pension terms for officers?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I have no doubt that if and when an opportunity occurs these matters will be fairly considered. I want to say one word on the subject of the piers. Everyone who knows the conditions in the Western Isles is aware of the difficulties of this question, but this Contract is obviously not an occasion to deal with that matter. I agree that this is a problem which is still before us and for which we must find a solution. Frankly, I think the proper method would be for these piers to be taken over by the local authorities, but that again is a matter upon which a diversity of opinion exists. In some cases they have been taken over, and if eventually that is done, if circumstances permit us to take action in this direction, it may well be that they will come under the administration of the Minister of Transport, but I doubt if there is any possibility at the present time of any contribution being made to piers by the Minister of Transport. He makes a contribution for roads; he has the power now to give grants for roads giving access
  to piers, if they are in the hands of the local authority.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: What about the size of the ships?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: The new ships will be a vast improvement on those that have gone before both in design and accommodation for all classes of passengers. I trust the House will be content with the difficult negotiations which have now gone on for a number of months and will ratify this contract.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. SHINWELL: I beg to move, in line 5, at the end, to add the words:
  "subject to the modification that in paragraph 7 the words 'at least three-fourths of' shall be omitted."
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The House divided: Ayes, 110; Noes, 241.

  Division No. 8.]

  AYES.

  [10.24 p.m.

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

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Sexton, James

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hollins, A.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Baker, Walter

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Shinwell, E.

  Barnes, A.

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Batey, Joseph

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Bellamy, A.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Smillie, Robert

  Benn, Wedgwood

  Kelly, W. T.

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Kennedy, T.

  Smith, Rennle (Penistone)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

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

  Snell, Harry

  Broad, F. A.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Stamford, T. W.

  Bromfield, William

  Lansbury, George

  Stephen, Campbell

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Lawson, John James

  Stewart J. (St. Rollox)

  Buchanan, G.

  Lee, F.

  Sullivan, Joseph

  Cape, Thomas

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Lowth, T.

  Taylor, R. A.

  Compton, Joseph

  Lunn, William

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Dalton, Hugh

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

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Mackinder, W.

  Townend, A. E.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Day, Harry

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Viant, S. P.

  Dennison, R.

  March, S.

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Duncan, C.

  Maxton, James

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Dunnico, H.

  Mitchell. E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

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

  West wood, J.

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Mosley, Sir Oswald

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Gillett, George M.

  Murnin, H.

  Whiteley, W.

  Greenall, T.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Potts, John S.

  Windsor, Walter

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

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Wright, W.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Riley, Ben

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Hardle, George D.

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

  Heyday, Arthur

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Hayes, John Henry

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Charles

  Hirst, G. H.

  Scurr, John

  Edwards.

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Oakley, T.

  Albery, Irving James

  Gates, Percy

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

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

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

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Allen, Sir J. Sandeman

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Apsley, Lord

  Goff, Sir Park

  Owen, Major G.

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

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Astbury, Lieut-Commander F. W.

  Grant, Sir J. A.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

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

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

  Perring, Sir William George

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Griffith, F. Kingsley

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Pilcher, G.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.(Bristol, N.)

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Preston, William

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Hacking, Douglas H.

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Bethel, A.

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

  Raine, Sir Walter

  Betterton, Henry B.

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

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Bevan, S. J.

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)

  Blundell, F. N.

  Harland, A.

  Remer, J. R.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Hartington, Marquess of

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

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

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

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lanc., Stretford)

  Brass, Captain W.

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Ropner, Major L.

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

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

  Briggs, J. Harold

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

  Rye, F. G.

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Hobler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Buchan, John

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Savery, S. S.

  Burman, J. B.

  Holt, Capt. H. P.

  Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

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

  Cassels, J. D.

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

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

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

  Christie, J. A.

  Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)

  Skelton, A. N.

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

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

  Clayton, G. C.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Smithers, Waldron

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Iveagh, Countess of

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Cope, Major Sir William

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

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

  Couper, J. B.

  Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

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

  Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

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

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Streatfelld, Captain s. R.

  Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Loder, J. de V.

  Tasker, R.

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

  Lougher, Lewis

  Templeton, W. P.

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

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

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  Lumley, L. R.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Curzon, Captain viscount

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Tomlinson, R. p.

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Macintyre, Ian

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

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

  McLean, Major A.

  Waddington, R.

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

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Drewe, C.

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Watts, Sir Thomas

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Wells, S. R.

  Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Ellis, R. G.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  England, Colonel A.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

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

  Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

  Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Meller, R. J.

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Falls, Sir Charles F.

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Fenby, T. D.

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

  Withers, John James

  Fermoy, Lord

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

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Fielden, E. B.

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Womersley, W J

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

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

  Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Forrest, W.

  Murchison, Sir Kenneth

  Wright, Brig.-General W. D.

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

  Frece, Sir Walter de

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Mr. F. C. Thomson and Mr. Penny.

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Mr. T. KENNEDY: I beg to move, in line 5, at the end, to add the words:
  "subject to the modification that in paragraph 21, the words '(but excluding places on the Firth of Clyde and the lochs opening therefrom)' shall be omitted."
  Mr. J. STEWART: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The House divided: Ayes, 111; Noes, 250.

  Division No. 9.]

  AYES.

  [10.33 p.m.

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

  Hirst, G. H.

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Scurr, John

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Hollins, A.

  Sexton, James

  Baker, Walter

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Barnes, A.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Batey, Joseph

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Shinwell, E.

  Bellamy, A.

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Benn, Wedgwood

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Smllile, Robert

  Bowerman, nt. Hon. Charles W.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Broad, F. A.

  Kennedy, T.

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Bromfield, William

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

  Snell, Harry

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Kirkwood, D.

  Stamford, T. W.

  Buchanan, G.

  Lansbury, George

  Stephen, Campbell

  Cape, Thomas

  Lawson, John James

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Lee, F.

  Sullivan, Joseph

  Compton, Joseph

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Lowth, T.

  Taylor, R. A.

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Lunn, William

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

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

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Day, Harry

  Mackinder, W.

  Townend, A. E.

  Dennison, R.

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Duncan, C.

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Viant, S. P.

  Dunnico, H.

  March, S.

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Maxton, James

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Gibbins, Joseph

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

  Westwood, J.

  Gillett, George M.

  Mosley, Sir Oswald

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Greenall, T.

  Murnin, H.

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Windsor, Walter

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

  Potts, John S.

  Wright, W.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-la-Spring)

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Hardie, George D.

  Riley, Ben

  Hayday, Artnur

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Hayes, John Henry

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

  Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Whiteley.

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Buchan, John

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Albery, Irving James

  Burman, J. B.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

  Allen, Sir J. Sandeman

  Cassels, J. D.

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Apsley, Lord

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Ellis, R. G.

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

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  England, Colonel A.

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Christie, J. A.

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

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

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Clayton, G. C.

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Falls, Sir Charles F.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Fenby, T. D.

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Fermoy, Lord

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Cope, Major Sir William

  Fielden, E. B.

  Belfairs, Commander Carlyon

  Couper, J. B.

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Bethel, A.

  Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

  Forrest, W.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Bevan, S. J.

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

  Frece, Sir Walter de

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Blundell, F. N.

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)

  Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

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

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Galnsbro)

  Ganzonl, Sir John.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Gates, Percy

  Brass, Captain W.

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

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

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Glyn, Major R. G. C

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Davies, Major-Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

  Goff, Sir Park

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

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

  Grant, Sir J. A.

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Drewe, C.

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Griffith, F. Kingsley

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Savery, S. S.

  Hacking, Douglas H.

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

  Hall, Lieut. Col. sir F. (Dulwich)

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

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

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

  Margesson, Capt. D.

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

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

  Harland, A.

  Meller, R. J.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

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

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

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

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Smithers, Waldron

  Haslam, Henry C.

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

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

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

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

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

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

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

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Murchison, Sir Kenneth

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

  Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)

  Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Hills, Major John Waller

  Neville, Sir Reginald J.

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

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

  Streatfelld, Captain S. R.

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

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

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Holt, Capt. H. P.

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Tasker, R. Inigo.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Oakley, T.

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

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

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

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Oman, Sir Charles William c.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess or

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

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Tomlinson, R. P.

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

  Owen, Major G.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Waddington, R.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Perring, Sir William George

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Iveagh, Countess of

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Watts, Sir Thomas

  Jones, Sir G. W.H. (Stoke New'gton)

  Pilcher, G.

  Wells, S. R.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)

  Preston, William

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  King, Commodore Henry Douglas

  Raine, Sir Walter

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Kinloch Cooke, Sir Clement

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

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

  Lamb, J. O.

  Rees, sir Beddos

  Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Remer, J. R.

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  Loder, J. de V.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Lougher, Lewis

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

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lane., Stretford)

  Withers, John James

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Herman

  Ropner, Major L.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Lumley, L. R.

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

  Womereley, W. J.

  MacAndrew Major Charles Glen

  Rye, F. G.

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

  Macintyre, I.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  McLean, Major A

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Wright, Brig.-General W. D.

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Mr. F. C, Thomson and Mr. Penny.

  Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: I beg to move, in line 5, at the end, to add the words:
  "subject to the modification that in the Second Schedule '14 knots' shall be substituted for '12 knots' and '250 feet' for '175 feet'."
  Mr. JAMES BROWN: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The House divided: Ayes, 115; Noes, 249.

  Division No. 10.]

  AYES.

  [10.44 p.m.

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

  Compton, Joseph

  Grundy, T. W.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Cowan, O. M. (Scottish Universities)

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

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

  Dalton, Hugh

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Baker, Walter

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Hardle, George D.

  Barnes, A.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Batey, Joseph

  Day, Harry

  Hirst, G. H.

  Bellamy, A.

  Dennison, R.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Benn, Wedgwood

  Duncan, C.

  Hollins, A.

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Dunnico, H.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Broad, F. A.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Bromfield, William

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Bromley, J.

  Gillett, George M.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Greenall, T.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Buchanan, G.

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Kelly, W. T.

  Cape, Thomas

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Kennedy, T.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

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

  Kirkwood, D.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Lansbury, George

  Potts, John S

  Taylor, R. A.

  Lawson, John James

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Lee, F.

  Riley, Ben

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Livingstone, A. M.

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

  Townend, A. E.

  Longbottom, A. W.

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

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Lowth, T.

  Sakiatvala, Shapurji

  Viant, S. P.

  Lunn, William

  Scurr, John

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

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

  Sexton, James

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Mackinder, W.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Westwood, J.

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Shinwell, E.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Whiteley, W.

  March, S.

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

  Maxton, James

  Smillie, Robert

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

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

  Smith, Rennle (Penistone)

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Mosley, Sir Oswald

  Snell, Harry

  Windsor, Walter

  Murnin, H.

  Stamford, T. W.

  Wright, W.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Sullivan, J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Hayes.

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

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

  Holt, Capt. H. P.

  Albery, Irving James

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Hopkins, J. W W

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

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

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Allen, Sir J. Sandeman

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Apsley, Lord

  Drewe, C.

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

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

  Eden, Captain Anthony

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

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

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

  Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Ellis, R. G.

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  England, Colonel A.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

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

  Iveagh, Countess of

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

  Falls, Sir Charles F.

  Kindersley, Major Guy M.

  Bethel, A.

  Fenby, T. D.

  King, Commodore Henry Douglas

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Fermoy, Lord

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Bevan, S. J.

  Fielden, E. B.

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Blundell, F. N.

  Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

  Loder, J. de V.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Forrest, W.

  Lougher, Lewis

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Lucas-Tooth, sir Hugh Vera

  Brass, Captain W.

  Frece, Sir Walter de

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Lumley, L. R.

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  MacIntyre, Ian

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  McLean, Major A.

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Gates, Percy

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

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

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Buchan, John

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Burman, J. B.

  Goff, Sir Park

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Cassels, J. D.

  Grant, Sir J. A.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Charterls, Brigadier-General J.

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

  Christie, J. A.

  Griffith, F. Kingsley

  Meller, R. J.

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Hacking, Douglas H.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Clayton, G. C.

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

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

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

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

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

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

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Conway, Sir W Martin

  Harland, A.

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

  Cope, Major Sir William

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Couper, J. B.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Murchison, Sir Kenneth

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

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

  Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

  Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Neville, Sir Reginald J.

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

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

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

  Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

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

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

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col- Arthur P.

  Nuttall, Ellis

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

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Oakley, T.

  Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

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

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  Hills, Major John Waller

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

  Owen, Major G.

  Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Pennefather, Sir John

  1694

  1695

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

  Tomlinson, R. P.

  Perring, Sir William George

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

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

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

  Waddington, R.

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Pilcher, G.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Power, Sir John Cecil

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

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Preston, William

  Skelton, A. N.

  Watts, Sir Thomas

  Price, Major C. W. M.

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

  Wells, S. R.

  Raine, Sir Walter

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Smithers, Waldron

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Remer, J. R.

  spender-clay, colonel H.

  Wilson, Sir Charles H. (Leeds, Central)

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. O.

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

  Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)

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

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)

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

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  Ropner, Major L.

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Ruggles-Brise, Lieut-Colonel E. A.

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Rye, F. G.

  Streattelld, Captain S. R.

  Withers, John James

  Salmon, Major I.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Tasker, R. Inigo.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'deworth, Putney)

  Templeton, W. P.

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

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

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

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Wright, Brig.-General W. D.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Savery, S. S.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Captain Bowyer and Mr. Penny.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Resolved,
  "That the Contract, dated the 16th day of November, 1928, between His Majesty's Government and David MacBrayne (1928), Limited, for the maintenance of transport services in the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and for the conveyance of mails in connection with the said services, be approved."

  SUPPLY.
  REPORT [19TH NOVEMBER].
  Resolutions reported:

  SUPPLY.
    CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1928.
      Class VI.
      1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Overseas Trade, including a Grant-in-Aid of the Imperial Institute."
      Class II.
      2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £15,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for sundry Colonial and Middle Eastern Services under His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain Non-effective Services and Grants-in-Aid."

      Class I.
      3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,600, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in
      1696
      course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Government Chemist."

      Class V.
      4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £559,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for the payment of Old Age Pensions, for certain Administrative Expenses in connection therewith, and for Pensions under the Blind Persons Act, 1920."

      Class I.
      5. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929,for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mint, including the Expenses of Coinage, and the Expenses of the preparation of Medals, Dies for Postage and other Stamps, and His Majesty's Seals."
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      Captain GARRO-JONES: Before the question is put, may I ask how far it is intended to go with these Votes to-night? I have no desire to obstruct the passage of the Report stage, hut I would like an assurance that no attempt will be made to slip through any portion of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill as I desire to make a few remarks on the first part of it.
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Commander Eyres Monsell): We shall make no attempt to get the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill to-night. We only want to get as far as we can with the Report stage of the Supplementary Estimates.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I had handed in a manuscript Amendment to reduce the Vote by £100. The intention of course was to draw attention to certain anomalies which I think account for some of the need for extra expenditure. First of all, I want to draw attention to the fact that in the case of a widow whose husband dies and who, owing to the shock of the death and the funeral arrangements, delays perhaps for a fortnight in making her claim, the money is allowed, not from the date of her husband's death, but only from the date of her claim. I think the unnecessary correspondence accounts for a large amount of this money. When a pension is allowed to a widow I think it should be given from the date when the husband leaves an insured occupation. I do not know what defence the Government offer for this administrative action. I have brought cases to the notice of the Minister of Health where, owing to ignorance of the law a poor woman has delayed her application for weeks quite innocently, and then she is mulcted in this money which she would have drawn if she had been properly advised. There is no justice in this kind of action, and the few hundreds or thousands of pounds which the State saves is bought at the cost of the mean treatment of these poor women.
      My second case is that of a widow who has been left badly off and has had to seek parish relief. During the time the State is deciding to give her the pension the parish gives her relief and makes her repay it from the very little money which she receives when the pension is paid. This is a very big question and I hope I shall not he coerced by the Government Whips for stating this case. What
      1698
      is the actual machinery which entities the Guardians to recover this money not from the woman herself but from the Minister of Health before the arrears are paid over? That is a matter upon which the House should be informed and obviously more clerical assistance is required for this procedure.
      My third case is that of a widow who loses her son in the war and she gets a pension of 5s. When she afterwards gets the Old Age pension she loses the 5s. pension. We have had questions about this point in the House, but we have not got any satisfaction from the Minister of Pensions up to the present time. I know the Minister of Pensions is always sympathetic but he tells us that the matter is outside his department. We have another most important case where the widow is entitled to the 10s. pension and gets it and immediately by some machinery the Minister of Health informs the Minister of Pensions and the woman loses the few shillings previously granted to her.
      It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
      Debate to be resumed To-morrow.
      Fifth Resolution to be considered Tomorrow.

  OVERSEAS TRADE [GUARANTEES].
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient to amend the Overseas Trade Acts, 1920 to 1926, by extending to the eighth day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, the period within which new guarantees under those Acts may he given and by extending to the eighth day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, the period during which guarantees given under those Acts may remain in force."
  Resolution read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Before we take this Resolution, I should like to say one word of protest to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. We have been sitting for only a fortnight of the new Session, and now we are taking important financial business at this hour of the night. I hope it is not going to be the practice of this last

  1699
  Session of the present Parliament for important financial proposals to be brought forward late at night. The growing loss of control by Parliament over public expenditure alarms all constitutional students, and as a Parliamentarian who upholds the Constitution, I desire to take this, the only opportunity I have, of protesting against the practice.
  Mr. BENN: I remember, and we all remember, the time when it was not possible or competent for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury to take this business after Eleven o'clock. Then a Committee sat, and said that they did not see why an important thing like the Report stage of a Money Resolution should be interrupted at Eleven o'clock. They said that, but the Government Whip, with a commendable desire to get everything done as quickly as possible, has made it a rule never to introduce this business before Eleven. That is going a good deal further than the Committee ever intended. A very remarkable statement was made by the Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department in the Debate yesterday. We often say, and I have often said myself, that a certain amount of trade might be done with Russia, but the Government will not permit it to be done because of their political prejudices. I hear an hon. Member say that I am wrong, but that statement is made very frequently, and I will read to the House my basis for making that statement, which I shall repeat whenever I think it is germane. The Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, speaking about the possible extension of trade with Russia, said this:
  "There are, of course, political reasons, and I am not ashamed of political reasons;
  1700
  and there are questions of policy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November, 1928; col. 1443, Vol. 222.]
  That is to say, that, apart from the business end, which he proceeded to discuss, and on which there is some division of opinion, whatever the trade is with Russia, whether it be big or little, he admits the reason why we cannot do it, and why pro tanto, people must be unemployed. There are, of course, political reasons and questions of policy. I wanted to make that point clear, because it must be discussed up and down the country in reference to unemployment, and it is a very good thing that we have had so frank a statement from the Minister who is specially qualified to tell us about the policy of the Government in regard to this matter.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister, Mr. A. M. Samuel, and Mr. Hacking.

  OVERSEAS TRADE BILL,
  "to extend the periods during which guarantees may respectively be given and remain in force under the Overseas Trade Acts, 1920 to 1926," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow and to be printed. [Bill 15.]
  The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

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

TRANSPORT.
  RAILWAY STATION, NEYLAND.
  RAILWAY STATION, NEYLAND.
  NEW GLASGOW-EDINBURGH ROAD.
  NEW GLASGOW-EDINBURGH ROAD.
  UNDERGROUND RAILWAYS, NORTH LONDON.
  UNDERGROUND RAILWAYS, NORTH LONDON.
  LOCOMOTIVES (AGRICULTURE).
  LOCOMOTIVES (AGRICULTURE).
  ROAD MATERIALS (EXPERIMENTS).
  ROAD MATERIALS (EXPERIMENTS).
  ONE-WAY TRAFFIC.
  ONE-WAY TRAFFIC.
  WATERLOO BRIDGE.
  WATERLOO BRIDGE.
  FREIGHT TRAINS (LENGTH).
  FREIGHT TRAINS (LENGTH).
  REAR REFLECTORS, BICYCLES.
  REAR REFLECTORS, BICYCLES.
  EXMOOR (ROADS).
  EXMOOR (ROADS).
  FERRY SERVICE, FIRTH OF FORTH.
  FERRY SERVICE, FIRTH OF FORTH.
  ELECTRICITY GENERATING STATION, FULHAM.
  ELECTRICITY GENERATING STATION, FULHAM.
POST OFFICE.
  BEAM WIRELESS SERVICES.
  BEAM WIRELESS SERVICES.
  TELEGRAMS, NORTHERN IRELAND.
  TELEGRAMS, NORTHERN IRELAND.
  EXCAVATIONS, BRISTOL.
  EXCAVATIONS, BRISTOL.
  TELEPHONE FACILITIES, SOUTH MIMMS.
  TELEPHONE FACILITIES, SOUTH MIMMS.
  SUB-POSTMASTERS (REMUNERATION).
  SUB-POSTMASTERS (REMUNERATION).
  TELEPHONE CALLS (RECORDS).
  TELEPHONE CALLS (RECORDS).
  TELEGRAPH SERVICE, SHEFFIELD.
  TELEGRAPH SERVICE, SHEFFIELD.
  BROADCASTING STATIONS (WALES).
  BROADCASTING STATIONS (WALES).
SCOTLAND.
  POOR LAW RELIEF.
  POOR LAW RELIEF.
  SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION, GLASGOW.
  SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION, GLASGOW.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  IRON AND STEEL PRODUCTS (IMPORTS).
  IRON AND STEEL PRODUCTS (IMPORTS).
  DUMPING.
  DUMPING.
  TEA (STATISTICS).
  TEA (STATISTICS).
  PATENT LAW AND ADMINISTRATION.
  PATENT LAW AND ADMINISTRATION.
  CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS ACT.
  CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS ACT.
  RUSSIA (BRITISH CONCESSIONS).
  RUSSIA (BRITISH CONCESSIONS).
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RATING.
  AGRICULTURAL LAND.
  AGRICULTURAL LAND.
  GLAMORGANSHIRE.
  GLAMORGANSHIRE.
  BRADFORD.
  BRADFORD.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
PUBLIC HEALTH.
  SMOKE ABATEMENT.
  SMOKE ABATEMENT.
  VACCINE LYMPH.
  VACCINE LYMPH.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  FACTORY INSPECTORS.
  FACTORY INSPECTORS.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  ADJUSTMENT (CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT).
  ADJUSTMENT (CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT).
  SEVEN YEARS' LIMIT.
  SEVEN YEARS' LIMIT.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  AGED WORKERS.
  AGED WORKERS.
  SHALE-OIL MINERS, WEST LOTHIAN.
  SHALE-OIL MINERS, WEST LOTHIAN.
  TIN MINERS.
  TIN MINERS.
  PRIME MINISTER'S APPEAL.
  PRIME MINISTER'S APPEAL.
  KEG AND DRUM TRADE (WAGES).
  KEG AND DRUM TRADE (WAGES).
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (ARMS, MANUFACTURE).
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (ARMS, MANUFACTURE).
  PORTUGAL (FOREIGN SHIPPING).
  PORTUGAL (FOREIGN SHIPPING).
  KENYA (DEFENCE FORCE ORDINANCE).
  KENYA (DEFENCE FORCE ORDINANCE).
  STAMP DUTY (CHEQUES).
  STAMP DUTY (CHEQUES).
  SOCIAL SERVICES (COST).
  SOCIAL SERVICES (COST).
BETTING DUTY.
  CERTIFICATES.
  CERTIFICATES.
  REBATE.
  REBATE.
  HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "RODNEY" (CHRISTMAS LEAVE).
  HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "RODNEY" (CHRISTMAS LEAVE).
  NATIONAL SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.
  NATIONAL SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.
AGRICULTURE.
  MILK PRICES, GREATER LONDON.
  MILK PRICES, GREATER LONDON.
  HOME FOOD PRODUCTION.
  HOME FOOD PRODUCTION.
  HORSES (EXPORT).
  HORSES (EXPORT).
  WHEAT.
  WHEAT.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the certificate from the Speaker that it is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911.
Moved, That the Bill be now read lª—[The Earl of Plymouth.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, with reference to this Bill, I am in the usual position of making an appeal to your Lordships as to the time which it ought to take in going through its various stages. It appears that there is a very important public interest to be served in getting this Bill through by, I think it is, November 29. In those circumstances I was going to suggest to your Lordships that the Second Reading might be taken as early as Thursday, the day after tomorrow. It is not absolutely and entirely a Money Bill, but technically it is certified as a Money Bill.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, if the noble Marquess thinks it is a matter of importance we will do our best to assist in the passage of the Bill so that it shall pass in the time within which it is desirable it should be passed. But on Thursday there is a Motion of an important character in the name of my noble friend Lord De La Warr.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Lord Buckmaster's Motion you mean.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not think it is Lord Buckmaster's Motion. It is Lord De La Warr's Motion and I hope the noble Marquess will save that. Surely there would be time afterwards. The noble Marquess has kindly done that in some cases and we always tried to do it when we were on that side of the House.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I only want to be sure that His Majesty's
166
Government realise that we are ready to do all we can to assist in the matter. I have not had an opportunity of consulting my noble friend Lord Buxton, who naturally is particularly interested in these matters because of his connection with them when they were first introduced into another place as a novel feature of our legislation. I am sure, however, that he will do his best to meet the wishes of the noble Marquess opposite. The only point I wish to raise is on the matter of general principle with regard to Bills of this kind. We all agree that we want the Bill to get through by November 29 and there is very unlikely to be discussion either in Committee or on the Third Reading stage. Obviously, as it is a certified Money Bill, it is less likely that there will be discussion. But perhaps on occasions like this, if the noble Marquess would put down a Motion so that we could take the various stages all on one day and give us more time for the Second Reading, it might be more convenient. I do not say that in regard to this particular Bill. I bring it forward as a matter for the noble Marquess to consider in regard to Bills in which the subsequent stages are not really matters of importance—whether it is not better to postpone the Second Reading and then to take all the other stages on one day.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I quite appreciate the point. May I, after what has passed, confer with the noble Earl and the noble and learned Lord and mention the matter again to-morrow and finally fix it then?
On Question, Bill read 1ª, and to be printed.

EIGHT HOURS CONVENTION.
THE EARL OF LYTTON THE EARL OF LYTTON rose to move to resolve, That in the opinion of this House it is desirable—

1, That the Government should inform the International Labour Office, at Geneva, of the precise points on which they desire a revision of the Washington Eight Hours Convention;

2, That the Government should publish the text of a draft Bill showing what modifications, if any, in the existing industrial agreements in this

167
country would be required as a result of the ratification of an International Eight Hours Convention in the amended form desired by the Government.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the subject of the Resolution which I have placed upon the Order Paper has been much discussed in another place, but not, I think, in recent years, at any rate not in your Lordships' House, and my justification for bringing it forward here is that in spite of many discussions, and of many questions and answers in the House of Commons, there are still some elements of uncertainty in the policy of the Government which those discussions and those questions have failed to elucidate. Until as recently, I think, as last Wednesday, a question was asked in the House of Commons, but like many previous questions even that failed to clear up one point of uncertainty in connection with this matter, and, as in your Lordships' House we are less restricted either by time or procedure, I venture to hope that I may be successful in removing such elements of uncertainty as still remain.
My Resolution has not been framed in any spirit of opposition to the Government. I am well aware of their difficulties in connection with this matter. The Minister of Labour has been good enough to tell me of them on more than one occasion. I appreciate those difficulties and I have no desire whatever to add to them. On the contrary, I have framed this Resolution in the hope that I may be successful in removing one at least of the difficulties, which has been mentioned to them. I hope before I am finished I may be able to show your Lordships how this may be done. I ought, perhaps, to explain that in discussing the question I am not representing the opinions either of employers or of workers in the matter; I am merely concerned with the international aspect of the question; I am not concerned with the obligations of the Government to any particular section of people in this country, but with their obligations to other countries with which they have been in conference from time to time. From this international point of view let me summarise the history of the question. I can do so very shortly because the main facts have been stated on many occasions.
For the beginning of this question we must go back to the Treaty of Versailles. By Part XIII of that Treaty, the establishment of an international forty-eight-hour week was declared by the signatories of the Treaty to be not only desirable but urgent, and in pursuance of that ideal a Conference met in the following year (1920) at Washington, where a Convention was drafted to give effect to the ideal which had been expressed in the Treaty of Versailles. Although I have no doubt a great deal of trouble was taken to make that Convention as satisfactory as possible, it is evident that it failed in that respect, because there is evidence that closer examination of the Convention by the various Governments concerned disclosed difficulties whether of interpretation or application which have considerably retarded the ratification of the Convention. For several years no step was taken by any country to ratify the Convention, and as long ago as 1921 doubts as to its practicability were expressed by the British Government and a demand was made for its revision. That demand however, was refused, and first of all, in 1923 I think it was, a Conference of three Powers met at Berne to discuss questions of interpretation, and in the year 1924, under the Chairmanship of the present Minister of Labour, a Conference of five Powers was summoned in London.
The first point of uncertainty and doubt to which I have referred is concerned with the results of this Conference at London. The matter has been frequently discussed, and there has been some difficulty in understanding to what extent agreement was reached at the London Conference. Judging from the speeches made by the Minister of Labour I think that point is now, at least, clear. There was, I understand, complete agreement between the Powers represented at that Conference as to the interpretation of the context of the Washington Convention, but, though agreement was reached on that point, there was a failure to agree as to whether the interpretation that was agreed upon was, or was not, within the four corners of the context of the Convention. The British Government, I understand, held the view that the terms of the London Agreement were incompatible with the context of the Washington Convention as it stood, and that it would be necessary from their

169
point of view to add the heads of that Agreement to the Convention in the form of a Protocol or addition to the Treaty. The representatives of the other countries present, however, took the view that the draft of the Convention as it stood was sufficiently clear to be interpreted in the sense agreed upon, but as the British Government did not take that view they found themselves unable to ratify the Convention, even after the discussions which had taken place at that Conference.
Up to this point I have no criticism to make of the policy of successive Governments in this country from the point of view of our international obligations. They had agreed in the Treaty of Versailles with the policy of an international eight-hour day; they had taken part in a Conference at Washington to put that policy into effect; and they had signed the Convention there drafted. On further examination, having found that the draft was defective, they first of all asked for revision, and they subsequently summoned a Conference to discuss the question of interpretation. They did, in fact, all that a Government could do to bring about a ratification of the Convention in a form consistent with the existing industrial agreements in this country. As a result of that Conference in London, Belgium, one of the countries there represented, subsequently ratified the Convention. But that was in 1924.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: 1926.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My noble friend reminds me that that was in 1926. We are now in 1928. In so far as I have any kind of criticism to make it refers to the action of the Government from that time. Up till February of last year the Government had taken no action at all, but in February last year the British representative at the International Labour Conference demanded that the question of the revision of the Washington Convention should be put on the agenda of the Conference for 1929. Now, it is obvious that a mere demand for revision, unaccompanied by any explanation of the terms in which revision is required, is open to grave objection because it would throw the whole Convention into the melting pot and re-open consideration, not merely of details, not merely of interpretation, but of the whole
170
principle involved in the Convention. Consequently that demand was again refused at the International Labour Conference.
Your Lordships may remember that at the beginning of last Session I placed a Motion upon the Order Paper of the House requesting the Government to withdraw their demand for revision and to ratify the Convention forthwith. I did not move that Resolution because, when it appeared upon the Paper, the Minister asked me to go and see him and explained to me in a personal interview the facts which I have already laid before your Lordships and the difficulties which the Government found in ratifying the Convention as it stood. I was naturally impressed by the explanation he gave me, and wishing that it should receive greater publicity, I invited him to receive a deputation and to explain to that deputation—and I hoped it would have been public—what he had told me in our private conversation. At the same time I placed my Motion on the Notice Paper amongst those for which no date was named. Unfortunately, at that time the Minister fell ill and was unable to receive this deputation until the month of July. It was, therefore, only towards the very end of last Session that the deputation was able to wait upon him. The deputation then made a request to the Minister in terms identical with those of the Resolution which I am moving to-day. We asked him, namely, to define the points on which the British Government desired a revision and to show those points in the form of a draft Bill so that the actual legislative effect upon the industrial agreements in this country could be made known.
The only reason which the Minister gave to us on that occasion for his inability to accede to our request was that in his opinion it would be inopportune and tactless for this country to specify the particular form of revision they required in a Convention to which a great many other countries were parties. Well, I thought that there might perhaps be some force in that objection, and so this year, when I was at Geneva, I took the opportunity of discussing the matter with the Director of the International Labour Office and with the Assistant Director. I had a long conversation with both of them, and they assured me that, in their

171
opinion, nothing could be more helpful at this moment from an international point of view than that the British Government should do the very things which I am today asking them to do. They assured me that if the British Government would only specify the particular points on which they desired to revise the Convention and make it clear, if possible, that they did not desire to reopen the whole question of an international eight-hour day, this would strengthen their hands very considerably in dealing with other countries, and that, if indeed it were the fact that the present Government merely desired the Washington Convention with the addition of those points which had been agreed to at the London Conference, there would be very little difficulty in securing general agreement.
We are, I think, justified in believing that that is the policy of the Government, because I think there can be no doubt that, if at the London Conference the Minister of Labour had succeeded in persuading the representatives of other countries to add to the Convention in the form of a Protocol those points which had been agreed to at the Conference, the British Government would then have been willing to ratify the Convention. It is because I received an assurance from the Director of the International Labour Office that such a course would be helpful, that I felt justified in placing this Resolution upon the Order Paper of your Lordships' House, and in asking the Government to consider whether this would not remove the only objection which was stated to us when we went before the Minister on a deputation.
I see that the Government have issued a Whip summoning their followers to resist this Motion if it should go to a Division. I must, therefore, conclude that they are intending to oppose my Resolution. But I find some difficulty in understanding why they should have any objection to it. I ask your Lordships, and I will ask the Government very respectfully, what possible objection there can be to the Resolution in the form in which it appears upon the Order Paper. I am not asking them to change their policy in any respect. I am not asking them to ratify a Convention which they have assured us presents considerable drafting difficulties. I am merely asking them to define their
172
policy, to let us know what it is that they wish to see done, because up to the present they have only told us what they are unwilling to do. They have told us that they are unwilling to ratify the Washington Convention as it stands, but they have not told us what changes of words would satisfy them and secure their consent to ratification. The Government are known to be in favour of the principle of an international eight-hour day, and the only question at issue is what is the best way to bring that about at the soonest possible moment. I submit that the situation internationally is one in which everything is to be gained by complete frankness, and that any vagueness or reticence upon the points which I am discussing only gives rise to suspicions and criticisms.
I have no doubt whatever of the sincerity of the Minister of Labour or of the Government. I have no doubt whatever that they desire to see a workable Eight Hours Convention adopted by all the nations of the world as soon as possible. But they must not, I think, be surprised if, by those who do not know them so well, by those, perhaps, who have less interest in representing their actions favourably, their inaction in this respect, their reticence, their hesitation in giving information which is repeatedly asked of them, leads others to question their good faith or to doubt their sincerity. Consider for a moment what we should feel about another country whose actions had been what ours have been. Let us suppose for a moment that, after the London Conference, we had ratified the new Convention, as Belgium has done; or let us suppose that we had stated that we were prepared to ratify it if, say, France would ratify at the same time—that being the action which France has taken. Then let us suppose that the French Government had replied: "We are entirely in favour of the principle of an international eight-hour day, but we are not prepared to ratify the Washington Convention." And if the only action of France, after nine years, had been to demand the revision of the Convention in general terms, without stating on what points revision was desired, thereby putting the whole Convention back into the melting pot, should we not have found great difficulty in justifying it and should we not have said, is not the best that we could have

173
said, that their action might be sincere but that at least it was not very helpful?
It is just because I am jealous of the reputation of my country that I am anxious to remove any occasion for misunderstanding or for suspicion in the minds of other countries as to our good faith. Again, it is just because I am jealous of the reputation of the existing Government that I am anxious to save them from misrepresentation by their political opponents. If I had any doubts as to their perfect sincerity in the matter I should be content to leave to noble Lords opposite the task of criticising them and of calling them to book. It is only because, after having discussed the matter several times with the Minister of Labour, I am perfectly satisfied that the Government are entirely sincere in this matter that I venture to appeal to them, as I do very strongly on this occasion, to disarm their political opponents and to remove from their friends in other countries any grounds for suspicion or anxiety as to their action; and I would beg the Government to believe that it is in this spirit, and in this spirit alone, that I have placed upon the Order Paper the Resolution which I now beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in the opinion of this House it is desirable—

1, That the Government should inform the International Labour Office, at Geneva, of the precise points on which they desire a revision of the Washington Eight Hours Convention;

2, That the Government should publish the text of a draft Bill showing what modifications, if any, in the existing industrial agreements in this country would be required as a result of the ratification of an International Eight Hours Convention in the amended form desired by the Government.—(The Earl of Lytton.)

LORD OLIVIER: My Lords, when I first saw this Resolution upon the Paper I agreed entirely with its intention, and I thought that we on these Benches should support it as being a move in the right direction. I did not altogether like its phraseology, because it seemed to leave open the possibility of having a special revision of the Convention, and this appeared to us, and to most of the Governments represented, to be disposed of last May, when the question of revision was raised and settled. This Resolution
174
suggests in terms that the Government should represent to the International Labour Office the precise points on which they desire the revision of the Eight Hours Convention, which would appear to indicate that the question of revision was again to be raised. I hope that this is not the case. In the course of his speech, however, the noble Earl said, if I do not misunderstand him, that M. Thomas, the Director of the International Labour Office, commended the purpose of this Resolution and thought that such action as the noble Earl desired would strengthen the hands of the International Labour Office and help them to get forward in this business. Consequently I shall not hesitate to support and vote for this Resolution.
The noble Earl has given your Lordships a certain amount of the history of this matter, and he said that he desired to go into it solely from the point of view of our international credit. I want to go into it, not only from the point of view of international credit, but also from the point of view of our national interest. I want to know definitely from the noble Marquess, I want to have it put forward in this House, what are the points of difficulty that stand in the way of ratification of this Convention by His Majesty's Government, subject to what was agreed in the London Conference of 1926 as to the interpretations that might quite properly be put upon it. With regard to these I understand that all other Governments concerned were willing to agree without raising any points of difficulty. Objections appear to have been communicated to the noble Earl by the Minister and to have impressed him, but it would be a very great thing for the world and for the workers of this country, who are practically unanimous in favour of this Convention, if we could understand what the Government's objections are. It has been impossible so far to elicit them.
I have some correspondence which I wish to quote, and which took place in the course of 1927, between the Minister of Labour and the National Confederation of Employers' Organisations. It appears evident that a good deal of the opposition to the Convention must have come from this Confederation owing, doubtless, to their holding the view that it is not in the interests of British industry

175
that the Convention should be adopted in its present form. The Confederation was invited to state its objections, and this is the reply that it gave:—
"The Confederation's position, briefly stated, is that its representative at the next Governing Body meeting will vote for the revision of the Convention, and if the Government representative also votes for it, and the Convention is put down for revision on the agenda for the 1929 International Labour Conference, the Confederation will be prepared to meet the Trades Union Congress as suggested and submit the result to the Minister of Labour before the 1929 Conference."
That is to say, the Confederation would disclose what their difficulties were, as apparently they had not yet done.
Further than that, we had some indication that the attitude of His Majesty's Government in the meeting in May last was precisely the same. It was stated:—
"The British Government will enter into details at the appropriate moment when, with other Governments, under the procedure now agreed by the Governing Body, it is asked for its views."
This was the statement made by Mr. Humbert Wolfe when the Governing Body had declined his proposal that there should be a revision in 1929. I want to know what are their difficulties now. Why are they kept so dark? Let us have an opportunity of judging whether or not they are covered by the agreements come to at the London Conference in 1926. Why should they be kept dark. The keeping of them dark creates the greatest possible suspicion and creates that suspicion from which the noble Earl wished to dissociate-himself, that it is done owing to pressure from one side of the industrial world—namely, the Confederation of Employers' Organisations—and one side only. Certainly it is not done from the other side, because the whole of the trade unions in England are satisfied after full consideration that the Convention is workable, subject to the enlargement and interpretation provided by the Conference. The International Federation of Trade Unions and practically the immense majority of the Delegates from all the Governments at Geneva are satisfied that it is workable, and do not think that there are any such difficulties as the Government assure us there are. Why do not the Government tell us precisely what they are, instead of saying: "When you have decided
176
that you will revise, then we will tell you what are our objections."
The comment made by the Spanish Delegate, Mr. Caballero, at the meeting of the Governing Body on May 28, 1928, appears to me to be very pertinent. Mr. Caballero contended that had the British Government acted according to the spirit of the Convention, they would have ratified it and carried out its provisions by July 1, 1921, as stipulated in Article 19. He further maintained that before the British Government were entitled to demand a report on the working of the Convention they should have ratified it. There is the greatest impatience on the part of the workers' organisations in other countries with regard to the position of the British Government in this matter. At the last meeting of the Trade Union Congress M. Mertens spoke very feelingly upon the subject, and he represents a feeling which is entirely concurred in by the organised working-class movement in this country. There is this general feeling that the International Labour Office was set up for certain purposes, one purpose being the attainment of a world-wide standard of hours, and that we are prevented from having that by the fact that certain Governments have not ratified the Convention, and will not ratify it until the British Government ratify it.
Italy, although she has issued a decree lengthening hours, says she would be bound by her obligation under the Convention, and the world of labour is waiting for the ratification by the British Government. The world of labour has had no instructions as to what are the difficulties which the British Government see in the Convention; its own labour representatives do not see those difficulties; and therefore how can we escape having that attitude of suspicion which the noble Earl regarded as being so unfortunate? M. Mertens said this:—
"You all know the very great importance of this matter, and you know also the interest all workers in all industrial countries have in a prompt and general ratification of this Convention."
Is not that a consideration which ought to weigh with the British Government? Is it not of world-wide interest that there should be this ratification, and that the British Government should not defer their ratification to the furthest

177
possible moment, until revision has been agreed to and their objections have been stated and considered, and until after ten years have expired and the whole thing has to be opened de novo? Is not that a material interest which you ought to do your best to serve by every possible means—by the means suggested by the noble Earl—namely, the ratification of this Convention?
M. Mertens added:—
"Most countries are taking the attitude of the British Government … as a pretext for not ratifying the Convention themselves, and the decision of the British Government to press for a revision of the Washington Convention encourages them in their determination. I am sure if Great Britain ratified, the other countries would feel bound to follow their example. If a general ratification were obtained, a great part of the competition for the world markets—which competition means long working days in so many countries—would disappear. Such competition as there was would then be fairer, and if we could subsequently obtain from the various countries a ratification of the Convention on legal minimum wages adopted by the last International Labour Conference …."
It is perfectly unintelligible to the ordinary working man how the Government can say that they want to have Safeguarding Duties, that we must safeguard ourselves against goods coming from countries where the workers work longer hours or under worse conditions of labour than ours, and that we should, at the same time, stand alone among all the nations in obstructing one of the instruments devised to prevent that kind of under- cutting—an instrument which would at once bring almost all, if not all, the nations of Europe and America under the same scale of hours of work. On those grounds, because it is of real human interest, we should not go on temporising and procrastinating and refusing to give our reasons, and I support the Motion of the noble Earl.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I have not very much faith in the success of this effort to submit the Government to a sort of psycho-analysis, but with such a timid and hesitating patient it may, in the last resort, be worth trying. Let us hope that it will enable the patient to formulate his fears and confess them to a sympathetic doctor, the I.L.O. These fears have been kept in the background until about May of 1927, and their hopes kept alive, as I judge, by the
178
speech made by Lord Balfour in 1927, but the censor, in the shape of the National Federation of Employers' Organisations, appears to have stepped in. The result has been that a serious inferiority complex has supervened, which has prevented all further action. I have no doubt that definition would be better than the attitude of vague, possibly half-hearted, but none the less effective obstruction which is being adopted at present, but I hope that this definition will not lead on to revision because that will put back any effective action until 1931 at least, and even when revision is carried out it will produce very serious legal complications in the case of those nations who have already ratified.
The Government's fears seem to be centred round the question of exact definition of effective hours of work. This habit of exact definition seems to have been developed in the case of the Local Government Bill, and it is very difficult to get out of the habit of exact, lucid definition; but the more you define the more you reduce the range, and the fewer trades you include; and I foresee that ultimately the only body of workers who will fit into the last perfect definition of effective hours and overtime will be the members of your Lordships' House. Too exact definition, I fear, will spoil the efficiency of the Convention. It is necessary to allow a certain flexibility, and possibly even indefiniteness, so that all the varying conditions which exist in other countries may fit into the Convention without straining it. What would be the risks if that course is adopted? It is agreed almost universally that in a very wide range of industries the maximum of efficiency is obtained with eight hours' work a day and 48 hours a week. Why is it, then, that the leaders of industry, as represented by the Confederation of Employers' Organisations, are so opposed to an international definition of the hours of work? Surely, it must be the result of the same confused and short-sighted habit of mind which impels people to advocate the protection of some of our industries against foreign competition. Surely, if you encourage your neighbour so that he may develop his health and his resources, he will become a more valuable purchaser of your goods.

179
No Convention that can be framed, I believe, can protect us from every dishonest trader—there will always be someone, whether we sign the Convention or not. Success in industry depends very much more on contented work and active brains than on adding or subtracting an hour or two's work per week. What we have to fear is that some increase might be made in the difference which exists between our time standard and that of other countries, but this surely cannot be caused by the ratification of this Convention; rather the effect which it will have will be to stimulate the adjustment of scales of hours to the optimum throughout the world. I trust that, even if we do formulate our fears, we shall by doing so discover that they are groundless, and that we shall then be able to proceed boldly to ratification.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE MARQUESS OF LONDON-DERRY): My Lords, I am sure no one can quarrel with the tone of the speeches which have been delivered this afternoon, and I only hope that I may be able to give the noble Lord a satisfactory reply to the Question which he has put to me. I must ask your Lordships' indulgence, because I know you are aware that this is not a matter with which I personally have been closely in touch, and therefore I have done my best in a comparatively short time to study the whole question and to endeavour on this occasion to put it before your Lordships. The noble Earl who initiated this debate has a wide experience, and I think your Lordships will fully realise that the intention which he had in his mind in raising this question is to absolve this country from the suspicion of secrecy and mystery, and really to put its case before the world. The noble Lord who followed him was more ardent in his protestations, but I am not sure that the case which he put forward is one in which he would have the full support of his colleagues in another place. I regret to say it is quite true that there is an atmosphere of suspicion both at home and abroad and that atmosphere of suspicion has, to a very large extent, been spread by the speeches made from time to time by prominent members of the Labour party, criticising the attitude of the Government upon the whole question of hours of work, and the Washington Eight
180
Hours Convention in particular. It is in order that I may dispel and disarm that suspicion that I shall ask your Lordships to bear with me for a few moments while I try briefly to recapitulate, as far as I can, the history of the Washington Convention.
The noble Earl who initiated this debate passed briefly over a certain portion of that history, but your Lordships will doubtless remember that the Preamble in Part XIII of the Treaty of Versailles—that portion which dealt with the whole question of labour—declared that the improvement of the conditions of labour is urgently required in order to assist in the establishment of universal peace, and it recited "the regulation of the hours of work, including the establishment of a maximum day and week" to be the first among the various objects, by the achievement of which improved conditions of labour might be secured. For this purpose, under Article 387 of the Treaty, a permanent organisation was set up, consisting of the original Members of the League of Nations and of any Member joining thereafter. Under Article 388 this organisation consists of a General Conference and an International Labour Office, controlled by a Governing Body of twenty-four, of whom twelve are representatives of the Governments, eight being nominated by Members of the League which are of greatest industrial importance. Of the remaining twelve, six are elected by the Conference delegates who represent the employers, and six by those delegates who represent the workers. The General Conference of representatives of Members meets at least once a year and is composed of four representatives of each of the State Members, two being Government Delegates, and two representing respectively employers and workpeople.
With regard to the procedure, Article 405 provides that the proposals of the Conference shall take the form either of a recommendation or of a draft International Convention for ratification by the Members. Later the same Article says that
"if the draft Convention fails to obtain the consent of the authority or authorities within whose competence the matter lies, no further obligation shall rest upon that Member."

181
Now I have taken your Lordships as far back as the Treaty of Versailles, because there appears to be a fairly general misconception that there is something binding in the draft Convention itself, the Convention which we are discussing to-day, and that there is something dishonourable attaching to this Government and to this country, if we do not ratify that Convention.
I hope I have made it clear, and I believe it should be plain by now, that the honour of this country or of the Government is not involved in the least in the ratification of any particular draft Convention. The Delegates to the Conference are not Plenipotentiaries, they have no power to bind or to loose. I am not going to say for a moment that as Delegates they do not represent their Government and the employers and workpeople of their country. No doubt, also, they receive certain instructions; but I do say that this Government, like every other Government of a represented country which is a Member of the League of Nations, has perfect freedom, and, moreover, has an absolute duty to examine any draft Convention which comes from the Conference and, after examination, to give or withhold ratification, whether that draft had or had not the support of its Delegates at the Conference which adopted it.
The only point of honour that I can see is that this Government and every other Government of this country, must maintain and promote the application of the general principle of the eight-hour day or forty-eight-hour week "so far as special circumstances permit." That, I say, is a point of honour because it is part of the undertaking of the Treaty of Versailles. But I cannot believe for a moment that any general accusation of dereliction of duty on this head can be made against this country or any of its Governments since the Treaty. The forty-eight-hour week, as we all know, has long been an accepted principle in this country and is the general basis upon which our industrial employment rests. Indeed, I am not sure that we cannot claim to have been the first great industrial country to see its establishment.
The first General Conference of the International Labour Office was held at Washington as long ago as October,
182
1919, when the Eight Hours Convention, which has been the subject of to-day's discussion, was adopted by a very large majority; in fact, that majority was 82 votes to 2, all the four British representatives naturally voting in the majority for it. When, however, the Government of the day came to examine the possibility of applying the provisions of the draft Convention to British Industry with a view to its ratification, it became clear, and very clear, that serious practical difficulties were involved, so serious, in fact, that the Government felt that they would not be justified in ratifying in face of those difficulties. The policy of the Government was announced to the House of Commons in the debate on May 27 and after that on July 1, 1921, and a reasoned letter was sent to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations explaining the inability of the Government to ratify the Convention as it stood and suggesting that steps should be taken to secure its revision with a view to making it more generally acceptable. This suggestion was rejected by the Governing Body of the International Labour Office, but, after protracted negotiations with the Director of the Office, a Committee was set up by the Governing Body in April, 1923, to make recommendations as to the means of furthering the ratification of the Convention. The result of these deliberations, however, was to reaffirm the decision which the Governing Body had already reached.
At this point, the Labour Government came into power and announced its intention of taking the necessary steps to enable the Convention to be ratified and, as noble Lords will remember, the Hours of Industrial Employment Bill was introduced for this purpose into the House of Commons in July, 1924, by Mr. Shaw, the Minister of Labour. This change of policy encouraged the International Labour Office to renew its efforts to promote the ratification of the Convention by the chief industrial Powers of Europe and in September, 1924, a meeting, to which the noble Lord has referred, was held at Berne of the Ministers of Labour of Great Britain, France, Belgium and Germany. At this meeting various points of obscurity and difficulty in the Convention were discussed and at its close an official statement was issued

183
to the Press to the effect that the four Ministers present were agreed that ratification by their respective Governments was a practical possibility. About a month later the Hours of Industrial Employment Bill lapsed on the Dissolution of Parliament, without having secured a Second Reading.
Such was the position, therefore, and I apologise to noble Lords for going into history, but I feel it is of great importance that we should proceed slowly in the matter for the purpose of showing exactly the position in which the Government is at present. The Government held that the Bill which had been introduced by the Labour Party, if passed into law, was calculated seriously to hamper British industry, particularly in the matter of overtime, and the Government were further impressed by the fact that the interpretations given to various Articles of the Convention in different countries were widely divergent. Accordingly, in the summer of 1925 my right hon. friend the Minister of Labour circulated a Memorandum to the Powers that had been present at the meeting at Berne and also to Italy, in which he indicated the principal difficulties with regard to interpretation that had been experienced in Great Britain and that the Government believed to have been experienced in other countries. He informed these Powers that the British Government were prepared to summon a Conference if the other States were willing to attend, provided that the replies forwarded in answer to his Memorandum appeared to hold out any hope of general agreement. All the Powers consulted were in favour of the proposed Conference, which was, therefore, convened by His Majesty's Government and which met at London in March, 1926. Various agreements were registered and signed by the representatives who attended the Conference.
When, however, the precise effect of the conclusions of the London Conference was more closely studied, it became evident that they had by no means cleared the way to ratification as successfully as had been hoped. On the one hand, there was the problem of securing the adherence of the other State Members of the organisation to these conclusions—a matter which presented considerable difficulty—and, in addition, there was a
184
fundamental divergence of view as to the exact force of the conclusions themselves. The Powers assembled at London had determined with regard to a number of points how they would administer the Convention if ratified and had agreed that administration on these lines was essential from a practical point of view. However, whilst some of the Powers were convinced that the agreements reached were completely in harmony with the Convention, the British Government felt and expressed considerable doubt as to whether they did not go beyond what could be considered a fair interpretation of the terms of the Convention. Further examination only strengthened these doubts, and in the autumn of 1927 the Government finally decided that the only possibility of reaching a really satisfactory solution lay in putting into operation Article 21 of the Convention which runs:—
"At least once in ten years the Governing Body of the International Labour office shall present to the General Conference a report on the working of this Convention, and shall consider the desirability of placing on the agenda of the Conference the question of its revision or modification."
The Convention would thus again come up before the International Labour Conference for review.
Criticism of the Convention itself follows two main lines. First, the text is vague and ambiguous and therefore fails in itself to provide the necessary guarantee for uniformity or practice after it has been ratified; and, secondly, it makes no allowance for various industrial practices perfectly consistent with its main purpose. Perhaps I may illustrate it to your Lordships. For instance, there are no definitions in regard to vital points such as "working hours," which in some quarters have been considered to mean only hours of actually productive work, or the "continuous processes" by which, under Article 4, a fifty-six-hour week may be worked. Again, to prove my second point, Article 2B. of the Convention, while making provision for one short working day in the week, limits the normal hours allowed on any day to nine, with the result that it becomes impossible to work forty-eight hours in a week of five days, a practice which obtains in large sections of the British boot and shoe industry and other important industries.

185
Again, consider Article 6B, which deals with overtime. That Article lays down that regulations made by public authority shall determine for industrial undertakings the temporary exceptions to the normal limits of the eight-hour day and forty-eight-hour week that may be allowed, so that establishments may deal with "exceptional" cases of pressure of work. Now, there is nothing exceptional about a great deal of the overtime essential to the carrying on of industry. Indeed, that overtime is often seasonal and recurrent. Any British Government in drafting a bill to implement the Convention will, therefore, be faced with the alternatives of making use of the words "exceptional cases of pressure of work" when it will be left to the Courts of Law to determine what are exceptional cases, or of employing some other phrase, when they will be exposed to the charge of departing from the terms of the Convention. I venture to put all this before your Lordships to show that it is not quite so easy as the noble Lord seemed to think it was when he made his speech. In particular, the terms of this Article would render impossible the existing agreement in regard to the hours governing the railways in this country, an agreement highly prized by the railway workers, since all Sunday work, which is naturally of regular occurrence, is treated under that agreement as overtime and paid for at overtime rates.
I know it may be urged that all these matters were the subject of consideration at the London Conference, and were included under the agreements arrived at at that Conference. That, of course, is the case; but I would remind your Lordships that, as I have already stated, the British Government felt and expressed considerable doubt as to whether the agreements then reached did not go beyond what could be considered a fair interpretation of the terms of the Convention.
The Labour Party at various times has endeavoured to make capital out of the fact that we have refused to ratify the Washington Draft Eight Hours Convention. The Minister of Labour in the late Administration, Mr. Shaw, has been particularly severe in his castigation. He has even attacked the honour of the
186
Government. On February 27, speaking in another place, he said:—
"I suggest that both from the point of view of the Treaty and the action of the Government representatives at Washington, no honourable body of men can escape the responsibility of this Convention. If this were a case of a private individual who had acted in this way, there is not a club in London who would accept him as a member. But when we get together in a body, somehow ordinary common morality seems to go to the wall, and a mere signature, a mere Treaty, is a scrap of paper and it does not matter particularly if it be a Treaty which will be of advantage to the workers."
That sort of thing may do and, I have no doubt, does do harm to this country so far as foreign opinion of our conduct is concerned, though it should do little here at home where such accusations pass as the current exchange among some politicians of the Labour Party.
But the attitude of the Labour Party on the question of ratification is manifestly insincere. My right hon. friend the Minister of Labour, in the course of the same debate—and I would direct your Lordships' particular attention to the record of it—challenged the Labour Party upon the draft Convention. I will quote an extract because it is very important and very illuminating. He said:—
"It is clear from to-day's debate that the right hon. gentleman and his friends would like to ratify the Washington Convention as it stands. That I understand to be the case? I pause for correction if I am wrong."
To which Mr. Shaw, who made the speech I have referred to, replied:—
"The right hon. gentleman pauses for correction. He knows perfectly well what he says is not the case."
Is it not perfectly clear then that neither this Government nor the only other alternative Government that I can foresee at the present moment, will ever ratify this Convention as it stands. We cannot do it, nor could a Labour Government do it because of the very inapplicability of it in its present shape to our peculiar circumstances and because of the ambiguities which I have already described. We, at any rate, will be no parties to an action whose first effect would be to disturb the working arrangements under which our railwaymen are working at present, arrangements with which, I believe, they are perfectly satisfied, which they would not have disturbed on any account and which, though not within the ambit

187
of arrangements possible under the draft Convention, are yet perfectly conformable with the observance of the principle of the forty-eight-hour week to which we stand pledged.
Now let me deal more particularly with the question of revision which the noble Earl has specifically raised by the terms of his Resolution. As I have already said, His Majesty's Government, convinced that the process of interpretation had already gone so far as to encroach upon the domain of revision and that revision was the only possible and straightforward way of securing the ratification of the Convention, made proposals to that effect to the Governing Body at Geneva. That Body postponed consideration until it had laid down definite stages of procedure for bringing into operation Article 21 of the draft Convention—that is, the Article to which I have already alluded—which provides for a report from the Governing Body to the General Conference on its working at least once every ten years. That procedure consists of four stages.
First a draft report by the International Labour Office on the working of the Convention will be considered and adopted by the Governing Body with such modifications as appear to be required. Secondly, the Governing Body will consider whether it shall lay proposals for revision or modification of the Convention before the General Conference, when, if it decides against revision, the report will be laid before the Conference without any recommendation. Thirdly, In the event of the Governing Body deciding to give further consideration to the question of revision, the report on the working of the Convention will be sent to all the State Members of the Organisation for their observations. Finally, on receipt of these observations the Governing Body will decide the terms of its report to the Conference and define the precise question or questions dealing with revision which are to be placed on the agenda of the Conference.
The Governing Body has called for a report on all the Conventions adopted at Washington and it is understood that the first report to be presented will be that on the Eight Hours Convention, which will be taken towards the close of this year. It is in these circumstances that we are asked in the terms of this Resolution
188
to inform the International Labour Office of the precise points on which we desire this Convention amended. We are told that agreement with our request for revision without any clear idea of what is intended in that direction, may open the way to such drastic alterations of the Convention as even to impair the principles which it embodies. But we have invariably made it clear whenever the subject of revision has been raised that we have no desire, nor have we any intention, to impair in any way the principle of the forty-eight hour week. Our desire is merely to render the Convention an instrument under which uniform practice and enforcement will be assured by removing its ambiguities and by making provision for various industrial practices which are in no way opposed to that principle.
My right hon. friend the Minister of Labour, speaking on the same subject in another place emphasised that proposition. He said:—
"The Convention for which we should press is a Convention the principles of which are the principles of the forty-eight-hour week contained in the Washington Convention. We have no objection to the principle of the forty-eight-hour week contained in the Washington Convention, and we have to embody in any workable Convention those points which were raised at London and one or two other points which probably need consideration as well."
That is as far as we can go at present. To publish at this stage the precise modifications which we propose for our declared purpose we feel would be altogether premature.
The report on the working of the Convention is not yet to hand and the procedure adopted by the Governing Body, which I have already outlined to your Lordships, provides a definite opportunity for all State Members before any final decision as to proposals for revision is taken. The Government cannot bring forward its final proposals in advance of the general report on the working of the Convention and of any international discussion thereon. I feel sure that the noble Earl will agree, so far as concerns the second part of his Resolution, that if the Government consider it premature to inform the International Labour Office of the precise amendments which we desire, it is quite out of the question to bring forward a Bill to give effect to these proposals.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: If I may interrupt, I never intended that the Government should introduce a Bill. I merely asked that their proposals should be put into legislative form so that the different parties in this country should understand the kind of Convention which they would be prepared to ratify.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his intervention. However, we feel that such a step, even as the noble Earl has put it, would be inadvisable on other grounds. It would crystallise our proposals in such a way as to leave little, if any, scope for subsequent international negotiation and would undoubtedly lay us open to the charge of attempting to force the hand of the General Conference and to dictate decisions to it in advance. That is a course which I am sure the noble Earl, like ourselves, would never adopt and a charge which, like ourselves, he would hesitate to incur.
I must apologise to your Lordships for the length of my remarks, but I shall indeed be glad if this Motion has given me the opportunity of dispelling for ever whatever impressions there may be either here at home or abroad that His Majesty's Government or this country has ever either entertained the desire or remotely intended to abandon the principle of the forty-eight-hour week to the maintenance of which we stand solemnly pledged by the Treaty of Versailles. We regard that as a very high undertaking and the sole reason that impels us to call for revision of the Convention is that we will not set our hand to any document whose terms we are unable exactly and with the utmost punctilio to fulfil.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, my noble friend has made, as those of us who have had the honour of his acquaintance now for a good many years fully expected, a most able presentation of the Government's case, and I am quite sure that your Lordships will gain very greatly by his presence on the Government Bench. But he will forgive me for saying that he has wholly failed to convince me that this Motion is wrong. I will come to the question of our exact obligations—moral or otherwise—on this question later, but I want to deal with the latter part of my noble friend's observations first. He says we cannot
190
ratify this Convention, not because we object to any principle which it embodies; on the contrary, we are warm adherents of the forty-eight hour week. We feel ourselves bound by the Treaty of Versailles and, quite apart from that, we accept and desire to see that carried into effect. The principle of the thing is not in dispute.
I pause for one moment, before I come to this detailed criticism, to call your Lordships attention to the very astonishing condition in which we find ourselves. More than nine years ago we agreed by the most solemn international document that it was desirable on the highest grounds to establish a forty-eight-hour week. We proceeded within a few months to a Conference, at which a Convention was drawn up with that object. It turned out to be imperfect, and yet for nine years, though everybody has been most anxious to carry into effect this great labour and international reform, somehow or other we have not yet arrived, not at a composition of a difference of principle, but even at being able to state in intelligible language what it is that we want. That is a very astonishing state of things, and one that does not reflect great credit on any of the parties concerned.
I am not going into them, but what are the broad objections that were raised to the Washington Convention? Broadly speaking, there are two. It is said that it is vague in its terms and that it has not the necessary elasticity. Both those objections were considered, as I understand it, at the Conference that was called in 1926, and agreements were arrived at then as to what was meant on each of the points raised, but if there were other points—and we have never yet been able to ascertain definitely from the Government whether there were points beyond those that were raised in 1926—why were they not stated in 1926? After all, we had then had seven years for consideration, and we surely ought to have arrived then at a conclusion as to what exactly we thought ought to be done. It would surely have been reasonable for the Government to be able to state fully and without ambiguity what exactly it was that they wanted in 1926 and, if the other parties agreed, to find out some means of carrying out the common agreement.

191
If it be said—and it may be said—that the Conference thought that it had arrived at an agreement, though it had not done so, that seems to me to be the very case for this Motion. What is really wanted at this moment, in order to clear away the whole misunderstanding, is a plain, unambiguous, unmistakable statement of what exactly we want. If that statement is made it is absurd to tell me that some means will not be found for carrying our desires into effect. You cannot expect an agreement with these foreign countries and with the different parties concerned in this matter until you have stated exactly what it is that you want. That is the elementary thing that you have to do, and that is all that this Motion asks you to do. It is said that the necessary elasticity and accuracy cannot be provided within the terms of the Convention, by explanatory statements or by any one of the many different ways which are open to diplomatic usage in making clear what is meant by any signature that you attach to a particular document. That may be so, but nobody can tell until a definite statement has been made in black and white of exactly what it is that you want. That is the first thing to be done. I venture to say that I do not believe that the Government have such a statement in their own offices yet. I am not contradicted. They have not such a statement in their own offices yet—a definite statement of what exactly it is that they want. That really is not the way to do business in such a complicated matter as this.
What are the specific objections raised to my noble friend's proposals? There were two objections which I did not, I confess, quite appreciate. One was that it would crystallise our position and disable us from diplomatic bargaining. That is exactly what is wanted—that we should crystallise our position. To crystallise is to make a thing clear, and until you have done that you cannot even begin to bargain. To say that once you have made a statement you are not to vary from it in any particular has never been a doctrine of British diplomacy, and I hope that it never will be. The first thing is to state fairly what you want. Then it is said that, by doing so, we should force the hands of the other parties to the negotiations. Could anything be more fantastic than such a
192
statement? They are all begging us to do it. They are all anxious that we should state in most specific terms what it is that we want. They have said so over and over again. They have begged us at Geneva to say exactly what it is we want, and we tell them that we cannot do so because we might force their hands. You do not force the hands of another party to a negotiation by telling them what you want. Surely you then enable them to meet any difficulties that you feel, and either to agree with you or to convince you. There is no question of forcing their hands.
But the objection upon which my noble friend seemed to rely with greater confidence even than upon the objections regarding crystallisation and forcing the hands of other Powers, was that the demand is premature. "Premature" is a blessed word, one of those words which, like "co-ordination," is always used in official explanations. Why is it premature? What is there premature about it? I have tried to explain to your Lordships why I do not think it is premature on the ground that it will in any way injure our position. Why is it premature? Surely it is never premature to make a statement which will clear up any misunderstanding. That is what is wanted, and that is the only thing that this Motion asks. My noble friend recited with great fullness, of which no one complains, the history of this matter. He cited the Treaty of Versailles and accepted the principle there enshrined. He cited the Conference at Washington in 1919, though he did, indeed, omit one small detail of which I will venture to remind him. Not only did the British Delegates at that Conference vote for the Convention but, in view of its complicated and important character, before they did so they telegraphed home for express instructions—not general instructions, but express instructions—and they received, as Mr. Barnes informed the world, express instructions to accept this Convention. Thus it was rather more than an ordinary acceptance. It was an acceptance on express instruction, though it is quite true that, when the Convention came home, difficulties were found.
At the risk of wearying your Lordships, I want to state, though it may be quite wrong, my own view of the position we are in with regard to the Conventions

193
accepted under the Labour Articles of the Treaty of Versailles. As I understand it, the object was to simplify the procedure and shorten negotiations for dealing with these Conventions—an object which certainly has not been attained in the present case. The framers of those Articles—I had nothing to do with them—took some such view as this. They said: "In an ordinary Convention you have negotiations, then you have, it may be, a Conference, a Treaty is signed, and then it goes home and has to be ratified. We think we can get a little further on a little quicker if, instead of a signature, We enact that an acceptance by the Conference under the Labour Articles should operate just in the same way as a signature, and that this should involve certain consequences and should go home to be ratified by the Government at home."
I quite agree that it does not absolutely bind the Government. Nobody says so. They are quite free, no doubt, as they are in every case, until they have actually ratified a treaty, to refuse to do it, but I think it is generally thought that there is, I will not say an obligation, but a certain imperfect obligation resting on Governments to ratify, unless they see some very grave objection to ratifying, Conventions to which their representatives have affixed their signatures. There is a prima facie case for ratification, and that was the position after Washington, and it seems to me that it did impose a definite obligation on the Government to do their best, by the most rapid method, to get rid of the difficulties which they might feel, and to ratify the Convention if they could.
It does not, however, rest there. There was this Conference in 1924, and at the end a statement was given to the world that the ratification of the Convention was possible. I do not say there was an absolute obligation, but it was the sort of thing which a Government ought to take into consideration. Then came the 1926 Conference, and the statement made by the Prime Minister, already quoted, that he hoped for agreement, and that if agreement was reached ratification of the Washington Convention by participating countries would then be possible, and we should proceed to ratify. That was the expectation held out at that time. There are minor statements all bearing in the same direction. And then we come to
194
the constant pressure of Geneva, asking whether we were or were not going to ratify after the Convention of 1926, and there was no suggestion for eighteen months that there was to be any difficulty about the ratification, except that the British Government was busy with other matters and could not find the time. Meanwhile other countries had ratified; the Belgian Government, and I think Czecho-Slovakia, without condition, and France and Italy, subject to our ratification. That was the position. We were, in effect, the country standing in the way of ratification, and although I would not go so far as to say that we were doing anything dishonourable or inconsistent with our honour, we had put ourselves in a position of extraordinary international difficulty, and one which, if it had happened to any other country, would have been severely criticised in this country.
I have only one quotation to read which has not yet been referred to. My noble friend now says to the Government: "Tell us what it is that you want. That will be a definite pledge of your sincerity, and show that you really are in earnest and mean what you say." We are told that that is premature and that that is objectionable. May I remind your Lordships that on May 4, 1927, my noble friend Lord Balfour said this:—
"The object and policy of His Majesty's Government is to proceed with the legislation required before ratification can take place, and immediately after that legislation is accomplished to proceed with the policy of ratification."
Therefore at that time the policy of the Government was to do exactly what my noble friend wants to be done now—namely, to produce a Bill showing exactly what we want, and to pass that Bill into law. The noble Earl added that the British Government still maintained the view that ratification ought to be simultaneous and ought to involve a common policy.
That is the case of my noble friend's Motion as I understand it, and I must say that I think this is a case in which your Lordships might well assist the Government by explaining to them that we, who are outside the Government, are no less sensitive to the honour of the Government than they are, and that we feel most strongly that to do nothing now, and merely to say we are in favour of revision but not to say what revision

195
means, exposes us to charges that we are not really in earnest in our advocacy of the forty-eight-hour week, and the eight-hour day, although we who know the Government may be ready to discard any such charges. Those charges are, however, made openly and freely in other countries, and they are, I am afraid, believed by a great many people abroad. It is not a position which any of us like to see, and there is something in it, because if we insist upon revision generally, it means that we throw the Treaty into the melting pot altogether, that the old Treaty is gone and that you are going to formulate a new Treaty; that the ratifications of the old Treaty will disappear, and acceptances, whether conditional or otherwise, will disappear. I cannot think that that is a policy which should commend itself to your Lordships. I think we might begin by making a clear statement of what we want, and then asking other countries whether by some method short of complete revision of the Treaty—by a Protocol, or interchange of notes, or other diplomatic device—we can reach an agreement such as it is said that everyone desires to obtain. Holding these views, if my noble friend proceeds to a Division I shall support him in the Lobby.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I should not wish to add anything to the speech of the noble Viscount had it not been for what I think was a very unfortunate phrase used by the noble Marquess opposite. We are dealing here, as he will agree, with an international question of grave importance, but he allowed himself to say that on this great international question, involving these labour difficulties, the Party to which I belong was manifestly insincere. I should like to think that, it having been drawn to his notice, he would withdraw an accusation of that kind, for which there is not the slightest foundation, and which can only bring prejudice and bitterness into an international question, which from feelings of national loyalty we, the Labour party, wish to discuss on the highest lines. Certainly, we repudiate altogether the suggestion of introducing into a discussion of this kind a term of this character. I wish to read a note that I have here of the reasons put forward when the International Labour
196
Office was constituted at Geneva, and it is as follows:—
"… conditions of labour exist involving such injustice, hardship and privation to large numbers of people as to produce unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world are imperilled":
That is absolutely true. And so far from the Labour party being insincere, they desire in every way, not only in this country but internationally—that is the point—to get rid of the injustices, hardships and privations that exist as regards labour conditions in many parts of the world.
On the other point let me say this. The noble Marquess, I think, only gave a partial history. I agree entirely with what he said about the initiation of this discussion at Washington. It was not an ordinary occasion, it was a great occasion, and the British Delegates in terms telegraphed back to the Government of this country asking what attitude they should take up in order that they might be in accord with the desires of the Government itself. I am not going into all the subsequent stages, but I must say a word or two in emphasising what the real position was in 1926. The Prime Minister was asked in the House of Commons why the British Government did not proceed to ratification. His answer was that there were misunderstandings as to the interpretation of the terms of the Convention, but that there was going to be a Conference—which was held in 1926—in order that these misunderstandings might be removed, and that, if they were removed, ratification would follow as a fact. As a matter of history those misunderstandings were removed. They were removed on the occasion of the Conference of 1926. I am not speaking of the Conference at Berne in 1924, but I am speaking of the Conference of 1926 and I am referring to an undertaking given by the Prime Minister that ratification of this Convention would take place as soon as those misunderstandings had been removed under the agreement, arrangement and understanding which the Conference would promote.
The next point I desire to emphasise is one which the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, has already referred to. Early in 1927—I think it was in May—I brought this question before your Lordships' House, and the Government on that occasion were represented by the

197
noble Earl, Lord Balfour. What did Lord Balfour say? He said that the policy of His Majesty's Government was to proceed with the legislation required before ratification, and then to ratify without delay. We are now told that the necessary legislation cannot even be specified; and yet Lord Balfour in 1927 said that the Government would proceed with the legislation required before ratification, and that ratification would then follow. I do not want to make any charges against anyone: we want to get this matter put on a sound and firm foundation. But could any statement be more explicit than that? Could any statement make it clearer that, according to his view and on the instructions he had, His Majesty's Government were prepared then and there with the necessary legislation, and that then, at once, ratification would take place? I recollect it very well, because, of course, I accepted that statement as one of the greatest importance. I accepted it as a statement on behalf of the Government, that after the Conference of 1926 the difficulties had all been overcome, that the Government were prepared to bring forward the necessary legislation at once, and that after that legislation had been passed the Convention itself would be immediately ratified.
These are matters to which it is impossible to shut one's eyes. I do not want to go again into what took place at Geneva, but everyone who has read the record of what took place there knows that it was the action of the British Government, and that action alone, which prevented the carrying out of the terms of the Convention and its general ratification. Belgium has ratified, even independently of ourselves; Italy has promised to ratify as soon as we do; France has done the same; Germany has passed legislation and is passing legislation so that it may ratify at an early date; and, if you look at the records, you will find that, if we had not taken what I must call this obstructive attitude, ratification before this would have followed, and the Eight Hours Convention would have become not only a draft Convention, but a Convention assented to by all the great industrial Powers.
I wish to say something about the words "draft Convention." No treaty, of course, is binding until it is ratified—it does not matter what the form of the
198
treaty is. There is no weakness in the draft Convention coming forward for ratification. You must have a ratification. I should be the last person to suggest that this country ought to be bound to any treaty of any kind without its being ratified in a constitutional manner; and it means nothing more in this case than in any other case. But I must say I am deeply disappointed with the answer which the noble Marquess gave, and, if a Division is called, we shall certainly support the noble Earl in his Motion. But perhaps your Lordships will forgive me once more when I repudiate in the strongest possible terms the notion, so constantly put forward, that the Labour Party in international affairs is either insincere or disloyal or unpatriotic. I venture to say it is in just the same position as any other Party: we put our country first, and we care for national honour beyond all other things, particularly in carrying out our international agreements.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, perhaps you will allow me to say one word in answer to what has fallen from the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. In the first place, let me thank him for saying, in perfectly distinct terms, as indeed every speaker to-night has said, that there is no obligation of honour on the part of this country to ratify. Ratification is a matter in the discretion of the Government, which they must exercise in accordance with their view of their public duty. It is not merely that ratification, to give or to withhold, is open to the Government, but that every Government has come to the conclusion that it could not ratify the Convention as it stands
A NOBLE LORD: No.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I understand that the Minister of Labour in the Labour Government was of opinion that it would require modifications to a certain extent. It is a very remarkable thing that that should be so—that the two parties should be agreed upon the matter. But it is not remarkable that these things should be very difficult. After all, we know in our own experience how immensely difficult labour legislation is when you only have to consider one community and one Parliament; but when you have to get an agreement among a great number of

199
different countries in a matter of this kind of course that difficulty is immensely multiplied.
If I may make a criticism on some of the speeches which have been made in this debate, I do think that there is a certain element of impatience in those who think that these great international changes of procedure which are going on can be all carried through within a very short time. That is not the case. The whole conception of the International Labour Office at Geneva is, of course, novel. It is, no doubt, already of some years standing but still novel when you come to consider the history of great countries. And it is immensely difficult to get a system of that kind to work; that is to say, to get anything like similarity of treatment by different countries who have to approach the subject from different points of view, with different histories, and with different conditions to which these things are to be applied. That it should take a long time does not surprise me in the least.
I think we have arrived at the conclusion that, though the Eight Hours Convention is admirable in principle, yet there are immense difficulties in the precise conditions which ought to attach to it; and that is the view not only of the present Government but of the Labour Government. The only question is how the matter should be dealt with. The present advisers of the Crown are of opinion that to lay down beforehand, as my noble friend Lord Lytton would wish us to do, the exact words which we would like insisted upon, would in fact not facilitate but would hamper negotiations. We may, of course, be perfectly wrong, and my noble friends below the Gangway may be perfectly right that the proper way of negotiation is to be very precise and to say to other countries: "Here is our view. We have made up our minds. If you cannot come within our view the thing cannot be worked." We do not feel that. We feel that negotiation is more likely to be successful if it is approached with a greater delicacy of touch. Therefore we are not prepared to say forthwith in precise terms exactly what should be the modifications in the Convention in order to command our full assent.
No one, of course, can accuse this country of being lax in this eight hours
200
question. It is practically the system already prevailing in our own country, and the only question for us is how far we can carry other countries with us. I agree with the critics of the Government that the delay is very lamentable and it would be much better to avoid it. But that the carrying out of big changes which are to apply not only to this country but to numbers of other countries as well, all looking at them from different points of view and under different conditions, should take a long time, is not surprising, and we shall certainly ask the House to support my noble friend Lord Londonderry in resisting this Motion.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, the speech of my noble friend beside me absolves me from the necessity of saying more than a very few words in reply. I feel that there is an unfortunate fate which dogs this subject and necessitates that the more that is said about it the further we seem to be from that point of clearness at which we are all aiming. After two hours of discussion in your Lordships' House I feel as if I were in looking-glass land, where, though one runs very fast, one remains in the same place. I cannot feel, I am afraid, that the replies we have received from the Government have in any way come up to expectations or explained to your Lordships or to the world the reasons why they find it difficult to do the very simple thing that we are asking them to do.
We had a very able and lucid speech from the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Londonderry) who spoke for the Government, but if he will allow me to say so the greater part of it was directed to speeches that had been made outside and was no answer to the Resolution which we are discussing. In the first place, the greater part of the speech was concerned with the history of the question, with which I do not in any sense quarrel. The history of the question is common ground between us and there is no difference of opinion about it. The next portion of his speech was devoted to an answer to Mr. Shaw. It was a very effective answer, if I may say so; but it was not an answer to my Resolution or to the speeches that were made in defence of it. The noble Marquess gave us the grounds for the difficulties which the Government had in ratifying the Washington Convention. But I am

201
not asking the Government to ratify the Washington Convention. The Resolution which is before your Lordships does not ask the Government to ratify the Washington Convention, and I was careful to say in my opening remarks that I was aware of the difficulties which the Government had in ratifying that Convention, that I respected them, and that I accepted them; and that also was common ground between us.
What I did ask the Government to do was to tell us what kind of Convention they would ratify, and we are no nearer to knowing that now than we were when this debate began. The noble Marquess has told us that we could not ratify the Washington Convention. He mentioned the points upon which the Washington Convention was defective. He then went on to admit that all those points were considered at the London Conference and that all these points were covered by the agreement that was reached at the London Conference. Therefore, the speech of the noble Marquess, as the speech of the Minister of Labour and every speech made by the Government on this question, brings us to the same point—namely, that the Government would be satisfied with the Washington Hours Convention plus the terms of the London Agreement. All I ask is, if that is the case why not say so? All that I ask in this Resolution is that the Government should tell the International Labour Office at Geneva that if they can get a Convention which embodies the terms of the London Agreement they will be satisfied with it.
When I ask them to do that I am told it would be premature. I really do not know what the noble Marquess the Leader of the House means when he says that it would premature and inadvisable to state these precise points beforehand. Before what? The Government have indicated that they are unable to agree to the Washington Convention because of its defective wording. We say: "Tell us what wording you would agree with, because it is common ground between us that you are in favour of the international eight-hour day. How would you propose that the Convention should be amended in order to make that possible?" The answer is; "Oh, but it would be premature to tell you this beforehand." There is no question of
202
beforehand. This demand is being made with insistence by the International Labour Office itself, by various countries in Europe with which we have been in conference and by the advocates of the Convention in this country. All that we ask is that the Government should state that they are willing to accept the Convention if it embodies the terms of the London Agreement.
In conclusion, let me call the attention of your Lordships to the terms of my Resolution. I am not asking you to vote for a resolution in favour of ratifying the Washington Eight Hours Convention. I am merely asking you to state that it is desirable to do that which the Director of the International Labour Office himself has said would be the most helpful action which the Government could take from an international point of view at this moment, action which would remove all uncertainties, which would show exactly the form of Convection which the Government would accept, and which would strengthen their hands in dealing with other nations. The noble Marquess who first spoke for the Government said that to do that would force the hands of somebody else. I am not asking you to force anybody's hands: I merely ask you to facilitate international discussion by letting the world know where you stand. That, if I may say so, is precisely the procedure which is always adopted at Geneva in discussing international affairs. The Delegations of all the countries go up to the tribune of the Assembly and state clearly the position for which they stand. No one ever suggests that it is improper for them to do so, or that the statement of their case would necessarily force the hands of the Delegation from any other country. How can you proceed to international negotiation unless you know what are the elements of the situation?
All that the Government have told us up to the present is that they cannot ratify the Washington Convention. All that I ask them now is this: If that is the case, let us know what Convention you would ratify? If the noble Marquess had given me any reasons why this could not be done I should have been prepared to consider them and accept them, but, as no reason whatever has been given for not doing that which my Resolution

203
asks, I will ask those of your Lordships who agree that this would be a desirable step, to show the same by supporting my Resolution.

THE CASE OF MISS VIOLET DOUGLAS-PENNANT.
Petition for review of findings of Select Committee of 1919; of persons signing: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

BURNHAM-ON-SEA ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1928.
Special Order in respect of part of the urban district of Burnham-on-Sea, in the County of Somerset:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 17; Not-Contents, 39.

CONTENTS.

Beauchamp, E.

Arnold, L.

Northington, L. (L. Henley.)

Lytton, E. [Teller.]

Clwyd, L.

Olivier, L.

Denman, L.

Parmoor, L.

Allendale, V.

Davidson of Lambeth, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Cecil of Chelwood, V. [Teller.]

Gainford, L.

Hemphill, L.

Thomson, L.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Hailsham, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Stanhope, E.

Dynevor, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Ernle, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Faringdon, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Churchill, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Sutherland, D.

Elibank, V.

Islington, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Jessel, L.

Abingdon, E.

Peel, V.

Kylsant, L.

Airlie, E.

Lawrence, L.

Clarendon, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Newton, L.

Iveagh, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Lovelace, E.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Cushendun, L.

Wavertree, L.

Onslow, E.

Danesfort, L.

Wyfold, L.

Plymouth, E. [Teller.]

Daryngton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

DRONFIELD ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1928.
Special Order in respect of the urban district of Dronfield, in the County of Derby:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

LOTHIANS ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1928.
Special Order in respect of part of the County of East Lothian:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
House adjourned at half past six o'clock.