Sitting of 18 April 1929

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
Southend-on-Sea Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill.
Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.
Chester Corporation Bill,
Ordered,
"That, in the case of the Chester Corporation Bill, Standing Orders 84, 214, 215, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill, as amended, considered accordingly; and, objection being taken under Standing Order 207, further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned till To-morrow.
Salford Corporation Bill,
Ordered,
"That, in the case of the Salford Corporation Bill, Standing Orders 84, 214, 215, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.
Ordered,
"That Standing Orders 223, and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

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

    NEED PENSIONS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Minister of Pensions the number of cases where a woman who has lost her son or sons in the Great War and was in receipt of a need pension, having been dependent on them for support, has been deprived of this need pension on becoming eligible for an old age pension from the Ministry of Health?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): Need pensions are subject to adjustment in the event of any permanent change in the pensioner's financial circumstances, but no special record is kept of the adjustments resulting from the grant of an old age pension. In the majority of cases, however, the net result of adjustments on this account is, I understand, to increase the aggregate income of the pensioner.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does the Minister of Pensions take into account the fact that when a mother receives her old age pension it is usually at an age when she is past work; does he give sympathetic consideration to that fact?
    Major TRYON: That point is covered when the pension is awarded. This question really arises more frequently just now owing to old age pensions being granted at 65 instead of 70. They are therefore dealt with earlier than before.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman take into consideration that even at 65 an old lady is not so well able to support herself and wants the money more?
    Major TRYON: Certainly, that is one of the reasons already taken into consideration.

    DISABILITY PENSIONS.
    Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Minister of Pensions if he will consider the advisability of amending the Regulations governing pensions given for amputations so as to cover the variation of percentages allowable as to length of stump, etc., in cases where, since the

    381
    time of fixing the pension, there has been expansion or contraction due to natural causes or where the measurements originally taken vary with the exact measurements shown at subsequent periods?
    Major TRYON: Any case in which substantial error of fact is proved to have occurred would, under existing arrangements, be considered and adjusted, but I am not prepared to recommend exceptional treatment of one type of disability pension for the purpose either of increase or decrease.
    Mr. JENKINSasked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that David J. James, of 2, Rockfield Terrace, Glyn-Neath, reference No. 5/mJ/6023, joined the Army three days after the declaration of War, 7th August, 1914, and was discharged on 5th September, 1916, on account of pulmonary tuberculosis which was admitted to have been aggravated by War service, and that pension was paid until December, 1920, in full; that after that date it was reduced, and in September, 1927, he was awarded a ser-vice-cum-disability pension of 8d. per day for life; and, seeing that he is now unable to follow his employment and is likely to be a cripple for the remainder of his life, and that it is stated by a local medical expert that his present condition is due to his pensionable disability, will he reconsider his decision and grant the full pension during disability?
    Major TRYON: I am aware of the facts in this case, on which I have already communicated with the hon. Member. The disability from which Mr. James is suffering is osteo-arthritis. I am advised that it is not possible to regard this condition as connected with Mr. James's War service.

    OFFICER'S WIDOW'S CLAIM.
    Mr. PALINGasked the Minister of Pensions if his attention has been called to the death of Captain J. W. Dore, of Stainforth, near Doncaster, after having recently been in the Thorne Workhouse for a short period; is he aware that Captain Dore was drafted to France in 1914, was wounded in 1915, and after having several bullets extracted from his right arm and shoulder returned to France the
    382
    same year, gained a commission for bravery in the field, rose to the rank of captain, and was awarded the M.C. and bar; that after five years' continuous service he was discharged with a pension, which was stopped in 1921; that when he was wounded in 1914 a bullet in the shoulder could not be located and eventually worked into the lung; and that it; is feared that this was in some measure responsible for developing tuberculosis, which eventually caused the death of Captain Dore; and will he state what steps, if any, have been taken with a view to compensating his widow and children?
    Major TRYON: This officer was granted compensation for gunshot wound, right arm, in 1921, and no more was heard of him by my Department until February of this year, when he represented that, as a result of a wound, pulmonary tuberculosis had developed. The case was under investigation when the officer died, but such evidence as the Ministry had obtained did not support the hon. Member's suggestion as to the cause of the disease. In these circumstances and in the absence also of arty application for a pension from the widow, I am, of course, unable to say anything as to the merits of any claim she may make.
    Mr. PALING: If this matter is taken up by the widow, will the right hon. Gentleman give consideration to it?
    Major TRYON: The widow's application will certainly be gone into, but I am afraid that a difficulty is that according to our record she married after the man had left the service.

  TRANSPORT.

    STREET ACCIDENTS.
    Mr. W. BENNETTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, as the statistics in regard to street accidents are unfair to the drivers of taximeter-cabs, who have to pass a test, he will take steps to separate the records between these men and private drivers?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I have decided in consequence of representations I received

    383
    last June that the Return for 1929 will be altered to show separately the number of street accidents attributed to cabs licensed to ply for hire. As I explained at the time, it was impossible at that stage to alter the basis on which the Return for 1928 was being prepared.

    OMNIBUS ACCIDENT, PADDINGTON.
    Mr. VIANTasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been directed to the omnibus accident which occurred in Shirland Road, Paddington, on the 9th April, in which some 50 persons were injured, nine seriously; and if he has decided to hold an inquiry into this accident?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): My power to hold inquiries into road accidents is limited to cases, occurring in the London traffic area, in which it appears to me that the nature and character of the road or road surface or a defect in design or construction of the vehicle or in the materials used in the construction of the road or the vehicle was the sole or contributory cause. From inquiries made by the Commissioner of Police, it does not appear that the accident in Shirland Road was due to any of these causes, but inquiries are still being pursued.

  POLICE.

    DISCIPLINARY CASES.
    Mr. DAYasked the Home Secretary the number of police officers who have appeared before the Scotland Yard disciplinary board for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date; and the number who have been reduced in rank or otherwise punished, giving the classifications of the charges made against these officers?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: During the 12 months ending on the 16th instant, 138 members of the Metropolitan Police Force appeared before a Discipline Board: of these 130 were punished as follows:
    Dismissed 9; Required to resign 48; Reduced in rank 12; Reduced in rate of pay 12; Fined 40; Lesser punishment 9. As the list of charges made against
    384
    the officers concerned is somewhat long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, send it to him.
    Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the appearances of these men before the Board has been greatly increased since the appointment of the new Chief Commissioner?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I should prefer to have notice of that question, as I am not quite certain about it.
    Mr. HAYES: Has any consideration been given to the question of devising other machinery for dealing with these cases?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Not yet.
    Mr. DAY: May I ask whether a reduction in rank seriously affects the pensions of these men?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Of course, it would affect their pensions if they are reduced from one grade to another.

    WOMEN POLICE.
    The following question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Major COHEN:
    9. "To ask the Home Secretary whether action is contemplated, by legislation or otherwise, to make compulsory the employment of policewomen in county and borough forces."
    Major COHEN: Before putting this question, may I point out that my question, when handed in, did not ask whether any action was contemplated, but whether, if the matter contained in the last part was desirable, legislation would be necessary?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am afraid that I have prepared an answer to the question on the Paper, which is that I do not think it is a matter for compulsion but one which should be left to the discretion of the local authorities. I have always felt that legislation would be necessary, but I am not quite certain on that point. In any case, I should not like to exercise any powers I have over these great local authorities, which I think would be an infringement of the right of local self-government.

  TEA SALES (BONUS SCHEMES).
  Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the decision in the case of Howgate v. Ralph with regard to the illegality of tea-bonus schemes; and whether he is now taking any steps to put an end to these schemes?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have seen Press reports and I have no doubt that the police will have noted the decision and will be encouraged to take proceedings where they think that course desirable. The matter is not one for direct action by me.
  Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the decision of the Lord Chief Justice and two other Judges that these were lotteries, and, in view of the great reduction in the price of tea, can he see his way to warn chief constables that these schemes are lotteries and ought to be stopped?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will consider whether I can include in police orders a notice to that effect.
  Mr. R. MORRISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman also take into consideration the fact that 90 per cent. of the people defrauded by these schemes are very poor people?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I quite agree; and this decision is of great importance.
  Mr. HAYES: Is not this a matter which should be taken up by the Director of Public Prosecutions in order to secure a common policy in the matter of prosecutions?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will consider that matter.

  TWO-SHIFT SYSTEM.
  Mr. KELLYasked the Home Secretary the date when Messrs. C. H. Williamson, Limited, of Worcester, took a ballot of their workpeople on the question of introducing the two-shift system?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No ballot vote is required or was taken in this case. The views of the workpeople were given in writing on the 3rd June, 1927, a large majority being in favour of the
  386
  proposal, and the Order was granted on the 10th June, 1927.

  EDUCATION.

    DENTAL SERVICE (WALES).
    Sir ROBERT THOMASasked the President of the Board of Education whether there are in Wales any entire counties, or any other extensive areas, the education authorities of which provide no dental service in the schools; and, if so, whether he has any statistics of mortality, absenteeism, or other data showing how juvenile health in these counties compares with that prevailing in the counties which have a dental service?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): The three education authorities in Wales which at present make no provision for dental treatment are Cardiganshire, Carmarthen Borough and Pembroke Borough. As regards the second part of the question, the hon. Baronet will appreciate that the general health or mortality of school children and their regularity of attendance at school are affected by a variety of causes, not readily separable.

  DISTRESSED AREAS (LORD MAYOR'S FUND).
  Mr. LUNNasked the President of the Board of Education what is the total amount collected by, and allocated from, the Lord Mayor's Fund for the relief of distress in mining areas; what is the amount distributed in South Wales, Durham, and the West Riding; is he aware that, although there is much distress, there is difficulty in obtaining any more money from the fund; will he state whether the fund has been closed both for collection and distribution; and what is to be done with any surplus?
  Lord E. PERCY: I am informed that up to the 15th instant the total amount of private subscriptions to the fund amounted to £800,700, and that the total grants to the Divisional Committees amounted to £635,500, of which £280,464 was allocated to South Wales; £159,175 to Durham and Northumberland; and £44,000 to the West Riding. No application for grants from any Divisional Committee

  387
  has been refused. The Lord Mayor of London in a letter to the "Times," dated 26th March, publicly announced his decision to close the fund on 30th April, but the administration of the fund by divisional and local committees will, of course, continue.
  Mr. LUNN: Has a Government grant of the same amount as the total of private subscriptions been paid to this fund?
  Lord E. PERCY: The money already voted by Parliament has been paid over to the fund.
  Mr. BATEY: But is it the amount subscribed by voluntary contributions? Can the Noble Lord say by how much the Government grant falls short of the total of voluntary subscriptions?
  Lord E. PERCY: The money voted by Parliament brought the Government contribution up to date, roughly up to the date when Parliament rose for the Easter Recess. Since then there have been these further subscriptions, and naturally it is too early to introduce another Vote until the fund is closed on 30th April, when we shall have a definite figure to present to Parliament.
  Mr. BATEY: Will the Noble Lord say what it is proposed to do with the balance in the fund? Who is to get the balance?
  Lord E. PERCY: If the hon. Member wants information as to the future policy of the fund, perhaps he will give me notice.

  MUSEUMS (WARDERS).
  Mr. DUNCANasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware of the discontent among the warding staffs in the museums at the passing over of senior men for promotion; that at the Science Museum warders with half the service in the department of other capable men have been promoted to supervisory posts and that considerable friction exists as the result; whether, in accordance with the service principle that in promotion to posts of a mainly routine character, seniority of service should be the main consideration; and whether he will take steps to have this matter looked into so that every senior man may be given a chance of promotion?
  Lord E. PERCY: Representations regarding promotion to supervisory posts have recently been made on behalf of the warding staffs at the museums under the Board's administration, and have been very carefully considered. Seniority of service cannot be the sole factor in selecting men for posts of this character, but I think the merits of all eligible candidates, including the length of their service, receive proper consideration.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RATING.

    BOUNDARIES.
    Viscount SANDONasked the Minister of Health whether in the negotiations with local authorities under the terms of the Local Government Act as to boundaries, he will lay it down as an indispensable condition that all county, district, or parish islands must be abolished?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): It would not be proper for me to lay down a condition of this kind as indispensable, but it is one of the objects of the Act to do away with these anomalies, and I hope that proposals for this purpose will be submitted under the Act by the responsible local authorities.
    Viscount SANDON: Can there be any legitimate excuse for the existence of these islands?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The excuse is that they are remnants of a state of things which existed a good many years ago.
    Viscount SANDON: But that is not now.

    COMPOUNDING ALLOWANCES.
    Mr. WELLOCKasked the Minister of Health whether he has received a communication from the Oldbury Urban District Council with respect to the compounding of rates under the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925; whether he is aware that, owing to the reduction of the discount in the case of compounded rents, the rents of a large number of working-class houses in the Midlands will be raised by as much as 9d. per week, and in the case of council houses whose assessments have been increased by as much as

    389
    1s. per week; and whether, in view of the hardship caused, he will consider modifying this part of the Act?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have received the communication to which the hon. Member refers, though that communication does not specify the amounts of the increases as stated by the hon. Member, which I have had no opportunity of verifying. Compounding allowances, which are intended to cover the cost of collection and risk of loss to owners, in cases where they are rated in lieu of occupiers, were fixed by the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, at a figure determined after consultation with the representative associations of local authorities. The amending Act of 1928 authorised the payment of increased allowances with a view to avoiding material increases of inclusive rentals. I would, however, remind the hon. Member that the rate charge falling to be borne in the form of inclusive rents by the tenants of rate-compounded houses depends upon a number of factors, of which the scale of the compounding allowance is only one, and which are for the most part within the control of the local authorities. Where the compounding allowances paid in the past, at the expense of the general body of ratepayers, have been unduly high, the reduction of those allowances, coupled with any increase of the assessments, may result in some unavoidable increase of inclusive rentals. The level of assessment for the properties in question is a matter primarily within the discretion of the local authorities, and I could not contemplate the introduction of further amending legislation to meet these exceptional cases which would have the effect of perpetuating the payment of unjustifiable allowances to owners.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the right hon. Gentleman been made aware that no fewer than 15,000 householders in Hull alone are affected adversely and that the Corporation is quite helpless in the matter owing to a legal decision?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware of those circumstances.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Why does the right hon. Gentleman refuse to receive our deputation on the matter?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have already explained to the Council of the Corporation of Hull, who know what the situation is, and there is no further object in receiving a deputation when they know all the circumstances and know exactly what I can and what I cannot do.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since he communicated with them, the Council has unanimously passed a resolution regretting that communication, and especially the Minister's unwillingness to receive a deputation from a large body of taxpayers?

  REGISTRATION OFFICERS' LIST.
  Viscount SANDONasked the Minister of Health what is the cost to the State of the issue of the annual official list of registration officers; and whether he is satisfied that its publication fills an essential need and that its free circulation to coroners is necessary and desired by them?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The cost of producing the annual list referred to is £218 10s. This publication is part of a more comprehensive list which the Registrar-General is required by Statute to prepare and supply to all registration officers, but of which the remaining portions were for reasons of economy converted into a separate quinquennial publication in 1921. As it is essential that His Majesty's coroners should be in possession of information, of which this list is the sole official source, regarding the current personnel, office addresses, districts and sub-districts of the registration service in relation to which so many of their duties are performed, it has for long been customary to supply a copy to each coroner. I should, of course, be by no means averse from saving even the comparatively small number of extra copies involved, namely, about 360, if this could be done without giving rise to delay and inconvenience to the public; and I will make inquiries in the matter. But I have no reason to believe that coroners in general regard this publication otherwise than as a valuable and necessary aid to the proper performance of their duties.
  Viscount SANDON: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the allegations of a

  391
  coroner that these lists are only thrown into waste-paper baskets directly they are received without being looked at?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have seen a statement by one particular coroner who said he followed that practice, but I do not think he is typical.

  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  Mr. ROBINSONasked the Minister of Health if it is proposed to make provision for the payment of widow's pension to aged women whose husbands, insured persons, were over 70 years of age at the commencement of the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, and who have been refused pension on the ground that they have not been left with children under the age of 14 at the death of the husband: and if he can state the estimated number of women aged 60 or more whose husbands were 70 years of age prior to 4th January, 1926?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Minister of Health whether an old age pensioner who removes to Guernsey loses his pension?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer is in the affirmative.
  Mr. WELLOCKasked the Minister of Health what was the amount of the surplus at the end of March on the Widows' and Old Age Pensions Fund; how this compares with the Government's actuarial forecast; and what the Government proposes to do with the balance, if any?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The estimated balance of the Treasury Pensions Account at the 31st March, 1929, was £42,700,000. This, however, is not a surplus but a provision for the excess of benefits over receipts which is expected in every year from 1929 onwards. The actuarial report on the Bill of 1925 contained no forecast of the balance of the Account in particular years, but the Act provides for a further actuarial investigation in 1935.
  Mr. BATEY: In view of the existence of this huge balance, will the Minister
  392
  consider the necessity of bringing in a Bill to give the old age pension to women whose husbands reached the age of 70 years before 2nd January, 1923?
  Mr. HAYES—
  Mr. BATEY: We have got here a huge balance. Cannot we ask the Minister to do something in order to use up this balance? We brought in a Bill and the Minister objected to it; otherwise, this balance would have been used. Cannot we ask him whether he will now bring in a Bill in order to give the old age pension to women whose husbands reached the age of 70 before 2nd January, 1923?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That raises a very much larger question than the question on the Paper.
  Mr. BATEY: I want to be in order. At the same time, here is a huge balance, and hon. Members opposite blocked our Bill. Am I not in order in asking the Minister whether he will not bring in a Bill in order to use up some of this balance?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member can put that question if he wishes.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would like to make a further effort to explain to the hon. Member that this is not an available balance.
  Mr. BATEY: It is there.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member evidently does not understand the system under which the Old Age Pensions Act works. We have to accumulate a balance in order to provide for the benefits which will ensue hereafter, and for which no other provision is made. We cannot use that balance, which is ear-marked for that purpose, for an entirely different purpose.
  Mr. HAYES: Is not the amount now £21,000,000 more than was originally estimated?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.?
  Mr. TAYLOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman not remove this injustice, having regard to the comparatively small cost involved?
  HON. MEMBERS: What injustice?
  Mr. TAYLOR: The injustice of not giving these women pensions.
  Mr. GREENEasked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the advisability of amending the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, with the view of freeing employers from the necessity of paying contributions in respect of employés of over 70 years of age who have not been insured under the said Act and who are engaged generally out of sympathy, and whose dismissal in most cases would not provide employment for younger men?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer is in the negative. Employers are required to pay contributions in these cases in order that there may not be any inducement to them to give preference for employment to any particular class of persons by reason of their age. In any event I am afraid that it would be impracticable to make the liability of the employer for the payment of contributions in respect of an employé over the age of 70 depend on whether the latter had or had not been insured under the Contributory Pensions Act, 1025. As the law stands, the employer's liability is in effect automatically defined, the fact of employment carrying with it the obligation to pay a contribution if the employé is over the age of 16.

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    MENTAL DEFICIENCY (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Minister of Health whether, having regard to the fact that local authorities will be submitting, as part of their schemes under the Local Government Act, their proposed arrangements for the care of mentally defective persons, he will take steps to see that the guidance which the Report of the Joint Committee on Menal Deficiency will give to these local authorities shall be made available for them without further delay?
    Mr. MORRISasked the Minister of Health whether he will state his decision in regard to the publication of that part of the Report of the Special Committee on Mental Deficiency which relates to adult defectives?
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the decision to publish the children's section, of the Report of the Mental Deficiency Committee; and, in view of the anxiety amongst those interested with regard to the section of the Report dealing with adults, will he state the reason for the postponement of the decision to publish?
    Miss WILKINSONasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that the sections of the Report of the Joint Committee on Mental Deficiency dealing with children are being published immediately and that the after care of the most helpless of these children must devolve on local authorities under the Mental Deficiency Acts, he will authorise the immediate publication of that section of the Report which deals with adults?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not at present in a position to add anything to the previous replies in which I have indicated that I cannot give undertakings as to the publication of any part of this Report other than that which relates to children until I have had an opportunity of giving proper consideration to the matter. I am afraid that other preoccupations have prevented that opportunity from occurring.
    Mr. MORRISON: In view of the fact that the Conference of Poor Law Associations in connection with this subject is to be held next week, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the publication of the Report, or, if not the Report, the recommendations of the Report?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Clearly, the re-commendations are a vital part of the Report. Until I have had an opportunity of considering this very long Report, I cannot add anything to the answer that I have given.
    Mr. MORRIS: In view of the fact that this Report was presented in January, cannot the right hon. Gentleman consider it?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not had an opportunity of looking at it yet, and I want as long a time as may be necessary for studying it properly.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Is it not a fact that the local authorities have to

    395
    put part of this into force and to prepare schemes before September, and is it right that the right hon. Gentleman should leave them so little time in which to have this before them?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is a good deal of time between now and September, and I am not at all sure what effect on the liberty of the subject the Report may have.
    Mr. MORRISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say definitely that the Report will be published?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I do not say that.
    Mr. MORRISON: In view of the fact that the President of the Board of Education has published the half of the Report relating to children, cannot the right hon. Gentleman see that it is essential that the full Report, which has been the work of many years, should be published?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Report is not one. There are two reports, one relating to children and one to adults. The question affecting the children is for the Board of Education; that relating to adults is a much bigger question.
    Dr. VERNON DAVIES: May we take it for granted that my right hon. Friend will carefully study the Report before arriving at a decision as to the schemes submitted by local authorities?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly.
    Mr. MORRIS: Why is it that the right hon. Gentleman requires so much longer time for considering this Report than was necessary for the President of the Board of Education?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: They are not the same reports; they are different reports.

    CREAM PRESERVATIVES.
    Captain STREATFEILDasked the Minister of Health whether he has any evidence to show that illness or death have resulted from the use of preservatives in cream?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is evidence that individuals have suffered from digestive disorders after taking boracised cream, and there are cases on
    396
    record where a single dose of borax has caused death. But, apart from the general objection to the use of preservatives in food as tending to mask the effects of dirty methods of production, the case against borax is that it is a cumulative and insidious chemical substance, the continued ingestion of which cannot fall to be injurious, in a greater or less degree, to the tissues of the body.

    SYNTHETIC CREAM.
    Captain STREATFEILDasked the Minister of Health whether his Department has taken any steps to ensure that the manufacture of synthetic cream is carried out under the same conditions of hygiene as are imposed under the Regulations governing the production of natural cream?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not received any reports as to the conditions of manufacture of this article, but the provisions of Section 72 of the Public Health Act, 1925, should be sufficient to ensure the observance of all necessary sanitary precautions.
    Captain STREATFEILD: Is my right hon. Friend taking energetic steps to see that the Regulations that he quotes are being carried out?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is not primarily my duty, but that of the local authorities.
    Mr. MACKINDER: Will not the right hon. Gentleman address a note to the local authorities to ensure that they take the same precautions for safety as they take in the case of ice-cream?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No. I do not think that it is necessary for me to send notices to local authorities asking them to perform what are their duties. They know their duties perfectly well, and, unless I have evidence that they are not carrying out their duties, it would be an insult to send them such a notice.
    Mr. LAMB: Will not legislation passed by this House and now being considered in another place, assist by the registration of the machines used in making this substitute for fresh cream?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The original question related to synthetic cream.

    SMALL-POX (STEAMSHIPS "TUSCANIA" AND "MASHOBRA")
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLEasked the Minister of Health the number of cases of small-pox that have occurred to date from the steamship "Tuscania"; the number of these that have occurred since the official statement was issued on 12th April; the number that have died: the vaccination history of those who have died; whether any cases have occurred from contact with passengers or crew; and whether all passengers and crew are under observation and have been offered vaccination?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The number of cases of small-pox which have occurred among the 1,598 persons (passengers and crew) of the steamship "Tuscania" is 45, which is 10 more than the figure of 35 announced on 13th April. There have been seven deaths. The vaccination history of the patients who died, and of the other patients, is not yet available. All the patients notified have been isolated in hospital, and all the contacts are being kept under supervision. I have no information at present that any persons, other than those who were on board this ship, have contracted small-pox from contact with the passengers or crew. I am glad of this opportunity to say that the rigorous action which has been taken in this country to prevent the spread of small-pox from this vessel appears to have proved effectual. As the ship arrived here 17 days ago, any serious risk of a widespread outbreak of the disease should now be at an end, even though it is possible that some secondary cases may arise. It is scarcely necessary for me to add that for the community in general facilities are always available for free vaccination, which is the best safeguard against any risk of infection.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Arising out of the Minister's statement—for which I thank him—may I ask whether the vaccination history of those who have died will be available in due course?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. I hope to be able to get it, and I shall convey the information to my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Viscount SANDON: Will it be circulated?
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLEasked the Minister of Health the number of cases of small-pox that have occurred amongst passengers and crew of the s.s. "Mashobra," shortly due at Southampton from Bombay; what number of passengers landed at Marseilles for England; and what steps are being taken to prevent the introduction of small-pox through them into this country?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not yet known whether there has been any smallpox on board this vessel, but all precautions are being taken and she will be closely inspected at Plymouth, her first port of arrival. I am informed that 31 of her passengers were landed at Marseilles.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether a case of small-pox was landed at Marseilles from this ship?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am advised that that is not yet known.
    Mr. BECKETT: How many members of the Government have been re-vaccinated?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that in order to prevent the spread of this infection he should once more introduce compulsory vaccination?

    RADIUM.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government have under consideration proposals for international action through the League of Nations for the control of the available supplies of radium and their price; and, if not, whether any other proposals to this end are under consideration?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have been asked to reply. As was stated in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Roy-ton (Dr. V. Davies) last Tuesday, the Government propose to establish an organisation one of whose functions will be to act as an agency for the purchase of radium for medical use in this country or for Dominion or Colonial Governments. Until this organisation has been established and experience has shown how far it meets the needs of the situation, it would be premature to consider international action.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on Tuesday the Chancellor of the Exchequer, admittedly without having studied the Report closely, said he understood that the matter of international action was dealt with in the Report, and, as it has not been dealt with in the Report, about which I make no complaint, will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the Foreign Minister to see whether consultations can take place between the Governments concerned to prevent an unholy scramble for the available supply?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think it would be better to defer action on that point until we have this new organisation set up, which I do not expect will take very long, and then perhaps we shall see.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not cavil at what the right hon. Gentleman says, but is he aware that the question of international action is not dealt with at all in the Report of this sub-committee, and is that under the consideration of the Government?
    Commander BELLAIRS: Could my right hon. Friend say whether the Committee considered the question of international action, because I drew the attention of my right hon. Friend last autumn to that question, and to the Belgian monopoly?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: So far as I recollect, there is no question of international action mentioned in the Report of the Committee, which, however, is available to all Members of the House, but I think the immediate question for this country is whether we can obtain the supplies that we require for ourselves at a reasonable price, and, as I understand, we have every reason to think that that can be done.
    Dr. DAVIES: Can my right hon. Friend say if we shall have a chance of discussing this Report before the House rises, particularly as the Government, I understand, propose to spend pound for pound for the supply of this radium?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There will have to be, I suppose, a Supplementary Estimate for the amount contributed by the Government, and I think that would give an opportunity for discussing the matter.
    Mr. R. MORRISON: Has the Committee now finished its labours and left any further action to the Government, or is it proposed that the Committee should continue in existence?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No; it has finished.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    POOR LAW RELIEF (TEST WORK).
    Mr. SEXTONasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that unemployed single and married men who have either exhausted the regulation period of unemployed benefit, or have been under the existing regulations refused benefits, who apply for Poor Law relief are instead offered test work; and what conditions and what remuneration for such work he has authorised?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The effect of the regulations in force is to prohibit any general practice of granting unconditional out-door relief to able-bodied men. The test work is performed as a condition of the receipt of the amount of relief deemed necessary to meet the needs of an applicant and his dependants, and remuneration in the ordinary sense of the word is not payable.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Is it the general policy of the Minister to insist on test work?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is the effect of the regulations which have been in force since the time of Mr. John Burns.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Is it the Minister's policy to insist on boards of guardians carrying it out? Is that his general policy?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is the general policy of my Department to insist on regulations being carried out as long as they are in force.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Is it not a fact that the provision of test work often results in a waste of public money?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is a matter of opinion.

    WOMEN.
    Miss LEEasked the Minister of Labour the number of women in insured trades between the ages of 21 years and

    401
    30 years earning less than £1 and £2 per week, respectively; and the number of women in the same age group at present unemployed?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): As regards the first part of the question, I regret that statistics are not available which would give the information desired. As regards the second part, there has been no analysis by age group more recent than 28th January last, but on the basis of that analysis it may be estimated approximately that 77,000 out of the total of 197,264 insured women recorded as unemployed on 25th March were between the ages of 21 and 30.
    Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Has the hon. Gentleman any information whether there are any women in that group earning less than £1 a week?
    Mr. BETTERTON: No, Sir, I have no information.

    Number of Persons on the Line Registers of the Employment Exchange at Pembroke Dock.

    Date.

    Men.

    Boys.

    Women.

    Girls.

    Total.

    1929.

    7th January

    …

    …

    1,030

    38

    32

    12

    1,112

    14th January

    …

    …

    1,008

    40

    34

    12

    1,094

    21st January

    …

    …

    1,015

    40

    33

    9

    1,097

    28th January

    …

    …

    1,018

    41

    31

    10

    1,100

    4th February

    …

    …

    1,020

    46

    35

    11

    1,112

    11th February

    …

    …

    988

    41

    41

    10

    1,080

    18th February

    …

    …

    1,029

    34

    35

    8

    1,108

    25th February

    …

    …

    999

    35

    37

    8

    1,079

    4th March

    …

    …

    985

    37

    43

    9

    1,074

    11th March

    …

    …

    953

    40

    47

    10

    1,050

    18th March

    …

    …

    922

    36

    46

    14

    1,018

    25th March

    …

    …

    952

    33

    39

    15

    1,039

    1st April

    …

    …

    No figures a available (Bank Holiday).

    8th April

    …

    …

    938

    39

    38

    17

    1,032

    A considerable measure of assistance has been afforded by the Employment Exchanges to unemployed workpeople desirous of transferring to other areas, and my right hon. Friend is sending the hon. Member an account of the steps taken.

    BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
    Mr. THURTLE (for Mr. LANS-BURY)asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Employment Exchange authorities at Stratford, Poplar and Hackney continually and persistently refuse unemployment pay to young women dismissed from employment because of marriage; that such women are told they

    PENBROKE DOCK.
    Mr. KELLYasked the Minister of Labour the number of men and women registered as unemployed at Pembroke Dock during the last three months; and what steps have been taken to find employment for the people in this area?
    Mr. BETTERTON: As the reply includes, a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. KELLY: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask, in regard to the latter part of the question, what steps have been taken to find employment?
    Mr. BETTERTON: My right hon. Friend made very full inquiries in deference to the question of the hon. Gentleman. The answer came last night; I have not seen it, but my right hon. Friends is communicating it at once to the hon. Gentleman.
    Following is the statement:
    are not genuinely seeking work, quite irrespective of the fact that many of them give documentary evidence of their diligent search for work: and will he state what instructions have been given to Exchange officials and Courts of Referees about their treatment of women who on marriage are discharged from employment?
    Mr. BETTERTON: The Employment Exchanges do not disallow benefit. Their instructions are to interview the women in these cases and in any case of doubt to refer the matter to the Chief Insurance Officer with a statement of all the relevant facts. My right hon. Friend has given no instructions about these cases to Courts of Referees.
    Mr. THURTLE (for Mr. LANS-BURY)asked the Minister of Labour on what evidence the Court of Referees decided on several occasions that Mrs. Porteous, of Rich Street, Poplar, has been refused unemployment pay since her discharge from employment on the occasion of her marriage 12 months ago; and is he aware that Mrs. Porteous worked without a break for 10 years at one firm in Poplar and paid insurance contributions during the whole period and has never drawn any out-of-work benefit, and that during the past 12 months she has continually registered for work at the Exchange and has on no occasion been offered work by the Exchange officials?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I am having in-quiries made into this case and will let the hon. Member know the result as soon as possible.

  BUDGET.

    EMPIRE TEA.
    Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is proposed to offer to the Dominions and Colonies any compensation for the loss of the preference on tea?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): No, Sir. Very great increases of preferences have been given in the present Parliament.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: What proportion of this tea comes from the British Empire and what proportion is foreign?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The major portion comes from the British Empire.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what proportion, in value and in quantity, of the tea consumed in this country during the years 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927, and 1928, was imported from Foreign, and what proportion from Empire, sources?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): I have been asked to reply. The answer has been prepared in tabular form; and with my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The following table shows the proportions of the net quantities of tea retained for home consumption in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which were entered at the preferential and the full rates of duty, respectively, during each of the years 1924 to 1928. Similar information relating to the value of such tea is not available.

    Year.

    Proportions of total net quantities retained for home consumption in the United Kingdom.

    At Preferential Rate of Duty.

    At Full Rate of Duty.

    Per cent.

    Per cent.

    1924

    85·3

    14·7

    1925

    86·9

    13·1

    1926

    84·2

    15·8

    1927

    82·4

    17·6

    1928

    84·5

    15·5

    SAVINGS (INVESTMENT).
    Sir JOHN MARRIOTTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can furnish details of the increase of £170,000,000 in the savings of small investors, showing how those savings are distributed between the Post Office Savings Bank, trustee savings banks, national savings certificates, railway savings banks, and co-operative, building, provident, friendly, collecting, and industrial assurance companies?
    Mr. SAMUEL: With the hon. Member's permission I will circulate the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the details:
    The details of the increase of approximately £170,000,000 are as follow. In the case of the building societies, the figure given for 1928 is provisional, and for the Industrial and Provident Societies and Railway Savings Banks the latest figures available are those for 1927. No account has been taken of the growth of funds of Friendly and Collecting

    405
    Societies or of Industrial Life Assurance.

    —

    1924.

    1928.

    £ millions

    £ millions.

    Post Office Savings Bank (Great Britain).

    269

    280

    Trustee Savings Banks (including stock held For depositors),

    138

    159

    National Savings Certificates (including accrued interest).

    459

    483

    Railway Savings Banks

    14

    16

    Industrial and Provident Societies.

    87

    101

    Building Societies (shares, deposits, etc.)

    137

    235

    Yorkshire Penny Bank

    29

    28

    Total

    1,133

    1,302

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    FEMALE STAFF.
    Mr. DAYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he has any statistics that will show the number of female employés employed in all Government Departments as at the last convenient date?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Excluding industrial staffs, the total number of female staff employed in all Government Departments on the 1st January, 1929, was 74,647.
    Mr. DAY: Have any female employés been asked to resign during the last 12 months when they have been married?
    Mr. SAMUEL: That is another question. If the hon. Member puts it down, I will do my best to have it answered.

    ANTHRACITE.
    Mr. MORRISasked the Undersecretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, the quantities and sources of anthracite purchased for the heating of buildings under the control of His Majesty's Office of Works during the financial years ending 31st March, 1927, 31st March, 1928, and 31st March, 1929?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): The quantities of anthracite purchased for the
    406
    heating of buildings under the control of His Majesty's Office of Works during the last three financial years has been as follows:

    Tons.

    Year ended 31st March, 1927

    1,430

    Year ended 31st March, 1928

    2,710

    Year ended 31st March, 1929

    2,680

    Supplies are drawn from South Wales for use in England and Wales, and from Scotland for use in Scotland. The smaller quantity consumed in the year ended 31st March, 1927, was due to the coal stoppage in Great Britain.

    HORSE GUARDS MESSENGER (SUNDAY DUTY).
    Mr. DUNCANasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will take steps to secure a reconsideration of the employment of a messenger for a continuous 24 hours' duty at the Horse Guards on Sundays; and whether he will take steps to arrange for consultation with the messenger staff with a view to a shorter Sunday duty being arranged, mutually acceptable both to the department and the staff concerned?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): No representations have been received from the messengers that the present method of allocating Sunday duty, which was their choice, is no longer acceptable to them. I will arrange to have their views ascertained and carefully considered.

  COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY.
  Mr. WELLOCKasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if the Communications Company has yet been formed; and if he is in a position to state the terms of the Government's agreement with that company?
  Mr. SAMUEL: The answer to the first part is in the affirmative and to the second part that I hope to be in a position to lay papers at an early date.
  Mr. WELLOCK: Will that be before the present Government comes to an end?
  Mr. SAMUEL: I cannot say until I get a certain amount of information from the other side of the world.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    IMPORTED ROSE TREES (MARKING).
    Mr. VIANTasked the Minister of Agriculture whether the working of the Order under the Merchandise Marks Act for imported rose trees will enable British importers to protect the plants by covering the roots with soil?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The Order in question only requires the marking of rose trees on exposure for sale and on sale, not on importation. There is nothing in the Order to prevent the covering of the roots in the manner suggested.

    RUSSIAN MATCHES (TRADE MARK).
    Sir CHARLES OMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that cheap safety matches are now being sold in London, with the imprint Luckie Dream Safety Matches, made tin Russia (Union of Soviet Republics), Registered Trade Mark; and whether there is any record of such a trade mark having been actually registered by the Russian Government?
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I am informed that a label containing the words "Luckie Dream Safety Matches" is registered in this country as a Trade Mark. The legist ration was not made in the name of the Soviet Government.
    Sir C. OMAN: May I ask the hon. Gentleman in whose name it was made, and why it is registered in the name of somebody else? They took the trouble to place "Made in Soviet Russia" on these matches, and is this a form of political propaganda, because one knows that these are being sold at a trifle less than corresponding matches? [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"]
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I regret that up to now I have not seen one of the boxes of matches concerned.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: Has any Russian gold passed to advertise these matches in the House of Commons?

  AVIATION.

    AIR PORTS (HOLYHEAD).
    Sir R. THOMASasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has
    408
    considered the suitability of Holyhead as a marine air port for the Customs clearance of passenger traffic by flying boats between England and Ireland; if so, what conclusions has he formed: and, if not, will he consider this?
    Mr. PENNY (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The question of making Holyhead a Customs aerodrome for seaplanes has been considered, but it has been thought best to defer any detailed investigation for the present until it can be seen more clearly how air traffic to and from the port is likely to develop and what the practical needs of the traffic will be.

    AIR SERVICES (LONDON-INDIA).
    Sir R. THOMASasked the Secretary of State for Air whether there is now agreement between Italy and Greece in regard to the choice of an air port in the latter country to serve aircraft plying on the Croydon-India route; and what is the present position?
    Mr. PENNY: I have been asked to reply. Negotiations for a permanent agreement between Italy and Greece are proceeding. Pending the settlement of outstanding questions, arrangements have been made for the use of certain airports during a period of three months.

  KENYA (AGRICULTURAL LAND).
  Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of acres of agricultural land in Kenya that are at present held by Europeans and the number of acres of this land which is being cultivated?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): According to the Agricultural Census Report for the year ending 31st July, 1928, the total area under European occupation in Kenya was 4,996,406 acres, and of this area 592,741 acres were under actual cultivation. The Report does not include figures showing what proportion of the area under European occupation can be classed as agricultural land, but the previous year's Report shows that about half the occupied land was being developed either by cultivation or stock raising.
  Mr. DAY: Has the right hon Gentleman any statistics to show the number of acres that are in the occupancy of British subjects?
  Mr. AMERY: No, not available.
  Mr. PALING: Is it a fact that much of this land which is not at present being cultivated was formerly occupied by natives, who have been transferred from this land, in many cases against their will, to land of a less cultivable character?
  Mr. AMERY: I do not think so.
  Mr. DAY: If I give the right hon. Gentleman notice, can he supply me with statistics of the number of Britishers that are cultivating land?
  Mr. AMERY: Yes; I might have to communicate with East Africa for them.

  ELECTRICITY STATION'S (SULPHUR FUMES).
  Viscount SANDONasked the Minister of Transport whether he will immediately refer the question of the complete elimination of sulphur fumes from the workings of electricity generating plants to some body for scientific investigation and research; and whether, in the meantime, he will insist on sites for such purposes being chosen with full regard to the public interest, especially in the case of Battersea, in view of the effect of such fumes on the fabric of the Houses of Parliament?
  Colonel ASHLEY: In approving sites for power stations regard is, of course, had to the public interest and opportunity is given for the hearing of any representations made, and no site in the County of London can be approved by the Electricity Commission without the consent of the Commissioners of Works unless the authority of Parliament has been obtained.
  When consent was given to the erection of the Battersea Power Station, which is now under construction, an obligation was placed upon the London Power Company to take the best known precautions for the due consumption of smoke and for preventing, so far as reasonably practicable, the evolution of oxides of sulphur. I am assured by the Electricity Commissioners that in this modern power station
  410
  effective steps can and will be taken to prevent the emission of grit and smoke. I am also informed that, with a view to compliance with their obligation, the company have been employing research chemists to work on the problem of the elimination of sulphur fumes, and have stated that satisfactory results have already been obtained in laboratory experiments.
  In view, however, of the public interests involved, the Electricity Commissioners, with my approval, have asked the Government chemist to examine these results and to keep in close touch with the progress, of the company's investigation. In conjunction with the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research he will advise the First Commissioner of Works and the Electricity Commissioners as to the efficacy of the measures proposed to be adopted to comply with the conditions on which consent has been given to the erection of the new station.
  The Ministers concerned with the various aspects of the question will remain in consultation with one another and watch it closely.
  Mr. HANNON: Is it not a fact that in the design of this station every possible device has been introduced to reduce to a minimum the fumes emitted that would be a danger to the public health?
  Colonel ASHLEY: Exactly, but apart front that, of which I have no intimate knowledge, the condition is placed upon the company that they should, as far as possible, with the best up-to-date methods eliminate the sulphur fumes, and personnally I have no doubt that they will succeed in so doing; and the consent for the erection of this station is contingent upon that.
  Viscount SANDON: Is it not a fact that; in Cologne, in similar conditions, there are not any fumes at all?
  Colonel ASHLEY: That is what we hope for here when these conditions are carried out.
  Sir H. BRITTAIN: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say if these regulations apply to all other power stations in the London area?
  Colonel ASHLEY: No. The newer stations will have this condition imposed.
  Mr. SAKLATVALA: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the new power station is going to be more efficient in regard to suppressing this nuisance than the old gas company working in Battersea, and other private institutions working there?
  Colonel ASHLEY: This has nothing to do with gas. We are dealing here with an electricity station.
  Mr. SAKLATVALA: Does the Minister seriously suggest that there are no sulphur fumes coming out of gas works?
  Colonel ASHLEY: Of that I have no knowledge, but this question deals with the new Battersea electricity works.
  Mr. SAKLATVALA: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman accept the knowledge given to him by me that sulphurous vapours coming from the private enterprise of the gas company are ten times worse?

  POST OFFICE.

    FACILITIES, CHRISTOW, NEAR EXETER.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the Postmaster-General what extra cost would be incurred if full facilities were supplied at the post office at Christow, near Exeter; and what conditions it is necessary to fulfil before such facilities are granted?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): The cost of extending money order and licence business to Christow would be small, but. I am informed that the expectations of additional business at this office are too slight to justify any extension at present.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: In view of the fact that this cost would be so small, will my Noble Friend reconsider his decision, as this post office serves several other parishes as well as Christow?
    Viscount WOLMER: I should be very glad to go into the matter fully with my hon. and gallant Friend.

    TELEGRAPH FACILITIES, DUNDEE.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOURasked the Postmaster-General whether he has now received a joint communication from the
    412
    Dundee Harbour Trust and the Dundee Shipowners' and Shipbrokers' Association making further representations concerning recent restrictions in telegraph facilities at Dundee; and, if so, whether he will reconsider the matter, with a view to meeting the requirements of the shipping community?
    Viscount WOLMER: I have received the communication to which the hon. Member refers. The representations which it contains are receiving consideration, and I will reply to them as soon as possible.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Will the Noble Lord expressly consider the suggestion as to the telephone service conducting the telegraph service, seeing that he has his telephone operators available during the night?
    Viscount WOLMER: Certainly, I will consider it.

    TELEPHONE KIOSK, BOLORNOCK, SPRINGBURN.
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Postmaster-General whether he is considering the erection of a telephone kiosk at the new housing area known as Bolornock, Springburn?
    Viscount WOLMER: A kiosk will be erected in this area as soon as definite approval is forthcoming for the site selected.

    MISSING TELEGRAM (INQUIRY).
    Mr. CHARLES EDWARDSasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that on the 7th February last a telegram was despatched from the Aberkenfig post office to Cwmmer, Port Talbot, post office, from Mr. J. Moles to his brother, informing him that his father had died and giving particulars of the funeral; on the 2nd March last a telegram was received by the above stating that his brother had died, and that on going there he found that no telegram had been received, but that the account of it had been seen in the "Western Mail," dated 9th February; whether he is aware that the postmaster at Bridgend has written Mr. Moles stating that the telegram must have gone astray in transmission; and whether, seeing the distress and inconvenience caused to this family, he will make inquiries into the matter?
    Viscount WOLMER: I am having inquiries made in this matter, and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  POLITICAL MEETINGS, GREENOCK (MR. A. GEDDES).
  Mr. SAKLATVALAasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that Mr. Alexander Geddes, a prospective Parliamentary candidate for the burgh of Greenock, is hindered frequently by the police from holding ordinary political meetings in furtherance of his candidature in public places where rival candidates of other political parties, and various other speakers, have been freely holding their meetings; and whether this action has been taken on instructions from the Scottish Office?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I am informed that, with one exception, the Greenock burgh police have not found it necessary to interfere with meetings held by Mr. Geddes. The exception occurred on the 11th April when the police drew his attention to the provisions of a bylaw relating to harbour ground on which he was holding a meeting. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. SAKLATVALAasked the Lord Advocate if he is aware of the summons issued against Mr. Alexander Geddes, a prospective Parliamentary candidate for the burgh of Greenock, for causing obstruction arising out of an ordinary political meeting held at Port Glasgow; and if it is under his instruction that this summons has been issued?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): The proceedings referred to by the hon. Member were taken in the Police Court, Port Glasgow, at the instance of the Burgh Prosecutor, who was not acting under instructions issued by me.
  Mr. SAKLATVALA: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that this prosecution is not undertaken, and these summonses are not issued, through political feelings?
  The LORD ADVOCATE: I have no reason to think that this was issued through any political feelings at all.

  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    IRISH LIGHTHOUSE SERVICE.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the President of the Board of Trade what have been the results of the discussions which have been taking place with the Irish Free State with regard to the question of the Irish Lighthouse Service?
    Mr. AMERY: I have been asked to reply to this question. The negotiations on this matter are still proceeding, and it is not possible to make any statement at the present moment.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is there any likelihood of these negotiations coming to an end, and will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make a statement soon?
    Mr. AMERY: We had some discussions a few weeks ago, and I hope that it will not be very long before the matter makes further progress.
    Mr. KELLY: Is the superannuation of the man now in the service being protected so that they will not lose?
    Mr. AMERY: That obviously is one of the questions with which we have to deal.

    IMPORTATION OF DOGS AND CATS ORDER.
    Dr. DAVIES (for Sir THOMAS WATTS)asked the Minister of Agriculture if his attention has been drawn to Article 8 (1) (a) of the Importation of Dogs and Cats Order of 1928, by which cats on a ship must be confined in an enclosed part whilst the vessel is lying in any port in Great Britain; and if, in view of the importance of cats on board ship for keeping down rats, he will consider the advisability of making some suitable concession for ships where cats are kept for the purpose of keeping down rats?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I have received representations on behalf of the shipping companies as to the difficulty of complying as regards cats with Article 8 of the Importation of Dogs and Cats Order of 1928, and after consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, I am now in communication with the shipping companies as to a possible alternative procedure to that specifically laid down in the Order.

  INDIA (SMALL-POX).
  Mr. VIANTasked the Undersecretary of State for India what is the latest information in his possession in regard to the prevalence of small-pox in India?
  Major Sir GEORGE HENNESSY (Treasurer of the Household): I have been asked to reply. There is an epidemic of small-pox in Bombay City, where there were 233 cases and 130 deaths between 1st January and 16th February. There are no later official figures, but according to a Press report the total number of deaths from 1st January to 18th March was 368. In the whole of British India between 1st January and 16th February there were 19,529 cases and 4,821 deaths, the case and mortality rates being approximately the same as for 1928.

  PRISON-MADE GOODS (EXPORT).
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any attempt is being made through the League of Nations to induce nations to prevent the export of prison-made goods; and whether he is aware that quantities of textiles made in American prisons are smuggled into Canada from mills and warehouses on the frontier and of the consequent danger of these goods finding their way to Great Britain?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, I have no information, but my hon. and gallant Friend will realise that an export prohibition is not likely to be effective in restricting the activities of smugglers.

  BRITISH VISITORS, FRANCE (VACCINATION).
  Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information as to the requirements with regard to vaccination of visitors preceeding from this country to France; and what steps he is taking to help them conveniently to conform to these requirements?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Since my right hon. Friend dealt with this matter
  416
  yesterday, official confirmation has been received of the suspension of the new French vaccination regulations. Discussions with the French Government are continuing.
  Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Why is it that such action should have been taken when there are at least two international bodies that deal with health matters, one at Geneva and one at Paris? Do they not naturally cover the question?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise out of the answer. The hon. and gallant Gentleman should put down a question on the Paper.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    PENSIONERS (EMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether in those naval establishments where pensioners are employed preference is given to those who have received decorations or who have otherwise distinguished themselves in the service?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider when engaging these men in future if their pension is low enough to justify their being employed, giving preference to those who have done the most worthy service?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Naturally.
    Mr. ALBERY: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman also bear in mind that during the War many decorations were awarded to men as representatives of their comrades on account of collective actions?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: All considerations are borne in mind.

    BERMUDA DOCKYARD (SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what the regulations are with regard to subsistence allowance payable to men under agreement serving in His Majesty's Dockyard, Bermuda, in respect of their wives and families; whether the same regulations apply to men serving under agreement in

    417
    His Majesty's tugs, Bermuda; and, if not, whether he can see his way to include these men under the regulations and grant them the same subsistence allowance in respect of their wives and families stationed at Bermuda?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: There are no such regulations as those referred to in the first part of the question; the other parts therefore do not arise.

    SERVICE PENSIONS.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is possible for a man to draw his long-service pension weekly or monthly as his own option instead of quarterly?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Under the regulations naval long service pensions are paid quarterly in advance, but if an individual pensioner gave adequate reasons his request for payment monthly would be considered.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any orders have been issued that men joining the Navy after October, 1925, and subsequently becoming eligible for service pension, shall not receive the Greenwich Hospital age increase in the pension of 4d. a day on attaining the age of 65?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: A Regulation to the effect indicated was sanctioned by an Order-in-Council, dated the 16th of December, 1925, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member.

    DOCKYARDS (GENERAL ELECTION).
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the men employed at Portsmouth dockyard will be given the customary half-holiday with pay on the polling day for the General Election; and, if not, the reason for the change in the customary practice?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: No half-holiday on polling day has been provided for in the dockyard rules and regulations for many years; and in view of the facilities now provided for polling it is not intended to give special authority for a half-holiday on the present occasion.
    Mr. KELLY: May I ask the date when the Admiralty and other Departments gave instructions for the abolition of this half-day before election day?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Before 1894 the half-holiday was allowed. It was one of the privileges involving loss of working time, and it was abolished when the average 48-hour week was introduced in 1894.
    Mr. KELLY: Was this half-holiday given at the time of the last General Election?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I shall have to have notice of that question.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman say that in none of the dockyards has it been customary to give a holiday at any General Election?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: It was customary up to 1894.
    Mr. R. MORRISON: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman discovers that this half-holiday was actually given at the last General Election, will he reconsider his decision?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: No, there is no reason to reconsider it. The decision is made, and there is plenty of time for people to vote under the present rules.
    Mr. MORRISON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has just announced that this has not been a custom for many years, but apparently there is a likelihood that it took place at the last General Election, and why should it not be repeated on the present occasion?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Will the Prime Minister be good enough to tell us what business it is proposed to take next week?
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): Monday: Report Stage of the Budget Resolutions.
Tuesday: Supply, Committee (6th allotted day); Estimates for the Board of Education and Public Education, Scotland.
Wednesday: Supply, Committee (7th allotted day); Ministry of Labour Vote.
Thursday: Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
Friday's business will be announced later.

419
On any other day, other business will be taken if time permits.

SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS BILL,
"to provide for the humane slaughter of animals," presented by Colonel Moore; supported by Sir Arthur Shirley Benn, Mr. Noel Buxton, Sir Archibald Sinclair, Sir John Pennefather, Dr. Drummond Shiels, Brigadier-General Charteris, and Sir Robert Gower; to be read a Second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 97.]
BILLS REPORTED.

  DONCASTER CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  PACIFIC CABLE BOARD BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS (JOINT COMMITTEE).
Report (with Minutes of Evidence) and Special Report in respect of the Companies Bill [Lords] (pending in the Lords) brought up, and read.
Report and Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS (HOUSE OF COMMONS).
Special Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.
Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Major Sir Richard Barnett to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Bastardy (Witness Process) Bill and in respect of the Preservation
420
of Infant Life Bill [Lords]); Mr. Morgan Jones (in respect of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Amendment) Bill); Sir Cyril Cobb to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Bridges Bill [Lords]); and Mr. James Brown (in respect of the Police Magistrates Superannuation (Amendment) Bill).
Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Bastardy (Witness Process) Bill and the Preservation of Infant Life Bill [Lords]): Viscount Astor, Mr. Brocklebank, Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson, Sir Gerald Hurst, Miss Lawrence, Mr. Lunn, Mrs. Runciman, Miss Wilkinson, and Mr. Withers.

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Bridges Bill [Lords]): Mr. A. V. Alexander, Colonel Ashley, Sir Henry Cautley, Captain Garro-Jones, Mr Kelly, Mr. Mac-Laren, Captain Cunningham Reid, Lieut.-Colonel Ruggles-Brise, Mr. Rye, and Mr. Samuel Samuel.
  Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Police Magistrates Superannuation (Amendment) Bill): Mr Batey, Mr. Blin-dell, Sir Walter Greaves-Lord, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson, Sir William Joynson-Hicks, Captain O'Connor, Mr. R. Richardson, Mr. Ross, Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel, and Mr. Tinker.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the Imperial Continental Gas Association; to repeal and re-enact, with amendments, the provisions of the several Acts governing the association; and for other purposes."

421
[Imperial Continental Gas Association Bill [Lords.]
Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the provisions of the will of the late Bight Honourable Cecil John Rhodes; and for other purposes." [Rhodes Trust Bill [Lords.]
Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make provision as to the abandonment of the tramways and tramways of the Tyneside Tramways and Tramways Company; to enlarge the powers of the company with respect to the provision and running of omnibuses; and for other purposes." [Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads Company Bill [Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide during the subsistence of the trust for accumulation contained in the Will of Richard Beaumont Thomas, deceased, and during the lifetime and widowhood of his widow for the maintenance of the Testator's children and grandchildren out of the surplus income of the Testator's residuary estate; and to direct how certain sums already paid for their maintenance, advancement, and benefit are to be accounted for; and for the payment of an additional annuity to his widow; and to enable the Testator's sons to appoint annuities to their widows; and for other purposes." [Beaumont Thomas Estate Bill [Lords.]
Imperial Continental Gas Association Bill [Lords],
Rhodes Trust Bill [Lords],
Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads Company Bill [Lords],
Beaumont Thomas Estate Bill [Lords],
Bead the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [5TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.
    CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1929.
      CLASS II.

        DOMINIONS OFFICE.
        Motion made, and Question proposed;
        "That a sum, not exceeding £40,473, be granted to His Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs."—[NOTE.—£13,500 has been voted on account.]
        Mr. J. H. THOMAS: On a point of Procedure. I feel it would meet the general convenience of the House if, with your consent, Mr. Chairman, there could be a general Debate covering the whole of the Dominion situation instead of separate Debates upon each Vote. I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs will agree that that would be the better course to adopt.
        The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Amery): As far as I am concerned, I shall be quite willing to fall in with the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. The Votes for the Dominions offices, the Empire Marketing Board and Overseas Settlement are all within the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State for the Dominion Affairs.
        The TEMPORARY-CHAIRMAN: I see no objection to the proposed course being adopted, provided that it is the unanimous wish of the Committee. Is it the unanimous wish of the Committee?
        HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.
        Mr. THOMAS: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
        Yesterday's Debate, by a curious turn of fortune, dealt with the importance of foreign nations understanding that there will be continuity of policy in this country.
        434
        However important it may be that no misunderstanding should arise in regard to foreign affairs, I think it is equally important that when we are discussing Imperial affairs we should keep clearly in mind what the consequences of our actions may be in regard to particular Dominions. I have never hesitated to say—and I always endeavour to act up to that in practice—that although there may be, indeed there must inevitably be, party differences on question of policy, that so far as the unity, the development and the prosperity of the Empire are concerned, there is no real essential difference between any parties in the House. If that statement is acquiesced in when we are in this House, I submit that it is equally necessary that the same policy should be preached by all parties outside. It is neither fair nor honest, and it is not "playing the game," to give a general acceptance in this House to the broad policy I have now laid down and then in the constituencies, either privately or on public platforms, to declare boldly and defiantly that the disintegration of the Empire is inevitable, if the party which I represent are returned to office. If any hon. or right hon. Member opposite holds that view, here is the place to state it, because this is the only place where such a challenge can be met.
        Major MacANDREW: What about last night?
        Mr. THOMAS: I am quite prepared, on the right occasion, to talk about last night. There will be no running away from that issue. Hon. Members ought to avail themselves of the only place where an answer can be given to any charges. It is one thing to make a statement on a public platform, and it is another thing to stand up here and face the music across the Floor of the House. I thought we had long ago gone by the stage when certain gentlemen assume that the Union Jack is the prerogative of a particular political party. I thought we had got beyond the stage when the British Empire 30uld be used as a sort of preserve for any political party. Last week when I was in the West of England I took up a daily paper, and the first thing I saw was a blazing headline to a speech made by an hon. Gentleman opposite who had been speaking in the Devonport Division. I noticed that he used certain arguments against the return of the Labour party

        435
        to office, and after dealing at considerable length with that question he said that the return of the Labour party to power would be a danger to the Empire.
        HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
        Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: So it would.
        Mr. THOMAS: I notice that the hon. Baronet the Member for East Cardiff (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke) is getting excited already, and I hope that is not a prelude to what is going to happen before I have finished. There are a large number of hon. Members opposite who, judging from their cheers, appear to believe the statement which I have attributed to one of their colleagues. Therefore, I am going to avail myself of the opportunity of giving those who believe that statement, who have uttered it and who may utter it again, an opportunity of facing that argument across the Floor of the House. There are two ways of testing this question. The first is to examine the record of the Labour party whilst in office and the second is boldly to declare our intention of what is going to happen in June when we get back.
        Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: You are not returned yet.
        Mr. THOMAS: I think what I have stated is a fair way of meeting the situation. Curiously enough, whatever else may be said of the year 1924, there will be no disagreement when I state that in the field both of foreign and Imperial politics the Labour Government was faced not only with a bad legacy, but with a problem more difficult than has ever been encountered since. I do not propose—indeed, it would not be in order—to make any mention of the foreign situation because the record of the Leader of the Opposition in that respect is a monument of success so far as foreign policy is concerned. I ask the House to consider fairly and impartially how we faced these great Imperial problems. What was the first problem? Our first difficulty was the result of the action of the Coalition Government who, in their wisdom, settled the differences in Ireland by the creation of the Irish Free State. Curiously enough they left unsettled one of the most difficult problems connected with that settlement, namely, the boundary question.
        436
        I submit that if ever there was a question which lent itself to party differences it was the Irish question. I well remember the baits offered to the Leader of the Opposition and myself in connection with that difficulty, and I recollect the great efforts which were made to make it a party issue. What did we do? We said, "Ireland has been too long the Cinderella of British politics, and the misery and suffering in Ireland is not going to be exploited by us." Consequently, we took the unprecedented course of calling together the leaders of all parties, and we said to them, "Here is a difficulty which is not of our own making or seeking. We do not desire to make party capital out of it, and we are ready-to unite with you in trying to bring about a settlement." That was the first step we took in connection with out dealing with the Irish problem. It is no secret to say that our efforts to secure co-operation were not successful, and the actual signatories to the agreement refused to co-operate with us. We did not stop there. We said, "So far as our view of Ireland is concerned, there is only one real and lasting settlement, and that is the unity of both North and South Ireland." Afterwards, we took steps to bring together the leaders of both sides from the North and South of Ireland. I presided over those conferences, and I said on every occasion that any solution that was agreeable to both sides the Government were ready to acquiesce in. Again we failed, but we were not dismayed and we were not despondent. We tried to find a solution ourselves. I said to the representatives of Northern Ireland, "Whatever views I may have held previously, so far as representation is concerned, Northern Ireland can have any representation she likes to agree to," and I said the same to the representatives of Southern Ireland.
        4.0 p.m.
        Then came the difficulty about the selection of a Chairman of the Boundary Commission, and I came to the conclusion that there was no man in this country, however distinguished or eminent, who would be considered impartial in the eyes of one side or the other. I looked round the Empire, and I asked, "Where can I find a distinguished Colonial statesman to act as Chairman who will give confidence to both sides?" I invited Sir Robert Borden to act as Chairman, but

        437
        that gentleman was unable to accept the position. Looking round again, I ultimately selected a gentleman who to many was an unknown man, Mr. Justice Feetham, I thought he was a well-known man, but, when I chose Mr. Justice Feetham, what was the criticism from Members on the other side of the House I Who is this unknown country lawyer who has been brought in to solve this problem? "The Committee will remember who made that speech. I need not recapitulate it, except to say that that was the contribution to Imperial unity we were getting at that particular stage. It did not daunt us, and we went on and selected Mr. Justice Feetham.
        Mr. HANNON: He was a very well-known loyal South African—a very distinguished man in South Africa.
        Mr. THOMAS: That is just why I selected him. It was because of that that I resented the criticisms of him by people who ought to have known better. The point is this: The right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary and the Prime Minister came down to this House. What was their announcement soon after their return to office? Their announcement was: "We are happy to state that, largely as a result of the magnificent and painstaking work of Mr. Justice Feetham, this unfortunate problem is happily solved." What becomes of the talk of disintegration of Empire? What becomes of the talk of our being unmindful of responsibility?
        Mr. HANNON: The speeches of hon. Members behind the right hon. Gentleman.
        Mr. THOMAS: I do not want to be reminded of hon. Members behind me, because everyone of them is capable of speaking for himself. Only a few weeks ago, on another Irish problem, we had an exhibition of hon. Gentlemen opposite dealing with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am not in the least disturbed in answering that point. I want to follow that by the next Imperial difficulty with which we were faced; and, again, let me remind the hon. Gentleman who has interrupted that, every action which I took then, and which my leader took, not only
        438
        was approved, but met with the enthusiastic approbation of every member of this party. That was our first difficulty. We made our contribution, and the Empire did not suffer as a result.
        Our next problem was in connection with the Versailles Treaty. Those parts of our Dominions, those self-governing Dominions which form such an important part of what is called the British Commonwealth of Nations, demanded and were conceded at the end of the War the right that in future matters of peace or war, they were not to be bound without having a voice or say in the deliberations—a very wise and necessary concession, justified not only by past experience but by the great sacrifice that they had made. But though that was conceded, no attempt had ever been made by the Coalition Government or the then Conservative Government to take the necessary steps to put it into operation. We had the High Commissioners in England with no power and no authority. We were immediately faced with giving effect to the Dawes plan. How could we interpret, in the letter and the spirit, the Dominions' right to have a say on this great problem which so vitally affected them? We said: "Because Canada will not agree to her High Commissioner accepting the authority, we will wait and do nothing until Canada can send her own representative, and join in our councils to find a joint solution."
        That brings me to this aspect of the policy. Whatever Government may be in power, I am perfectly certain that the difficulties we experienced then, the difficulties which all Governments will experience in the future, will necessitate a reconsideration of this position. It is no good saying to the Dominions: "You have this power; we want you to exercise it," and at the same time provide no machinery that gives effect to it. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that, whatever his view may be, we should certainly determine to give more consideration to that problem, and in consultation and agreement with our self-governing Dominions, try to hammer out a plan which will enable us to be in daily contact not only with representative men, but men who have got the power and the authority to act in consultation

        439
        with us. I know of nothing that ought to receive more attention in the interests of Imperial unity than the problem that we find ourselves up against and with which I am dealing at this moment. But we got over the difficulty in the way; I have indicated, and we got over it not with disunity to the Empire, but with the acquiescence and thanks of the Canadian and all our Dominion Governments for the action we took in that connection.
        What was our next problem? It was that of the Imperial Conference. It is no secret that to hold an Imperial Conference with South Africa, with its past history and record, not represented, would be a disaster. We knew that General Hertzog, who had not long then been elected Prime Minister, not only did not intend to come, but refused to come. We are not supposed to be Imperialists; we are not supposed to have the interests of the Empire at heart; we are supposed to have no influence, but, at all events, we said that an Imperial Conference without a South African representative would be a farce, and we took steps ourselves. I, myself, personally went to invite General Hertzog to attend the Imperial Conference. I would only remind the Committee of the statements of the right hon. Gentleman opposite and the Prime Minister, and more especially Lord Balfour, who, in giving their report of the last Imperial Conference, emphasised that the great success was at least due in no small measure to the presence of the South African Premier. If there is acquiescence in those acts, if there is general agreement that we have done the right thing, what becomes of the humbug and talk about the Empire going to pieces when we take office? [Interruption.] I will tell the hon. Member for East Cardiff a lot more things, and all about his League if only he will wait. I will tell him some things of which he has not heard, and I am quite sure that his agitation will be complete before I have finished. I have now reached the stage of the visit to South Africa. I had not been in South Africa a week before I came to the conclusion that one of the gravest problems not only affecting South Africa but calculated to have
        440
        far-reaching effects on the future of the Empire, was the Indian question in South Africa.
        Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Hear, hear!
        Mr. THOMAS: Now we are coming to agreement. In spite of strong Labour opposition—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—I see that some hon. Members opposite cannot quite follow that. The Labour opposition to the Indian problem is in South Africa. South African labour people feel very keenly about their own jobs, and there was real bitterness and danger arising. How did we meet it? Not by running away; not by saying: "It is a difficult problem which we can let stand over." We faced it right away by saying to South Africa: "This is not a South African problem. You have no right to treat it as a South African problem. You have to remember that there is the great Indian Empire which is involved in this, and all the repercussions which will follow it." That is how the anti-Empire people met the problem, and we met it on their grounds. We met it against their opposition, argued it out and discussed it. How did we suggest dealing with it? I made, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, a suggestion that the Indian problem could only be faced by recognising right away that it was an Imperial problem, and that representatives of South Africa, India and this country should all sit down to consider it in the Imperial sense. That was the suggestion which the Labour Government made. That was the suggestion which was followed by the India Office after we went out of office. These four questions all arose in 10 months, all had to be dealt with in 10 months, all had to be faced immediately by inexperienced people unfit to govern! The question I ask of those who make speeches such as the speech to which I have already referred, and which met with a lot of approbation on the other side is, what grounds of justification based upon that experience of actual facts are there for the statements that they made, and probably will continue to make?
        I turn to what is, perhaps, the most difficult of all the problems in connection with what is called the Imperial Conference. If I were asked what in my

        441
        view is most likely to cause real friction between the Dominions and ourselves, I should say it would be the holding of a Conference in London, where all these representatives assemble and argue out different Empire problems, then returning to their States to find in a few months that a change of Government has caused all their work to count for nothing. Any practical man, I do not care on which side of the House he may sit, anyone who knows the British Empire, who knows the feeling of Colonial statesmen, cannot deny the statement I make that bitter dissatisfaction arises in that way. Surely, it is not incapable of solution. Surely, there are people in all quarters of the House and in all parties who ought to apply themselves, to that problem. I myself have suggested that the real solution is that the Imperial Conference, instead of being a Conference of Governments, should be, a Conference of Parliaments. By a Conference of Parliaments I mean a Conference where representatives of all parties would be present.
        I know it will be argued that they would carry no responsibility, but I think the very fact of their meeting in this way would direct their attention and focus their minds on the problems that would be common and acceptable to all; and that would be far better than merely passing a resolution and finding, as experience has already proved, that to give effect to that resolution was impossible. At all events, I repeat that, while we are favourable to the principle of an Imperial Conference, with all its advantages and all the possibilities that it opens out, I do not think it is wise always to limit its place of meeting to this country alone. I do not think for a moment that it is a good thing merely to say that the Imperial Conference must always be held in London. I, certainly, would change that, and would give to our Dominions the value that would come from Conferences being held in their countries; and I would go beyond that by, as I have said, widening and broadening the basis of representation.
        I come to a question which undoubtedly will receive considerable discussion during the coming election, namely, the question of migration. I suppose that no party is more abused
        442
        and misrepresented on this question than ours. I will deal later with the general principle, but for the moment I am going to limit myself to what we did when we were in office—not what we said we would do, not what we proposed to do, but what we actually did in our 10 months of office. We agreed upon and set up the existing Australian scheme, and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, sanctioned an expenditure of £30,000,000 odd, of which, as he knows, £26,000,000, four years after we left office, has not yet been spent. When hon. Gentlemen opposite are facing these problems on the platform, let them face them right out and at least deal with them fairly. I repeat that on the Australian scheme expenditure to the amount of £30,000,000 odd was sanctioned, and £26,000,000 has not yet been spent. While I am dealing with that matter, let me give this figure, because there is so much misrepresentation and, if I may say so, humbug on the question of migration. How many Members of the House know that at this moment there are over 50,000 names registered, and that men have been waiting one, two, three and four years, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, for an opportunity to migrate? And then we hear the silly flapdoodle that is talked in the country!
        The right hon. Gentleman knows, as I know, that the barrier is not on this side. The fact that there are 50,000 waiting at least indicates that the spirit of our people is not lost, that our people still prefer work, that the spirit of adventure and opportunity to make good still exists in our people. The fact remains that while in office I made the Australian scheme which I have already described. The family scheme in the case of Canada was also our scheme. We were the first to make and fix up with the Canadian Government what is now called the family scheme, and, as a Government, we alone were responsible for it. I also made the only other scheme in Canada, namely, the scheme in connection with the Canadian National Railways. That was our work in 10 months of office; that was how we tackled these Empire problems; and I would ask, what ground or justification is there for the statement, to which I have referred earlier, that the Empire would be in danger if we sat on the opposite side of the House?
        Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: What about Imperial Preference?
        Mr. THOMAS: That these 50,000 people should have a chance to live is apparently of far less importance in the opinion of the hon. Member than a cup of tea.
        Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: What happened 10 years before, when you passed resolutions against migration year after year at the Trade Unions Congress?
        Mr. THOMAS: Here is an hon. Gentleman who says that 10 years before the period I am talking about—I am taking his words now, not mine—
        Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: No; 10 years before that.
        An HON. MEMBER: Twenty years!
        Mr. THOMAS: I will take any number of years you like. Whether you make it 10 years or 20 years, I do not care; I am dealing merely with the interruption of the hon. Member for East Cardiff that, although, as I have said, when we were in office we were responsible, and alone responsible, for these migration schemes, we did that in spite of the fact that, 10 years before, our people were against migration. That means that, because we did it in defiance of our people, we are, according to him, to be condemned.
        Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Oh, no; I do not condemn you.
        Mr. THOMAS: Might I, then, remind the hon. Member of this fact, which should not be lost sight of in talking of migration, that, although there have been years of Conservative and Liberal administration, although the problem of Empire has been talked about, and although the question of migration has been a burning question, there was, prior to 1922, no scheme in existence. The hon. Member may be surprised to learn that.
        Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: No, I am not surprised. I do know it. I have said it and written it over and over again.
        Mr. THOMAS: In other words, if there is to be any condemnation, it must be condemnation of the hon. Member's friends who never did it. I hope the hon. Member will make that clear in Cardiff. If he does not do so, I will, when I am there, tell them what his
        444
        view is of his own friends. The point that I want to put with regard to this question is that it would be unfair and positively dangerous to gibe at us on the question of migration on the experience of the harvesters last year. Nothing could be worse than to do that. It was an improvised, hasty scheme, though I myself would not say that even that was an entire failure. I would not go so far as to say that, but it would be a profound mistake, and against the best interests of this country and the Empire as a whole, not to face the real difficulties with regard to migration.
        With regard, first, to South Africa, I would say without hesitation that to talk of sending people to South Africa is to waste time. The only people who are wanted in South Africa—and there is room there for them—are those who have capital. That is how I would summarise the situation in South Africa. In Australia and New Zealand there are, undoubtedly, tremendous possibilities, but do not let us forget that the difficulties of dealing with the problem in Australia and New Zealand are difficulties to the solution of which Australia and New Zealand have to make a contribution. I am not now speaking of a contribution in money; I am speaking in a much wider sense than that. My view is that you have to ask both Australia and New Zealand to sit down and apply themselves to the problem as it affects them. With Regard to Canada, I take an opposite view to that taken by many people. Undoubtedly, 10, or even five, years ago, it could be said that Canada was essentially an agricultural country, with an agricultural population, and that the opportunities there for agriculture were undoubted. I believe, however, that all the mineral wealth possessed by the United States to-day is exceeded by that in Canada. There is no part of the Empire that is so immensely rich in all mineral resources as Canada. How many people realise that, although the United States has a population of 150,000,000, yet Canada has actually a bigger acreage than the United States? I have already spoken of its great potential mineral wealth: but its population numbers 8,000,000 at the outside.
        I would not for a moment suggest migration as a solution of our unemployment problem—he would be a foolish

        445
        person who would suggest it—but that it could be made an effective contribution cannot be denied. It is a thing that ought not to require commissions of committees to consider. I will give a typical case of the foolish restrictions that exist. There is a man who has three sons in Canada, all making good. He himself has worked for 50 odd years and paid for his old age pension, not only by his contributions but by his work and his effort. Because he says, "I want to join my own family; I want to spend any retiring days with my son who has made good in Canada or Australia or New Zealand," the British Government says, "No, you must sacrifice the pension that you are entitled to." Was there ever such humbug as talking about the unity of the Empire when such barriers as that exist? We do not stand for that and we will not continue it.
        Let me take another instance. I will give an illustration within my own personal recollection which affects thousands Supposing any Member of the House desires to reside in Canada, Australia or New Zealand and he is insured, taking the ordinary precautions of life. He can go to his insurance company, or send his secretary, and arrangements will be made at once to commute what he has paid. It is an ordinary commercial transaction. If a working man, who is compelled to pay his insurance, who has a vested interest and a capital value in it, goes to Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa or India and after two years wishes his family to go out to him, if in the interval he dies, they are deprived of their pension. You do not solve Empire problems by running away from that kind of facts. These ought not to be party matters—they are bigger than party—and whether we are on this side or that, we intend to deal with them and urge their solution.
        Let me make another suggestion. I do not know what Lord Lovat's Report on this problem may be but you have to face this fact with regard to industry. There were killed or permanently knocked out of industry between 1914 and 1918, in round numbers, a million able-bodied men. There are employed in industry to-day approximately 700,000 more than in the boom period of 1914. Your birth rate during that period is exceeding your death rate by approximately
        446
        200,000 a year or more, and your unemployed figure at this moment is over 1,250,000. Those folks who are going to tackle the unemployed problem cannot possibly leave out of their minds the other great Imperial problem of what contribution the Empire can make to help to solve this problem.
        I will tell you how I would propose to deal with it. I have indicated the things that must be swept away. I have indicated that you have no right to dump people into any given place without provision being made for them. A Committee representing all sides of the House of Commons, and including representatives of Canada, ought to sit down at once and face this problem, not with the view of dealing with the harvesting problem next year, not dealing with it in a tin pot way like that, but in a big comprehensive way. When you are talking about expenditure, remember the £650,000,000 spent since 1918 in unemployment benefit with no return. Capitalise that and then you will get some idea of the possibilities of real Empire development. I started off to-day with a view to challenging the House on the statement I originally presented, because if we are going to face the electors, do not forget that when you talk about the disintegration of the Empire resulting from the return to office of our party, in every Dominion in the Empire you have either a Labour Government or a Labour official Opposition, and they will resent such aspersions upon their policy as much as we resent them here.
        I should like to refer to the tremendous good work of the Empire Marketing Board. A study of the wonderful research work they are doing justifies every penny of the expenditure. I want to know whether they ought to be limited to research. I say to myself sometimes, "What is it that is calculated to strain the love of Empire existing among some of our people?" I picture to myself a young, vigorous man, who leaves this country with a limited capital, goes to Australia, New Zealand or Tasmania and, after years of effort, becomes the owner of his own fruit farm, not working four, six or eight hours a day but toiling hard from January to December. Having garnered his crop, having seen the results of his year's labour, I can picture him when he sees it shipped to his old

        447
        homeland, proud of his work and justified in looking for his reward. But his love of Empire is strained when he receives, not a cheque for the sale of his apples but an intimation that they did not even fetch in London the price of the freight. That is not an exaggerated statement. That is what has been brought to my personal knowledge. His feelings are more strained when he knows perfectly well that, while he got nothing for the apples, they were retailed here at 3d., 4d. or even 6d. a pound. Love of Empire does not appeal to him after that in quite the same way. I remember, while at the Colonial Office, receiving some Press cuttings with a letter showing me the advertisement in New Zealand and Australia of mutton for sale at 3½d. or 4d. a pound. I had inquiries made and the same meat was being sold here at 1s. 6d. and 1s 8d. a pound. I want the Empire Marketing Board or some such authority to have the power to ascertain where the difference between the price to the producer and the price to the consumer comes in.
        Every view I have expressed to-day is land will be the considered policy of our party and what we intend to give effect to. Some of the things I have been saying have disturbed even our Colonial Prime Ministers. Mr. Bruce himself at the last Imperial Conference, expressed grave apprehension at the difficulties I have enumerated. The High Commissioner for Australia, in a letter to the "Times" two days ago, drew attention to the serious problem of Australian meat as compared with foreign. I do not know how far the Government can justify the placards about eating Empire produce. We know perfectly well that this Empire Government is buying a lot of foreign meat. I have taken this opportunity to give a broad and, I hope, not unfair summary of the difficulties we were placed in and how we met them. I will conclude by saying that I do not suppose that anything I have said this afternoon will stop the libel from continuing. I suppose that there will still be people who will endeavour to make party capital out of this Empire difficulty. I shall be sorry if they do. Speaking through this House to the Empire which is far more important than really talking party against party, speaking for my party with
        448
        authority and with knowledge, I say that if the political fortunes in a few weeks' time enable us to take the reins of office—and as in 1924 it did not result in the disintegration of the Empire—our aim and object in 1929 will not be disintegration, but the consolidation and progress of a heritage of which we are all proud.
        Mr. SOMERVILLE: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) has made this Vote the occasion for an electioneering speech. [Interruption.] I do not complain of that, but I cannot help feeling amused at his trying to make us believe on this side that the Socialist party is a truly Imperialist party. It is not always that his Front Bench can answer for those behind. Last night sympathy was much more with the rebel than with the leader, and I think that in this case which has been dealt with so fully by the right hon. Gentleman very much the same thing has happened. It is beside the point to argue from what happened in 1924. At that time, the Socialist Government were in leading strings and had not full liberty of action. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] If all the Labour party resembled the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, I should have little fear for the Empire. I had the privilege in the autumn of 1924 to form one of the Empire Parliamentary Delegation which was most ably led by the right hon. Gentleman, and I had occasion then to note his tact and his knowledge of the problems of Empire. I could wish that many of his followers had the same realisation of these great problems. When he mentioned South Africa just now and said that there was no room there for the rank and file, I thoroughly agreed with him. There is not except for specially skilled men, but he went on to say "except men with capital." Then I asked myself: Could there be any men with capital if a Socialist Government were in power?
        Mr. THOMAS: They would all be capitalists.
        Mr. SOMERVILLE: Yes, but they would not have the power of using their capital as they chose. It is a very material point. I read in "Labour and the Nation" that the question with the Socialist Government would not be what they would take from the capitalist, but

        449
        what they would leave to him. How is he going to provide men with capital to go on their own initiative if that is the way in which capital is to be dealt with? Is it true that the majority of those behind him are in sympathy with the Empire and the problems of the Empire? I would remind him what happened in Winnipeg last year, and venture to read again to the Committee what was printed in the "Manitoba Free Press" on the visit of that delegation with reference to the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston). I do not think that the right hon. Member for Nottingham was altogether free from blame. This is what the "Manitoba Free Press" printed:
        "Does a lie, once started keep on for over? One would hate to think that western Canada would for ever, or even for a century, be tarred and feathered and carried in a cart' by a portion of the Press of the Empire because disgruntled men among the British harvesters made certain exaggerated and fantastic statements regarding their treatment here, which were further strengthened by the condemnatory attitude of certain Labour Members of the British Parliamentary Delegation."
        Mr. THOMAS: I am sorry to interrupt, but I do so only for the purpose of putting this matter on an even keel. It would be unwise merely to take an extract from any paper for this reason. If I were to dare to produce what the Malay papers said about the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies. God knows, he is not fit to sit there; and he knows it.
        Mr. SOMERVILLE: At that time there was a very strong feeling with regard to rubber which renders my right hon. Friend's analogy quite useless. Here we had an Empire Parliamentary Delegation travelling through a great Dominion, and these two members of it very seriously offended public opinion in the Dominion. That was not a very wise thing to do. I go further and ask: Is the Independent Labour Party a supporter of Empire? Is the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Max ton), who is the head of the International League against Imperialism in this country, a fervid supporter of our Empire? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] The greater number of the Socialist party on those benches belong to the Independent Labour Party, and one of the objects of that party is the breaking up of the Empire. The right hon. Gentleman said
        450
        that some of us on this side consider that a Socialist Government would be a danger to the Empire. We say this because we believe it. We believe that it would be a danger to the Empire and to this country, and we do not believe that the majority of the Socialist Members on those benches really care for problems of Empire or for the development of the Empire.
        When the right hon. Gentleman went on to deal with the question of migration. I found myself in much greater sympathy with him. I know that he wishes for the wise management of this great problem. What is the greatest problem in the Empire at the present time? It is the redistribution of its white population, and we want our best and wisest to deal with that question. I agree with my right hon. Friend, if I may so call him, in saying that this should not be a party question, and nothing would give me greater delight than that all parties in this country should join together in trying to solve the problem. We heard this morning from the Prime Minister that the Government will take in hand in June when they come back with a good working majority, as they are going to do, the problem of Colonial development, and that there will be a Commission appointed to deal with it. I was delighted to hear that. A visit to Tanganyika in the autumn convinced me of the immense possibilities of our Colonies, Nigeria, Malaya, and East Africa, providing work at home, work for shipping and work for the natives whose productive capacity has become one of the factors in the world markets.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Tanganyika is not a colony.
        Mr. SOMERVILLE: Tanganyika is a mandated territory which is part of the British Empire and will remain so. There is no bar to our developing that territory just as if it were a colony, if only we had a commission of our best and strongest to deal with the problem of migration, and development in the Dominions. A little more than a year ago I had the good fortune to be able to introduce a Bill which dealt with the matter. One of the central points of that Bill was the provision of an Empire Board with this object, and another provision was the widening of the powers of the Minister in dealing with migration questions.

        451
        We heard from the right hon. Gentleman that there are 50,000 people in this country ready to take advantage of opportunities of migration. That is true. Unfortunately, the difficulties are on the other side, overseas. There is here among some people in trade union circles, and I sympathise with it, a repugnance to the idea: "There are superfluous people in the country, let us get rid of them; let us send them to the Dominions." That is not the way to get rid of the difficulty. To look at it in that way, would be an easy means of defeating our object. We want a large scheme which will make the people taking part in it feel that they are taking part in the development of a great Empire.
        5.0 p.m.
        What are the difficulties on the other side? There was a very interesting article in the "Contemporary Review" last month which dealt with the matter from the Australian point of view and pointed out that one of the fears on the part of the Australians was their in-ability to absorb more than a certain number of emigrants. The Australians lose sight of the truth which was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at Sydney on his Empire tour, namely, that additional population developing the resources of a Dominion produces greater power of absorption. Why the Dominions are not more favourable to migration is that migration is so expensive as well. They think that they have not the power of absorption and they find the expenses too great so they are rather luke warm. One of the best things done recently has been the establishment of the £10 passage to Canada. That has established to some extent the free flow of migration. The migrants under that scheme have not to comply with a long series of conditions as people going out under assisted passages have, and already a considerable number of people have gone out under the £10 passage scheme. I would suggest that the Government should examine carefully the possibility of such a scheme as that outlined by the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan) which was published in the "Times," recently, signed by him and other Members of this House. Take Canada and British Columbia. Supposing that after successful
        452
        negotiations with the Federal Government and the British Columbia Government a chartered company, supported by this Government, acquired a large tract of land, and set to work to develop it. The lack of the Canadian railways is population and feeder lines. This particular tract of land, and there is such land, would be near or about the Canadian National Railway in the Peace River district. A beginning would be made by constructing a feeder line with labour from here, laying out farms on each side and making roads, and gradually as that succeeded, as it would succeed, other than agricultural workers would be brought there, such as teachers, doctors, and mechanics. Material would be brought out from home, which would give employment at home, and shipping would benefit in bringing the material through the Panama Canal.
        I commend the consideration of such a scheme to the Government. It meets with the approval of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne) who is no visionary, and of the hon. Members who signed the letter to which I have referred. I discussed the matter with Mr. John Oliver, the late Prime Minister of British Columbia, at Victoria, and he found the scheme perfectly feasible. I discussed it with the authorities at Ottawa. I believe the scheme to be feasible. The result would be that we should get rid to a large extent of the system of dual control, which hampers and hinders the flow of migration, we should take into Canada capital which would be very useful in Canada, and we should provide in Canada a new market for the products of that country.
        Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: It is obvious from the discussion this afternoon that there is a coming General Election. When a man so usually kindly in his manner as the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Somerville) uses such strong language as he has done to-day, it shows that this is not quite a normal Dominions and Colonial Debate. The hon. Member misunderstands the position of the Labour party on the subject of Empire. There are two conceptions of Empire. One conception is the older idea of the word, which implied domination by a central State, and the subservience of tributary States. Certainly,

        453
        the Labour party does not stand for that conception of Empire, one for which few even of the Conservative party could stand to-day. The generally accepted view of the British Empire to-day is surely that it is a Commonwealth of certain equal peoples, along with a number of communities where the people have not yet reached that stage of development which enables them to practise self-government, but where the conditions are or should be arranged to enable them to achieve that state as soon as possible. For that conception of Empire I think I can claim the united support of the whole Labour party, including the Independent Labour party.
        The right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) was justified in making a protest about the position which is sometimes allocated to the Labour party in political discussions on the subject of Empire. It is true that at the beginning the Labour party concentrated on the serious economic conditions at home, out of which it had really developed. But it was not very long before the leaders of the party realised that all mankind is inter-related and that the condition of the workers at home is very seriously affected by factors outside of these islands.
        While we realise that any comprehensive settlement of human affairs must go beyond the British Empire, we do feel that a co-operating, united, vigorous and flourishing Empire would be a very great step in world progress. We have achieved in the Dominions the aim of establishing independent and autonomous peoples as parts of the British Empire, and we of the Labour party wish to speed up the progress towards this stage of the other component parts of the Empire.
        The Conservative party has no right to claim the British Empire as a party asset, and the Conservative party authorities should surely discourage their candidates from using the Union Jack, which is the national and Empire symbol of all our people, on their party cars and on their literature.
        I suggest that the Conservative contribution to the Empire has been more associated with the older conception of Empire of which I have spoken. In the position of the Empire to-day, where the problems are really economic, the Labour
        454
        party has a very substantial contribution to make, and one which the Conservative party is to a large extent prevented from making, because of their political prejudice. On the side of the Constitutional development of the Empire the Liberal party has made a considerable and important contribution, but to-day they have no economic principle except the negative one of Free Trade, which has not been accepted or practised by any of the great Dominions. The Conservative party especially has had very great opportunities in the Empire during the last generations, but they have not utilised those opportunities to advantage.
        It is natural that the Labour party should take a great interest in the Empire. Who has made the Empire? Who has developed the great Dominions? Ninety-five per cent. of the people in the Dominions have sprung from working-class stock, and of the migrants who continue to go from this country year after year the vast majority also represent the same class.
        It will be agreed that the position of the Empire to-day is not satisfactory. We have in this country a densely-crowded population which is dependent on overseas countries for food and raw materials, and we have increasing difficulties in disposing of our manufactured goods. In the Dominions there are wide, unpopulated spaces, suitable for settlement and requiring development, and yet we experience difficulty in getting easy and scientific redistribution of our Empire population. The difficulty must be tackled in a different and bigger way than that which has been adopted hitherto. It cannot be done by hurriedly-devised schemes such as that for the Canadian harvesters, although I agree with the right hon. Member for Derby that that scheme did achieve a partial success. The real big problems must be tackled by a better thought-out policy. A considerable part of the problem in migration lies in the Dominions. Those great autonomous units of Empire, while they have preserved their affection for and loyalty to the Mother Country, have been allowed to develop economically in a direction which makes co-operation and Empire economic unity very difficult. The tariff barriers of Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, especially of Australia, are

        455
        increasing, and, in spite of preferences, they are a great hindrance to free exchange of Empire peoples and Empire commodities. Free Trade within the Empire seems a common-sense arrangement in an area comprising roughly about two-thirds of the habitable globe, and containing within its borders everything necessary for the life and happiness of mankind. But Free Trade within the Empire seems to be almost beyond hope, though it seems to me almost an essential for ultimate and complete cooperation.
        We have other difficulties. There are other points, besides those brought up by the hon. Member for Windsor, which affect Canada. One of the things that occasions me most anxiety about Canada is that for a considerable number of years about 50 per cent. of the migrants have come from European countries other than our own, where the standard of living is lower than ours; people with whom the migrants from this country have to compete, and whose low standard of life is a considerable risk to our people. When we add to that the fact that there is no unemployment relief or poor relief, and that trade unionism is not very strongly developed in Canada, one can see the reasons for the hesitancy of many of our people about going to Canada, and also the hesitancy of those who are called upon to advise such people. Until the problem of security for the worker is faced in Canada to a greater extent than it has been up to the present time, it will be difficult to get that increase in population which is so desirable, whatever may be the cheap fare inducements.
        New Zealand, I think it will be agreed, has for the present reached saturation point. There is a considerable amount of unemployment there, and without further developments there migration is not possible in the meantime. In regard to Australia there is very great room for development and immigration. A very large sum of money has been spent in Australia on irrigation and other public works; an expenditure which could only be justified by a considerable increase in population. The Australian people fear if there is a large influx of new people that any surplus produced thereby will
        456
        be used by employers to lower their standard of life, and there is no doubt that a great many of the Australian people look askance at any considerable influx of people from this country into that Dominion. I agree also that South Africa cannot help us very much. She has difficult problems of her own and is not in a position to absorb many of our people.
        The Labour party appreciate the fears of the workers in the Dominions, but we believe that a proper use of the Empire Marketing Board and other State Departments, which would cut out the rapacious brokers and middlemen both here and in the Dominions, those who create such difficulties in regard to Empire trade, would make a very great difference in the position. As the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, the producer in Canada and Australia is not sure at present of a decent return on the fruit or meat which he sends to this country, which, however, is usually sold here at a high price. Between the producer and the consumer there is a large number of individuals who capture the bulk of the profit and who never lay a finger on or handle the commodities at all. As I have said I believe that the Labour party has a special contribution to make in this matter. The days of individual marketing are really gone. In the Dominions, in Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, individual producers have found it necessary to combine in order to market their produce, and they have arranged to work co-operatively in regard to grading and packing. Not very much has been done on this side to see that the products so graded and marketed and forwarded in a co-operative manner are put before the public after a reasonable commission only has been allowed to those concerned with its transport. The Labour party believe that the Empire Marketing Board, or some other body, could arrange for bulk purchases of certain commodities which would enable the consumer here to get them at a much lower price and give the producer in the Dominions perhaps 100 per cent. or 200 per cent. more than he gets at the present time. In all cases, there could be control of the selling price and of the spoils of the middlemen. If that were the case, and if there was a steady and increasing market in the Dominions for the produce, there would not be the same hesitation

        457
        among the people of the Dominions to increase their population and to admit migrants from this country. And every new emigrant from this country to the Dominions would be a new customer for our manufactured goods.
        We believe that very substantial results would accrue if we could only work the marketing arrangements in this way. Hon. Members and right hon. Members opposite, because of their objections to State interference with trade and commerce, find it difficult or have some hesitation in putting these things forward. We have, however, come to a condition of things to-day, both in this country and in the Dominions, where marketing, upon which so much depends, cannot safely be left to individuals who have no interest in the Empire or in migration, or in the welfare of the people in the Dominions or at home. Their only interest is to get as much profit and benefit as possible for themselves, no matter who may suffer. One could quote many instances similar to that given by the right hon. Gentleman about Tasmanian apples, about the enormous difference between the prices at Covent Garden and the price at which the goods are sold to the customer. After all, is it not rather a foolish thing to spend so much money on advertising Empire products, invitations to buy Empire goods, and yet while we give that invitation, we allow a state of things to exist whereby manipulators and financial sharks of all kinds are able to rob both the producer and the public? Would it not be much better if the producer got a bigger amount and if the public could buy cheaper? Would not that be the best possible advertisement for Empire produce? I am sure it could be achieved if those in authority in the Empire Marketing Board and in other Departments were able and were prepared to use the authority of the State and say that only fair trading would be permitted, and that only a fair margin of profit would be allowed to those who handle these Empire commodities when they arrive in this country.
        We are all agreed that lip service to Empire is not enough. The problems really are very serious. I say without any glorification of party at all but perfectly sincerely that the problems arising internally in our own country and in relation to our Dominions cannot be met in the old laissez faire way. We cannot
        458
        permit, because the issues are too serious, such unscrupulous exploitation as goes on at the present time and which, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, strains to a great extent the feelings of loyalty of our sons overseas to the Empire. Anyone who has talked to producers in the Dominions knows how much pains and care is generally taken in grading and packing and getting the goods dispatched. When they arrive in this country the conditions of private manipulation and sale are such that very often the return is insignificant and unsatisfactory. In this, as in other matters, I feel that what we have to give to the Dominions before they will welcome our people is security. It must be remembered that the people in the Dominions are working under democratic government and that the rank and file of the people have great power. Very often Governments have been sympathetic and keen in regard to migration, but the mass of the people have not been able to support the Government enthusiastically because of their fears. Therefore, unless we can show that we are prepared on this side to so arrange matters that the goods produced in the Dominions are going to have a fair chance then I do not think we shall get them to encourage immigration.
        It will be agreed not only that we have an important contribution to make from this side to this problem, but that many members of the Labour party, and in increasing numbers, are concerning themselves very much with the problems of Empire and are doing at least as much as members of any other party to achieve good results. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State has himself on several occasions paid a tribute to Labour Members on the Empire Marketing Board and on the Oversea Settlement Committee. There is no branch of Empire activity where Labour Members are not actively working, and while Members may be a little more sensitive and irritable just at this time I think it should be realised that we all have a contribution to make to this Empire problem. I hope hon. Members opposite, even at the heat of election time, although they may think our theories and ideas go too far and are not sound, will, at any rate, admit that it is desirable that our point of view should be put forward and considered. Above all, I

        459
        hope they will give us credit for sincerity. It may be that our conception of Empire is different from theirs, although I do not think it is in many cases. At any rate, we are equally sincere in our desire for the prosperity and welfare of the British Empire, not only because we desire the happiness of its own people but because we believe that a united and prosperous British Empire will be the best guarantee for the happiness and peace of the world.
        Major GLYN: I am sure the Committee has been very much interested in the speech made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Dr. Shiels), but I am in a little doubt as to what the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) meant when he said that we were always accusing the party to which he belongs of being anti-Imperial. I do not think anybody on this side assumes that any particular party in this country has a right to the whole British Empire. It is the common heritage of everybody in our public life, and the sooner it is recognised as being outside and beyond the sphere of party politics the more easily we shall be able to do what we all want to do. There are, however, some interesting features of the right hon. Member's speech to which I should like to refer. Although we are on the eve of an election I regret very much that His Majesty's Government have not pursued a more forward policy in regard to Empire development and emigration. The right hon. Gentleman himself has done practically everything anyone could do, but I believe there has been a considerable block to progress from the point of view of Governments overseas. I cannot help thinking that if the right hon. Gentleman had been more ready to take the House and all parties of the House into his confidence, we could have done something to make it clear that, as the British taxpayer pays a great deal towards Empire settlement, we ought to insist on having a fair deal.
        There is one particular case about which the right hon. Gentleman knows. It relates to the regulation passed by the Government of Canada, that if a man has three children who are under the age of 12 he and his wife and family are not allowed to settle in Canada, although they may be perfectly healthy and can pass the doctor and everything
        460
        else. That sort of regulation is obviously red tape and very foolish. There was a definite instance at Chiseldon amongst the British Legion families, and it was pointed out to the Canadian migration official who was over here. Steps have been taken to make representations direct to Ottawa on that particular subject. I believe that there are all sorts of regulations, made by officials in Government Departments, which ought to be shown up and made known in this country through the medium of this House, and that we ought to support the Cabinet of this country in seeing that our people have a really fair deal and are not in any way compromised by foolish restrictions. Our taxpayers pay a very large sum towards the settlement of these people and they ought in every case to have the fairest possible treatment.
        Incidentally the hon. Gentleman who spoke last mentioned the personnel of the Oversea Settlement Committee. This House ought to recognise that the only three private Members who serve on that Committee are Members of the Labour party. There are no back bench Members from the Government side of the House on the Committee, nor has there been any since this Parliament began. The composition of the Committee is confined entirely to Ministers, and they have had very loyal support from the hon. Gentlemen opposite who are the other Members of that Committee. I think that the unsatisfactory figures of overseas settlement, as regards Canada, are very largely due to the action of one individual who is a permanent official in Ottawa, and I cannot help feeling that if the Oversea Settlement Committee took a little stronger line we might succeed in getting that official a little bit more amenable to our own point of view.
        There is another matter which I hope-the Secretary of State will take up. I regret very much that it is not part of the programme of our party. It is a matter which I know that my right hon. Friend has had at heart for some time. It is a matter which tends to deter men from settling overseas. That is the question of the forfeiting of the premiums that they have paid towards the various national insurance schemes. It seems to me to be the most extraordinary nonsense that we should not capitalise the

        461
        value of the premiums paid by all persons who wish to emigrate. It is a perfectly normal financial operation and there is no difficulty about it. I was delighted to learn from the right hon. Member for Derby that should his party take office after the General Election one of the steps they are going to take will be to deal with this matter. I hope that when we return to office, as I think we shall, whoever is responsible for the Dominions will induce the Treasury to provide sufficient funds for money to be repaid to those migrants who have previously paid premiums which they are not in a position to forego.
        I have had the experience of talking to a good many men, ex-service men chiefly, on the subject, and they have said to me, "Why should we go overseas? Ever since we have been in employment we have had week by week to pay so much. We are insured as regards our wives, our families and ourselves, and we cannot afford to throw away what may be a comfortable old age and take on all the risks of going overseas." They feel that it is not fair to their families, who have been provided for as regards schooling and so on. I would go further and repay to them not only their own premiums, but a proper proportion of the State's actuarial liability in meeting their probable demands as regards maternity, health, education and the rest. I am satisfied that if something of that sort could be done it would remove one of the obstacles to migration. It is a thing that can be done only by the Government of this country.
        Let me turn to Australia. I do not know whether the Committee realise that 1926 was the last occasion when an assisted family from this country settled in Australia. That seems to be a most extraordinary situation. Australia is capable of accepting families at a time of the year when the climate makes it very difficult for families to settle in Canada. Could we not so arrange things between this country and Canada that men went there in the early spring of the year and others to Australia in the fall of the year? We could then have continual training here and could build up such a system of settlement, certainly in Western Australia, which is capable of taking a great many more families, as
        462
        would greatly help matters. If we really concentrated on this object, not from a party point of view but from the point of view of our national obligation in playing our part to maintain the Empire as thoroughly British, we could do a great deal to help future generations.
        Then there is the question which was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Derby, as to South Africa being a country to which only persons with a small amount of capital should go. I am sure that, speaking generally, that is absolutely true; but it is equally true that there are opportunities in South Africa for people with capital to take out others as working though not financial partners. There are opportunities in orange growing and in other ways by which we could undoubtedly settle a certain number of people, those with capital and those who, having capital, take out someone who may not have much of this world's goods.
        In regard to the question of training centres, we ought to recognise that when those centres were started the Socialist party did their level best to help them forward. That brings me to the point that I believe it is only members of the Socialist party who can assist in Empire settlement, and that without their help we cannot do all that we should like to do. A difficulty in the past has been the hostility of trade unionists to the sending of skilled men, for instance to Melbourne and Sydney and other places, where it was felt that the position of the existing workers would be upset. That is why more has not been done hitherto. It is no use trying to prove that the more people get into a country the happier is the position of that part of the Empire. This work would be far better done by the trade unionists of this country—the work of bringing home to their colleagues overseas the fact that there is no wish to spoil the market from the point of view of labour overseas, but that we do want to look upon the Empire and the labour market of the Empire as something which is the concern of the Government of each of the Dominions as well as of that at home. With the co-operation of the Labour party here and overseas we ought once and for all to abandon the stupid and antiquated ideas which have done so much to stop the flow of skilled labour from this country to places overseas. It is only by such co-operation that it will

        463
        be possible to guarantee work to skilled craftsmen overseas.
        Next there is the question of the Empire Marketing Board. I believe that this House owes the Secretary of State for the Dominions an enormous debt of gratitude for what he did when he made a tour of the Empire last year. I have had an opportunity of reading some of the speeches that my right hon. Friend made on that tour, and I think I have never read speeches which were more calculated to inculcate the feeling of Empire unity since the speeches of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain. No person who heard the right hon. Gentleman overseas could have misunderstood his great enthusiasm for Empire development, or the work that is being done by the Department that is under his authority. It is a great misfortune that some of us cannot hear some of those speeches delivered in this House, because of the weight of administrative detail which must necessarily oppress him when he is here. That weight was removed when he was overseas, and we had in him a sort of Missioner of Empire whose work was of incalculable value.
        I hope that, after listening to the speech of the last speaker, the Committee will not run away with the idea that the Empire Marketing Board should be a sort of sales department of Empire. I am sure that that would be an entirely wrong line to take. The Board's business, as laid down in the constitution, is to forward in every possible way the grading and marking of goods, and to encourage research. The work done by the Board has not had adequate recognition from this House or from the country. I believe it is the most successful department of State that has been set up for many days. The personnel of the Department and the work done by the various Committees are beyond all praise. How many Members of the House, I wonder, have read the last report, Command Paper No. 3158? It gives one some sort of idea of what the future of the Empire Marketing Board might be if it were left alone to develop itself on normal lines. I am afraid that if it were made a State trading department it would fall into all those difficulties of State trading which we know so well. It is far better that the Board should assist in every possible way in cheapening transportation
        464
        and in encouraging settlers to pack and grade their goods for the British market in the way that the British market wants.
        The members of the Board have been most extraordinarily successful in their efforts. There is one further thing they must do, which they cannot do at present. If the Board were given more money, I should like to see them allowed to advertise British goods in the Dominions. I cannot see why, because an Empire Marketing Board was set up to assist the sale of Empire goods in this country, as we were not able to grant them Preference, we should not go a little further and utilise the Board to advertise British goods in the Dominions and Colonies. I am satisfied that the Board would not waste the money. The advertising of British goods in the British Empire should be done without restriction by a Department of State in this country. If we start by saying, "You shall not do this or that," we are hampering trade.
        In the case of the Department of Overseas Trade—though it has no direct connection with the Empire Marketing Board—there are trade commissioners in the different countries of Europe whose reports are of extraordinary excellence but are entirely unknown and unused. In the British Dominions there is no opportunity of making use of the reports of the trade commissioners of the Department of Overseas Trade. There is no use paying salaries to skilled people who make reports, if those reports are not going to be used, not only by our own people here, but by our merchants and commercial men in the Dominions. I think there might be much usefulness in having some sort of connection between the Empire Marketing Board and the Department of Overseas Trade so as to ascertain the normal flow of trade and what countries on the Continent are buying goods from places within the British Empire, and seeing whether we cannot direct the flow of the products of the Empire, not only to this country but to other countries in Europe.
        It is much to be regretted that so little time is available in the House of Commons for discussing the affairs of the Empire. The opportunities for discussion are small and the subject is immense. When one listens to the Secretary of State for the Dominions, one realises that he must feel that, if he leaves out one

        465
        part of the Empire, that part of the Empire will wonder why it is being left out, and the result is that he has to cover an enormous field in a limited time. I suggest that in future a sort of general report by the Secretary of State, showing what is going on in the Dominions and throughout the Empire, might be issued in the form of a White Paper. In this way, apart from the ordinary blue books, we might have a readable report, adequately divided up, to which reference could be made by Members for the purposes of these Debates and it would then be possible to discuss properly matters which are of the greatest interest to this country and to the whole Empire. Interesting as are the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman, I always feel on reading them that there is something else which he has not had time to mention. If he could issue a report setting out all the salient features, it would enable the House and the country to have a just appreciation of the wonderful advances which are being made in Imperial matters and also the many opportunities which are being missed by us of making far more of the Empire than we do. Whatever the future may hold, the full benefit of the Empire will only be achieved if men of all parties forget party bickerings and concentrate on future Imperial development and on the assistance of our people by migration and other methods.
        Mr. MACKINDER: When hon. Members opposite speak about the Labour party as being opposed to migration, I am afraid they do not thoroughly understand the position from the working man's point of view. If they had had the experiences which we have had related to us, they would understand a little better the feeling against people going into the towns of Canada and Australia and increasing the number of unemployed there. The hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn) spoke about the trade unions in this country assisting migration. What man in his senses in this country would go to seek work as an engineer in Sydney, knowing that there were already unemployed engineers there, and what engineer in his senses in Sydney would agree to more engineers being brought from England to Sydney if it prevented him getting a job? There is no use in talking platitudes. We might as well face
        466
        the fact that every man who has been to the Dominions and has been unemployed there, prevents a number of other people from going to the Dominions. Every letter from an unemployed man in the towns in our Dominions, relating the terrible time he is having and the privations he is suffering prevents scores if not hundreds of others from going out. That is a fact which I want to be faced not by the Conservative party or the Labour party but by the House of Commons as a whole.
        I object to some of the stupid things which are being said about the Labour party and the Dominions. The feeling with regard to migration is the feeling of the unemployed man that he objects to being pushed out of his own country if he wants to stay there. Ill-feeling in this matter has been engendered by the fact that in the past no schemes were arranged which would give these men some measure of certainty that they would get jobs when they went overseas. The average man going abroad does not do so for himself alone, but with the intention of making a home for his wife and children. I put it frankly to the Committee. What arrangements have been made in the past for such men? They have had nothing but the rough and ready possibility that they might get jobs. If they did, all was well. If they did not, then not only the men themselves but the wives and children suffered. The reason for the suspicion, which undoubtedly is prevalent among thousands of the working class in this country, in regard to migration, is the knowledge that migration has not been organised on a scientific scale.
        The Committee will pardon me if I give my own experience. In 1910, my wages; were 23s. a week and I had a wife and two children. After long discussion with my wife, we decided to go to Canada. We arranged for the sale of our furniture and for my wife and children to live with her mother. Then, a week before I was to make final arrangements, I asked myself what would happen to my wife and children if I failed to get a job. I put it to hon. Members opposite, if they were in that position, would they be in favour of migration? Who would care about me if I went to Canada and did not get a job? There was absolutely no arrangement

        467
        to give a man the possibility of "making good" unless he could put down some money. That was the position then. That is the truth of the position to-day. I have had the great pleasure of visiting Canada and Australia and I say here what I have said in the country—that I would not advise my greatest enemy to seek a job in the towns of Australia. If a man asks my advice, I would not advise him to go to Australia to look for a job in the towns and I would say the same thing about Canada. I would also say, however, that one of the happiest scenes I ever saw in my life was the working of the group settlement schemes in Western Australia, just as one of the most miserable things I ever saw was the spectacle of some of my own countrymen unemployed in Sydney. There was nobody to care for them and they had none of the unemployment pay for which they had contributed here.
        These things militate against the good feeling which ought to exist between possible migrants and the people over there. You have people there writing home to the effect that the Dominion in which they are situated is not a land flowing with milk and honey as it has been described. I would like to see a real attempt made on the lines of the group settlement scheme. We met there an old woman from London and it would take a team of horses to drag her back to England. But curiously enough this successful work has been stopped—after £30,000,000 had been voted for it. I wonder why. Only £6,000,000 of that money has been used and £24,000,000 is waiting to be used and 50,000 people are waiting to go to Western Australia which is forty times as big as England with a population less than that of Leeds. The Government there are spending money in opening up the country with railway lines, and there is land there capable of growing anything from wheat to vines—yet nothing is done. Whose fault is it? Hon. Members opposite cannot say that it is the fault of the Labour party though we are accused of being the only people who do not wag the flag.
        We have been accused here to-day of preventing migration. [Interruption.] Of course it is silly but people on the other side who regard it as silly ought to say so. When the hon. Member for
        468
        Windsor (Mr. Somerville) was speaking, one would have thought that he was addressing a meeting of the Junior "Imps," he wagged the flag so much. But all the people on the other side are not more concerned about the Empire than about money, and it is not always those who say most who are prepared to do most work. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) that this ought not to be a party question. As long as there is a family in this country who want to go abroad, who are prepared to go abroad, we should use every endeavour to enable them to go—but only under good conditions and they ought not be pushed. I would not push any man out of the country of his birth, and we ought not to be parties to anything which would even lead to the suggestion that we want to dump our surplus unemployed across the water. I was amazed to hear an hon. Member opposite recently propose, as a solution of the unemployment problem, to give the unemployed their unemployment pay in order that they could go to Australia. I have spoken to people in Australia very seriously on this matter and whether hon. Members opposite like it or not, there is an underlying feeling that we are anxious to export—not migrate—our surplus unemployed.
        6.0 p.m.
        That feeling must be removed but it cannot be removed by platitudes. Proposals such as that made the other work to give an unemployed man his unemployment pay on condition that he goes to the Dominions and as long as he is unemployed, will engender a worse feeling. I agree that there is no case against the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Derby that a man who has paid into the Unemployment Fund, the Health Insurance Fund or the Old Age Pension Fund, if he wants to go to join a son or other relative abroad ought to have his pension. I have pleasant recollections of meeting an ex-police sergeant from Bradford who was spending the afternoon of his life on his pension in the beautiful sunshine of Sydney, and who did not want to come back. Many people in this country would be delighted to have such an opportunity. This is the time and place for ventilating these matters and it is for the common good that we should do so. I do not know whether it has been mentioned so far in the discussion, but I would like to mention

        469
        one point in connection with the Empire Marketing Board. In the tea room of the House of Commons an apple costs 3d., but it has been landed in this country for 1d. If anybody has a right to that 2d. it is the man who grew the apple. Some of my hon. Friends opposite went to see the places where they were growing the apples, and they know the millions that have been spent on irrigation and the millions of heartbreaking hours spent in using the results of irrigation in growing the produce. When that produce is brought to this country, it is at the mercy of a gang of crooks—I use that term without any equivocation—who go to the docks, who buy the produce that is coming from Australia, and who rig the market so as to buy at the least possible price, robbing the men who have done the work.
        I say that the Government, if they cannot market the goods for the people whom they send over there, ought at least to keep some supervision over the way in which the produce is marketed here. There is too great a disparity between the price of the Tasmanian, Canadian, or Australian apple landed in this country, all costs paid, at 1d., and the 3d. charged for it in the Tea Room of this House. We here, I suppose, get those apples at a reasonable price, and I am not putting the House of Commons in the pillory. Probably they would cost 4d. or 5d. elsewhere, but the Government ought to keep some supervision over the marketing of this produce. If it is true that samples of fruit from the Dominions have been deliberately smashed in, so that they look bad, and that all the cases on board ship have been sold on the looks of the smashed samples, the Government ought to take cognisance of it. I suppose the Government are not unaware of these statements, which ought to be investigated, and if they are true, those responsible ought to be locked up. If you are going to send people into those great spaces in order to produce food for the people of this country, you will have to make some arrangement, whether you like it or not, to see that the produce of those people is sold at a decent price and that they are not robbed of the product of their labour.
        Things like those keep back migration and keep those vast spaces in Australia
        470
        from being filled with happy, contented people. If 2d. profit can be made on an apple in this country, on a cost price of 1d., I say that half that amount ought to go to the man who produces it, and a Government which cannot see that he gets a fair share of the result of his labour is not doing its work properly. There is no reason, except the ordinary, orthodox prejudice of hon. Members opposite in favour of private enterprise, that prevents it being done. It can be done, because I happened to be a voluntary worker in the greatest scheme of Empire marketing that the world has ever known in which the British Government made a profit of over £60,000,000 and shared half of it with the producer. I refer to the purchasing of the Australian wool and of the British wool. It was true that it was done in war time, when there were exceptional circumstances, but it is also true that the majority of the people during war time were more or less daft, either one way or another, and if we could do it when we were all more or less wrong in our heads, we can do it, surely, when we are all more or less sane. If it was possible to buy khaki cloth more cheaply at the end of the War than at the beginning, and to make a profit of £60,000,000 on the transaction, by buying Empire products when we were daft, we can do it when we are right in our heads.
        I believe in an extension of the Empire Marketing Board. I visited a group of Australian ex-service men and was told that the high cost at which their land had been bought and their comparatively high expenses, together with the very low prices they were getting for the excellent goods they produced, took the heart out of them, with the result that any number of those homes belonging to ex-service men were deserted, and they could not find successors. I ask the Dominions Office to take some cognisance of the prices that are being paid for the produce of these people when it is sent over here. If I go along the Strand and Fleet Street, I see Canada House and Australia House, and I see the offices of the High Commissioners for South Africa and the other Dominions and Colonies, and every one of them has some kind of advance agent over here to boom the produce of the particular Dominion or Colony which he represents. If you

        471
        want to know anything about Western Australia, all you have to do is to visit the High Commissioner of Western Australia, and the same is true, of course, in regard to Canada and the other Dominions and Colonies, but is there anything of that kind in the Dominions in regard to this country? I have never seen anything. I was talking to a man the other week who wants to sell cloth to Australia, and he said he had prepared his samples at a cost of £60, and when he sent them over there, they sold one piece of 60 yards long. He told me, however, that his samples came in very useful, because they were copying them in order to produce them themselves!
        When a man wants information from anybody in London about Australia, he can get it in London, but when the Australians want any information about what is going on in this country, they have to come here for it. It is a stupid thing. When I was over there I advertised and advocated British trade, and I talked about British motor cars, but they said, "What is the good of doing that? If we write making inquiries about British motor cars, they send us a picture postcard of a car." That is stupid. I came back to England after having visited Canada and Australia, and, being a motorist and observant of the kind of cars they use on the roads there, their clearance and so on, I wrote to the manufacturer of the car I fancied and told him that I had ridden at least 5,000 miles in motor cars during my visit over there. I said, "If you like, I will have a talk with you, so that you can produce the car that I think they want over there, and I will come at my own cost." I got a very nice letter, saying that they appreciated my offer, but they did not think any useful purpose would be served by such an interview. I have never heard of such stupid methods in all my life. From one end of Canada to the other I saw only one British motor car, and the man who bought it could afford it, because it was a Rolls-Royce. Go into Sydney or any other town in Australia, and the curious thing is that while they can produce motor cycles there, they cannot produce motor cars. [Interruption.] They are well protected, of course, and I could say something about proposed
        472
        Australian motor cars if I wanted to be nasty to some of the very good friends that I made over there.
        I had not intended speaking to-day, but I heard so much flag-wagging from hon. Members opposite that it got on my nerves. I think the most useful experience that we had was when, as Members of Parliament, representing the Conservative party, the Liberal party, and the Labour party, and the House of Lords, we sat in Sydney, in Melbourne, and in the capitals of all the States of Australia, talking to Members of Parliament about matters which affected both countries. I profoundly endorse all that my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby has said. If we are going to discuss the question of the Dominions and Colonies on non-party lines, which is going to be the only solution, it will not have to be discussion between the "ins" over there and the "ins" over here. It is not merely going to be a question of those who are in office in Australia and those who are in office here discussing the problem. It ought to be a discussion between all parties. Our experience was that, while we discussed things in Australia, in every Parliament House there, not a single party discussion took place, and we were able to discuss matters affecting both countries, the Mother Country, as they so fondly call it, and their own. It can be done in an informal way, such as was done when we took the opportunity of presenting that very greatly valued Speaker's Chair to the new Parliament in Australia. It was not premeditated; we resolved ourselves into Committees and decided what we were going to talk about—migration, trade, and other things. I believe that a useful purpose was served, and I would recommend the right hon. Gentleman opposite to consider laying the foundations of non-party discussions between the various Parliaments of the Dominions and Colonies and the Parliament of this country.
        I want to see some of those beautiful acres of land populated. I do not know that I have ever regretted anything in, my life as much as I regretted leaving Western Australia. I wanted to stop, because I liked the country so much, but I do not want any of our people to go out there unless they are very carefully prepared for in advance. It is no use saying that there are not pioneers to-day as there were in the old days. Our people

        473
        are always striving after something better. They would not be worth while if they were not. I remember, in the old days, that there used to be sand on the floor, and a wooden fender round the hearth, and the fireplace was blackleaded, but they are not content with that to-day. The pioneer instinct has gone, and they are not blackleading fireplaces now; but there is an instinctive desire to reach out for something better, and nobody has any right to regret that our people have not got the pioneering instinct. The old way was a haphazard way, but now money is voted, and people are waiting to go, and anything that can be done on non-party lines to put the people where they want to be ought to be done. I would not advise a single man to go to a city in Canada or Australia unless he had a job waiting for him.
        I was asked what kind of man I would send out to Australia, and I said that I would not send out the agricultural labourer, because in this country the agricultural labourer is waiting for a chance to get into the towns, and in Canada or Australia he would soon get into the towns, after he had been on the land for a short while. I would prefer to go to the mining towns, to the great railway centres. Look at the allotments of the people who are cultivating the land for the love of the land. Give such a man 300 acres or 1,000 acres of land, instead of the 100 square yards that he has now, and that he loves and tends and nurses; give him the opportunity to get on to the land, and give him that opportunity in his own country, if possible, because it is as important a part of the British Empire as any other Give that man the opportunity, under good and carefully conceived conditions, to cultivate the land that he knows, and I am satisfied that it could be done on non-party lines, and we should see some of the fruits that some of us have been dreaming of since we saw some of these beautiful countries.
        Sir EVELYN CECIL: I could not help being disappointed when I heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) deprecate the making of party speeches on Imperial matters, and then proceed to make largely a party speech himself. However, if I want consolation, I turn with pleasure to the speech which has been just delivered by my Friend the hon. Member for Shipley
        474
        (Mr. Mackinder), with whom I was a colleague on the Australian Delegation, and who has just shown the Committee how on a great question of this kind he can speak from his heart and show what is and ought to be non-party treatment. I feel delighted to endorse his line of thought. I think that we can join together on matters of this kind to the mutual advantage of the Empire, and survey the whole question from this united point of view as far as political parties are concerned; and create thereby a most valuable connection throughout the Empire.
        After what has been already said I have risen only to make a short contribution to the Debate. It occurs to me that the time has come when we might review the whole outlook of the Empire Settlement Act, 1922. It was an admirable Act with admirable intentions, pioneered and guided by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Dominions. It was universally supported as a great effort in the right direction, but we have had seven years in which to judge it, and I think that it would be wise if we re-surveyed the whole position of Empire settlement. There are several directions in which I would suggest consideration. For instance, the hon. Member for Shipley has mentioned that migration is not carried out on a scientific basis, and he has referred to group settlement in Australia. Under the Empire Settlement Act, are we really spending in the best way the large amount of money which Parliament voted? A great deal of the money is not being spent at all, because the best means do not appear to be it hand. It may be necessary to get into closer consultation with the Dominion Governments overseas to see that no needless inconveniences or undesirable regulations are imposed, and to try and understand better how we can, to the mutual advantage both of the Dominions and ourselves, promote further migration by our own people. As regards family settlement, the group settlements in Australia certainly look prosperous and happy, but their history is not without one or two hitches, and in those circumstances again it may be wise to review the working of the Empire Settlement Acts. That brings me to another aspect of the question. We have all agreed—it has been admitted here this afternoon—that the Empire Marketing Board has in its very short existence proved a remarkable

        475
        success. Would it not be possible to institute something in the nature of an Empire Migration and Development Board much on the same lines? I cannot help thinking that that would be a valuable policy to pursue, and certainly it would be well worth trying.
        May I make another point? My thoughts in respect of migration go back to past history. In very early days we know that Lord Selkirk successfully carried out a policy of family migration and pioneering in Western Canada, after whom the Selkirk Range there is named. We have before us the results of Mr. Cecil Rhodes' wonderful impetus and forceful personality in South Africa, where he started a Chartered Company and let them do much of the pioneering, encouraging families and friends to go out together and to settle; and they successfully shifted for themselves for a number of years. If the Government were—if I may use the expression—to smile on such a fresh effort in these days, I wonder whether it would be possible for such a fresh effort elsewhere in the British Empire to be undertaken. I have consulted one or two friends in London who are interested in these matters, and they tell me that they believe that money might be forthcoming to start a company of that kind. That would be an additional method of carrying out Empire settlement which would be to a great extent justified by what has happened in the past. Suppose that were organised by the right people and put into the right hands, I should be ready to plead for a certain amount of Government assistance. The way in which the Trade Facilities Act has been applied has been commented on in this House, sometimes with approbation and sometimes not so much so, but I cannot imagine a better purpose for a Government loan, if it is to be applied towards encouraging trade and progress, than that it should be applied for encouraging Empire building and for assistance to a well-managed company, chartered or commercial. I have not deeply looked into these suggestions, but I should like to throw the light of discussion in an impartial Debate of this kind upon them, for they might be useful in questions of migration.
        Mr. CRAWFURD: I desire to intervene in order to bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman a matter which has been represented to me, and which I promised to do my best to bring to his notice. That is, the methods and the success of the Empire Marketing Board, and the way in which the money which has been allocated for that Board has been spent. It has been suggested to me that there is a good deal of disillusionment, if not discontent, at the results that have followed from the expenditure of this money. A few months ago, when this was first brought to my notice, I made a few inquiries, and I found, for example, that some of this money was devoted to subsidising lectures which were given all over the country by various lecture societies. I remember bringing to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman a particular case which rather struck my fancy, where a lecture subsidised in this way was being delivered on "Some Curiosities of Currency," and I asked the right hon. Gentleman how that could help the sale of Empire produce. That is only a small thing. I am told, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can give me some assurance on this point, that there is a certain amount of disillusionment among the agents and representatives of the Dominions in this country. I do not want this to be merely a carping intervention, but I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can give any assurance on that point. If the information is not immediately available, can he give some assurance that in the expenditure of this money there will be in future constant consultation and collaboration between the right hon. Gentleman's Department and the various agents and representatives of the Dominions and Colonies in this country?
        Mr. LUNN: I suppose that all the time from one General Election to another, we all have an eye upon the coming one, and since we returned after the Easter Recess, there is no doubt that we all appreciate that we are not far from a General Election, for each day we are hearing propaganda speeches upon one subject or another. I heartily agree that the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) which needed making in this House. It covered a wide field that is not usually appreciated

        477
        and known, and it explained, what many Members on the other side of the Committee have never appreciated, the attitude of the Labour party to the Empire question. I find myself in agreement with a crusted old Tory like the right hon. Member for Aston (Sir E. Cecil) upon the question of migration, and I agree that in the relations between the mother country and parts of the Empire there is less, and should be less, of the party spirit than in most questions that come before this House. I am a party man, and believe in supporting my party, and I contest the suggestion that the Labour party is any less an Empire party than any other party in this House. I am quite sure that we can go to the constituencies after the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby and flourish the Union Jack and sing the National Anthem at our meetings equally with any other party, if we believed that these things should be attached to any party.
        I have seen a brief report of the Prime Minister's speech to-day. A reference is made there to purchasing British meat. I was in the House when the Prime Minister was in Opposition, and I remember his making a speech from this side in which he declared his emphatic belief in bulk purchases of produce from the Dominions. There is nothing on those lines in the speech he has made to-day as Prime Minister; but after the instances which have been quoted this afternoon of how the producer is plundered, or, at any rate, does not get a proper return for the produce sent to this country from various parts of the Empire, I think something ought to be done to put us more closely in touch with producers in the Dominions in order to insure that they get a better return from the products which they send us.
        The right hon. Member for Aston dealt with the Empire Settlement Act. It is well to recall that before the War very little was done by any Government to assist migration. Neither Liberal nor Tory Governments spent any money on migration; it was the pioneering spirit of our people which carried them to the Dominions in those days. After the War, and with the assistance of Australia, Canada and other Dominions, an effort was made to assist migration, and even before the Empire Settlement Act was
        478
        passed, nearly 100,000 ex-service men were transferred to various Dominions and settled on the land. The Empire Settlement Act, which was easily piloted through this House, and was accepted unanimously, is an Act to which I subscribe to-day. I see no good reason for altering the conditions of that Act relative to the fifty-fifty basis as between this country and the Dominions. In its administration I, personally, think this country makes a generous contribution to the Dominions, because it is not worked altogether on a fifty-fifty basis. In the matter of contributions we are not comparing like with like, and this country takes as broad an outlook as possible in its dealings with the Dominions in its desire to settle more people abroad. I believe the Empire Settlement Act has been a success, not only as regards the number of people it has dealt with but in improving the relations and the understanding between this country and the Dominions. That is its greatest success. The 3,000 families' scheme is surely the best arrangement we have made, and that scheme has worked successfully. Efforts have been made ever since 1924 to try to enlarge upon that scheme and to secure the settlement of at least another 3,000 families or more in Canada along those lines, and I offer my congratulations to everybody who has been working for that end.
        But there are difficulties with regard to migration at the present moment which some people do not seem to appreciate. It is easy to say: "In 1912 we sent 250,000 people to the Dominions; why did we not send that number in 1927 or 1928?" There are tens of thousands of people in this country who are desirous of going to the Dominions, but they have not the means with which to go. Migration is bound to be more active and more successful when people have money of their own with which to undertake it; to-day the people who would go have not the money to carry them overseas and need assistance, and the difficulty is to come to agreements between this country and the Dominions such as will work. The Australian agreement which has been alluded to is a good one, not only from our point of view but from the Australian point of view, but that agreement is not working, people are not going to Australia under

        479
        it, and there seems no likelihood of any-great spurt in that migration in the immediate future. The fault is not on this side. It is in Australia. As regards Canada, although I approve of the £10 rate, I regret the withdrawal of the £2 rate, which was discontinued on 31st December last. People are going to Canada to-day under the £10 rate, but there is a relaxation of Government effort in Canada in the matter of migration which is not very encouraging. The Oversea Settlement Committee, of which I am a member, and an active member, are finding tremendous difficulties in bringing about what so many Members on all sides of the House would like to see, a flow of men, women and children to the Dominions—though not for the sake of curing unemployment.
        One of the dangers in connection with this question of migration is its association with the Ministry of Labour. The Ministry of Labour are very much in the limelight, but they are doing very little. They estimate that they will be able to train about 6,000 people this year. I appreciate what is being done to train men, but 6,000 is not a very large number, and I fear for the future success of the scheme under its connection with the Ministry of Labour. I am quite satisfied that it is not in the interests of the Dominions to leave the question of migration with the Ministry of Labour, because its connection with unemployment is not helpful. Very little is being done in this matter to-day, but I am convinced that whatever party comes into office after the General Election will have to tackle the problem of migration more seriously than it has been dealt with hitherto. I have also come to the conclusion that the Oversea Settlement Committee as at present constituted is not the most perfect body to undertake this work. I do not know whether we ought to create a board on the lines of the Electricity Board or the British Broadcasting Corporation, or whether we should have a committee of Members of all parties in this House, but I do not think it is satisfactory to have a committee overloaded with officials from various Departments. They think too much on the lines of their Departments and are not so much interested in the question of migration.
        480
        There must be a driving force on this side, and there must be more intimate contact with the representatives of the Dominions. There is not that contact to-day. There is a board in Australia dealing with migration, but we have heard very little of that board ever since its creation. An economic commission went out from this country recently, but we know very little of that commission's report or of the possibilities of migration to Australia. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State has been to Canada, to Australia, and to various parts of the Empire, and I am quite sure that he has not been as successful as he would have liked to be in coming to an understanding on this question of migration; and the same may be said of the visit of Lord Lovat, who is now unfortunately ill, but who was a remarkably good chairman of the Oversea Settlement Committee. Whoever tackles this problem will, I hope, endeavour to bring about contact between all interests on this side and in the Dominions, and try to get a move on. One of the mistakes made by those who go to the Dominions has been to discuss the question with Governments while ignoring the man-in-the-street. When I became chairman of the Oversea Settlement Committee in 1924 one of the members of it was the late Member for the Forest of Dean, who has since passed away, Mr. Wignall. He had been on a deputation to Australia, and during that visit he devoted a good deal of his time, away from the deputation, visiting trade union branches and trade union organisations, and those who are dealing with migration from this side ought to try to understand the Labour position in the Dominions and endeavour to meet it, because there, I think is the crux of the matter.
        Migration offers great possibilities, but all the same I think that Great Britain ought to be brought within the Empire under the Empire Settlement Act. People ought to have an opportunity of settling on the land in this country as an alternative to being driven—at least they understand it as "being driven"—to another part of the Empire. I cannot see how you can do that under the Act as it stands at present, or even under the Oversea Settlement Committee. I think it is possible that some committee might take this matter in hand and deal not only with the Dominions but with the possibility

        481
        of developments within our own country. In saying this, I am not fouling my own nest as a member of the Oversea Settlement Committee, but I am satisfied that that committee has not got the driving spirit either on the committee or in the Department at the present moment, and this question will have to be tackled whatever Government comes into power. I feel that a Labour Government would be the best to provide that driving power, because they would endeavour to come to an understanding with the representatives of the Dominions, and I think we should be more successful than the present Government have been since 1924.
        Mr. AMERY: The hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) has just delivered a speech, by far the greater part of which was practical, helpful, and non-party, although he could not refrain from opening and closing with a little electioneering flourish. The same thing may be said of most of the speeches which have been made from the benches opposite. In the case of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), the electioneering flourish occupied, chronologically, the greater part of his speech. I agree with the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Dr. Shiels) when he says that the overwhelming majority of members of all parties look upon the British Empire to-day as a great problem, a great responsibility, and a great opportunity for free co-operation and wise trusteeship. I think it is only when we come to the every day rough-and-tumble of politics that we differ on methods, and are convinced each of us that the advent to power of the other would be a disaster to the nation and to the Empire. Perhaps I shall be excused if I do not devote a very large portion of my reply to that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech which was devoted to ulterior purposes. I will only say that, after listening to the right hon. Gentleman's spirited vindication of the true blue Imperialism of his party when in office, I could not help thinking of the passage in Hamlet which says:
        "The lady doth protest too much me-thinks."
        I do not therefore propose to go into any critical analysis of the claims which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby made for the continuity of
        482
        policy shown by himself on such matters as the very difficult problem of the frontier between the Irish Free State and Ulster, or the problem of how to find accommodation for the rightful claims of the Dominions to take their part in any international settlement. There are other instances, however, where the policy of continuity was less successfully exemplified. In 1923 at the Imperial Economic Conference we arrived at certain agreements with the Dominion Governments in regard to which we believed we were not departing in any material sense from the established fiscal policy of this country. Those agreements, the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman's colleague, felt bound to reject, and although not all the Members sitting on the opposite benches followed the right hon. Gentleman, there was in that matter a serious breach in the continuity of our policy which was gravely felt in many parts of the Empire. In the same way that Imperial Conference came to the conclusion, not from the point of view of aggressiveness towards any foreign Power, but in order to make naval co-operation possible between the various parts of the Empire, that it was essential to create a naval base at Singapore.
        I am not going into the merits of the case, but in that matter again right hon. Gentlemen opposite did not carry out a policy of continuity, and their action gave rise to earnest protests from some of the Dominions. I know that this breach of continuity was fully realised by hon. Members opposite, and from that point of view the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon (Mr. MacDonald) made a suggestion in 1924 which has just been repeated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, namely, that it might produce greater continuity of policy upon matters arising out of the Imperial Conference if representatives of the Opposition were allowed to take part in the conference. I must remind the Committee that that suggestion did not meet with the approval of any of he Dominion Governments; indeed, it was strongly disapproved of by several of them. Mr. Bruce took the view that such a change would hamper the frank exchange of views and might lead to serious complications, when some of the representatives might be inclined to report on

        483
        their return to their own country their own version of what had happened, with the result that the conference might tend not to compose but to stimulate party differences. The Prime Minister of Canada dealt with the central crux of the whole matter when he said that
        "the Imperial Conference is a Conference of Governments and in no sense an Imperial council determining the policy of the Empire as a whole. Each Government must accept responsibility for its actions, and afterwards the opposition must be free to criticise, with Parliament, and if occasion arises, the people to decide the issues."
        I have taken part in a great many Imperial Conferences, and the essence of their business has been executive; they have dealt mainly with foreign affairs and Imperial matters which arise from day to day upon which the Governments concerned alone have full information and for which they alone are responsible.
        Mr. THOMAS: I do not want to have any misunderstanding outside on this question. What I said was that we should try to bring about a conference on the lines indicated. I am sure that no one will interpret that as meaning that we would do that on our own. In other words, I mean that our proposals would have to be considered after consultation and agreement with the rest of the Dominions. I thought I made that point quite clear. Take 1924 as a classic illustration. The Secretary of State for the Dominions spoke with authority and responsibility but afterwards the Opposition took his place. That may happen at any time either in Australia or anywhere else. I want the right hon. Gentleman to apply himself to the question how can you speak with authority when that kind of thing exists?
        7.0 p.m.
        Mr. AMERY: I quite agree that the problem we have to face is a very difficult one. But every Ministry must act on its own responsibility. I think the best safeguard against a danger of that kind is, in the first place, a real belief in the importance of continuity of policy in all parties. I will go so far as to say that it might conceivably have been a good thing in 1923 if, outside the Economic Conference, we had taken some members of other parties into consultation. We did not believe that at that moment in any real sense we were doing anything inconsistent with our established fiscal policy. I believe that the
        484
        effective work of the Imperial Conference would not be helped by trying to bring in any element outside the responsible executive Governments, and by trying to convert it into something half-way between a conference of Governments and a conference of Parliaments. But the suggestion that there should be a conference consisting of Parliamentary delegations to deal outside the Imperial Conference with broader general aspects and so help to form a foundation of mutual understanding and for continuity of policy, I think that is an important suggestion and it is well worth keeping in view. In this we are encouraged by the experience we have had of the informal conferences of Parliamentary delegations in the Empire Parliamentary Association, of which its last visit to Canada gave such a successful example. It may well be that the time will come when, side by side with the free and unfettered conferences of responsible Governments, there may also develop an equally free and unfettered system of conferences between Parliamentary representatives. Meanwhile, of course, wherever it is possible to bring in the non-party element, it is desirable to do it. We have done it for many years past in the Oversea Settlement Committee. The results have only been beneficial. In the Empire Marketing Board the right hon. Gentleman is himself one of our colleagues on the main Board and two of his colleagues as well as representatives of the Liberal party assist us on other committees of the Board. In all we are doing we are striving as far as possible to maintain the atmosphere of continuity.
        The right hon. Gentleman also, I am glad to say, emphasised his intention to do everything he could to promote closer and more continuous contact with the Dominions on the difficult problem of maintaining unity of policy on all essentials when we are dealing with the outside world. In that respect I believe that, if he were by any chance to come into office in the next few weeks, he would find that great progress had been made in the last four years. The Conference of 1926 helped to clear away many misunderstandings and to consolidate the position we have reached in the Empire to-day. The very fact that our co-operation, our unity under the Crown, is an

        485
        absolutely free and unfettered one has made us more than ever conscious of the need for continuous mutual consultation both by the written and the telegraphed message, and even more by the personal human element. We have developed steadily the machinery day by day by telegrams, keeping the Dominions in touch with every aspect of the changing field of foreign policy, while the mass of documents for information on every subject of common imperial interest which goes out is infinitely larger than it was a few years ago. We are here to-day in closer personal touch with the Dominion High Commissioners, who have gradually grown in status and influence, and have been assigned wider functions by their Governments as the whole system of imperial co-operation has developed, and we are adopting at the suggestion of the Dominions a corresponding machinery for personal communication at the Dominions end. No one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman opposite how difficult it is to send any telegram, the purpose of which is not misunderstood at the other end, and how much better it is to send a telegram to someone at the other end, whom you can trust to explain your purpose, to remove misconceptions, and to apprise you of difficulties you have not foreseen. Certainly that is the experience we have already had in the last few months of the work of Sir William Clark in Ottawa and of Captain Clifford in South Africa, who has undertaken this task in addition to the duties of what is known as Imperial Secretary. The result of the suggestion put forward by Mr. Mackenzie King at the last Imperial Conference has been very fruitful and valuable.
        The same is also true of what is by many regarded as a much more doubtful experiment, namely, the creation of Dominion representatives in foreign capitals. Here, again, our experience both at foreign capitals and at the League of Nations has been to show that, while these appointments create a possibility of friction and disunion, if we wished it so, they also offer increased opportunities for personal contact and for spreading the sense of responsibility and knowledge over a wider basis. We are engaged in gradually giving a broader foundation in free co-operation to the whole imperial policy which at one time rested
        486
        exclusively on the Government of this country and upon this House.
        I now come to the question of migration, on which the right hon. Member also touched. I fully agree with the credit which he gave to the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) for the valuable work done by him during the months when he was in charge, months which in no sense broke the continuity of the work of that committee. Whether or not our present machinery has in some respects outlived its usefulness, it has been immensely valuable in these last seven years in creating a sense of continuity and touch between members of different parties in this country, as well as with the Dominions and in creating a better understanding of the whole problem. I may as well touch now on one special point raised by the right hon. Member. He suggested—and the suggestion naturally had the sympathy of all—that it ought in some way or another to be possible to take the various insurances to which men have contributed year in and year out and to enable those men who go overseas to take with them in some way a commuted sum representing those insurances. He also suggested that this should be tried with old age pensions. The question of old age pensions is one mainly of administration, and the difficulties are by no means inconsiderable. The difficulties of the insurance system lie in the very character of the insurance itself. The right hon. Gentleman said, as a parallel case, that, if any Member of this House wished to settle in Canada and went to his life insurance society, he could get the commuted value of his payments up-to-date. That is true of life insurance, but would it be true of fire insurance? I do not think any fire insurance company would give back premiums for the simple reason that, while in life insurance the risk is a low one increasing progressively, in fire insurance the risk is only just covered by the premium every year. The view of the Committee which, under Sir Donald Maclean, examined this question, was that these insurances were in that respect much more of the nature of fire insurance, and that they did not in fact carry with them actuarially any surrender value. The question they put themselves was whether an insured person has

        487
        accumulated out of his contribution any balance in the form of a fund or credit out of which a surrender value can be paid in the event of his migration. They came to the conclusion that, except in respect to the small class of deposit contributors to National Health Insurance, there was not in fact a fund from which the insured person could claim a share in the form of a surrender value, and the payment of any such sum on migration would therefore fall directly upon the Exchequer.
        Mr. THOMAS: I knew of that, but where I disagree and think that further investigation is necessary is in this respect. It is perfectly true that there is no surrender value in the unemployment insurance, but it is only an actuarial distinction, because, in National Health Insurance, if one of my members desires to transfer to another society, an accurate mathematical calculation is made transferring to the other society his actuarial value. Therefore, the very fact that it can be done in National Health Insurance shows that the same principle can be applied to Unemployment Insurance. I am not blaming the right hon. Member. I think that it is a subject that ought to be considered in connection with the whole problem of migration.
        Mr. AMERY: I entirely agree, and I would like to see the whole problem re-investigated. I am afraid what it comes to is that there is not so much an actuarial surrender value as a moral surrender value which is felt by the people who have contributed. It might, however, still be worth while to meet that by paying a sum not actuarially justified, and regarding it as an indirect contribution to migration. On the broader question, the right hon. Gentleman realises how great the difficulties are in the way of any rough-and-ready solution of this matter. He pointed out that out of £34,000,000, which came under the scheme consolidated in the agreement signed just after the hon. Member for Rothwell had finished his work, some £26,000,000 was left unspent. It must be remembered that it was Australia that raised the money and Australia must have the discretion in judging whether the expenditure is justified, and, in doing so, Australia must be governed by whether the conditions
        488
        are suitable to settlement. The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Mackinder) pointed out very well at the beginning of his speech that there can be no shovelling people out of this country without regard to what is to happen to them at the other end. The governing condition throughout must be whether the people, whom by assistance we induce to go overseas, are going to succeed there when they get out there. It was truly said by him that one man who has been a failure in Australia or Canada is the most powerful anti-emigration agent you can have.
        Therefore, we must get away from the idea that because we have got unemployment here, and because there are unemployed whom we find it difficult to deal with, therefore an easy and offhand solution is to push those unemployed overseas. Men may be employed or unemployed. The essential thing to ask ourselves is, what are the openings available for them overseas? What work are they fit for? If the openings are there, what assistance can we give them by cheapening the passage and by making it easy for them to find that work? What assistance can help them best in their early days? On all these lines the work done under the Empire Settlement Act has been of immense value. Quantitatively, the results may not have been as great as we may have hoped at the outset, though even so they are far from contemptible. Since the Act was put into force, something like 390,000 persons, very few of whom could have gone without assistance, have been helped to settle in the Dominions, and the great majority of them have made good. In the last four years, 215,000 have gone with assistance, and another 170,000 have gone unassisted. While there is not that full, flowing tide which was running between 1908 and 1913, and which would have received a very severe check from economic causes after 1913, even if there had been no war, still it is a much stronger tide than that which was running in the first six or seven years of this century.
        The importance of the work, however, lies, not so much in the mere number assisted, as in the experience gained as to the various ways in which success can be achieved. We have learned much about the value of short-period testing

        489
        and training for adults. The hon. Member for Rothwell spoke of the 6,000 men now being trained at the Ministry of Labour's centres as being an inadequate contribution, and, from one point of view, it may be, but the training of these 6,000 men this Spring is a very valuable and helpful contribution from their own point of view. These men, with no knowledge of agriculture, would not have been likely to be successful if they went out without being tested, but, with the training they have received, they have a much better chance of succeeding when they go out. Over and above these 6,000 men who go out, there will be some hundreds who will have been weeded out for their own good, and in whose case it would have been a misfortune for them to try to face overseas conditions. In the same way we have developed a great deal of useful work in connection with hostels for the training of boys, while in the Dominions there is the very valuable work of movements like the Big Brother movement in Australia, all contributing to an increased percentage of success among those who go out, and diminishing the chances of failure. We have developed co-operation on an increasing scale with the voluntary societies, and, not less important, the country is steadily being covered by a network of voluntary committees interested in migration, which create a knowledge of the subject and its advantages and difficulties—and it is essential that the people of this country should realise both.
        The actual work of migration is proceeding steadily. Our whole machinery, the wiring of the house, so to speak, is being improved all the time. It depends largely on economic circumstances in the Empire and in the world as a whole how strong will be the current that will flow through those wires. At any rate, the machinery is there. No doubt it is susceptible of improvement, and, obviously, one of the first things that a new Government will have to do will be to take in review the experience of the last few years, in order to see how far the basic principle of the Empire Settlement Act should be maintained, how far, possibly, rigidity in the working or legal interpretation of the existing Act creates difficulties which might be surmounted, and how far the existing machinery of the Oversea Settlement Committee might be
        490
        improved, possibly in the direction suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Sir E. Cecil), that is to say, by something in the nature of a Board more akin, perhaps, in its working and in the freedom of its financial arrangements, to the Empire Marketing Board.
        From that subject I will turn to the work of the Empire Marketing Board, and I may say that not only I myself, as the Minister responsible, but, even more, the band of enthusiastic fellow-workers with whom it has been my privilege to work—official and unofficial, British and overseas—will appreciate the testimony of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby and other Members of the House to their work. It is essentially work of a non-party character, covering a novel and profoundly important field. I should like to say a word or two about the main divisions into which that work falls. To go into details would be impossible. All I can say is—and this must be my answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn)—that the publications of the Empire Marketing Board, like the very valuable Report of the Oversea Settlement Office which came out the other day, give a full detailed statement of the work done such as it is impossible to give orally under the conditions of pressure under which we work in the House of Commons.
        The work of the Empire Marketing Board falls into three main divisions. The first is publicity. There we have essayed a very novel task—the task of advertising, not particular commodities, for that must always remain the duty of the firms interested, but of advertising an idea, a conception, regarding the capacity and productive power of the Empire which it is important should be made real and alive to the people of this country. I believe that we have in a very large measure succeeded in doing that. It is of course impossible, since so many factors come into play, to ascertain exactly what contribution the posters of the Empire Marketing Board have made to the undoubted fact that the percentage of Empire purchases in this country has gone up very markedly during the last few years. Since the War, the proportion of our purchases from the Empire has gone up by 11 per cent.

        491
        as compared with the pre-War figures. From such investigation as we have been able to make in regard to retail trades in selected cities, and so far as we have been able to gather from business firms concerned, our view is confirmed that undoubtedly the work of our Publicity Committee has contributed very largely to that increase.
        The hon. Member for West Waltham-stow (Mr. Crawfurd) suggested that in overseas circles there was dissatisfaction with this work, and that we ought to be in closer touch with those circles. I am not sure that we could be in closer touch with them. The Board itself and all its committees contain representatives of all the parts of the Empire concerned, and, more than that, the secretary of the Board holds regular monthly conferences with all the Dominion trade and advertising associations in this country. The co-operation, for instance, between Australian advertisers and our background advertising is very close and most effective. Certainly, wherever I went in the Dominions, I found that our work in this respect was appreciated, possibly even beyond its real value. The hon. Member for West Walthamstow also suggested that in certain respects our work was wasted—that, for instance, lectures were given on entirely irrelevant subjects. I think that the title of a particular lecture must have misled him. Naturally, we have to make our lectures as interesting and varied as we can, and, naturally, we sometimes gild the pill of serious economic information with a certain amount of general information. The title of the particular lecture to which the hon. Member referred covered the fact that in West Africa currency largely consists of cowrie shells and bars of copper and other metals, while in East Africa for many years the Maria Theresa dollar of 1760 was the only currency accepted by the natives as a whole. As a matter of fact, the lecture was one on production and trade in East and West Africa.
        I have described one part of the Board's work. Another is the whole field of research which underlies production. How is it possible to touch in any detail on the various ramifications of this, the most fascinating and interesting work in which it has ever been my privilege to take part? I might, perhaps,
        492
        give just an instance or two of the kind of matters involved. In this country we import some £400,000,000 worth of the products, direct and indirect, of grass land—dairy products, meat, wool and hides. The effective yield in wool, meat, butter and so on of a particular area of grass land depends on a number of factors which were hardly suspected a few years ago. Minute deficiencies of iodine or phosphorus, or iron, or calcium, may cause what otherwise appears to be a rich and promising pasture to be almost valueless from the point of view of stock-raising, or, at any rate, of far lower value than it ought to be. We have developed, from our centre in Aberdeen, with the co-operation of the Dominion Governments, a whole network of investigation in Australia, New Zealand, Kenya, Southern Rhodesia and South Africa, all bringing out month by month points which may become of immense importance, worth a hundred times or a thousand times the money spent upon them, and which may ultimately have a bearing on problems connected, not only with animal nutrition, but also with human nutrition and human health and welfare.
        Another problem of the same kind is that of dealing with insect pests. It is estimated, I believe, that, of the world's crops, more than 10 per cent. is destroyed by insects every year. The study of what insects live on, and how their development can be checked or kept under control by the propagation of suitable parasites, is being steadily developed here and in the Dominions, with the help of the money that we have been able to grant. We have a regular zoological garden and breeding station for insect parasites, which are sent out to corresponding institutions in the Dominions, tested there, and, when required, let loose upon the insects which it is desired to keep under control. I wish I could go on on these themes, but I will only say that immense help is being given everywhere in the Empire, as well as among agriculturists in this country, by research in connection with these and many other problems. Similar research is being undertaken in connection with the problem of transportation, the infinitely complex question of cold storage, and the no less important question of marketing

        493
        and of the spread of prices between producer and consumer.
        It is very desirable that hon. Members opposite should bring forward the fact that the producer often gets an unduly small share. But it is essential to remember that the other agencies which intervene between the first producer and the consumer each fulfil an important function which involves an element of cost and, what is not least material to this consideration, an element of risk which has to be met by a charge. A little time ago, an investigation was conducted by the Ministry of Commerce in Canada on the increase of cost between the first producer and the consumer in a large number of articles. It was ascertained that, if you put on one side the producer's cost, and his profits and all other profits, and on the other the cost of getting the article to the consumer, not including the middleman's profits, the latter amounted to half the cost of the article to the consumer. There is, therefore, a very real factor of importance which has to be paid for in the handling of these goods, and would have to be paid for even if the producer, through his own agency, handled them all the way to the consumer.
        It is important to note that, on the one hand, you have the work of the Imperial Economic Committee, whose very valuable contributions to the subject have not been mentioned, who have gone in for a very close analysis of these costs and made their suggestions as to how they might be reduced. On the other hand, the work of the Empire Marketing Board in research is also helping to produce economy. Anything that will secure better grading means that the middleman is sure of a better average and, therefore, is not entitled to levy so high a charge. Everything that contributes to the better keeping of fruit or meat reduces the risk to the middleman and must naturally involve a lower charge on his part. Therefore, without regarding it as at all desirable from the point of view of the Empire Marketing Board that it should step into the position of an Empire Sales Agency, and undertake executive commercial functions which are not within its sphere, I believe it can contribute regularly and with increasing effect towards ensuring to the
        494
        producer a greater proportion of the actual expenditure of the consumer.
        One satisfactory feature of this discussion has been that, with the consent of the Committee, the Chair has permitted us to discuss subjects which fall upon different votes but are in fact inseparably linked up with each other. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Dr. Shiels) put it very well when he pointed out that what we are doing through the Empire Marketing Board and in other ways, is increasing the opportunities for successful migration and also building up our best markets. The conclusion that has forced itself upon my mind more and more is that migration and markets are inseparable. It is no good assisting people to cross the seas if you drop your assistance when they are settled and do not continue to assist them by buying the goods they produce. The whole object of encouraging Empire migration from the economic point of view is not that we are getting rid of our people or that we wish to push them out of the country, From the economic point of view, so far from their being lost to us as customers, they are among the best customers we have in the world. It is by taking the problem as a whole and envisaging it altogether that we can solve it in each of its aspects. If they are all solved, each will be worth solving. While we may differ on details, that is a view that is being held increasingly by every section in the country. It was the view, I notice, expressed very clearly the other day by the signatories of the Balfour Committee's final Report, who included not a few members of the party opposite, whether in or outside the House. They point out the great value to this country of the whole economic policy pursued by the Dominions. They lay stress on the high value of the preference to British traders. They point out that the duties they impose on this country are on the average 9 per cent. less than those imposed on our foreign competitors. They emphasise that no foreign market absorbs nearly so great an amount of British goods per head of the population as New Zealand and Australia, and that the four great Dominions purchase goods to the average of £6 per head of the population, as compared with 10s. for France, Germany, and the United States. And

        495
        the conclusion to which they come is that
        "in view of the facts which cannot admit of doubt preservation of this advantage must be one of the cardinal objects of British commercial policy."
        That, I believe, is a matter of very general belief in all sections. But of course we have not always got unanimity, and in the party opposite there is such a thing as the rogue elephant, the powerful influential person who takes a different view and might conceivably be in a position to enforce it.
        While we have listened to the opinion I have just read out, and others, I should like to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby to something which was said recently in a contribution to "John Bull" by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), an article under the title, "Is the Empire bleeding Great Britain?" in which he pours contempt upon the whole of Empire trade, regards the work of the Empire Marketing Board as unnecessary, and as a waste in view of the way in which we have been treated by the Colonies. He says—
        "The British manufacturer who finds himself more and more excluded from the Dominion markets by the ever rising tariff walls they build cannot see why his Empire patriotism should make him cheerfully pay taxes to advertise the products of the Dominions which are to a great extent in competition with what Great Britain can produce."
        I might say it advertises also, and very emphatically advertises, the goods that Great Britain does produce. He goes on:
        "The British taxpayer is paying for expensive advertisements of Australian and Canadian products, and then the Dominions are spending the money they get from their exports to Great Britain in buying more and more goods from foreign countries. In the year 1925 Australia imported goods to the value of £69,000,000 from the United Kingdom and goods from foreign countries to the value of £66,500,000."
        I should like to draw attention to the curious logic which says that the Dominion tariffs are so preposterously high against British goods that they exclude them, and that the same tariffs, raised on the average by yet another 9 per cent.
        496
        against our foreign competitors, afford such encouragement to them that they take away all our trade. He goes on:
        "The fact that Australian imports of goods from foreign countries are increasing rapidly proves the farcical nature of the alleged preferential advantage."
        In several passages, he describes the preference that the Dominions give to British imports as a mere pretence.
        "The talk about Imperial preference is sheer bunkum."
        Such statements should not go unchallenged. He complains that Australia buys £66,500,000 worth from foreign countries while buying only £69,000,000 worth from this country. I should like him to point to any foreign market in the world that buys anything like that proportion of British goods. If Australia bought from us the same proportion that foreign countries do on the average, her purchases would not be £69,000,000 but £13,500,000—a loss of £55,000,000. He talks of these preferences being farcical because the original tariff is so high that British goods are completely excluded. As a matter of fact, in many cases, even where the tariff is high, British goods still go in in large quantities, and thanks to the preference, they have absorbed almost the whole of the trade. Apart from that, does he realise that, of Australian imports, nearly £29,000,000 consist of British goods which come in duty free, and which would have to pay from 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. duty if they came from any other foreign competitors? Whereas in a country like the Argentine, perhaps 50 per cent. at the most of their cotton imports come from this country, in Australia, whose general economic conditions are broadly parallel, 85 per cent. of all their cotton imports come from this country, and we sell £8,000,000 or £9,000,000 worth, thanks to the 15 per cent. preference. Surely in these days of narrow margins, when many of our trades can barely hold their heads above water, assistance of that sort, whether we are able to reciprocate in exactly the same form or not—that does not arise here—ought to be recognised as valuable.
        Mr. MACKINDER: In my Division a large firm that manufactures cloth made from Australian wool made up samples to the value of £60 and sent them to Australia, and because of the high tariff they sold one piece, measuring 60 yards.
        Mr. AMERY: It is quite true that Australia has a high tariff on certain classes of goods. If you look at it from the Australian point of view, they are the greatest producers of the raw material, and they will naturally wish to produce themselves. The right solution, it seems to me, lies not in our complaining that Australia wishes to develop her own lines of industry, but in our seeing whether we can dovetail in our skill and power of producing the finest articles and the most varied goods, which could only be produced for a large market, and agreeing that in certain of the simpler products it is natural and proper that Australia should develop her own resources. I did not want to go into issues of controversy, but I did wish to lay stress on that particular point, and I hope that without any informal consultations behind the Speaker's Chair I may be told that on this point also the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley does not speak the mind of his party.
        Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer a question before he finishes his speech? It is in regard to the Old Age Pension. He made reference to the Insurance scheme but did not go into the question of Old Age Pensions.
        Mr. AMERY: I did, but perhaps the hon. Member did not hear. I said that it would involve a very difficult problem of actual administration in order to secure payment, but I agree that it is a question which requires to be looked into again.
        Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Negotiations in regard to a case which has been brought to my notice are said to have been prolonged. I understand that to acquire the necessary residential qualification a man must be out there 25 years. In a letter dated the 9th February which took a good time to come from the Ministry of Pensions it was stated that negotiations were now going on through the right hon. Gentleman. Is he now able to make any definite statement with regard to getting this matter adjusted.
        Mr. AMERY: I should really like to have notice on that point. I do not wish to detain the Committee much longer. I came back just a year ago from a visit to all the great Dominions. I was profoundly impressed by what I saw there, with the great developments which
        498
        had taken place in the last 25 years. The productive capacity, the efficiency, the whole level of agricultural production in the Dominions is something quite different from what it was when this question of Empire trade was first discussed. They are on a far higher plane to-day and far more capable of co-operating and reciprocating with us than they were then. The other thing which rises up in my mind is that every Dominion, with boundless opportunities for development, with room for millions of homes, is marking time and awaiting the solution of the problem of the market. In many cases efforts have been made to try and solve that problem by local protection. In my view, neither under Protection nor Free Trade can we really solve the problem, because the market is not big enough. You must get reasonable security in a wider market. When I came home to this country I found that same problem—a capacity on the part of organisers; of working men equal to the best, power of output unlimited, and everywhere capacity, production and development, but the standard of living held back by the difficulty as to the market. The conclusion which impressed itself on my mind was that somehow or other we must get over our differences of points of view and get away from the party treatment of this great problem, and see how to find ways and means of putting the vivifying energy of our different markets together and creating for the different nations of the Empire a wider common home market just as the different States of America have had given to them their opportunity for the wonderful developments in that country.
        Mr. THOMAS: The right hon. Gentleman, in concluding his speech, drew my attention to an article by my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden). I must at least take note of it lest my silence be misconstrued. I want to say two things. First, that I have not seen the article, and therefore I am not in a position to criticise something which I have not seen. On the other hand, the Committee must not judge of a few extracts from an article which perhaps taken as a whole may bear an entirely different complexion. If I had read the article, I would not have hesitated to give my view. I want to

        499
        remind the right hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley in every article written by him on this subject which I have seen has never hesitated to point out both sides. It is no good talking here as if all the advantages are on one side. You have only to look at our financial market, and you will see at once the tremendous advantages that all our Dominions get, and rightly get. They amount to many millions, and hon. Members should not forget that. Anyone who forgets that entirely misunderstands the position. A very distinguished Member on the opposite side of the Committee recently drew my attention to the Empire Marketing Board's advertising. His complaint was that we were boosting Australia, which was putting up a deliberate tariff against his particular industry. It is no use running away from it. Every year finds every one of our Dominions developing some new trade or other, and we must not condemn them for saying to themselves, "We are going to foster it." They are fostering it at the expense, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, of our own trade. I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley did not have anything about the repudiation of Empire in his mind. He was rather giving a common-sense consideration to a very difficult problem.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) has not only made a glorious speech this afternoon, but has relieved me of the trouble of answering the one part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech which marred an otherwise admirable declaration. I am only sorry that the major part of the speech was not heard by a larger number of Members, especially on the benches behind him. It is extraordinary when we are discussing matters relating to the great self-governing Dominions that during the greater part of the afternoon the benches behind him are almost empty. So much for that great Imperial party. Apart from the quite unfair attack upon my right hon. Friend without notice having been given to him—
        Mr. AMERY: I did give him notice, but I suppose he was not able to be present.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I withdraw at once. But I think it was unfair to give the quotations with the headlines, for if the right hon. Gentleman knows anything about journalism, he knows that whoever writes the article the headlines are the editor's. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman contains very important statements indeed, and I will enlarge on one or two points and ask one or two questions. He talks of the Labour party having broken continuity with regard to Imperial Preference. It was the right hon. Gentleman and his friends opposite who broke continuity in the first place. It was broken by the taking away of our Free Trade system and the introduction of Imperial Preference, especially on foodstuffs. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman's policy is now. If his party come back to power by some mischance, is it their policy to reintroduce the Preference Duties on tinned lobsters and dried and canned fruits from the Dominions? I think we ought to know. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the rogue elephant—and I would not in any way call him the rogue elephant of the Conservative party—but does he confess to having abandoned his old faith with regard to Imperial Preference taken to its logical conclusion, with duties on timber and wheat, and so on? Heavens, no! He would run out of the House. He would not even stay and face the music.
        The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): He has been here all day.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The Chancellor of the Exchequer twitted my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for not answering, but at any rate he remained in his place to face the music. The Secretary of State for the Dominions runs away and does not answer questions. The right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State can no doubt answer my question. I am only a humble back bencher. Will he say what is to be the policy of the party to which he belongs if they come back by some mischance with a majority? Are they going to carry Imperial Preference to its logical conclusion? However, I welcome the constructive part of the speech of the Secretary of State. Listening to him, I felt that a little more experience of the Empire Marketing

        501
        Board, and the Secretary of State himself would apply for admission to the Labour Party. I do not mean its advertising, but its constructive work in research on a non-commercial basis is getting very near to the pure milk of Socialism. With Conservatives, it is not Socialism but anarchy and the breaking up of society when we do these things.
        I have the honour of representing a city which is a great seaport, and I am glad to say that we have taken our own steps in our district to retrieve some of the losses of trade which we have suffered through the languishing of Europe and the obstacles placed in the way of our Baltic trade by succeeding Governments by deliberately developing a direct trade with the Dominions with excellent results. The Port of Hull has direct shipping arrangements with South Africa. Probably the right hon. Gentleman may have enjoyed some of the quite new types of fruit brought from South Africa. We have frequent visits from the Dominion representatives to this country, and we have made up for some of the losses to our trade in Europe by developing Empire trade. At any rate, it is not for us to find any fault with or to obstruct anything that will foster this trade. It is useless for hon. Members on the benches opposite to thump their party drums and wave Union Jacks and pretend that they are the only Empire party. We on this side want to see the development of Empire trade as one of the major means of relieving unemployment in this country. The Secretary of State admitted that a mistake was made by the Imperial Conference in 1923—this is a very important matter and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary will represent this to him—in not having formal consultations with the other parties in the State. Why was not that mistake rectified in 1926? We are told about the great results which flowed from the Imperial Conference of 1926. If it was a mistake that we were not consulted in 1923, why were the leaders of the Opposition not consulted in 1926?
        8.0 p.m.
        The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the difficulties of communication by telegram. That is his own fault. We have not taken the steps that might have been taken to develop telephonic communications throughout the Empire. I am
        502
        informed that there are no technical difficulties in speaking to South Africa by telephone and that very soon we shall be able to speak direct to Australia by telephone. Of course, now that the beam wireless has been handed over to the new merger, the new private trust now in process of formation, development is being held up. At the present time we can talk to Canada by telephone. How many times have the officials of the Dominions and Colonial Offices talked to our representatives in Canada by telephone? Do they ever use the telephone for that purpose? They can speak not only to Canada but to Newfoundland and South Africa, and very soon they will be able to speak to Australia. We might have the Prime Minister at Downing Street connected by wireless telephone to the Prime Ministers in the Dominions. What a wonderful thing for Imperial unity it would be if only imagination could be shown by hon. and right hon. Members opposite in regard to these developments.
        I am glad to see that, at last, after all these years, we have an air mail line running to India. The next step to be taken, a step which ought to have been taken years ago, was to extend the air mail line south of the Cape of Good Hope, with feeder lines to the great Crown Colonies. I have advocated that again and again in this House ever since I have been a Member. The line could then proceed by way of the Dutch East Indies to Sydney. The aeroplane as a means of Imperial communication is of the greatest possible advantage to the British Empire. Hon. Members opposite are thinking so much of building fighting air squadrons against our good friend, France, that they have almost neglected this wonderful means of aerial communication. A further matter which was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, and which was welcomed in all parts of the House, judging from the sympathetic cheers, was in regard to the pensions, health and unemployment insurance rights of intending migrants. It was a very important pronouncement, and I am very glad that it has been receiving attention, but I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman read from the old report of the Maclean Committee. I daresay they put forward very solid difficulties, but they were difficulties that can be removed. If we really want to tackle this matter, all

        503
        these difficulties can be removed if we have the will, strength and purpose to remove them. Excuses can always be found for doing nothing, and I am afraid that that is one of the curses of the present Government.
        The present difficulties in regard to pension and health insurance rights ought to be overcome in the case of intending emigrants. We have established our own trade centre at Hull, through the great energy of our own corporation. I have gone into the matter carefully, and I find that the question of pension and health insurance rights has been one of the difficulties in regard to migration. In the middle classes and amongst the aristocracy there is far less hesitation in going overseas for the Civil Service, or in going to service in India or in going into the Army and Navy, than there is amongst the working classes. That is because the young man going out to the Dominions or Colonies from a well-to-do family, especially to Government service, or to the Indian Civil Service, knows that in a certain number of years he will get leave and be able to come home, and his parents know that they are not parting with him for ever. Among the working-classes a young fellow in his teens who wants to go to Australia knows that the chances are that he will never see the old country again or, at any rate, not until he has reached old age and his parents are dead.
        Only a week ago I was in one of our Dominions, the Irish Free State, and I saw a heart-rending sight at a country station, on the departure of emigrants. The old people looked very pathetic, because they knew that they, in all probability, would not seen again the fine young men who were going to America or Canada. That is the trouble in a working-class family when a youngster goes to the Dominions. Could not we come to some arrangement by which, especially if they succeed in the Dominions, they should have a return ticket available for three or four months in this country after two years in the Dominions? That is a matter of real importance, as I have discovered in talking to prospective migrants and their parents. I see no more difficulty in arranging for it than there is in arranging for the leave of the young men who go
        504
        to service in the Crown Colonies or the cadets who go to the Indian Civil Service.
        I do not subscribe to any criticism of the principle of the Empire Marketing Board. With only a very slight extension the Empire Marketing Board could be made a real live agency for great bulk purchases for the whole Empire. I do not expect that hon. and right hon. Members opposite will welcome that suggestion, but it would be real Imperialism and not the Imperialism of the Birmingham school of patriots. The Empire Marketing Board might do important work in inquiring into the operation of buying rings in this country. It is notorious that the buying rings, especially in London, are a real hindrance in many cases to the developments of our purchasers in this country, and a great service could be done if investigation took place. If it was known that the Empire Marketing Board were going to investigate these rings, the people who form them and who draw unwholesome profits from trade would be very careful what they were doing. I should like to know whether that matter has been considered.
        I have just spoken about the Birmingham school of patriots and in that connection I should like to describe an experience that happened to me last year. I was in Birmingham, that great Imperial city, the home of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain—I am very sorry that so few Birmingham Members of Parliament have been here to-day—and I went to a certain hotel. I was told that it was the best hotel in the city. I was there for the Labour Party Conference. My wife was rather tired after the journey and I wished to get a modest bottle of wine for her. I sent for the wine list and, as always, I looked for an Empire wine. There were French wines, Spanish wines, German wines, Italian wines, Portuguese wines, but no Empire wines on the list; no wines from South Africa or Australia or any part of the Empire. Everything else at the hotel, the accommodation and the food, was excellent, but there was this one blot, the absence of Empire wine. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that our best hotels in Hull since I have been there have stocked Empire wines, and the London and North Eastern Railway Company as a result of my representations stock Empire wines.

        505
        I asked if I could see the manager of the hotel, and I said to him: "I understand that this hotel is the great Conservative hotel in Birmingham." "Yes," he said. "I suppose that the Colonial Secretary comes here?" "Yes," replied the manager, "we frequently have the Colonial Secretary here." "I suppose the hon. Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Hannon) and other Conservatives come here?" "Yes," was the reply. "Then," I asked, "how is it that you have no Empire wines on your list?" He replied: "We are never asked for them." There we have an instance of practice and theory. We hear the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Dominions saying that we must reciprocate and buy Empire goods, and in his own city, the city which he represents, the best hotel, frequented by leading Conservatives, is never asked for Empire wines until a poor red Socialist goes there and asks for them and pleads for Imperialism. I suppose it is the same at the Colonial Office receptions. At the Colonial Office receptions how much Colonial wine is offered? I am a temperance man and am not in favour of drinking wines, but if wines are to be offered for social reasons at the Colonial Office, and the Dominions Office, surely they ought to be Empire wines. What about Empire tobacco at the Colonial Office receptions? If I ask the right hon. Gentleman about Empire tobacco offered there he is silent, but he will ask me to go to his room, where he will offer me Imperial tobacco or an Empire cigarette. I am offered an Empire cigarette across the floor of the House.
        Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I do not know what the hon. and gallant Member means by Colonial Office receptions. I have never been to one.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I have never been to one.
        Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I do not believe that there are any.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Then there ought to be. Who entertains distinguished visitors? Who entertain the Imperial Conference when they come here? There is always a certain amount of entertaining.
        Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The Lord Mayor of London and various distinguished
        506
        societies entertain them, and also private individuals.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The Dominions Office does not exercise such hospitality, but leaves it to private benevolence. I do not make any point of that. There is one further point of particular importance to which I would refer. A report has been issued by the subcommittee which was set up to look into the question of radium and it contains some remarkable statements, beginning with the terrible lack of supplies of radium and the fact that thousands of people die every year whose lives might be saved by the use of radium. The report goes on to say that there are radio active ores in certain of the Australian territories, in South Africa and elsewhere, yet this vitally precious medical commodity is controlled almost entirely by a foreign monopoly, and I understand that they charge huge prices and make great profits. Canada and Rhodesia are also mentioned in the report among the places where there are radio active ores. I am informed that there are valuable radio active ores in Australia and capital is needed for their development. It would be a grand thing if we could develop our own supply of radium within the Empire. You can call it socialism if you like, but if it will help suffering humanity I will praise the present Government for doing it; if they have the opportunity. After this Debate I hope hon. Members opposite will really mind their p's and q's a little outside this House. On the one hand, we have the Prime Minister criticising the very successful State enterprises in the Dominions—
        Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Successful?
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Yes, very successful indeed. There is the example on the Canadian National Railways which are now making huge profits. All these State enterprises have been highly successful, yet we have the Prime Minister with the greatest levity and lack of responsibility insulting and annoying our great self-governing Dominions by critising their Governments. What should we think if the Prime Minister of New Zealand criticised this Government for not doing more for unemployment. We should think that it was going rather too far, and our self-governing Dominions think the same. On the other hand, we have hon. Members opposite standing up

        507
        on every public platform and pretending that they are the only party who cares for the Empire. We on this side are called little Englanders, and it is said that if we got into office we should break up the Empire.
        Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Hear, hear!
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. and gallant Member who has been absent from the Debate most of the time cheers it. I was called a little Englander when I was a member of the Liberal party, that was before there was a Labour party, and now we are called the disrupters of the Empire by members of the party which lost us the American Colonies, and, had it not been for Campbell-Bannerman, would have lost us South Africa as well. We want an Empire of which we can be proud. That is our aim. The right hon. Member for Derby mentioned some of the things we tried to do when we were in office, and when we do get into power we shall show hon. Members opposite what we can do with the Empire on real constructive and collective lines.
        Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has made a characteristically interesting speech. He described himself as a red Socialist, and has spoken like a true blue Imperialist. The Committee has probably been dazzled by the irridescent combination of colours. But his speech, as well as the speeches of other hon. Members in this Debate, has clearly indicated that there is now in all quarters of the House a common approach being made to Empire and that all parties are dominated by a desire to approach Imperial problems with a true and genuine sense of Imperial unity, consolidation, and development. It is asking a little too much and pressing the desire for unity of outlook upon Imperial questions too far if you set up some high standard of continuity of policy, and attempt to apply it to raise practical policies as opposed to what we have now got, which is an attitude of mind and a broad identity of interest and outlook in all parties. Meantime it would be useless and dangerous to attempt to place Imperial policy any more than any other policy concerned with the national welfare altogether outside the arena of party disputes, as was suggested
        508
        in some passages from the two speeches to which we have listened from the two Front Benches.
        For example, the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), who opened the Debate, was very sensitive of criticism of the party to which he belongs and even suggested that it would be regarded as an insult by the Labour party in Australia if we used hard words about the Labour party here. The next time he makes a reference to the party to which I have the honour to belong I hope he will pause before he delivers himself of his opinions and consider the effect it might have on the Prime Minister of Canada.
        What we have already established in this Committee is important. In all parties the predominant opinion and feeling is one of true loyalty to the idea of Imperial consolidation and development. When we come to the methods by which that should be put into effect there must inevitably be differences of opinion between parties, just as there are differences of opinion in matters of foreign policy. We must strive to get continuity of policy and to co-operate with each other as far as we can, but it must be a voluntary and not a mechanical form of co-operation.
        The Secretary of State referred to the preference which his Government proposed to give to the Dominions and Colonies in 1923, and said that the Government came to the conclusion that they did not violate the fiscal principles of the Labour party or the Liberal party. He was warned at the time, and it is incredible that the Government could have come to this opinion seeing that they were warned by the spokesmen of the Liberal party and also, I believe, by the Leaders of the Labour party that we could never assent to their proposals. And so with regard to Singapore. From the very moment that project was mentioned, long before 1923, in the time of the Coalition Government, Mr. Asquith, who was then the Leader of the Liberal party, strongly protested, and, although I cannot recollect any actual speech because I was not in active politics at the time, I have no doubt that the Leaders of the party above the Gangway made similar protests.

        509
        It is not the case that there was no warning. It is the case that the Conservative Government of that day made a deliberate departure themselves from the continuity of Imperial policy in both these two respects, and in spite of the warnings given publicly by representatives of the other parties. Moreover, when the Secretary of State was replying to the observations of the right hon. Member for Derby with regard to the representation of opposition parties at the Imperial Conference, he said that an Opposition must be free to criticise when the Government delegation gets hack to the Dominions to which it belongs; the association of the Opposition party with the Dominion delegation might only intensify party differences. The Secretary of State was quoting the opinion of Mr. Bruce, the Prime Minister of Australia, but he said that he agreed with it. If Oppositions are going to criticise it must he assumed that their criticisms are sincere and genuine, and it must be supposed that if within a very few months of making these criticisms an Opposition finds itself in office, they must give effect to them in their policy. To suggest that such action on the part of an Opposition is a departure from continuity of Imperial policy, and that the Opposition must bear the sole responsibility for that departure, is to press the case too far. If there is to be continuity in any Dominion and in the home country it can only be as a result of close co-operation between the leaders of parties before such a policy is framed.
        I would like to pay my humble tribute to the invaluable work, on which the Secretary of State dwelt so interestingly, of the Empire Marketing Board. I have been proud to take a humble part in that work. Undoubtedly, the Board is growing in usefulness and strength from month to month, and the Government deserve full credit for its establishment. I believe the Board will continue to grow and evolve. It is now a mere infant of a few years' life, but it will strengthen and grow. But it would certainly mean a great deal more than a slight extension of its duty if, as my hon. and gallant Friend who spoke last suggested, it is to become a great Imperial buying agency. That would be an immense departure of policy on the part of the Board. It would mean a complete
        510
        recasting from top to bottom, and certainly could not be regarded as a slight extension of duties. Whether or not it should undertake such duties depends on large questions of economic policy with which this is not the best occasion to deal.
        There is a very strong case, which has not been fully answered in this Debate, for continuing energetically such inquiries as have already been made into the midldeman's costs, the gap which exists between the price received by the producer in the Dominions and the price paid in this country by the consumer. The Secretary of State, in reply to suggestions which had been made earlier in the Debate, referred to the cost of bringing stuff over here from the Dominions, and the risks to which perishable merchandise is exposed, and he gave a concise explanation of the reasons why the transport charge should be one-half of the cost of the article. That, however, does not meet the most striking point mentioned, that apples which cost 1d. when landed here in London are sold at 3d. to the consumer. That gap between the 1d. and the 3d. calls for inquiry, and I hope inquiry will be energatically prosecuted.
        There is the question of migration. I agree with what other speakers have said about the importance of the loss of pension and insurance rights. There is another small point which has not been mentioned, but which I have found has caused a good deal of dissatisfaction in some parts of the country, because it is obviously an injustice. If a man goes to the Dominions and comes back to this country, after having spent many years over there, he cannot get the old age pension here unless he qualifies by residence in the same way as a foreigner. I know the case of a man who went overseas at the age of 40, spent 25 years in the Dominions, and came back here at the age of 65. He cannot get an old age pension until he has qualified by 12 years' residence here. That is a hardship on a man who is British born. I hope that that point also will be considered.
        Let me turn to the larger question of migration. Undoubtedly, very little progress has been made. The last thing that I want to do is to make a party speech, but a good many party speeches have been made by hon. Members opposite on

        511
        the subject of Empire. They have indulged in very rabid criticisms of other parties on the platform. It is a very remarkable thing that after four years of talk, so little progress should have beer, made with migration. There is, for example, the Australian scheme, on which, out of £30,000,000 sanctioned, only £4,000,000 has been spent, although we know that there are 50,000 men who are waiting to migrate. How is that matter being dealt with? We do not know what is in Lord Lovat's Report. We do not know what proposals the Government may be able to put before the House after having been in office all these years. As far as we know there is no agreed plan, no new scheme which the Government have prepared for dealing energetically with this question and making any real progress. It is not a question which can be quickly solved. But it should be promptly tackled. I doubt very much whether, in the words of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken, migration can ever be one of the major means of dealing with unemployment. That is absolutely the wrong way to tackle it.
        This question of Empire settlement and the better distribution of population over the whole surface of the Empire and the development of our Imperial resources, is a big question, and we must take a big and long view of it. The Empire is of very young growth. What is 100 years in the life of a nation? It will undoubtedly take a very long time to develop a policy of Imperial migration. It must not be regarded as a mere means of getting rid of our unemployed and of dealing with what I firmly believe to be a temporary problem which can be solved by other means. Of course, one of the great difficulties is that the type of man that the Dominions want is the man who understands agriculture and is accustomed to life on the land. There may be openings for a few miners or for a few skilled men in other occupations, but what the Dominions want in numbers is strong, vigorous men, the flower of our manhood. That has led to a disastrous state of affairs for this country. It has led to emigration agents and railway and shipping companies scouring the countryside here and taking away, as from the Highlands, the men whom we can least spare.
        512
        I believe that we must lay our foundations broadly and lay them here at home, that the true way to approach this question is by land settlement here at home, by developing agriculture here, by settling men on the land here, and not by dissipating and squandering our racial capital, which is what we are doing now, by sending abroad whole families of the finest land workers we have. Our duty is to build up our racial capital and to conserve it. If we do that, there will always be among the descendants of men who are settled on the land here, and of the men who gain a practical knowledge of land problems by employment on reclamation and drainage work—there will always be enterprising men and women who will be only too glad to go abroad and develop our Imperial heritage in the great Dominions of the Crown. Therefore, I believe that the policy of national development here at home is not only the right way in which to deal with the unemployment problem, but that it is the true and essential foundation upon which to build a scheme of Imperial development and migration. I am glad to find that there is in the House of Commons so much agreement on the importance of this question and so much identity of view as to the general principle which underlies this great Imperial question. I hope, as a result of Lord Lovat's report and other contributions which are being made by hon. Members in all parts of the House of Commons, and men and women in all parts of the country in various ways, that we shall eventually arrive at a great Imperial policy which will command, in very large measure, and in fundamentals, the general assent of all political parties.
        Mr. SHEPPERSON: I am in full agreement with the speech of the hon. and gallant baronet who has just sat down when he says that the gap between the amount paid by the consumer for Colonial produce, and the amount received by the producer is one of the difficulties of the situation. What applies to the Colonial producer, is also the case as far as the producers in this country are concerned. The Tight hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State in his excellent speech said that migration and markets were inseparable. The question of assisting migration depends upon the probabilities of success, and I submit that success in this matter

        513
        depends upon prices. I understand that on this Vote it will be in order to discuss the administration of the Empire Marketing Fund. This Fund was established in 1926, and its purpose was the marketing in this country of Empire produce. I think it was at a later stage that these activities were extended to British agricultural produce as well.
        Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: From the beginning.
        Mr. SHEPPERSON: The work of the Empire Marketing Board has achieved very considerable success and we were all pleased to hear the Minister's statement upon it, and the purpose of my intervention in this Debate is to suggest to the Committee that a further useful purpose might be served by the Empire Marketing Board. Its activities might be made to apply not only to the produce of the Empire overseas, but also to British agriculture with which I am more immediately concerned. I suggest that there should be an extension of these marketing arrangements so as to apply them to the staple food of the country, namely, bread. Bread is the staple food of the whole of Western civilisation, and to-day bread, for the most part, is made of flour produced from wheat which is grown in this country, in Canada, Australia, and various parts of the Empire, and also in the Argentine and Russia and other parts of the world. It is probable that in each loaf consumed by the public there is flour made from wheat which comes from all these countries.
        I wish to bring to the notice of the Committee the fact that British wheat is still at a price lower than that made by wheat imported from other parts of the world. I am concerned mainly with the question of whether or not it is possible to increase the demand for British wheat, and therefore the price of British wheat and at the same time facilitate Empire production by means of an extension of the activities of the Empire Marketing Board. I contend that such a course is possible, and I am confirmed in that opinion by the information given in the excellent report on the marketing of wheat, barley, and oats published by the Ministry of Agriculture. In that report, we find that before 1875 British wheat, generally, was sold at a higher price than imported foreign wheat.
        514
        We also know that British wheat holds a pre-eminent position for colour and flavour compared with the average product from abroad. It is cleaner, sweeter, and much more palatable. On the other hand, the moisture content of British wheat averages from 15 per cent. to 20 per cent., whereas in the Canadian wheat there is only 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. and this difference of 5 per cent. decreases the food value of British wheat by something like 2s. 6d. per quarter on a price of 50s. per quarter. I do not know whether Members of the Committee fully understand that British wheat is a soft wheat whereas the Canadian and Australian wheats are hard or strong wheats. In making a 4 lb. loaf of bread, of the size required by the public, a mixture of hard and soft wheats is necessary. If the loaf were made exclusively of strong wheat it would be too large; if it were made exclusively of soft wheat, it would be too small. The ideal is a mixture of the strong and the soft wheats, and what I wish to draw attention to is the fact that there is a very large margin of price between the amounts which we pay for the hard wheat of Canada, as compared with the amount received for the British soft wheat.
        If the Committee will bear with me, I propose to give some figures. An examination of the prices of English October wheat, compared with Manitoba No. 1 wheat, shows that instead of there being only this difference of 2s. 6d. per quarter—which is the difference represented by the moisture content—there has been during the autumn months, in regard to the large bulk of British wheat marketed, an average difference of about 13s. 6d. In October, 1923, British wheat was selling at 8s. 11d. per cwt., and No. 1 Manitoba wheat was selling at 11s. 6d. per cwt., a difference of 2s. 6d. per cwt., or 11s. 3d. per quarter, but in June, 1924, there was very little British wheat on the market, and its price was 11s. 3d. a cwt., as against 11s. 7d. for Canadian. But though in June British wheat was making 11s. 3d. and in October it was only making 8s. 11d., the price of bread was exactly the same, namely, 8½d. per 4 lb. loaf. The average for October for the five years, 1923 to 1927, shows a difference of 13s. 6d. per quarter between the prices of Manitoba No. 1 and British

        515
        wheat. The British farmer, therefore, since the food value of British wheat is only some 2s. 6d. per quarter less than that of the Canadian wheat, is actually selling his wheat at over 10s. per quarter less than its comparative food value. An examination of the question leads to the conclusion that because British wheat is to a large extent harvested in the autumn months, the supply is greater than the demand.
        There is still another reason. The baker, not being financially concerned in the flavour and the quality of the bread, but only in the number of loaves of bread that he can obtain from a sack of flour, naturally demands from the miller a flour that will give him the best result from that point of view. A sack of Canadian flour will absorb 82 quarts of water, whereas a sack of English flour only absorbs 62 quarts. Therefore, from a sack of English flour, a baker can only hope to obtain some 88 to 90 loaves, whereas from a sack of Canadian flour he may obtain from 95 to 100 loaves, but a loaf of bread made from Manitoba No. 1 wheat may contain from 40 to 42 per cent. of water, whereas a loaf of home-made bread will only contain 33 per cent. of water. I have never yet been able to understand why, in the staple food of the country, namely, bread, there should not be a definite proportion of water permitted. We have, in the case of milk and other food products, a limited amount of water allowed, but in the case of the staple food of the country there is no limit whatever. In other countries a limit is imposed, and in America. I understand, the limit is something like 35 per cent. of water in the bread. Undoubtedly, any means by which the demand for British wheat by the millers could be increased would quickly cause its price to rise nearer its actual food value, and it is essential that we should get this demand.
        Under the Empire Marketing Board, or by the application of a national marketing scheme, it would be possible to increase the demand for British wheat. The activities of the Empire Marketing Board could be applied to Empire wheat, which would include the soft British wheat and the hard wheat from the Empire. This bread, made from these British and Empire wheats could take advantage of the national marketing
        516
        scheme, and we should get an increased demand for British wheat during the period in which the British farmer most wanted help, so that the price would be nearer the food value, and at the same time it would increase the demand for Empire wheat. Considering that this result would be attained, I think I am justified in suggesting to the Minister that he should consider whether it is practicable to have bread brought under the scope of the Empire Marketing Board activities.
        Mr. KELLY: A good deal has been said to-day about continuity, and I fear that the use of that word has come to that pitch where people imagine that, no matter what the policy of a Government may have been, whichever Government succeeded it must accept the same method, the same type of administration, and the same conducting of affairs. If that is to be expected of us, I am afraid I cannot subscribe to that policy of continuity. I differ from so much that has happened in regard to our Dominion and Colonial policy in the past that if, by the use of that word "continuity," we mean that we must simply carry on as the older parties have done, then I can no longer subscribe to it and must oppose it at every opportunity.
        I am concerned with migration particularly in the case of the young people who have been sent out to our distant Dominions. I want to assure the Committee that I have never been happy at all in my membership of some of the Committees dealing with this matter, and I fear that it is not to the advantage of this country, despite all that we have heard to-day about our people still remaining purchasers of the products of this country when they go abroad, to send the best of our human material to these distant parts of the world. Having stated, however, that I do not look to migration as any solution of the unemployment problem, I am yet concerned to ask the Dominions Secretary if he receives reports from those Dominions to which the young boys are sent, as to how they are treated, the work they are undertaking, and whether or not the prospects held out to them are such as warrant the Dominions Office in allowing them to be sent to those distant parts. While some people seem to think that emigration assists the solution of our unemployment

        517
        problem, again let me say that I disagree with that view, and I would like to know whether the Dominions Office is quite satisfied with the money which we expend in grants to these various voluntary associations. We make grants to many bodies with regard to migration, and I am anxious to know whether we receive frequent reports, whether those reports are examined by the right hon. Gentleman's Department, and whether, when so examined, those reports are found to be such that exception may not be taken to the methods adopted by some of these voluntary agencies.
        I was surprised to hear that the advertising of home products had been part of the policy and practice of the Empire Marketing Board from the start of their work. I have seen some of their posters, and I do not think a great deal has been expended in that way. I have never been enthusiastic in believing that we shall have any great advantage from that expenditure. If we had adopted the method of assisting in the selling and buying of Empire produce, in spite of it cutting across so many ideas of Members of this House, we might have saved a good deal of that profiteering which has prevented so many of our people encouraging interchange between the Dominions and this country.
        I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will consult with other Departments about the question of pensions. I could quote tragic cases of young people who desire to have with them their aged relatives, and I need not go to Australia for them, for there are cases in the Irish Free State, but a few miles away from our own doorstep. Some of these young people cannot have their older people with them because of some condition which is laid down that pensions may not be paid if they leave the country. A great deal is said by the right hon. Gentleman and his friends about the unity of the Empire, and about our considering it as one great home and one great family, but it does not look much like one great family when, if the families attempt to get together, they are deprived of the benefits for which they have paid under the various insurance schemes operating in this country.
        I have put many cases up to the Department. I will quote one as an illustration. A family made the adventure of going to
        518
        one of the Dominions. After two years a younger member of the family died. The others returned to this country because of the ill-luck of their adventure, and because they had not been subscribing for the two years they had been in the Dominions, they were deprived of benefit and had to pay for a period before they could be entitled to benefit again. If you are going to think of the unity of the Empire and the closeness of the family feeling, at least carry it out and practise it when you come to deal with the various forms of insurance which are operative in this country.
        9.0 p.m.
        My view of the Imperial question is that of closeness of touch between the peoples. I want that closeness of touch, but not in the way in which it is meant by people whenever they wave a flag. I have a contempt of those people who speak of the Empire as a great fighting machine, or as a place for gathering together fighting men. If the Empire means the unity of the people and a better understanding between the people, cement it by all means. That is the idea of the Empire which I have, and I would accept continuity with that idea, with the idea of working for freedom between the various peoples, but I would not accept continuity of the policy now operating.
        Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I confess that when I listened to the speech of the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) I could not help thinking how short are the memories of the people of this country. He made an astounding statement. He said that he thought the time was past when it could be said that a Labour Government coming into power would prejudice the British Empire. Let us take some of the actions of the Labour party even if they say they were in office, though not in power. Let us take the relations between the Labour party and New Zealand and Australia over the question of the Singapore Base. The Socialist Labour Government decided to stop further expenditure on the naval base, and announced their extraordinary decision to the various Dominions. Let us see what the Dominions most concerned—New Zealand and Australia—thought of this extraordinary and ill-advised decision. New Zealand, speaking through the Governor-General, said:

        519
        "I protest earnestly on behalf of New Zealand against the abandonment of the proposal to make Singapore a safe and strong Naval station, because I believe that the Empire will stand as long as Britain holds the supremacy of the seas; but, if Naval supremacy is lost by Britain, the Empire might fall, to the detriment of humanity as a whole as well as of its own people, and it is surely the duty of the British Parliament and British Ministers to see that there will be no danger of such a catastrophe so far as it is humanly possible to remedy it."
        That is from New Zealand, the part of the Empire for which the Labour party have such affection with regard to nationalisation. On the same question, Australia said:
        "We think, on the contrary, that if the proposal which the highest naval authorities of the Empire support as a necessary defensive measure, is abandoned by your Government, incalculable harm will be done to the Empire's prestige, the confidence of smaller nations will be shattered, the ambitions of lesser Powers will be increased, and deep distrust will be caused throughout the whole Empire. Not by actions having such results as these can we hope to bring about further reductions in armaments."
        Mr. KELLY: With regard to the phrase about small nations whose ambitions would be roused, is it stated against whom we had armed when we were engaged in building the naval station?
        Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I was reading an extract of what Australia, speaking through the Governor-General and the Prime Minister, thought of the action of the Colonial Secretary of the Labour Government. We notice in this House that whenever a policy with regard to the Colonies comes up, the Labour party have a sort of "Peter Pan" idea, the mild Captain Hooks are put forward, and the other hon. Gentlemen, like the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), are kept well in the background. There is this difference between the Labour party and the Liberals, that the Labour party pretend to have interest in the Colonies, and the Liberals have very little interest.
        Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: No one said anything of the kind.
        Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Let us take the question of the War Loans to the Dominions and Colonies. A total is
        520
        owing to this country of over £120,000,000. Interest is being paid on all the loans and in the case of Australia, New Zealand and Trinidad, there is an annual Sinking Fund. Just imagine the impression made on these countries which owe money to this country by the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) the day before yesterday, and the extraordinary divergence between him and the Leader of the Opposition. Let us try and think how it will affect the future financial transactions of this country if the Labour party came into power with a determination to repudiate debts and the whole question of the War Loans of the Colonies and Dominions came up. This is a comparatively recent trouble, which has been aroused not by the Labour party when in Office but by the party when in opposition, and one can quite understand the financial fears and anxieties which would be felt in Europe and the Colonies by the speeches. We know of the objections to Imperial preference by the Liberals and the partial objection to it by the Labour party. How far are the present leaders of the Labour party actually the people who represent the Labour policy.
        Let us remember some of the statements made by Members of the Labour party. I refer to some of the societies to which they belong. Take, for instance, the League against Imperialism. The hon. Member for Bridgeton is I understand one of the leaders of it—and the alternative leader I understand to the present Leader of the Opposition. There are statements by this League in reference to the Colonies and various statements by the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle). Which is really the future policy of the party towards the Dominions and Colonies? After the extraordinary statements made by the right hon. Member for Derby we have a right to know which is the policy to be officially adopted as regards the Dominions and the Colonies. Is it to be the policy of his mild speech to-day, or is it to be the policy which his lieutenants, his young men, his gladiators and warriors, indicate when they are talking about a slave empire in their speeches on the hustings?
        Mr. PILCHER: I am almost ashamed to inflict myself on the Committee for

        521
        even a minute or two at this late hour, but there is a matter to which I wish to draw the attention of the Colonial Secretary. I think every Member of the Committee enjoyed every word of the extraordinarily comprehensive speech which he made on Dominion subjects; we were particularly interested in all that he told us about the Empire Marketing Board. I have myself seen excellent examples of the work of that Board in more than one part of the world. I have come across a Queensland farmer who had benefited greatly from the use of those counter pests which the Colonial Secretary described, and only just now I was hearing about some experiments with a system for the preservation of fish on trawlers which will be extraordinarily valuable to the fishing industry. I also wish to pay my tribute of praise to the work of the Board in popularising the bulbs of this country. Those efforts have been greatly appreciated in our bulb-growing areas, and I hope the Colonial Secretary and the Board will go on with that good work. I wish it had been possible for the Board to exhibit their posters four or five months earlier. The ideal time would be when we are being flooded with attractive foreign catalogues in beautiful colours. If the same set of posters could be exhibited this or next year between July and September, I am sure they would produce beneficial results.
        For one reason, I had rather hoped the Under-Secretary might be here, because I want to say something about Java. No one has more eloquently and more truthfully described the amazing developments there under Government agency than my hon. Friend. The preference on British grown tea has now disappeared as the result of the removal of the Tea Duty in the present Budget. During the last eight or nine years there has been a remarkable expansion in the sale of Java teas in this country. They are mainly used for blending purposes, these teas being cheap, and sellers being able to give better value through the blending process. The expansion in the sale of Java teas has been from 20,000,000 pounds in 1920 to 61,500,000 pounds last year. An application was made to the Board of Trade for a marking order to be applied to packages of tea containing this foreign admixture, but on the ground of impracticability the order was refused.
        522
        May I suggest that with the removal of the duty on tea and its consequent cheapening, there may be an extended use of it and hence a severe tax on the world's rather limited stocks of tea. The result, now that the preference has disappeared, may be a further demand for foreign teas. The supplies from Ceylon, certainly, cannot be rapidly expanded, though it is possible that Assam and Bengal may be able to expand their output. The real benefit of the abolition of the Tea Duty may tend to go to Java and Sumatra, and I would suggest that the Government should co-operate with British producers and British growers in order to assist them to secure this trade.
        There is another point I should like to make with regard to the Empire Marketing Board. It is in some degree connected with the topic which has been discussed to-night as to what is the true policy at the back of the mind of the Labour party in regard to Dominion questions. As far as I can observe, the Empire Marketing Board in its present guise is an entirely beneficent institution, and it is doing a great deal of good. It seems to me that it does contain one element of danger which was referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). During the Dominion tour which I, in company with a good many hon. Members enjoyed, we heard constant references made to the Empire Marketing Board, and one view expressed by a Labour Member was that the Board might very well be made the nucleus for some sort of State buying and State selling department. I think that is a danger which we ought to bear in mind. That idea was mooted in a debate in the Dominion House of Commons in Canada, and representatives of every part of the Empire showed that they entertained grave misgivings regarding any such attitude towards the Empire Marketing Board. If the ex-Colonial Secretary, who opened the debate, should ever inaugurate the inter-Parliamentary discussions to which he has alluded, he will be surprised to find what a large volume of opinion exists in the Empire in opposition to that idea.
        I want to say a word or two on the subject of emigration. I do not propose to discuss in detail that extremely difficult problem, but I wish to express the widespread appreciation of the Concessions

        523
        which have been made recently by Mr. Mackenzie King and the Minister of Immigration in their effort to meet the demand for a greater influx of British immigrants into Canada. Also I should like to draw attention to a speech which was made by the Premier of British Columbia to the Empire Party delegation in British Columbia last August or September. He was so downright in his determination to fill the Province of British Columbia with members of the English-speaking race that I would like to draw attention to his statement that he was ready then and there to negotiate on behalf of his Government for the bringing in of a very considerable number of British emigrants. When the present Government are returned to power next month, as they will be, and when new arrangements are made for the encouragement of emigration, I hope the Government will bear in mind the words I have just quoted from a speech by one of the overseas Premiers.
        Mr. TINKER: There is a point to which I wish to draw attention which appears on page 75 of the Estimate, and it relates to Voluntary Societies (Grants-in-Aid). I see that a number of organisations are mentioned there, and I would like the Colonial Secretary to give some explanation of those items. I wish also to refer to a point dealing with emigration which was mentioned by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) which relates to people who emigrate and afterwards desire to come back to this country. A Canadian with whom I had some conversation on this subject suggested that the Government might do much good by granting return passages to emigrants. This Canadian told me that when he wanted to engage people to go abroad to his works, he could not get them to go unless a promise was made that they could come back again after a time in order to see their own people, and he was able to get quite a number of people to emigrate upon those conditions. He said that some of those he had engaged took their passage back again to this country, and although they could have stopped in the home country if they liked they went back again and, in fact, they were quite desirous of getting back again to the
        524
        new country. Surely in a matter of this kind it is wise to consider human nature. If an offer could be made to an emigrant by the Government that after spending a certain amount of time overseas he would be given a chance of coming back once more to see his own people, I think that would be a great inducement. If the immigrant makes good in a Country which puts out its arms, and makes the stranger welcome in its wide open expanses, then these people will not want to stop in England when they come back. They will say that they are satisfied and prefer to stop in Canada, Australia or New Zealand, if you break down that barrier by which they may never see their people again. I suggest that the Colonial Secretary should consider that point in regard to the question of emigration.
        Sir MARTIN CONWAY: After the passions and excitements of yesterday, in the calm, not to say somnolent atmosphere of the Chamber at this moment, it is fitting to make a few observations, more especially on the subject of migration. I am inclined to think that there are two forces operating to restrict emigration, because I cannot but think that every boy of a certain age who is properly constituted must want to emigrate. I never could remember the time in my own life when I did not want to go abroad. The ends of the earth naturally present a most keen attraction to all adventurous youths. Whether our youth has become less adventurous I do not know. I am sorry to observe a considerable diminution in the number of boys who run away to sea. It used to be the regular way of starting life, as far as the story-books were concerned, but it seems to be a practice which is falling into desuetude. I am sorry to hear it. Possibly it is because, instead of being encouraged, stowaways are rooted out with greater vigour than in former days. At all events, the diminution in the number of boys running away to sea rather tends to show that there is a diminution of adventurousness in our boys.
        What is the cause of that? I am sorry to say the answer is a simple one. It is our system of education. We educate every boy who comes to school in a manner which makes him a clerk in an office. The whole system of education is devoted to producing post office clerks and people of that character. I would

        525
        have education in country schools so arranged as to make boys thoroughly capable of working on the land and entirely useless in the towns whatsoever. The town population is quite big enough, and there is no necessity whatever for recruiting from the country. What we really want is to recruit the country from the town much more than the town from the country, but the system of education is so framed as exactly to militate against it. The system does not encourage people to stay on the land or young people to emigrate. That is one of the great reasons for the falling off in emigration. I believe that illustrated cinematograph lectures given to schoolboys, showing different parts of the world, would stimulate the imagination and might have a greater effect in stimulating emigration than the expenditure of vast sums of money.
        I ask myself another question. I have asked a great many people and I can get no answer, perhaps because it is a difficult problem to solve. When a child is born in this country—I will not follow back to the earliest years of his life—he is born to various rights. He is born to the right of a free education, the right to have his health attended to while at school, and to be fed if his family is destitute. He is going to be launched into the world at the age of 14. Then he very soon gets into a system which will provide him with medical attendance if he is ill, the payment of a certain amount of money for a certain time if he falls out of work, and insurance against accidents, and, finally, he is entitled in due course to an old age pension. What is the actuarial value of that when a child reaches the age of 14? It must be quite a considerable sum. You expect him to emigrate and to throw that inheritance away. You ask him to go out of the country and to abandon all those rights which are very material and important, and which tend rather to grow than to diminish. You ask him to go to the ends of the earth and to forsake his heritance. It seems to me that if you could value what it is that he forsakes, and paid him a lump sum of half that amount on condition that he went to one of the British Dominions or Colonies, you would save this country a certain amount of money—not large—and would encourage rather than discourage emigration. Of course, an emigrant
        526
        who accepted such a premium would not be eligible to receive the benefits in case of his return, and he would have sacrificed them once and for all, but you would give him some equivalent to the sacrifice that you are asking every emigrant to make. I think you would be saving the country expense rather than creating it, and it would be a little more than an act of justice to an enterprising youth.
        Lastly, I want to refer to one small matter which I approach from another side. There is a very eminent American professor of the University of Yale who has devoted his life to the investigation of the climates of the world and their influence on the inhabitants of those regions. The result of his long researches, assisted by correspondence from all parts of the world, he published in a book on climates, the correct title of which I have forgotten. The general outcome of his lengthy investigations was this: He showed that there were four parts of the world which enjoyed the best climates, speaking, generally, and regarding climate as good for all purposes—such as an all-the-year-round climate in which human people could work, in which stock could be bred, in which the land was fertile and in which there were various, other merits for which he awarded marks.
        He summed it up in this way. There were four spots, if I remember aright, one of them was where the Western frontier of America joins the frontier of the Dominion of Canada, another was somewhere in Japan, another was in New Zealand, and the fourth was in Great Britain, more especially in the southeastern parts. The culmination, curiously enough, was actually in the City of London, which he proclaimed had the finest and most suitable climate in the world for human beings to be born, to work, and to die in, and he said that Great Britain, as a whole, was the best breeding ground in the world for cattle, sheep, and, more particularly men, which seems to be the reason why our people populate so large a portion of the earth. If that be the fact, and if it is to continue, what must happen is that our population must increase up to saturation point. Somewhere there must come a saturation point, and, indeed, it is said that it has been reached now. My hon. Friends opposite tell me that they are hostile to the idea of migration, that they

        527
        do not regard it with much sympathy, but would rather keep their children at home.
        Mr. MACKINDER: Not to the cities.
        Sir M. CONWAY: I do not want to send people into the cities of the Empire, but into the broad acres. At all events, the time must come when they must go or our population must begin to decline, and that is the worst thing that could happen to us. There cannot be room in these islands for an indefinite time for a stalwart and vigorous and live people; they must go, and we must help them to go if necessary. I would infinitely prefer that they should help themselves, but, in the circumstances of to-day, we must help them, and I suggest that one of the ways of doing so is by giving to the young suitable education to enable them to stand on their own feet on the soil of any part of the world and to draw a living from it. I would give, not a penalty, but a premium to any youth who wishes to go to the ends of the earth and carve out a fortune for himself.
        Mr. LONGBOTTOM: I had not intended to intervene in this Debate, but the remarks of the last speaker lead me to say that I have never listened to a more reactionary speech than his since I became a Member of the House of Commons. First of all, he deplored the fact that there is not the tendency to-day that there used to be for the young people of our nation to run away to sea, and for the lack of that tendency the hon. Member blames the educational development of our time. That, from an hon. Member who, I understand, represents some of the Universities of this country, comes with a very ill grace. He followed that statement by telling us that in his opinion the educational tendency in rural areas should be strictly confined to fitting young people in those areas for an agricultural life. That remark made me wonder, in view of the fact that the present Prime Minister of this nation is said to be actively associated with that little animal which provides us with bacon in the morning, what would have happened if the Prime Minister had been prevented from having the benefit of the educational system of this country. However much we may disagree with the Prime Minister, he, at all events, when he was being
        528
        educated, was a potential statesman of this country, and what happened in his case might reasonably be expected to happen in the case of those people whom the hon. Member would confine to an agricultural livelihood.
        Then we were told that the hon. Member's idea of the rights of a new-born child was that it was entitled to certain medical attention and certain educational facilities which were narrow in their application. I would like to remind the hon. Member that the philosophy of the Socialist party is that a new-born child who is given the breath of life by the Creator of all men is at all events entitled to the opportunity to be reared an active, intelligent and healthy citizen; and, believing that, we say that no artificial barriers so far as education is concerned should be placed in the way of that child's developing into an active, intelligent and healthy citizen. We have also been told that the day is not far distant when this little country of ours will not hold all the people that are born in it, and that the time will come when those people will have to go. I want to suggest to this Committee, and particularly to the hon. Member, that the day is far distant when this little country of ours will not be sufficient in area to absorb all the people of our nation. We speak glibly about migration, but we forget that many of those whom we are attempting to transfer into the prairies of Canada and the wilds of Western Australia are men who, from 1914 to 1918, fought for the land fit for heroes to live in. The irony of the situation is that the very man whom you have sent out to negotiate the transfer of these poor, unfortunate, unemployed men, lock stock and barrel, despite their social amenities and their domestic responsibilities, actually possesses, in this country of ours, 182,000 acres of land.
        If there is any merit in the claim of the Tory party that all that the British unemployed man, being a fine fellow, sound in character and sound in integrity, needs to work out his economic existence is to be put in active touch with the soil, it would better become the Tory party to attempt to put the British working man into touch with his own soil. If they expect the country to believe that there is any merit in the claim that the British unemployed man is to be put in touch

        529
        with the soil, might I remind them that we are importing £700,000,000 worth of foodstuffs, and a proportion of it could be grown in this country if they had the courage to tackle this vital problem of a land-locked nation. We had an illustration only a few weeks ago of a man who declared the value of his land for Income Tax purposes at £105, and when the local authority needed it for municipal development he asked £42,000. If you will only make an attempt to start to put the unemployed man in touch with the soil of his own country, we will believe that there is some logic in the claim which you are making.
        An hon. Member below the gangway said that there was some possibility that the Labour party could not continue the wonderful work the Tory party had done in cementing the relationships between this country and the Empire, and the reason we of the Labour party were unable to cement this friendship was because we believe in collective buying and selling. If that is the only thing that is standing in the way of the Labour party following the Tory party in better cementing the relationships of this nation and the Empire, the argument is exceptionally thin. The suggestion is that we are not as keen to co-ordinate and develop the resources of the Empire as Members of the party opposite. I want to refute such an allegation. Whatever
        530
        faults the Labour party may have, we claim, with all the sincerity we have, that our fellow human beings who inhabit the Empire are just as dear to us as to the Members of the Tory party. We do not believe in waving penny flags on Empire day and that kind of humbug We believe in developing the resources of the nation and of the Empire, but under such conditions as will bring the greatest happiness and the greatest welfare to all the people who are in it.
        Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £40,373, be granted for the said Service," put, and negatived.
        Original Question again proposed.
        Resolved, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Mr. Amery.]
        Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
        The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

    ADJOURNMENT.
    Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
    Adjourned accordingly at five minutes before Ten o'clock.

  COTTON PIECE GOODS (EXPORTS).
  COTTON PIECE GOODS (EXPORTS).
  MINES (SHIPPING CASUALTIES).
  MINES (SHIPPING CASUALTIES).
  POISON GAS PROTOCOL.
  POISON GAS PROTOCOL.
SCOTLAND.
  UNEMPLOYMENT (BENEFIT).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (BENEFIT).
  OMNIBUS ACCIDENTS, GLASGOW (POLICE REPORTS).
  OMNIBUS ACCIDENTS, GLASGOW (POLICE REPORTS).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  SPECIAL GRANTS COMMITTEE.
  SPECIAL GRANTS COMMITTEE.
  CHILDREN'S ALLOWANCES.
  CHILDREN'S ALLOWANCES.
  ISLE OF MAN.
  ISLE OF MAN.
  EAST HAM BOROUGH COUNCIL (DEPUTATION).
  EAST HAM BOROUGH COUNCIL (DEPUTATION).
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  SMALL-POX (S.S. "TUSCANIA").
  SMALL-POX (S.S. "TUSCANIA").
TRANSPORT.
  EDINBURGH-GLASGOW ROAD (BRIDGES).
  EDINBURGH-GLASGOW ROAD (BRIDGES).
  ROAD EXPENDITURE (WAGES AND MATERIALS).
  ROAD EXPENDITURE (WAGES AND MATERIALS).
  TRAFFIC DUTY (COST OF POLICE).
  TRAFFIC DUTY (COST OF POLICE).
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES (CLERKS, BRANCH OFFICES).
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES (CLERKS, BRANCH OFFICES).
POST OFFICE.
  POSTMAN'S SERVICE AND PAY, TAUNTON.
  POSTMAN'S SERVICE AND PAY, TAUNTON.
  AIR MAIL, INDIA.
  AIR MAIL, INDIA.
  STAFF, ISLE OF MAN.
  STAFF, ISLE OF MAN.
  MOUNT PLEASANT SORTING OFFICE (OUTBUILDINGS).
  MOUNT PLEASANT SORTING OFFICE (OUTBUILDINGS).
  MIGRATION (NEW ZEALAND).
  MIGRATION (NEW ZEALAND).
  ELECTORAL REGISTER (PERSONS UNDER AGE).
  ELECTORAL REGISTER (PERSONS UNDER AGE).
  DEBTORS (IMPRISONMENT).
  DEBTORS (IMPRISONMENT).
  LAND TAX.
  LAND TAX.
  NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY.
  NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY.
  MUNICIPAL SAVINGS BANKS.
  MUNICIPAL SAVINGS BANKS.
  HOME-MILLED FLOUR (BOUNTY).
  HOME-MILLED FLOUR (BOUNTY).
  FOREIGN WARS (BRITISH MILITARY ATTACHES).
  FOREIGN WARS (BRITISH MILITARY ATTACHES).
  TERRITORIAL ARMY (WAR MEDAL).
  TERRITORIAL ARMY (WAR MEDAL).

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Hay (E. Kinnoull)—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his grandfather.

CROWBOROUGH DISTRICT WATER. BILL.
Read 2a.
TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL.
Read 2a.
WINDERMERE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 2a.
BEAUMONT THOMAS ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

IMPERIAL CONTINENTAL GAS ASSOCIATION BILL. [H.L.]
RHODES TRUST BILL. [H.L.]
TYNESIDE TRAMWAYS AND TRAMROADS COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, with reference to these three Bills I beg to move that Standing Order No. 143 be dispensed with.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 143 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bills, and that the Bills be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Bills read 3a accordingly, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

RATING AND VALUATION (VILLAGE HALLS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for Second Reading read.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, I introduced this Bill in order to do away with

67
what is a very serious difficulty in rural districts and, I might say, a serious grievance as regards the present system of rating. I did so at the request of the clergy in my part of the country—Somerset—who feel very strongly upon this matter. They informed me that a great number of parish halls and public buildings of that kind have had to be closed owing to the large additional assessments put upon them. I may remind your Lordships that a new valuation of all property had to be made under the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925. That, as your Lordships are aware, was revolutionary as regards the whole system of assessment in our rural areas. In the old days the overseers were the people who assessed the property of a particular parish, but with the abolition of the overseers the whole system was entirely altered. The overseers were local people who knew the hereditament which had to be valued. That has all been changed. I quote my own county because I know what has happened there, but I have been told that the same state of things is found in other counties.
What has happened? In my own County of Somerset the county valuation committee are bound by the principle that all hereditaments, such as hospitals, schools, Poor Law institutions, village halls, miners' welfare halls and so on have to be valued by an expert panel valuer. What principle does the panel valuer adopt? In my county and, I believe, in other counties too he adopts a principle which is, no doubt, perfectly correct as the law now stands for the assessment of properties such as village halls—that is to say, he adopts the basis of rent and not of profit, and considers at what rent the hall would let to a hypothetical tenant in the open market. Again, the floor space of a building is taken as the basis for arriving at the rateable value. I do not say that this is not a right principle as the law now stands, but it does not matter whether the hall is in a small village or a big town. It stands to reason that it makes an enormous difference whether a hall is in a large town or in a small village, because, as your Lordships know, the trustees of a village hall are dependent to a large extent on their ability to get people to come to enter-
68
tainments, whist drives, dances and so on. In a small parish the income is very small indeed, and yet it is laid down as a matter of principle that, for the purpose of valuation, it does not matter where the hall is situated and the question of population is not taken into account at all.
Generally speaking, it has been laid down, I believe, by the panel valuer that there shall be a £2 rateable assessment on a floor space of 100 square feet for a building that is constructed of brick and tile. With such a building of 1,485 square feet floor space this would work out at £30 a year but if you take a corrugated iron building, of the same size, such as is very common in the small rural villages, you still have to pay on an assessment of £1 for 100 square feet, working out at about £15 a year. This is a very heavy assessment for a small village hut. I have here a list taken from village halls in my own county showing the enormous difference which has been made by this new assessment. There is a Red Triangle hall that was assessed at £1 and is now assessed at £10; a Church hall, formerly £2 10 s., now £28; a Women's Institute, formerly £4 15 s. and now £20; a Y.M.C.A. hut with assessment raised from £1 to £27; a British Legion hut which used not to be assessed at all and is now assessed at £12; a miners' welfare building—my noble friends on the Front Opposition Bench will be interested in this—formerly £3 and now £19. This shows that all classes of village buildings have been affected. I recall one very hard case near my own home. A lady was kind enough to put up a hall in a small parish. It was assessed at £2 10 s., and the assessment has now been raised to £11. This is in a parish of only just over a hundred inhabitants. It is quite clear that the profits of such a hall must be infinitesimal. Already I am informed that, if the assessment goes on as it is, the hall will have to be shut up. Taking these cases generally, one sees that village halls with an old assessment of from £1 to £4 15 s. a year are now assessed at from £10 to £28 a year. It must be remembered that in some places the county rates are very high, varying from 15 s. to 20 s. in the £, and your Lordships will see, therefore, that these very high assessments will mean that the parish halls will have to close down.

69
I venture to think that, unless this method of assessing these halls is altered, either in the way suggested in ray Bill or in some other way, a large number will have to be closed. I think most of us are agreed in these days as to the great advantage of having these halls, whether they are parish halls, miners' welfare halls, or Y.M.C.A. or Women's Institute buildings. These places have done a great deal to brighten life in our rural districts and to a certain extent they counteract the attraction of the towns. We all know that some of our best young men are being drawn away to the towns, thus depleting the rural areas. I have already said that I am not finding fault with these assessments in themselves, but with the present law and the alterations that came into force owing to the abolition of the overseers under the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925. I agree that the law has been carried out properly. Only yesterday in this House—I regret that the noble Marquess the Leader of the House is not in his place—the noble Marquess stated that both the English and Scottish Local Government Acts would probably have to be amended in the light of practical working. I venture to think that this view applies equally to the method of valuation, which has to stand the test of time and practice.
The object of this Bill is to assess not upon what the hypothetical tenant might give but upon the profits that accrue on an average of three years, adopting very much the Income Tax system of valuation. As regards that I think it is very much fairer all round, because in some cases the valuation under this Act is actually too low. I know of a case where the valuation in a very large village was only £27 whereas the profits derived were £70 a year. In one case alone the county council pays £45 for the rent of that particular hall. The test of rent is really not satisfactory. I know of a case where the county council had to close a county council school and of course they had to let it at the best possible rent. They let it for £1 a year as the village hall, and in that case the assessment would be only £1 a year. We all know what occurs in the case of our own houses. It is all very well to say that if there is an open market it is quite easy to get a particular rent, although it is well known that if you
70
attempt to let the house you will get nothing like the assessment.
I shall probably be told by my noble friend when ho answers for the Government that it is impossible to go against the general principle. I am reminded of what was said by Lord Esher, Master of the Rolls, when a case was argued before him on a question of principle. He said it showed that the case had no merits, and I venture to think that if my noble friend rests his case on a question of principle it is because it has no merits. What I venture to say is that we should do nothing which will make it more difficult to brighten rural life. It is of no use saying that these halls ought to be assessed on the principle of the rent that the hypothetical tenant would give. The last words that I wish to say are these and they will bring to your Lordships some knowledge of the strong feeling there is on this matter. The executive of the Rural District Councils Association, upon the report of its Parliamentary Committee, unanimously approved this Bill upon the ground of the great injustice and difficulty created by the present system. They say that this Bill will assist what we are all trying to assist, namely, the entertaining of the people in their own parish halls instead of allowing them to go to town for their amusement. I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strachie.)
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, as far as I understand from the title of the Bill and from what my noble friend has said, his object in bringing this proposal before your Lordships is not to obtain a concession for village halls or such institutions, but to secure for them what he considers to be a fairer basis of valuation and to do away with the present one which he considers is a grievance of which they are rightly entitled to complain. I would like to explain to your Lordships the difficulty which prevents me from accepting this Bill. As he correctly anticipated I am going to mention the question of principle, although he has endeavoured to counteract in advance what I shall say by saying that such a plea has no merits. The fact is that if you were to accept the principle of this Bill you would be alter

71
ing the statutory basis of assessments at the present time, because if you introduce a reference to actual profits gained by the occupiers it would be inconsistent with the general basis of rating which, as my noble friend very correctly and fairly said, is the letting value to a hypothetical tenant. He told your Lordships that a great many of these village halls, of which he has of course very great knowledge in his own county, were very much more highly assessed than they had been in the past under previous assessments, but I think so far as I understood him that these assessments are not the final assessments. There is a right of appeal. If that is the case, these assessments are only tentative.
LORD STRACHIE: It is quite true they are not final but as the county valuation committee have adopted that principle, even if the appeal were granted it would be opposed at Quarter Sessions and it would cost the occupiers of the hall some £50 or £60 in legal expenses.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: If the Quarter Sessions, which is a judicial body, would settle whether the assessment was correct or not, I think the noble Lord will agree with me that the Court of Quarter Sessions in his county would be a most admirable tribunal, presided over as it is by a chairman for whom we have the greatest respect. As I was saying just now, our rating system, broadly speaking, does not make profits earned the basis of liability for rates. I am not going to argue that there may not be a great deal to be said in favour of adopting the principle in this Bill. It may be a very good principle, but it is not the principle at the present time. The principle is as stated by the noble Lord, and I think it would be wrong to introduce this new principle in regard to one extremely limited class of property, and leave it inapplicable to others. There are other classes of property which come very near the village hall, such as hospitals, almshouses, and charitable institutions.
Possibly there may not have been the same amount of uniformity in regard to the assessment of these buildings as is desirable. It might have been better if some system could have been adopted by which you could secure general uniformity with regard to the rating of village halls and similar premises. We
72
know that the assessment authorities in various parts of the country have taken different views as to the valuation which ought to be put upon these premises; but I would call your Lordships' attention to the existence of the Central Valuation Committee which is a body representative of the local authorities of the country as a whole. It is a statutory body, and it has a statutory duty to promote uniformity of valuation. This body has passed a resolution formulating the principles which in its opinion should be adopted. My noble friend will probably say that that is all very well, but that there is no statutory obligation upon a county valuation committee to follow that resolution. If, however, you have set up a Central Valuation Committee, and say that it is the duty of that Committee to recommend a uniform system of valuation for certain hereditaments, it would be a rather strong order for a county valuation committee to say: "We will not follow that Committee's recommendation, but we will follow some other line of our own." And there is another point. I said just now that if you are going to have any such system as is proposed, it should not apply only to village halls. I think it ought to apply also to other charitable institutions, such as voluntary hospitals. I venture to think that if you passed the Bill and applied to village halls this totally new system of rating you would be treating other buildings, such as hospitals, not quite fairly. If you did adopt this system you would have to do so on a very comprehensive scale and by a more carefully considered method than is perhaps contained in my noble friend's Bill.
My noble friend rather emphasises the point that you ought to adopt this principle of valuation for village halls because they are situated in rural districts, and therefore their profits are exiguous and they are not able to make sufficient money to pay the very high assessments which have been placed upon them—if, indeed, on appeal those valuations are sustained. He has drawn the line in the Bill at urban districts, but we know very well that many rural districts in the country are urban in character. The Royal Commission on which my noble friend and I have been sitting made a recommendation to Parliament, which has been adopted, that there shall be a redistribution, and that

73
anomaly may disappear to a certain extent in the future. But at the present time there are no doubt a very large number of rural districts which are largely urban in character. You may have a large rural district with a populous little community situated in the midst of it. Those are the two main difficulties in accepting this Bill. One is that it is a new principle, and the other is that you make a distinction between the urban and the rural areas which, I think, would be very difficult to follow out in practice.
I do not want to find fault with the drafting of the Bill, but, even if we were able to adopt it, there are considerable difficulties in the administration of the Bill. In the first place the words "profits from such hall" are rather vague and difficult to define, and I think some very strict system of accounts would have to be insisted upon and carefully adhered; to if that principle of rating assessment were to be made workable. In Clause 2 are the words "used mainly for the social improvement." That also, I think, is a rather loose expression, and would be scarcely sufficient
Resolved in the negative and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

EIGHT HOURS CONVENTION.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR rose to call attention to statements made on the question of the ratification of the Washington Eight Hours Convention at the late meeting of the International Labour Bureau; and to move that in the opinion of this House there should be no further delay in rati-
cient to define what is intended. The word "village" also has no definite legal meaning in local government law. Then again, the words "social improvement" and so on are capable of very wide interpretation; and the words "a particular group of such inhabitants" are rather ambiguous. What do they mean—a dancing club, a Boy Scout troop or a troop of Girl Guides? All these things show that the Bill would have to be drawn rather more carefully if we wanted to make it workable. But, even if these difficulties of administration and drafting were overcome, which I dare say is possible by amendment in Committee, I should be unable to recommend the Bill to your Lordships for the reason that I have given—namely, that it would be introducing a very new principle into rating law for a very limited class of property. Therefore I hope that your Lordships will not give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 2a?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 7; Not-Contents, 31.

CONTENTS.

Cawley, L.

Remnant, L.

Shandon, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Strachie, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS.

Hailsham, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Morton, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Onslow, E.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Plymouth, E.

Darling, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Daryngton, L.

Marlborough, D.

Westmorland, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Ancaster, E.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Hampton, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Hood, V.

Lovat, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Novar, V.

Templemore, L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Younger of Leckie, V.

Wharton, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Wraxall, L.

Lytton, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

fication. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the form of the Resolution which appears upon the Order Paper shows the limitations within which I intend to speak to-night. It is to call attention to statements made on the question of the ratification of the Washington Eight Hours Convention at the late meeting of the International Labour Bureau. I propose then to move that in the opinion of the House there should be no further delay in ratification. I have had the advantage of certain

75
communications with the noble Marquess opposite [Lord Londonderry] who is going to reply to me, explaining to him the matter that I desire to discuss and the limitations within which I intend to make my speech.
I see the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, in his place. In a powerful speech which he delivered last November he gave your Lordships a complete history of the dealings of the Government with the Eight Hours Convention. On that occasion he asked that the Government should disclose either, I think, by a Bill, which has not been done, or by giving full information at Geneva, what their objections were. His intervention was well justified in itself and it resulted in what he desired. A full statement has now been made at Geneva by the Minister of Labour and I do not propose to go into the history which was thoroughly investigated on that occasion. In fact, I regard the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, as an extremely valuable one and it resulted in the success which he desired—namely, in ascertaining what the attitude of the Government really was.
The result of the statement made by the Minister of Labour at Geneva, to which I desire to call attention, was more than disappointing. I think it must be called a fiasco and a failure, because the result of it was that all the labour representatives there were opposed to him. The representatives of, I think, France, Italy and Belgium gave him no support, and the question was left in this position—first of all, that the revision which he proposed did not receive the necessary support to go forward; and, secondly, that future action (so far as I can see) cannot be expedited till the October meeting. We shall see whether I am wrong about that, but I believe that is how the matter stands. I hope that the noble Marquess opposite will not think I am taking any personal or even Party attitude on matters of this kind. These international questions have to be and ought to be looked at from a wide standpoint. Judged from that wide standpoint, I think the policy and the attitude adopted by the Minister of Labour at Geneva at the last meeting of the International Labour Office must be held to be a distinct failure.
One or two words in order to emphasise the point about Part XIII of the Treaty of Versailles and the similar Part in the other Treaties executed after the War. Part XIII of the Treaty of Versailles has to do with labour. It is headed "Labour." I do not disguise from myself the fact that, properly interpreted, it means that labour questions are to be facilitated and that labour conditions should be improved on an international basis. I think that is clear. The preamble itself has these words:
"…such a peace "—
that is, an international peace—
" can be established only if it is based upon social justice."
It is obvious, of course, that "social justice," although the means of obtaining it may differ between the noble Marquess and myself, means justice to the labouring people and labour generally. I do not mean to say that it excludes any one else, but that is the chief object of this portion of the Treaty of Versailles. And it goes on to make this statement. I will not read the whole of it; if the noble Marquess wishes to supplement it at all he can do it. It goes on to speak of "injustice, hardship and privation to large numbers of the people"; that is, to the labouring and working class. We cannot, of course, put out of sight a statement of that kind and the importance of it. It is not made as between the employers and employees in a particular country, but in the most solemn manner by the great statesmen of the day and incorporated in Part XIII of the Treaty of Versailles. It is not a matter for discussion. It is a matter of statement which must be accepted to be accurately made and to be justified by the conditions as they exist.
Then, it goes on to say this, which is the important point—
"…and an improvement of those conditions is urgently required "—
no one can doubt that, if the former statement is true—
" as, for example, by the regulation of the hours of work, including the establishment of a maximum Working day and week…"
Your Lordships will see, therefore, that in the forefront of what is necessary in order to obtain social justice there is an international dealing with hours of work, including the establishment of a

77
working day and week. That is the object of the Washington Eight Hours Convention. It was started, as we know, very early after the signing of the Peace in 1919. It was very thoroughly discussed at Washington. It has been stated more than once that the discussion there took, I will not say more than a month but about a month, and the Convention was adopted almost unanimously; that is to say it was adopted by 82 votes to 2. Since that time no real progress has been made. I do not intend to deal with that history because it has already been dealt with.
The next point I wish to say a word about is what passed in 1926 when the Labour Ministers of Great Britain, France, Belgium, Germany and Italy met together in this country. I entirely agree, of course, with what the Minister of Labour said at Geneva, and what he said in the document that has been supplied to me from official sources, that the conclusions on that occasion were not binding either as an interpretation of the International Treaty itself—that is to say, the international agreement contained in the Eight Hours Convention—or in any other way; but, at the same time, they were of great importance and of great authority. I only need say this, in order not to detain your Lordships longer, that most of the questions—I think all the more important questions—which were raised at Geneva at the late meeting as objections to the ratification of the Eight Hours Convention were dealt with in London in the spring of 1926. There may be some new matters outstanding, but, in substance, I can find nothing new or novel in the statements made on questions of the construction or interpretation of the Eight Hours Convention at Geneva. I shall, however, have to refer to statements made at the time by the Minister of Labour as most unsatisfactory and as paralysing to one of the great efforts which is intended to be brought to fruition under the aegis of the League of Nations.
At Geneva the Minister spoke at great length on certain points of principle and certain points of detail. In order that I should make no mistake and be perfectly accurate, I shall quote from the official statement. I must thank the noble Marquess opposite for having obtained for me the official statement made by Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland at a meeting of
78
the Governing Body of International Labour at Geneva. This statement was supplied to me from the Labour Office and I accept it as quite accurate, as no doubt everyone else will do. There is one statement in the Report, the official copy of which I have before me, of the meeting in March, 1926, to which I ought to call attention, because it appears to me to be very inconsistent with the attitude taken by the Minister of Labour at Geneva, if I rightly understand what that attitude is. If I make a mistake no doubt the noble Marquess in his reply—that will be the most convenient time—will correct me.
The statement to which I desire to call attention says the Ministers collected at the London Conference
"were fully alive to the fact that, in accordance with the regularly constituted procedure, it lies with the International Court of Justice in the last instance to decide all disputed points which may arise upon the interpretation or the application of the Convention."
That is absolutely accurate. I do not suppose any one would deny for a moment that on international arrangements and agreements of this kind the last word and the final determination is with the International Court. In fact, apart from that you cannot enforce or make of any value international arrangements of this kind, though it is not necessary to refer to it, for every one who knows the international position sufficiently well understands that Part XIII contains really the complete code for investigating complaints made for non-observance by those who ratify the Eight Hours Convention. Matters first of all are to be considered by selected persons, and, if they cannot come to a final conclusion, then the final determination is for the International Court. I think those few preliminaries are necessary in order to make the full position quite clear.
Allow me to pass to the actual statements made by the Minister of Labour at Geneva. The difficulties referred to by him really range themselves under two heads. Under one head, he deals with the principle of interpretation and sanctions of an international arrangement under the International Court, and there he states a matter of principle with which I am bound to say I can in no wise agree. The chief of the reasons he

79
adduces for the delay which he required and the additional revision turn upon his wrong statement, if I may so call it, of the principle under which international agreements and international arrangements must be construed, and how they ought to be enforced as against any offending nation which has ratified such a document as the Eight Hours Convention. That, I think, is all of much importance. He suggests a difference in principle between the construction of a document of this kind and an ordinary legislative national document. I think the way he has phrased it cannot be maintained, and I also think the matter has been absurdly overstated so far as it is accurate at all. In either case you may have differences of construction, and construction in either case would really be governed by the principles laid down long ago by the greatest, probably, of all jurists, Grotius. Of course, in international affairs it is known that the principles of interpretation suggested by Grotius have substantially been always maintained, but it is sometimes forgotten, I think, that the real basis of our interpretation of national documents in this country is determined when a dispute arises under precisely the same principle.
I do not understand the statement made by the Minister of Labour when he suggested there is a different principle in the two cases, because it is on that difference of principle that he largely bases his objection to the immediate acceptance, if I may so call it, for ratification of the Eight Hours Convention. I think if I quote a few words of what he says it will bring the point home to the noble Marquess. He says:—
" The principle is this, that ambiguity in a national law "—
he is complaining of ambiguity, but that is a subsequent matter—
" may have a very different effect from ambiguity in an international convention."
I cannot assent to that. Of course, ambiguity will always arise. Perfect clarity of language is impossible in the imperfection of our human speech. If ambiguity arises in a national document from national legislation, our Courts decide it, and if it arises in international matters, the International Court decides it. In either case you get a final decision of the constituted Court. Apart from that, an international arrangement or
80
agreement might be disregarded, and really would have little or no sanction at all.
The Minister goes on to make this statement:—
" It is open to each nation that ratifies it, to interpret it as it thinks right."
Of course that is not so. To interpret as it thinks right means a system of chaos. Instead of having an international agreement on an equality of terms binding all the ratifying nations you would have each nation going off in its own direction, giving what construction it liked. I do not understand really some of these passages and therefore I have read the actual words. But if there is ambiguity—and there is sure to be some ambiguity in all documents of this kind—then it must be settled by the International Court. If there is ambiguity here of course it is settled by our own national Courts.
Then he says their interpretations differ very largely from one another. Surely that is a mistake. If you start on a principle of that kind you undermine the whole basis of international agreements and international arrangements. It is quite clear that the interpretation of national documents before our Courts is one thing and the interpretation of an international agreement before the International Court is another; but there is really no difference. I do not mean to say that any two Courts, even any two International Courts, will necessarily come, in all cases, to the same result where questions of fact are very closely mixed up with questions of law, but it is the same in both cases—you must go to the Courts for interpretation whether it is an international or a national arrangement. More than that, it is one's experience in legal matters that the right way to ascertain what an agreement of this kind means is to see how it works, and if you find it works in a way that you do not expect or anything of that kind, or the Court should hold an interpretation contrary to yours, the time comes for revision. As the noble Marquess knows there is ample provision in the terms of the organisation of these matters in the International Labour Office at Geneva for revision and, in fact, revision comes on as a matter of course every ten years.
Next there is a point about which I think there must be a misunderstanding. He is talking about the Law Officers. Of their opinion I speak with great respect. Though one always wants to know what the instructions are before you know the value of an opinion, still let me speak with every respect. He says:—
" We have been definitely advised by them to this effect. If we embodied in a British Act of Parliament the points contained in the London Agreement, we should not be entitled then to ratify the Convention."
Then he says that in England
" lawyers form their opinion on the precise meaning of the words themselves in any given clause."
Of course that is not correct. Taking the words in their natural meaning you will consider the effect of the context and the general purpose of the document in which they are found, but it is not a matter of British construction if there is any difference at all. The first question to be decided here is the construction of the international document and that must be decided on terms applied by the International Court equally to all countries and all nations which have ratified the document.
I think I see what he means, but I suggest that a serious mistake has been made. At one time it was said that before ratifying the document and putting it into operation it would not be necessary that there should be any modification of the French national law. That has been put right. The Minister of Labour in Paris has stated definitively and finally that changes in the national law may be required in order to put in force the terms of this Eight Hours Convention. So it is here. I do not deny for one moment that we may have the necessity of certain national Acts, as they are called, in order to bring about cur complete compliance with the terms of the international arrangement as we understand it. That, of course, is a consequence and necessity of all international agreements. If a matter of that kind were raised as an objection no international agreement could be enforced in any country anywhere; but what is much more important is that if experience shows that we may have made a mistake, or any other country may have made a mistake, there is ample provision for revision in the terms of Part XIII of the Treaty of Versailles itself.
I do not want to dwell further on this, because I confess I do not understand it. I do not understand what is the difference of construction between British law and International Law, and so far as there is any difference between the two of course International Law must govern in a matter of this kind. That may imply certain changes in our national law which we should loyally undertake when the time and necessity arise. That is what was said in 1926. I think it is of the greatest importance that all the great industrial Powers came to a common agreement on certain points and it is almost incredible that an agreement so arrived at should not be the interpretation adopted. That, however, is not the point. The point is that the final interpretation must be in this international arrangement and it is an objection which, though I admit I hardly understand it, appears to me to be out of place.
The rest of the objection in this document arises under two heads. I do not want to be too technical, but the first of these heads raises questions which really are matters of substance which have been already raised and discussed in 1926. They are matters which, if we were discussing an Act of Parliament, would be matters proper for discussion in what we call the Committee stage. All these matters were considered and discussed in 1919; they were rediscussed in 1926; and if each time the point arises whether you like a Convention or not you were to delay ratification and to put off its operation, it is a question whether it is really worth taking any trouble about making international agreements of this kind. That is the real difficulty of the attitude which the Government have taken up. I say they cannot take up an attitude of this kind if they are really desirous that the particular instrument should come into active operation.
I am making no charge against them, but I am sure the noble Marquess will agree that whatever the views of the Government may be the views of the employers are, in general, not in favour of this international arrangement. The employers agreed with it in 1919. They were represented at that date by a director of Messrs. Armstrong. All the employers' representatives were unani

83
mous at Washington after full thought and consideration. If we are to take what Mr. Watson said, representing the employers, at Geneva, he certainly expressed the most determined opposition, not on the comparatively minor points raised by the Minister of Labour but against the whole scheme, and he said somewhat graphically that he and his brother employers were not going to have this matter "rammed down their throats." In one sense, one can quite understand that attitude. That is not the way to deal with an international agreement, and I am certain that the noble Marquess will not suggest that it is. He is quite entitled to say, and I have no doubt that he will say, that the Government have done their best, but could not proceed with ratification at this stage. That is a different matter altogether.
I have read very carefully the whole of this document, and the objections raised are mostly small matters of wording and drafting. Three illustrations will be enough. It is said that we have to consider further the meaning of the word "week." I do not think that you can have any definition of that without creating new uncertainty. Then they require definition of "hours of work"—a point that was dealt with in 1926. I am still more sceptical when they ask for a definition of the word "accident." An accident is a matter partly of fact and partly of law. If anybody has read the decisions in your Lordships House under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, he will take a very doubtful view as to the desirability of defining in too strict a way a common word which we all understand. I recollect that Lord Macnaghten, who was a master of language, defined "accident" about as simply as anyone could when he called it "an unlooked-for mishap." Directly you adopt that phrase you want two definitions instead of one—a definition of "mishap" and a definition of "unlooked-for."
Looking through this document very carefully, I find little but matters of detail. I think it was quite honourable and right for the Minister of Labour to say that he had put all his cards on the table. I am very glad that he did so, but I think the result is to show that he held a very poor hand, and I cannot
84
convince myself that the suggestion of difficulties of this kind is very impressive to any of the countries that meet together at Geneva. I do not know if I am right. What impresses me is that British prestige on these labour matters seems to have reached rather a low point after the intervention of the Minister of Labour. I want our country to be in front in this matter. We have, I think, on the whole the best arrangements of any country in this connection. It is said that 95½ per cent. of our labour comes even now into accord with the international suggestion. That is an honour to us, and I should like to recall in this connection the words of the Treaty of Versailles:—
"Whereas also the failure of any nation to adopt humane conditions of labour is an obstacle in the way of other nations which desire to improve the conditions in their own countries:"
Do not let us be in the position of an obstacle in the way of the advance of humane conditions of labour. Let us do what we can to press forward not only the acceptance, but also, so far as we are concerned, the ratification of the Eight Hours Convention. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in the opinion of this House there should be no further delay in the ratification of the Washington Eight Hours Convention.—(Lord Parmoor.)
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I hope that I shall not have to trouble your Lordships for more than a very few minutes. I had an opportunity not long ago of presenting to your Lordships in some detail the views that I hold upon this point, on the Motion made by my noble friend Lord Lytton, who sits beside me, and I do not wish to go over the whole question again. Indeed, I wish to press only one point—it is a very serious one—upon the Government. I cannot help feeling that the course which the Government have pursued in this matter, both recently and for some time past, has produced the impression in this country and abroad, rightly or wrongly, that they are not genuinely anxious to see this Convention, or the policy of this Convention, put into force, and that by the action which they have taken they have seriously injured the general method of settling these questions by inter

85
national agreement as an essential part of the new system of international affairs which we hoped had been inaugurated.
I do not want to go into past history more than very briefly. Your Lordships are well aware by this time that this Convention was originally framed nine and a half years ago at Washington, with the full and deliberate assent of the British representatives, after consulting the British Government. When it came home difficulties occurred.—I will not say whether the points were good or bad ones—and ratification was withheld. There followed a long period of negotiation and discussion, and ultimately—for I wish to pass over the details as quickly as I can—there was a Conference of Powers in London in March, 1926, at which the difficulties that had arisen in reference to the ratification of this Convention were discussed. After prolonged discussion an agreement was arrived at upon all the difficulties. No point was left undetermined except the very important question whether that agreement should be treated as a matter of interpretation of the Convention or should form part of another international instrument, either by way of amendment of the Convention or by way of a separate protocol. As I understand it—I shall be corrected if I am wrong—this was the only point left outstanding in March, 1926—namely, whether the agreement then arrived at should be enforced as a matter of interpretation by all the parties concerned, or whether it should form part of a definite international arrangement.
After this, there followed a period when the British Government were unable to express any opinion as to what action they were going to take in consequence of the London Conference. They were repeatedly asked at Geneva, but they pointed out, with perfect truth, that they had had to face great industrial difficulties in this country, and for that reason they had been unable to give the necessary attention to the subject. I do not say that that was an illegitimate attitude to take up, but it was evidently one which lent itself to misrepresentation. Then it eventually became clear that the Government were not prepared to accept these agreements as matters of interpretation, but that they required revision of the original Convention. They
86
were pressed, over and over again, at Geneva and elsewhere, to state what exactly it was that they wanted; what were the changes which were necessary in the Convention in order to enable them to sign. They have refused, and they still refuse, to state what changes they want in the Contention. I will come to the advance that they have made, but your Lordships will see that it does not amount to a statement of what changes they want in the Convention.
Ultimately, in March of this year, they go to Geneva and the Minister of Labour, representing the Government, makes a speech in which he brings out all the points which have been raised at the London Conference of 1926, and adds to them certain other points. It may be that the other points were not of any great importance, but they figured in my right hon. friend's speech. He concluded, not by saying that if we could get this or that change introduced into the Convention we should be prepared to sign it, but by saying this:—
"If at this moment we had an amended Convention in the drafting of which these points had been satisfactorily considered and settled, I would recommend my Government to-morrow to ratify…"
There was no definite offer, even then, as to what exact changes were required, and when the representative of the British employers came to speak—and I am afraid we cannot avoid the suspicion, which undoubtedly exists, that the employers have been very influential in the direction of the Government policy—he said that he would not be satisfied with the changes suggested by Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland, but he would want other changes as well, before he could agree to the Convention. In those circumstances there really was, if my noble friend will forgive me for saying it, no guarantee of finality even if every proposition put forward by the Minister of Labour had been accepted.
That that is not my own opinion only I think appears very clearly from a perusal of the debate at Geneva. I will take the most pointed statement by M. Jouhaux, the French Labour representative, a man of great position in France, of great moderation of views, and very friendly indeed to this country. He said this:—

87
"In the case of the Hours Convention the workers' group could not fail to note that certain Governments"—
which of course meant the British Government—
"had constantly raised fresh difficulties in order to postpone ratification. After the Conferences of Ministers of Labour held at Berne and London in 1924 and 1926, it might have been thought that the difficulties were at an end and that a definite interpretation of the Convention had been agreed upon. Yet now it was proposed that the search for new interpretations should be begun all over again, after which the Governments might perhaps ratify. Even this, however, was not sure. It was not his impression that the adoption of the British proposal would lead to a final decision. On the contrary, it could not fail to embarrass those countries which had already ratified or which were preparing to ratify on the basis of the interpretation which had hitherto been accepted."
It does not stop there, because to test—I am afraid I must put it as strongly as that—the reality of the British proposals, the French Minister of Labour, M. Loucheur, and the German Minister of Labour, Herr Wissell, made a definite offer to the British Government, and a number of others supported the offer. They said in effect: "If the British Government will now be content to put into the Convention those points upon which agreement was reached in the London Conference of 1926, we will agree to that and support that proposal, either by an amendment of the Convention or by a separate protocol. We are prepared to do the exact thing which the British Government offered in 1926, if it will induce the British Government to accept ratification." That was refused by the British Government.
I do not want to go into the substance of the matter, although I am bound to say I have always been utterly puzzled by the reluctance of the British Government and British employers to accept the Convention. It is perfectly true that the eight-hour day is in operation in something like ninety-seven per cent. of the industries of this country, and therefore it is only a question of the three per cent. which would be affected by the Convention at all, whereas in many foreign countries the percentage of employment for more than eight hours is much larger than that. To get international agreement—even if it be imperfect and require to be amended a little later—by each of the nations of
88
the world accepting an eight-hour day, is a principle which could not fail to have been of advantage, so far as I can see, to British industry, putting it on that plane only. As I have said, however, I do not want to go into the substance of the thing, because it is not upon that point that I personally feel so strongly. I feel most strongly that the method of action adopted by the Government has been, if I may use so strong a word, deplorable. It has shown an attitude towards the whole principle of international understanding which is really most discouraging to those who believe that it is only through a system of international understanding that we can reach a better condition of national affairs. I see that my right hon. friend claimed in the other House that he received considerable support from other Governments in his attitude at Geneva. I am puzzled by that claim. I have here the official account of what happened, and this is what occurred. At the end of the debate a motion was made for revision generally, in accordance with Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland's proposal. It was defeated by twelve votes to nine. The nine consisted of six votes of the employers group and the Governments of Great Britain and India—practically Great Britain—and one other Government, Sweden. Then there was a proposal by the French employers' delegate for the immediate consultation of all the States members of the Organisation, and the setting up of a Committee. That was rejected by thirteen votes to seven, and in that case the seven were six employers and the British Government, and nobody else.
Then came the division on which my right hon. friend relies as a second string to his bow. When he found there was no hope of obtaining a decision in favour of revision he proposed that there should be a Committee appointed, and that they should report to the May Conference, and that the matter should then be finally decided. That was only a dilatory motion, and he did obtain then, no doubt, from international courtesy, considerable support from other Governments. It is not stated in this document exactly which the Governments were, but we are told that several Governments voted in, his favour and the motion was only decided by one vote. Broadly speaking, the result was then that, as far as revision was concerned,

89
the British Government and the Swedish Government to some extent were the only Governments that supported it, the whole of the workmen's group was against it, and the employers' group also supported it; all the other Governments were either neutral or hostile to the proposal.
In those circumstances, I cannot share the complacency of my right hon. friend. It seems to me that the British Government were put into a position of practical isolation in reference to this matter, and, as if that were not enough, they completed their isolation by taking a division on some question of the Labour Office Budget immediately afterwards, in which again they were the single Government that opposed the particular item—I forget what it was—with the support again of the six employers' delegates. I do feel myself that the whole of this history is one which has, I am afraid, reflected seriously on the British Government and—which is much more important—has done a great deal to discredit the whole system of international understanding on which so very much depends. I do not see that we should have suffered at all if we had ratified the Convention even as it stood—we should not have suffered, that is to say, on the balance; but, even if we did, it seems to me we must be prepared, if we are to carry through this great experiment in international organisation, to run risks and even to make sacrifices for so great an object.
We cannot expect always to have everything our own way, and only to agree to international Conventions if they are solely and entirely for our advantage. We must be prepared to make some concession and even some sacrifices for the great object which is so very much in the interests of the Empire. It is for that reason that I personally so deeply deplore the action that the Government have taken, and that I regret that, even in their step towards making the position clear, they have gone so short a way that they have not yet told us what exact amendments to the Convention they require; and their whole attitude has been such as to expose themselves, not unjustly, to the reproaches levelled against them by M. Jouhaux in the passage that I read.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, I should like first of all to thank the noble Lord who initiated this debate for the courtesy which he showed in informing me of the points which he proposed to raise this afternoon. I have listened with great regret to the speech of the noble Viscount who has just sat down. I was under the impression when I entered this House that, instead of the Government receiving condemnation at his hands, after the debate which took place in your Lordships' House in November we should have heard from him some commendation of the action which the Government have taken. I was sorry to hear the gloomy phrases which he used, and I regret that he derives no satisfaction from what the Government have done. But I should be the last person to venture to argue with him on this matter. I know very well the deep concern that he has in this very important question, but I should find it difficult to dispute with my noble friend, who is very well acquainted with the atmosphere at Geneva, on those points which he has mentioned to-day.
The Motion before the House seems to me to give your Lordships a clear indication of the position which the Labour Party have now adopted upon the question of the ratification of the Washington Eight Hours Convention by this country. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, will correct me if I am wrong in drawing the inference from his Motion to-day that the Labour Party would ratify this Convention as it stands, and without amendment.
LORD PARMOOR: I think so. They are not opposing amendments, but what they want is ratification, with or without.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The noble Lord opened his remarks by saying that he did not wish to drag this question into the Party arena, nor do I. But I believe it to be absolutely necessary as a preliminary to any discussion of the Government's attitude towards the Convention that we should at least be perfectly clear as to how the Opposition would be prepared to act if they occupied this side of your Lordships' House. Speaking in another place early last year—on February 27 to be exact—Mr. Shaw, the Minister of Labour

91
in the Labour Government of 1924, in reply to my right the present Minister of Labour, Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland, said hon. friend quite distinctly that the Labour Party at that date would not ratify the Washington Convention as it stands. Later in the year, as lately as last November, on the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, on this Convention, I repeated this in your Lordships' House, and the noble and learned Lord did not then challenge my assertion that neither we nor the Labour Government would ever ratify this Convention as it stands.
LORD PARMOOR: I have forgotten, but I have no doubt you are perfectly accurate.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Apparently, however, the attitude of the noble and learned Lord and his friends has undergone a change. In another place, as recently as March 21 last, Mr. Shaw told my right hon. friend the Minister of Labour, that the Labour Party would ratify the Washington Convention absolutely, without modification, but with explanation on the lines of the London Conference. To-day there seems to have been a further change, and your Lordships are now recommended by the Labour Party simply to ratify the Convention without any qualification whatever.
LORD PARMOOR: Certainly ratify; but that does not mean that you may not give explanations at the time of ratification. That is an entirely different matter.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I must at once admit that the terms of the Motion before your Lordships have removed a difficulty which I felt to be inherent in Mr. Shaw's statement of the position of his Party. When I read his statement I am bound to say that I asked myself how it could be possible at one and the same time to ratify the Convention absolutely and without modification, but with explanation. I think there is a difficulty in their own procedure which I am sure the noble and learned Lord will see. This seemed to me certainly to be a contradiction in terms, particularly when it is remembered that we have been advised that the conclusions of the London Agreement, to which the noble Lord has referred, cannot be
92
covered by the terms of the Washington Convention. I think the noble Lord is aware that we have been definitely advised by the Law Officers that the conclusions come to at the London Conference cannot be covered by the terms of the Washington Convention.
It seems therefore, in view of the present Resolution, that these same difficulties have presented themselves to the noble and learned Lord and to his friends, and they are prepared now to recommend the simple ratification of the Convention with whatever consequences that may mean for British industry. The Government position is equally clear. For us the first essential of a Convention—of this Convention as of all Conventions—is that the signatories to it shall mean substantially, and in all matters of importance covered by the Convention, precisely and exactly the same thing. With all due respect to the noble and learned Lord, I venture to express a certain amount of surprise that he minimises all these matters on which there may be differences of opinion and goes so far as to say almost that it does not matter whether there is difference of opinion, and that it can be arranged later on by the decision of the International Court. I think there is really a great cleavage between the opinion of the noble and learned Lord and his friends and that of the Government. I think that the House will support the Government in feeling that on a matter of this importance it is vital that we should have a very clear idea of the interpretation which can be put on all these different matters which come up in the Convention.
I do not propose to recount the history of this Convention; all I claim is that the attitude of the British Government has been perfectly clear and perfectly straightforward. Every step that we have taken has been in the direction of the implementation of the pledges given on this question in the Treaty of Versailles, which bound us, not to ratify any particular Convention, but simply and solely to achieve an agreement with other members of the League of Nations which would establish the eight-hour day or the forty-eight-hour week. From the first, in 1921, the British Government declared its dissatisfaction with the

93
form of Convention arrived at at Washington, and ever since that time—I agree with the noble Lord that it is a long time ago; it is nine and a half years—we have been taking what steps we could to arrive at a form of Convention which we could ratify and which would, at the same time, he acceptable to the other States. I will not burden your Lordships with a narration of the Conferences which have been held with the representatives of the great industrial Powers on this subject. They have been directed towards one sole end—namely, towards making it possible for His Majesty's Government to ratify an international Convention for the eight-hour day, or forty-eight-hour week, in accordance with our undertaking at Versailles. The second of these meetings, to which reference has been made, the London Conference, made it abundantly clear to His Majesty's Government that the points raised were of such substance as to necessitate the revision of the Washington Convention before ratification.
I will not go into details of the steps taken by my right hon. friend the Minister of Labour to secure the consideration of the British point of view. Such delay as has occurred was largely occasioned by points of procedure, with which I feel sure the noble and learned Lord is familiar; but when these had been removed my right hon. friend himself journeyed to Geneva last month, as your Lordships know, for the meeting of the Governing Body of the International Labour Office, and there presented in detail the points in this Convention which ought to be reconsidered by the International Labour Conference if a general and satisfactory settlement is to be reached. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, has gone so far with me in agreeing that that is what the right hon. gentleman did when he went to Geneva. But he goes further and says that my right hon. friend did not specify in detail exactly the changes which he required. The noble Viscount is more conversant with the procedure at Geneva than I am, but I am inclined to assert that that was not the moment at which the changes he desired should have been put forward. There are further stages. The next stage, I believe, is in October. I speak under correction by the noble Viscount, and if
94
it is his opinion that the changes should have been put forward then I am not prepared at this moment to give him an exact answer why they were not. I would venture to say, however, that all those points which he mentioned in his speech here on the last occasion on which this matter came before your Lordships were put forward specifically at the meeting at Geneva this month, and I hoped when I came down to your Lordships' House that the statement which my right hon. friend made on that occasion would have been received with a modicum of satisfaction by my noble friend who sits below me.
My right hon. friend invited the Governing Body to decide, in accordance with the standing orders, that the report on the working of the Convention should be circulated, and that the attention of the States should be drawn to the points raised by the British Government and to any others that might be put forward in the course of the discussion. In doing this, he made a declaration in the following terms:—
"I can, however, say this, as an indication of the British attitude, that if at this moment we had an amended Convention on the table here, in the drafting of which these points had been satisfactorily considered and settled. I would recommend my Government to-morrow to ratify, and I am sure they would consent."
This question was discussed for two days, during which no attempt was made by any speaker either to challenge the points put forward by the British Minister of Labour or to prove that the difficulties to which he pointed were illusory or nonexistent. In certain quarters it was suggested that more time might be allowed for the consideration of our proposals, although the great majority of the points raised are to be found explicitly or implicitly in the conclusions of the London Conference of 1926, while the remainder are such as must occur to any close student of the history of the Convention.
So anxious was my right hon. friend to leave no stone unturned to secure a Convention which we could ratify, that he was prepared to agree to something in the nature of an adjournment during which the points of difficulty could be studied by a sub-committee which should report to the Governing Body in May. I will read to your Lordships the terms of my right hon. friend's motion:—

95
" The Governing Body affirming the necessity of maintaining the principle of Washington, and having taken into consideration

(a) the Report on the Washington Hours Convention presented to them in accordance with the Standing Orders by the International Labour Office, and

(b) the points in that Convention suggested by Great Britain as requiring further consideration

are of opinion that the question should be further pursued. Before, however, actually opening the procedure provided in Article 7 (a) (5), they are of opinion that a further examination of the points of difficulty is required and they accordingly appoint a sub-committee to consider all the relevant documents and to report to them at the May meeting of the Governing Body as to what points, if any, special attention should be drawn."
When the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, makes the very important statement that we are being regarded as dilatory in this matter and as putting off the ratification of the Convention because we do not feel in agreement with the sentiments put forward in that Convention, I venture to say that any one reading the resolution which was proposed by my right hon. friend must see that that charge is wholly without foundation, not only in regard to himself but also in regard to the Government which he represents. On the subject of this motion M. Thomas, the Director of the International Labour Office at Geneva, said:—
"Since the motion which is before you compromises nothing, since it allows of the one way out of our difficulties, I strongly appeal to you, in the interests of the future of the organisation, and in the interests of obtaining positive results, to vote in favour of the motion."
The proposal was moved and secured the assent of the majority of the Government representatives. It was, however, opposed by the representatives of the workers, while the employers did not find themselves able to vote either for or against it. In the result, eight votes were cast on each side, and the proposal having failed to secure a majority, fell to the ground. That is, briefly, the history of the late proceedings at Geneva.
While I do not for a moment wish to emphasise the points of difference that divide myself from the noble and learned Lord who is moving this Motion this afternoon, and while I think that the most important and the most fruitful result that can come of our discussion
96
here to-day is that it should be understood in every country of the world that all Parties in this country are united in the desire to ratify a Convention dealing with the hours of labour, in accordance with the undertaking contained in the Treaty of Versailles, I cannot refrain from giving expression to our view, the view of His Majesty's Government, that the points upon which my right hon. friend the Minister of Labour insisted at Geneva are indeed points of substance, and not, as the noble and learned lord and his friends would appear to think, points of mere detail and of slight importance.
For instance, I cannot agree with him that it is a small matter that there should be any uncertainty, any loophole for misunderstanding amongst the signatories, as to the exact meaning of the phrase "hours of work," upon which it seems to us the whole of the Washington Convention, or any convention dealing with hours of work, must necessarily be based. Moreover, I should have thought that the noble and learned Lord, with his long experience and with his eminent reputation as a lawyer, would be even more meticulous and careful than myself, as a layman, in regard to the definition of the small points, and I should have thought that, in an international understanding which was of the highest importance, there should be no ambiguity whatsoever, more especially when we set our hands to a document which is to have such far-reaching results.
And I am unable to agree with the noble and learned Lord that it is a mere matter of detail that we should ratify this Convention without making it certain beyond yes or no, that our railwaymen's agreements are within the scope of the Convention, and that the distribution of the forty-eight hours of the working week under the Convention to which we set our hand may cover a practice which is wholly unobjectionable and which is becoming increasingly common in certain British industries—namely, a working week of forty-eight hours or less distributed over five, or even over four and a half working days. Again, I cannot agree with him that the more precise interpretation or limitation of the application of the phrase "continuous processes" is a matter of little or no importance. I feel sure the noble and

97
learned Lord knows very well that there is a wide difference of interpretation of the phrase "continuous processes."
There are some matters of less import than these which were raised by my right hon. friend at Geneva, but it must be remembered that he was laying the whole of his cards upon the table, and these necessarily included the cards of lower denomination as well as the court cards—he put the major points and the minor points as well. When we are told that we are standing on trivial points, or points of mere punctilio, I would remind your Lordships that the Law Officers of the Crown have advised His Majesty's Government that the conclusions or agreed interpretations contained in the London Agreement of 1926 are not within the ambit which legal interpretation here would give to the Washington Convention. I would remind your Lordships that the advice of the legal advisers consulted by the railway companies was to the effect that the working arrangements governing labour on the British railways were outside the scope of the Washington Convention. There you have two authorities who approached the subject from different angles. Further, I would call your Lordships' attention to the fact that of the eleven Governments represented at the Geneva meeting, no fewer than eight agreed that the British case for revision should be further considered.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: If my noble friend would forgive me, all that they agreed to was that there should be a Committee appointed to consider and report on the question of revision. They all voted against the Government proposal for revision or did not vote in its favour.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I am given to understand that of eleven Governments represented at Geneva no fewer than eight agreed to the further consideration of the British case for revision, but if the noble Viscount corrects me of course I accept his correction.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I have only the Official Report.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Far from what the noble and learned Lord has said, this is not the treatment that merely trivial and unsubstantial points receive at the hands of responsible
98
Government representatives. Finally, when His Majesty's Opposition advocate the ratification of the Washington Eight Hours Convention without modification, I would draw your Lordships' attention to the support for the policy of revision which the Government derive from the final Report of the Committee on Industry and Trade, appointed by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald himself as Prime Minister, in July, 1924. That Report is signed by all the members of the Committee, including the seven signatories of the Minority Memorandum which may be taken to represent the view of organised labour. I will venture with your Lordships' permission to quote from the main Report the words used on the subject of the ratification of the Washington Convention. The main Report says, on page 109:—
"The balance of argument is in favour of the view that an International Convention for the limitation of hours of labour would be beneficial to British industry, provided that it were widely accepted and effectively enforced, and provided that it made adequate provision for necessary elasticity and for authoritative interpretation. Conversely, we are of opinion that without the fulfilment of these conditions ratification of the existing Washington Convention would be a hazardous step. Subject to the considerations set out below, it appears to us that the weight of argument is in favour of adhesion to a revised Convention, but against unconditional ratification of the present instrument.
We feel that in existing circumstances it is impossible to recommend either the unconditional ratification of the Washington Convention or the abandonment of any attempt to secure a more satisfactory international agreement. Even those of us who for various reasons are most sceptical of the possibility of satisfactory revision do not dissent from the conclusion that the attempt ought to be made."
Your Lordships will note that even the signatories of the Minority Memorandum do not specify the Washington Convention when they speak of the urgency of the implementation by the Government of the undertaking of the Treaty of Versailles. I cannot believe that labour generally in this country is in favour of the ratification of the Washington Convention as it stands. Indeed, in my view Mr. Shaw's proposal to ratify the convention "without modification but with explanation" really means agreement

99
with the view which I am venturing to put before you of His Majesty's Government, and is a confession, if I may be allowed to say so, that Labour is not satisfied with the Convention as it stands. The position of His Majesty's Government is that so clearly expressed by the Committee on Industry and Trade—namely, that the ratification of the existing Washington Convention would be a hazardous step, and that the attempt to secure a more satisfactory agreement ought to be made.
But let me close my few remarks upon a note of unanimity so far as concerns this important question of industrial agreement. This debate has made it clear, if it were not abundantly clear before, that if there is a measure of division as to the exact form of the instrument, the whole of this country, His Majesty's Government and both Parties in Opposition, the employers' organisations and organised Labour alike, are unanimous in the support which, in accordance with our pledges under the Versailles Treaty, we give to the principle of the eight-hour day or forty-eight-hour week enshrined in the Washington Convention. On our side we do not for one moment doubt the sincerity of the Labour Party in their efforts to obtain what is, after all, the common end of all Parties in this country—an international convention governing the hours of work—but we must ask them to accord to us the same measure of confidence, and to believe that, far from making unnecessary difficulties, we are absolutely sincere in the position which we have taken up upon the necessity for the revision of the Convention before this country can ratify it.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, a year ago I had on the Order Paper of your Lordships' House a Motion in favour of the immediate ratification of the Washington Eight Hours Convention in the same sense as the Motion now proposed by the noble and learned Lord. I removed that Motion from the Order Paper, and at a later stage substituted another Motion, because of communications which I had had with the Minister of Labour in which he pointed out to me, for the first time, the difficulties which His Majesty's Government had found in the way of ratifying the Washington Eight Hours Convention as it stood and
100
without modification. I consequently placed upon the Order Paper in your Lordships' House a different Motion—one in which I invited the Government to state what form of international convention establishing a forty-eight-hour week they were prepared to sign.
My only reason for intervening in this evening's debate is that I rather gather that the noble and learned Lord whose Motion we are discussing thought that my suggestion had been taken up by the Government and that they had at Geneva recently done what I had asked them to do in that Motion. The noble Marquess who spoke for the Government just now also seemed to be under the impression that the Minister of Labour at Geneva recently had done the very thing which I had asked His Majesty's Government to do in this House. I would like, therefore, in a very few words to explain why it is that I share the views which have been expressed by my noble friend beside me, and why I am unable on this occasion to express that satisfaction which the noble Marquess seems to expect from us of the action which the Minister has taken. I am very glad that the Minister went to Geneva. I am very glad that he has at last told the Governing Body at Geneva what he has repeatedly told the House of Commons—why His Majesty's Government are unable to ratify the Washington Convention as it stands. But that is not what I asked His Majesty's Government to do.
We have known for a long time that the Government find difficulties in ratifying the Convention. What I asked the Government to do was to tell us what Convention they would ratify, to give us some indication of the terms of the international instrument that they were prepared to agree to. On that subject we are as ignorant to-day as we have hitherto been. The noble Marquess who spoke for the Government just now said that in his opinion last month at Geneva was not an appropriate moment for supplying this information. I cannot see myself that it was inappropriate. I cannot see anything in the procedure of the Governing Body which would have made it inopportune for the British Minister of Labour, when stating his objections to the existing Draft Convention, to have gone further and said: "If these amendments which I place before you, or other words securing the

101
same objects, can be accepted, we should be prepared to ratify." I am perfectly certain that if he had taken that course it would have been welcomed at Geneva. I can only say that in ten years there has never seemed to have been found one moment which was opportune for telling the world what form of Eight Hours Convention the Government are prepared to ratify.
In fact, the Government have acted in this matter throughout exactly like a Parliamentary Opposition, a Parliamentary Opposition which is nevertheless reluctant to accept responsibility for opposing the subject with which they are in disagreement. We are all very familiar with that procedure. It is adopted by Oppositions from all Parties. When a subject is disliked, but opposition to which is nevertheless unpopular, recourse is had to reasoned Amendments, Motions for delay, objections to drafting and various other methods of procedure with which we are very familiar. But a Government which acts in that way is not entitled to claim for itself that it is a supporter, a sincere supporter, either of the principle of an international convention establishing an eight-hour day or a forty-eight-hour week, still less that it is a supporter of the principle of the Washington Convention.
Members of the Government do not seem to realise sufficiently the obligations of international procedure. They seem to think that it is sufficient for them to say: "We are in favour of an eight-hour day. We have, in fact, such a limitation of the hours of labour in practice in most of the industries in our own country. We are anxious that other countries should follow our good example and we are in favour of industry throughout the world being limited to this extent. But we are not prepared to commit ourselves to agreement to any international instrument unless we are perfectly satisfied that the words of that instrument are incapable of different interpretations." As the noble and learned Lord has pointed out, it is impossible in the language of any country to draft a treaty or a labour convention in which it can be confidently asserted that no word can be open to a different interpretation by another party, and, if that is really the attitude which the Government take up on this question, it
102
is an attitude which cannot be described as helpful towards the ratification of any international agreement. The very word "convention" implies an international treaty by which the representatives of the various countries agree to accept a form of words which, in their opinion, is calculated to achieve the object which they have met together to bring about.
The Government have told us that the draft drawn up at Washington nearly ten years ago has not, on investigation, proved to them to be satisfactory. What we have repeatedly asked the Government to do is to produce an alternative draft which they would consider satisfactory. In all those years, what alternative have the Government ever produced? They have repeatedly told us of the difficulties. We are quite aware of the difficulties. Those difficulties were undoubtedly present in the minds of those who met originally as Washington. In so far as they were not surmounted then, they were considered at the Conference at Berne and again at the Conference in London, and they have been mentioned by the Minister in Parliament on many occasions. But we were certainly led to believe that all those difficulties had been considered at the Conference in London and, as my noble friend beside me pointed out just now, they were agreed in substance by the representatives at that Conference. At the end of that Conference no difference of opinion remained as to what the Washington Convention ought to mean. A difference, it is true, remained as to what the Washington Convention did in fact mean, and there was a failure to agree that it should be made to mean specifically what it was agreed at London that it ought to mean.
The noble Marquess who spoke just now said that the attitude of the Government had throughout been perfectly clear. The only attitude that has been perfectly clear is the unwillingness of the Government to ratify the Washington Convention, and their unwillingness also to inform the world what form of Convention they would be prepared to ratify. The noble Marquess told us that the opinion of the Law Officers had been obtained that the Washington Convention as it stood did not cover some of the industrial agreements in force in this country, and did not, in fact, permit the interpretation agreed upon at the London Conference. If that is the only

103
difficulty of the Government, why, I ask, is it not removed, since at Geneva last month the Minister was definitely offered that the terms of the London Agreement should be added to the Washington Convention, if necessary, as an additional protocol? The noble Marquess said that the points of difficulty are points of substance. I do not deny that they are points of substance, but if they are points which were considered at London in 1926, and if those points can now, by agreement, be incorporated in the international instrument—and even the Government of Belgium, which has ratified the Convention as it stands, has stated that it would have no objection to the addition of the points agreed upon in London—if that concession is made, then, whether they be points of substance or not, I ask what is the difficulty that the Government still have in accepting?
If that is not sufficient, if the points are not merely points of substance but are new, I would ask again why it has taken nearly ten years to find out those points. If it be true that even now, after ten years, new points of substance are discovered, what guarantee have we that, if revision is accepted as a policy and the whole Convention is put again into the melting pot, new points of substance may not be found, and what finality can we ever hope for in securing international agreement? Am I not justified, therefore, in saying that the attitude which the Government have adopted towards this matter is that of a Parliamentary Opposition? It may be desirable, but in the circumstances they cannot at any rate be surprised if they are regarded by those who are anxious to secure an agreed and
operative international instrument limiting the hours of labour to 48 per week—they cannot, I say, be surprised if the advocates of that cause regard them as at this moment its most strenuous opponents.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I desire to say only a word after the speeches of Lord Lytton and Lord Cecil. I do not at all desire to emphasise any difference that I may have with the noble Marquess opposite. We obviously have different views on certain points, but I will say nothing more about them. As regards the Agreement of 1926, I would only say that Great Britain, France, Belgium, Germany and Italy all accepted it, that three of the Governments have already ratified and that—I think the noble Marquess overlooked this point—in other countries some national legislation may be required to bring their systems into accord with their international obligations. This was clearly pointed out in the French statement about a year ago. Germany has prepared her legislation, as have Belgium and Italy, and the only reason why the other four Powers have not made complete ratification is that they have imposed the condition that they cannot do so until Great Britain ratifies. I really do not think that the suggested difficulties are very serious when you really grasp the nature of the difference between national and international obligations. I shall ask your Lordships to divide upon my Motion.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 6; Not-Contents, 18.

CONTENTS.

De La Warr, E. [Teller.]

Lytton, E.

Arnold, L. [Teller.]

Iddesleigh, E.

Parmoor, L.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Hailsham, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Onslow, E.

Novar, V.

Plymouth, E.

Peel, V.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Stanhope, E.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Shaftesbury, E. (L. Steward.)

Hanworth, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Bertie of Thame, V.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Churchill, V.

Wraxall, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Elibank, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, before we adjourn I would ask leave to make a correction in the announcement of business which I made last night. I said last night that, with your Lordships' consent, the Third Reading of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill would be put down for next Thursday. Owing to difficulties which have arisen in another place, and, I need not conceal from your Lordships, the near approach of the Prorogation, which is an important Prorogation, it will be necessary to get the Bill back to the House of Commons, if your Lordships will consent, on Wednesday instead of on Thursday. I therefore propose to give notice of Motion to be moved on Tuesday, to advance the Third Reading from Thursday, for which day it now stands, to Wednesday. The effect of that Motion would, of course, be to displace from their position the Motions which stand in the names of other noble Lords,
106
and in respect of the Motion in the name of my noble friend Lord Cecil of Chelwood, having reference to the Optional Clause, I have been asked to state that that will be postponed until the Wednesday following, May 1. I hope I shall obtain the consent of the House to that change.
LORD PARMOOR: I can tell the noble Marquess that he will have no opposition from us to his proposal. I do not know what the noble Viscount has to say.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Of course I should not dream of standing in the way of the business of this House, and on the understanding that my Motion will come on on May 1, I shall be very glad that it should be postponed until that day. I am much obliged to my noble friend for the way in which he has made the announcement.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before seven o'clock.

SALFORD CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
IVEAGH BEQUEST (KENWOOD) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
SOUTH SUBURBAN GAS BILL.
Reported, without amendment.
LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Reported, with an Amendment.

CROWBOROUGH DISTRICT WATER BILL.
TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL.
WINDERMERE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Committed for Tuesday next.

DULVERTON RURAL DISTRICT ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1929.
Special Order in respect of the rural district of Dulverton in the County of Somerset:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

EXE VALLEY ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1929.
Special Order in respect of parts of the rural districts of Crediton, St. Thomas and Tiverton in the County Devon:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

LISKEARD ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1929.
Special Order in respect of the Borough of Liskeard in the County of Cornwall:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

MACCLESFIELD ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1929.
Special Order in respect of the urban district of Bollington and part of the rural district of Macclesfield in the County of Chester; and for other purposes:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

STEPNEY ELECTRICITY (LIME HOUSE GENERATING STATION EXTENSION) ORDER, 1929.
Special Order in respect of the acquisition and use by the Mayor, aldermen and councillors of the Metropolitan Borough of Stepney of lands for the extension of the generating station at Lime-house:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

WITHERNSEA AND PATRINGTON DISTRICT ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1929.
Special Order in respect of the urban district of Withernsea and part of the rural district of Patrington in the East Riding of the County of York:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

WIVELISCOMBE AND WELLINGTON RURAL ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1929.
Special Order in respect of the urban district of Wiveliscombe and the rural district of Wellington in the County of Somerset:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

AGE OF MARRIAGE BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee (with the Proceedings of the Committee), made and to be printed. Bill reported, with Amendments, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House; and to be printed as amended. Minutes of Evidence and an Appendix laid upon the Table, and to be delivered out.
COMPANIES BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills which are not Private Bills, with Amendments, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Wednesday next, and Standing Order No. XXXIX to be considered in order to its being dispensed with: Bill to be printed as amended.