Sitting of 25 July 1929

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Dunfermline and District Traction Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read a Second time; considered; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

ELECTION EXPENSES.
Address for "Return of Expenses of each Candidate at the General Election of May, 1929, in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as declared to the returning officer pursuant to the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act, 1883, and of the number of votes polled to each candidate, the number of polling districts and stations, the number of electors and the number of absent voters (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 1, of Session 1926)."—[Mr. Short.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    BENEFIT (REGULATIONS).
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Minister of Labour if she proposes to issue any fresh regulations in the near future prescribing the evidence required as to the fulfilment of the condition genuinely seeking work by applicants for unemployment benefit?
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour what steps, if any, have been taken to modify the administration of
    1448
    the present Insurance Act, with particular relationship to the clause not genuinely seeking work?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): There is nothing I can add at present to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. T. Smith) on 18th July, of which I am sending my hon. Friends a copy.
    Mr. JAMES WILSONasked the Minister of Labour whether she is aware that under existing regulations trades union members who have exhauted their trades union benefit are required to make individual instead of an association claim for unemployment benefit; and whether she will take steps to remove this unnecessary inconvenience to unemployed members of trade unions?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Yes, Sir; in general, the concurrent payment of association benefit by associations administering State benefit is required by Statute. Regulations made in pursuance of the Statutes prescribe certain exceptions designed to minimise inconvenience, but the general principle has to be observed. If my hon. Friend has in mind any particular difficulties, however, I should be glad to consider them.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Minister of Labour what regulations have been made under Clause 35 (1) (b) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, prescribing the evidence which may be required from the applicant for unemployment benefit; and what evidence, in particular, may be required for the satisfaction of the statutory condition regarding genuinely seeking employment?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I would invite my hon. Friend's attention to the Unemployment Insurance (Benefit) Regulations, 1920, and the Unemployment Insurance Benefit (Amendment) Regulations, 1928. The matter is one which falls expressly within the terms of reference of the Committee under the Chairmanship of Sir Harold Morris, which will, no doubt, deal with it in their Report.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Will the Minister send me a copy of those regulations?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Certainly.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Is the question of "genuinely seeking work" to be considered by the Committee?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Yes, it falls within the terms of reference.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Are the regulations mentioned by the Minister the regulations which are referred to in the statutory obligation?
    Miss BONDFIELD: They are the regulations under which the machinery is working at present.
    Mr. MOSES: How long will it be before we may expect a report?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I said yesterday that I hoped to have the report available before the House meets again.

    INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY).
    Mr. TOM SMITHasked the Minister of Labour if she is in a position to state the names of the Committee to be appointed to inquire into unemployment insurance administration?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I have appointed the following as a Committee to consider and report to me upon the constitution and procedure of statutory authorities performing the functions of insurance officers, and Courts of Referees under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, and the nature of the evidence to be required as to the fulfilment of the conditions or the absence of the disqualifications for the receipt of unemployment benefit under the Acts:

    Sir Harold Morris, K.C., President of the Industrial Court (Chairman);

    Mr. John A. Gregorson, nominated by the National Confederation of Employers' Organisations;

    Mr. A. Hayday, M.P., nominated by the Trades Union Congress General Council;

    Councillor Mrs. Adams, member of the Northampton Borough Council, Northampton Board of Guardians, and member of Employed Persons' Panel of Northampton Court' of Referees;

    Professor F. Tillyard, C.B.E., Chairman of Birmingham Court of Referees, 1913–1928; and

    Mr. J. F. G. Price, C.B., Principal Assistant Secretary, Ministry of Labour.

    Mr. H. R. Hodges, Montagu House, Whitehall, will act as Secretary of the Committee.

    1450
    It will be noted that in addition to the membership which, as stated in my reply to the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. T. Smith) on the 18th July, I originally proposed for this Committee, I have decided to include a woman member.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Only one?

    EXCHANGE FACILITIES, CALVERTON, NOTTS.
    Mr. COCKSasked the Minister of Labour whether her attention has been drawn to the lack of Employment Exchange facilities at Calverton, Nottinghamshire; and whether she has been able to come to any decision in the matter?
    Miss BONDFIELD: My hon. Friend has written to me on this subject. I am making inquiries and will let him know my decision as soon as possible.

    BETHNAL GREEN.
    Major NATHANasked the Minister of Labour (1) whether she will state, for each month from January, 1924, onwards, the number of persons unemployed in Bethnal Green and the number of persons, at the latest available date, who have exhausted their right to, unemployment benefit;
    (2) whether she will state, for each month from January, 1924, onwards, the number of persons unemployed in West Ham and the number of persons, at the latest available date, who have exhausted their right to unemployment benefit?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The only figures I can give are those for the numbers of persons on the registers, and as these take the form of tables I will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I should add that, in the case of Bethnal Green, figures are only available from February, 1929. As there is now no numerical limit to the number of days of benefit that may be drawn provided that the minimum contribution qualification is satisfied, there is no group of persons who can be described as having "exhausted benefit."
    Major NATHAN: Can the Minister explain how it comes to (be that the figures for Bethnal Green are only available since February of this year?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Because that is the date when the new area was arranged.
    Following are the tables:

    PERSONS resident in the Metropolitan Borough of Bethnal Green on the registers of Employment Exchanges.

    —

    Men.

    Women.

    Juveniles.

    Total.

    1929.

    25th February

    …

    …

    …

    2,603

    480

    65

    3,148

    11th March

    …

    …

    …

    2,533

    470

    63

    3,066

    15th April

    …

    …

    …

    2,145

    395

    73

    2,613

    13th May

    …

    …

    …

    2,178

    388

    62

    2,628

    17th June

    …

    …

    …

    2,215

    397

    46

    2,658

    15th July

    …

    …

    …

    2,274

    404

    47

    2,725

    PERSONS on the REGISTERS of the Employment Exchanges at Canning Town and Stratford.

    Date.

    Number.

    Date.

    Number.

    1924.

    1927.

    14th January

    …

    …

    21,588

    17th January

    …

    …

    13,542

    11th February

    …

    …

    20,846

    14th February

    …

    …

    13,847

    17th March

    …

    …

    19,663

    14th March

    …

    …

    12,894

    14th April

    …

    …

    19,572

    11th April

    …

    …

    12,280

    12th May

    …

    …

    18,898

    16th May

    …

    …

    11,516

    16th June

    …

    …

    18,161

    13th June

    …

    …

    11,005

    14th July

    …

    …

    17,747

    11th July

    …

    …

    11,222

    11th August

    …

    …

    18,142

    15th August

    …

    …

    10,989

    15th September

    …

    …

    17,855

    12th September

    …

    …

    10,660

    13th October

    …

    …

    19,805

    17th October

    …

    …

    11,992

    17th November

    …

    …

    19,802

    14th November

    …

    …

    12,103

    15th December

    …

    …

    18,849

    12th December

    …

    …

    11,978

    1925.

    1928.

    12th January

    …

    …

    19,340

    16th January

    …

    …

    12,521

    16th February

    …

    …

    20,213

    13th February

    …

    …

    11,628

    16th March

    …

    …

    19,981

    12th March

    …

    …

    10,911

    13th April

    …

    …

    18,856

    16th April

    …

    …

    10,491

    11th May

    …

    …

    19,217

    14th May

    …

    …

    11,079

    15th June

    …

    …

    17,535

    11th June

    …

    …

    10,545

    13th July

    …

    …

    17,182

    16th July

    …

    …

    11,089

    17th August

    …

    …

    16,394

    13th August

    …

    …

    10,838

    14th September

    …

    …

    16,112

    17th S ptember

    …

    …

    11,037

    12th October

    …

    …

    17,534

    15th October

    …

    …

    12,369

    16th November

    …

    …

    17,879

    12th November

    …

    …

    12,419

    14th December

    …

    …

    16,915

    17th December

    …

    …

    11,695

    1926.

    1929.

    11th January

    …

    …

    16,098

    14th January

    …

    …

    13,325

    15th February

    …

    …

    16,312

    11th February

    …

    …

    13,005

    15th March

    …

    …

    16,048

    11th March

    …

    …

    12,971

    12th April

    …

    …

    14,682

    15th April

    …

    …

    11,952

    17th May

    …

    …

    23,003

    13th May

    …

    …

    11,577

    14th June

    …

    …

    16,473

    17th June

    …

    …

    10,810

    12th July

    …

    …

    15,796

    15th July

    …

    …

    10,550

    16th August

    …

    …

    14,678

    13th September

    …

    …

    13,418

    11th October

    …

    …

    14,349

    15th November

    …

    …

    14,687

    13th December

    …

    …

    13,808

  STEEL TRADE (WAGES).
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the Minister of Labour whether she can make a comparison as to the rise in real wages for the steel trade in Great Britain and the United States between 1913 and the latest available date for two comparable districts?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I regret that the statistical material available is insufficient to provide a satisfactory basis for such a comparison.
  Commander BELLAIRS: Will the Minister obtain information of some kind to enable us to make some sort of comparison if I ask a question next Session?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I will do my best, but the tables really are not comparable.

  TRADE BOARDS ACT (MESSRS. BROUGH, LIVERPOOL).
  Mr. KELLYasked the Minister of Labour when last an inspector of the Ministry visited the works of Messrs. Brough, of Liverpool; if the wages list was then examined; and has action been decided on to secure for the workpeople the wages set out in the trade board scale?
  Miss BONDFIELD: This firm was last visited at their request by the Senior Inspector, Manchester, on 15th February last. The wages books were not then examined. As my hon. Friend is, I think, aware, there have been difficulties of demarcation which have made it impracticable hitherto to treat this firm as subject to trade board requirements. It may be, however, that the firm's work will come within the scope of the Keg and Drum Board recently established, and as soon as rates fixed by this board have come into operation the question of their application in the case of Messrs Brough will be dealt with.
  Mr. KELLY: In view of the low wages paid by these people, compared with their competitors, will the Minister have this case again looked into, in order that the people who are paid "short" may receive the money to which they are entitled?
  Miss BONDFIELD: Certainly, as soon as the provisional trade board has been set up.

  WAGES DISPUTE (CIDER FIRM).
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Labour if she is aware that a dispute is in progress at the works of a well-known cider firm in the Eastern Counties on the question of wages and victimisation of employés; that representations have been made to her Department with a view of bringing the two sides together; if she can state the result of such representations; and whether the firm is now prepared to meet officials of the union concerned?
  Miss BONDFIELD: My Department has been in communication with the firm and the union concerned in this dispute, both before and since the stoppage of work which took place on 19th June. The firm state that they have all the labour they require, and that they regard the dispute as at an end. I regret that it has not so far been possible to arrange a meeting between the firm and officials of the Union.

  TRANSPORT.

    ROUNDABOUT AND ONE-WAY TRAFFIC (ACCIDENTS).
    Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the number of fatal and nonfatal street accidents that have taken place at the several places where the roundabout or one-way traffic systems have been introduced in the London area for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date; and whether he will give the corresponding figures for the 12 months prior to the inception of this system?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes): A return has been prepared as respects those roundabout or one-way systems which have been in operation for 12 months. As it is very long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, have it printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he thinks that the system as introduced in London is working satisfactorily and whether it is intended to increase it?
    Mr. CLYNES: I have not been asked for a considered opinion, and this is not the occasion to give it. All the informa-

    Round About and One-Way Systems—Accidents.

    Street or Place.

    Date of commencement of system.

    Number of Accidents.

    From inception of system to 30th June 1929.

    Corresponding period immediately prior to inception

    Fatal.

    Non-fatal (persons injured).

    Fatal.

    Non-fatal (persons injured).

    Serious.

    Slight.

    Serious.

    Slight.

    Parliament Square

    4.1.26

    1

    9

    102

    3

    4

    44

    Queen's Gardens

    25.1.26

    1

    3

    44

    1

    2

    18

    Hyde Park Corner

    22.3.26

    2

    21

    198

    2

    14

    180

    Trafalgar Square

    26.4.26

    5

    14

    276

    8

    8

    174

    Knightsbridge and Bromp-ton Road.

    14.2.27

    1

    3

    29

    —

    4

    46

    Sloane Square

    7.3.27

    —

    —

    100

    —

    13

    137

    Grosvenor Gardens

    2.1.28

    —

    —

    30

    —

    1

    21

    Albert Gate

    6.2.28

    —

    1

    4

    —

    —

    3

    Bessborough Gardens

    26.11.28

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    2

    Piccadilly Circus

    26.7.26

    1

    12

    116

    4

    9

    122

    Haymarket

    26.7.26

    1

    8

    122

    —

    4

    47

    Piccadilly, St. James's Street, Bennet Street, etc.

    22.3.26

    —

    —

    11

    —

    —

    10

    Lower Regent Street

    15.11.26

    —

    2

    77

    2

    7

    53

    Orange Street

    27.5.29

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Dean Street

    27.5.29

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    3

    Wardour Street

    27.5.29

    —

    3

    2

    —

    —

    3

    Deanery Street and Tilney Street.

    27.5.29

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Marble Arch

    1.11.26

    2

    11

    132

    2

    7

    92

    Chapel Street, W.

    6.2.28

    —

    —

    11

    —

    —

    39

    Marylebone Lane

    26.11.28

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Somerset Street, W.

    26.11.28

    —

    —

    1

    —

    —

    —

    Long Acre

    1.8.24

    —

    4

    30

    1

    2

    28

    Great St. Andrew Street

    1.8.24

    —

    —

    15

    —

    1

    23

    Aldwych

    12.10.25

    —

    3

    31

    —

    4

    27

    Maiden Lane

    27.5.29

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    The Mall and Church Street, Notting Hill.

    2.1.28

    —

    —

    10

    —

    6

    3

    Featherstone Street and Leonard Street, Finsbury.

    26.11.28

    —

    —

    2

    —

    —

    3

    Catherine Street and Vince Street, Shoreditch.

    26.11.28

    —

    —

    —

    1

    —

    4

    Mare Street, Hackney (be-ween Amhurst Road and Dalston Lane).

    4.8.24

    1

    10

    55

    1

    8

    47

    Bow Road, Poplar (by St. Mary's Church).

    6.2.28

    —

    —

    14

    —

    —

    18

    Goodmayes Lane and Green Lane, Ilford.

    27.5.29

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    High Street and Eleanor Cross Road, Waltham Cross.

    6.2.28

    —

    1

    8

    1

    —

    15

    Montpelier Yale, Blackheath

    6.2.28

    —

    —

    3

    —

    —

    1

    Lee Green

    9.4.28

    1

    —

    10

    —

    —

    8

    Swiss Cottage

    9.4.28

    —

    6

    31

    —

    6

    39

    The Burroughs and Watford Way, Hendon.

    27.5.29

    —

    —

    4

    —

    —

    —

    Hendon Circus

    27.5.29

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1

    tion will be found, I think, in the statement.
    Following is the return:

    Street or Place.

    Date of commencement of system.

    Number of Accidents.

    From inception of system to 30th June 1929.

    Corresponding period immediately prior to inception

    Fatal.

    Non-fatal (persons injured).

    Fatal.

    Non-fatal (persons injured).

    Serious.

    Slight.

    Serious.

    Slight.

    Hammersmith—King Street Beadons Road and part of The Grove.

    27.7.26

    —

    7

    71

    —

    6

    49

    Kingston Road (Junction of Kingston By-pass Road).

    26.11.28

    —

    —

    3

    —

    —

    2

    The Triangle, East Sheen

    6.2.28

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1

    Richmond Hill

    26.11.28

    —

    —

    1

    —

    —

    —

    Red Lion Street, Richmond

    26.11.28

    —

    1

    1

    —

    —

    1

    High Street, Thames Ditton (Junction of St. Leonards Road).

    27.5.29

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Elgin Avenue, Paddington (Junction of Great Western and Harrow Roads, etc.).

    26.11.28

    —

    —

    1

    —

    1

    8

    The Triangle, Palmers Green

    6.5.28

    —

    2

    —

    —

    —

    7

    Park Avenue and Barret Avenue, Wood Green.

    26.11.28

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1

    2

    16

    121

    1,545

    26

    108

    1,281

    MOTOR-CYCLE ACCIDENTS.
    Mr. REMERasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the large number of road accidents in which motor-cyclists have been involved; and whether he has drawn, or proposes to draw, the attention of the police throughout the country to this aspect of the traffic problem?
    Mr. CLYNES: I am aware of the large number of road accidents in which motor cyclists have been involved, but I do not think it is necessary to draw the attention of the police specially to the matter. What seems chiefly to be required is a higher standard of skill in driving and an increased sense of responsibility on the part of motor cyclists, and that is to be attained, I am sure, as much by education and propaganda by those in a position to influence motor cycling opinion as by any action on the part of the police.
    Mr. REMER: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the correspondence which took place before his predecessor and the Royal Automobile Club on this subject?
    Mr. CLYNES: I am aware of the opinion of my predecessor on this subject, also of the correspondence.
    Mr. SMITHERS: In view of the statement made by the Home Secretary, will he not now consider the advisability of enforcing some test before licences are issued?
    Mr. CLYNES: I would like notice of that question.

  CLERKS OF THE PEACE (APPOINTMENTS).
  Mr. LAWTHERasked the Home Secretary if he will, having regard to the extended powers now given to county councils, introduce legislation to give them the power to elect clerks of the peace and assistant clerks of the peace?
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): I have been asked to reply. I have under consideration the question of legislation for dealing with the present position in regard to the appointment of clerks of county councils and clerks of the peace.
  Mr. FOOT: Can a further answer be given, having regard to some appointments at present pending? The right hon. Gentleman is aware, no doubt, that grievances exist in this respect?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I am considering that very question now with representatives of the Association affected.

  FACTORIES BILL.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Home Secretary whether he will consider including in the Factories Bill a clause giving to workers a right of appeal against unjust dismissal so as to avoid victimisation?
  Mr. CLYNES: The hon. Member raises a big question which appears to me to be rather one for another Department. In any case it goes far outside the scope of the Factory Acts and could not in my opinion be dealt with in the Factories Bill.
  Mr. MANDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to deal with this subject in another Bill?
  Mr. CLYNES: I must ask for notice of that question.

  ARTIFICIAL SILK FACTORIES.
  Mr. KELLYasked the Home Secretary what reports have recently been made by his inspectors as to the health conditions in artificial silk factories?
  Mr. CLYNES: It appears from reports recently received that the cases of conjunctivitis which has been the main source of trouble in this industry have been diminishing and that, following on the conference which the chief inspector had last spring with the firms concerned, improved methods of ventilation are being tried which it is hoped will result in a further reduction. The general health conditions continue to be satisfactory but much yet remains to be done at some of the works in order to eliminate the eye trouble, and I have asked the chief inspector to hold a further conference with the firms at an early date, in order to review the position and consider what further steps should be taken.
  Mr. KELLY: When is the conference likely to be held; and will the unions concerned be invited to express their views?
  Mr. CLYNES: I will consider the second point of that question favourably; as to the first, there will be no undue delay.

  POLICE.

    TRAFFIC DUTY (HOURS).
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEasked the Home Secretary what are the hours of employment of police constables of the Metropolitan police on traffic duty: and if he can give the number of cases of illness or overstrain which have resulted from these hours?
    Mr. CLYNES: The duty period is eight hours with a break of half-an-hour for refreshments. I am informed that there is no evidence of cases, of illness or overstrain resulting from the length of the duty period.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does that mean that an officer on point duty in a street where there is busy traffic is on duty for eight hours at a time?
    Mr. CLYNES: With a break of about half-an-hour.

    CHIEF CONSTABLES (APPOINTMENT).
    Mr. JAMES HUDSONasked the Home Secretary whether he is prepared to make applicable to the appointment of chief constables or assistant chief con stables in England the same provision as in the Police (Scotland) Regulations, which requires that no person without previous police experience of five years or more shall be appointed to these posts?
    Mr. CLYNES: In view of the importance of securing for these posts the best possible qualifications and experience, I am not at present satisfied that I should be justified in altering the Regulations in the sense suggested, but I am giving further consideration to the whole problem.
    Mr. HUDSONasked the Home Secretary how many appointments to the office of chief constable or of assistant chief constable have been approved by the Secretary of State during the last five years; and how many of these were of persons without previous and recognised experience in the police?
    Mr. CLYNES: In the five years ended 30th June last, 48 appointments to the

    1461
    post of chief constable of county and borough forced were approved by the Secretary of State. Of the persons appointed 38 had previous experience in English or 'Scottish forces, one in the Royal Irish Constabulary, six in Indian or Colonial police services, while three were appointed on special experience of other kinds. Appointments to the post of assistant chief constable are not necessarily subject to the Secretary of State's approval. On 30th June last eight of the ten assistant chief constables had had police experience before their appointments, and there was one vacancy.
    Mr. SMITHERS: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that previous police experience is an essential qualification for one of these posts?
    Mr. CLYNES: Generally, yes, but there are exceptional cases.
    Mr. HAYCOCK: Is military experience a first-class qualification for a chief constable?
    Mr. CLYNES: I do not say that it is a first-class qualification, but it is a qualification.
    Mr. HAYCOCK: Why?

    DISCIPLINARY CASES.
    Mr. W. BENNETTasked the Home Secretary whether, seeing that it has been customary for the police in the daily police orders to publish notices of the suspension or punishment of police officers for disciplinary offences, he will state why the practice has been discontinued?
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the police orders issued from New Scotland Yard to Metropolitan police stations have ceased to contain particulars of the suspensions and punishments of police offenders against discipline; whether this stoppage has his approval; and, if so, the reason for this new method?
    Mr. CLYNES: The practice of notifying in Police Orders certain particulars with regard to disciplinary action was established in the Metropolitan Police as a convenient method of conveying orders or information to all whom it might concern in the force.
    1462
    It had no other purpose. Recently the attention of the Commissioner was called to the fact that the particulars so given were being utilised for purposes of a wider publicity for which they were not suitable, since in many instances the notifications related to cases still sub judice and because the information given was usually confined to particulars essential for service purposes. The Commissioner accordingly decided for the time being to discontinue the practice. This does not mean, however, that there is any intention to withhold from the Press information which they should have upon matters of public interest, and if the present arrangements for the purpose do not satisfactorily meet the requirements of the case, I shall be glad to consider, with the Commissioner, how they can be improved. We may perhaps hope to have the co-operation of the Press in concerting arrangements which could be adhered to by all concerned.
    Mr. SMITHERS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability, in connection with these services and disciplinary inquiries, of having the evidence taken on oath?
    Mr. CLYNES: The subject of inquiries is not referred to, either in the question or the answer, but I will consider the point raised.

    ASSISTANT CHIEF CONSTABLE, STAFFORDSHIRE.
    Mr. W. M. ADAMSONasked the Home Secretary whether he has now given consideration to the recommendation of the Staffordshire Standing Joint Committee to appoint Commander Legge as assistant chief constable for the county; and if he can now make a statement on the matter?
    Mr. CLYNES: Yea, Sir, the position is that under the Police Regulations the only matter on which my approval is required is as to the appointment of a person whose age is over 30 years, and having regard to the nature of the post in question, I have come to the conclusion that I should not be justified in withholding my approval.
    Mr. ADAMSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into consideration applicants under the age who were recognised police officers with experience?
    Mr. HANNON: Is not this officer qualified in every respect for the appointment?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That point has already been dealt with.
    Mr. CLYNES: All I have to take into consideration is whether the decision to make the appointment was justified, and I have reached the conclusion that I ought not to interfere.

    PENSIONS.
    Mr. OLDFIELDasked the Home Secretary what is the total sum contributed by members of the Metropolitan police force towards pensions in 1927 and 1928, respectively; and what is the total expenditure upon such pensions in the same period?
    Mr. CLYNES: Taking the financial years 1927–28 and 1928–29 the amounts received towards the cost of pensions under the heads deductions from pay, fines, etc., were £231,213 and £241,020 respectively. The total expenditure on pensions for the same periods (including widows' pensions and children's allowances) were £1,699,765 and £1,775,672.

  VOTERS (BUSINESS QUALIFICATION).
  Mr. A. G. GOSSLINGasked the Home Secretary the number of persons registered as voters for business premises in parliamentary elections in England and Wales, respectivly?
  Mr. CLYNES: The particulars for a few constituencies are still outstanding, but I expect to have them very soon and will then give notice to my hon. Friend.

  FIRST OFFENDERS.
  Mr. LANGasked the Home Secretary if he is in agreement with the circular issued by the last Home Secretary urging magistrates not to impose short sentences upon first offenders ordered imprisonment?
  Mr. CLYNES: I have no knowledge of such a circular.
  Mr. LANG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of cases have occurred in which the instruction to impose longer sentences has been re-
  1464
  garded as a supersession of the Probation of Offenders Act?
  Mr. CLYNES: If my hon. Friend has knowledge of such cases, I shall be glad to consider them.

  CONVICTED PERSONS (INSANITY).
  Mr. LANGasked the Home Secretary whether in view of the fact that for the three years 1926 to 1928, inclusive, 295 male and 43 female prisoners were certified as insane after their reception into prison as convicted persons, he will provide for the obligatory mental examination of all convicted persons before sentence?
  Mr. CLYNES: Wherever there is reason for suspecting mental abnormality, it is certainly right that the Court should have a medical report before proceeding to conviction and sentence, and it is the duty of Prison Medical Officers to make such reports on prisoners committed for trial or remanded by Courts of Summary Jurisdiction to prison for medical observation. Figures are given by the Medical Commissioner in the Annual Reports of the Prison Commissioners showing how large a number of cases are so dealt with.

  HOME OFFICE (POLICE PENSIONERS).
  Mr. LONGBOTTOMasked the Home Secretary if he can state the number of persons in the employ of his Department who are in receipt of pensions from local police authorities for past police service; and the duties they are now performing, together with the salaries paid and the ages of those in question?
  Mr. CLYNES: Yes, Sir, and, with my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate the information he asks for in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. LONGBOTTOM: Is there in the employment of the right hon. Gentleman's Department one gentleman of more than 70 years of age, who receives a salary of £1,500 a year, and who has had a pension of £800 a year from a local police authority for many years; and does the right hon. Gentleman agree with an appointment of that description?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member ought to put that question on the Paper.
  Following is the information:
  So far as the Home Office records show, the Home Office have in their employment nine officers who are in receipt of pensions from local police authorities for past police services. The particulars required are as follow:

  Rank.

  Present salary (basic).

  Age.

  H.M. Inspectors of Constabulary.

  £1,100 per annum

  59

  H.M. Inspectors of Constabulary.

  £850 per annum

  69

  Metropolitan Agent*

  £2 10s. 0d. a week

  60

  Metropolitan Agent*

  £2 10s. 0d. a week

  58

  Metropolitan Agent*

  £2 10s. 0d. a week

  58

  Metropolitan Agent*

  £2 10s. 0d. a week

  60

  Metropolitan Agent*

  £2 10s. 0d. a week

  59

  Metropolitan Agent*

  £2 5s. 0d. a week

  52

  Metropolitan Agent*

  £2 2s. 6d. a week

  50

  *Assisting in the collection in London of contributions to be paid by parents for the maintenance of their children in Certified Schools.

  In the Prison Commission there are 6 officers as follows:—

  Rank.

  Present salary (basic).

  Age.

  Brixton Prison:

  Temporary officer:

  31s. 6d. + 21s. 1d.

  60

  Night Patrol.

  bonus

  (53s. 7d. weekly).

  Temporary officer

  4s. 6d. + 3s. 2d.

  51

  bonus

  (7s. 8d. per day).

  Feltham Borstal Institution:

  Temporary officer

  4s. 6d. + 3s. 2d.

  51

  bonus

  (7s. 8d. per day).

  Portland Borstal Institution:

  Temporary officer:

  31s. 6d. + 22s. 1d.

  55

  Night Patrol.

  bonus

  (53s. 7d. weekly).

  Wakefield Prison:

  Temporary officer:

  4s. 6d. + 3s. 2d.

  61

  Night Patrol.

  bonus

  (7s. 8d. per day).

  Wandsworth Prison:*

  Established Prison Officer.

  31s. 0d. + 21s. 9d.

  27

  bonus

  Rent allowance 16s.

  (68s. 9d. weekly).

  *R.I.C. pensioner.

  FIRE BRIGADE DISPLAYS.
  Sir WALTER de FRECEasked the Home Secretary whether any police supervision, and, if so, what, is exercised in the Metropolitan police area over fire brigade displays which entail the destruction by fire of combustible structures?
  Mr. CLYNES: No, Sir, the police have no such powers.

  ENGINEERING WORKSHOPS (EYE INJURIES).
  Mr. J. WILSONasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the in jury caused to the eyesight of employés in engineering workshops through the lodgment of foreign matter in the eye; and whether he will make arrangements for the appointment of an eye specialist in engineering towns, at which such employés could receive treatment on production of their medical card?
  Mr. CLYNES: I am aware of the liability to eye injuries in many engineering processes, and the first-aid arrangements which are required to be made at every factory provide for the first-aid treatment of these injuries. Arrangements, however, for the provision of any specialist treatment which may be necessary subsequently are outside the scope of the Factory Acts, and all I can offer is to bring the hon. Member's suggestion to the notice of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.

  COLONIES (LIQUOR IMPORTATION).
  Mr. AYLESasked the Home Secretary whether he will include in the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on the drink traffic the question of the control of liquor importation into the Colonies?
  Mr. CLYNES: No, Sir. This question would be quite outside the scope of the contemplated inquiry.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman set up some committee of inquiry into this really scandalous blot on the Empire?
  Mr. CLYNES: I can only at the moment answer the question on the Paper.

  MR. ISRAEL ISENBERG, NOTTINGHAM (NATURALISATION).
  Mr. COCKSasked the Home Secretary whether Be has been able to come to any decision regarding the application for naturalisation of Mr. Israel Isenberg, of Nottingham?
  Mr. CLYNES: The only application for naturalisation which can be traced from Mr. Israel Isenberg was refused by my predecessor in May, 1928.
  Mr. COCKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider that opinion of his predecessor?
  Mr. CLYNES: I have had no application to reconsider it.

  FOREIGN VISITORS (REGULATIONS).
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that foreigners are deterred from visiting this country through a belief that they will be subjected to much unpleasantness through the strictness with which aliens regulations are enforced; whether he has studied the letter forwarded to him from the sender of some 40 pictures and drawings for the recent Dutch exhibition; and whether he can make a reassuring statement on this matter?
  Mr. CLYNES: I am not aware that the facts are as suggested in the first part of the question, and the published statistics show that the number of aliens arriving and embarking as passengers has steadily increased during the last two years. If the letter referred to in the second part of the question is the one which I received this morning for the first time from, the hon. and gallant Member, after his question appeared on the Paper, I know of no reason for thinking that the writer would have experienced any difficulty in obtaining leave to land here. On the contrary, my predecessor intimated that he was ready to take special steps when asked to see that no difficulty occurred.

  STANDING JOINT COMMITTEES.
  Mr. LAWTHERasked the Home Secretary if he will consider the abolition of the present standing joint committees in administrative county areas and con-
  1468
  fining to the exercise of their functions members of the county council?
  Mr. CLYNES: The present system has worked very well in practice, and this is not a matter on which I have any intention of proposing legislation.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the present system has not worked very well in certain areas?
  Mr. CLYNES: My answer indicates the contrary.

  SHOP HOURS, GREAT YARMOUTH.
  Mr. R. A. TAYLORasked the Home Secretary whether any changes in the general closing hours for shops have been or are to be made in Great Yarmouth; and, if so, if all the provisions of the Shops Act are being carried out?
  Mr. CLYNES: I have not the information asked for on either point. As my hon. Friend knows, the Town Council and not the Home Office is the authority responsible for the administration of the Act at Great Yarmouth. If he has any complaint to make and will furnish me with the evidence on which it is based. I shall be ready to inquire into it.

  COMMITTEE OF CIVIL RESEARCH.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Prime Minister whether the Government have now made arrangements to appoint an economic general staff; and, if so, how will it be composed?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I give yesterday in answer to a question by the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Sir C. Cayzer).

  NAVAL POLICY.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Prime Minister whether he has any announcement to make about the 1928 programme of naval construction?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement on this subject which I made yesterday.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Has the Prime Minister now looked into the figures, and

  1469
  can he give any indication of the amount of unemployment that is likely to be caused by his decision; can he further say why the Royal dockyards are to bear the whole brunt of these reductions, and all the contracts placed with private firms are to remain and only dockyard ships are to be taken out of the programme?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question is inaccurate. Private dockyards will also have to bear their share. So far as the figures are concerned, I have looked into them with the Committee specially charged to examine them, and the amount of unemployment which will result will, we hope, be practically negligible.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the only work which remains to the dockyards is one submarine and two sloops, whereas practically the whole of the work placed with the private firms will remain; and is it the policy of the Government to send all national work to the private yards?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, it is not the policy of the Government to do that, as will be shown when the full scheme is disclosed. The saving of unemployment in the dockyards is going to be effected by a reorganisation of the work.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that many of the private yards have been specially equipped in order to meet the Government's requirements, and are they not entitled to a fair share of any Government work that is going?
  Viscountess ASTOR: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman just to remember that it is rather difficult for some of us—
  HON. MEMBERS: Order!

  PUBLIC MEETINGS (DISTURBANCE).
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir GODFREY DALRYMPLE-WHITEasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been drawn to the increasing denial of the right of free speech at election meetings in many areas, and notably at the present by-election at Preston; whether he will consider if the existing law is inadequate to prevent such disturbances; and, if not, whether he will consider the introduction
  1470
  of further legislation to secure a fan-hearing at such meetings?
  Mr. CLYNES: As was stated in reply to a similar question by the hon. Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Mr. Dixey) on the 23rd instant, I am not aware of any need for strengthening the law in this particular respect.
  Sir G. DALRYMPLE-WHITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reply referred to was a direct negative and entirely ignored the fact that this practice at the recent General Election reached an unprecedented scale; further, with regard to the fact that one of the candidates at the Preston by-election is one of the Law Officers of the Crown, will the right hon. Gentleman consult him after the election, as he has now had an opportunity of seeing this rowdyism in practice?
  Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Has my right hon. Friend been advised that punishment for these deplorable incidents is already fully provided for by the Public Meetings Act, 1908; and are Ministers, in face of similar difficulties, receiving any advice from the Law Officers?
  Mr. CLYNES: Exactly. That is why I said that no strengthening of the law was necessary.
  Mr. ERNEST BROWN: How is it possible to deal with cases of this kind when you get 600 or 700 people in a packed schoolroom, where injury must come to innocent people if there is any interference by the police?
  Mr. CLYNES: That is precisely why I hold the view that we must look to other means for securing the peaceful conduct of our meetings than merely to a strengthening of the law.
  Mr. DIXEY: In view of the importance that people attach to this by-election, particularly having regard to the circumstances in this case, will the Government try to secure for the Conservative and other candidates a fair chance?

  JURY SERVICE (TRAVELLING EXPENSES).
  Mr. FOOTasked the Home Secretary if it is his intention to introduce legislation providing for the payment of

  1471
  travelling expenses to jurymen and jury-women summoned to serve at assizes and quarter sessions?
  Mr. CLYNES: Though I have certain sympathy with the proposal, I regret that I do not feel able to propose legislation for putting an additional charge of this character upon public funds at the present time.

  EDUCATION.

    SCHOOL LEAVING AGE.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEasked the President of the Board of Education, with reference to the proposed raising of the school age to 15, whether any associations representing parents' interests have been consulted; and if he will name them?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Sir Charles Trevelyan): I have not consulted any such associations. But a large majority of the parents voted in favour of the change at the General Election.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: May we take it for a fact that the right hon. Gentleman intends to keep children in school up to the age of 15 without the parents' consent?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: I have already pointed out that the parents' consent has been given.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not a fact that this scheme has been tried in Plymouth for three years and has been found a great success?
    Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLEasked the President of the Board of Education how many trained teachers leave the training colleges and the universities annually?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: May I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave him to his own question on Monday last?
    Mr. SOMERVILLE: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for the repetition.
    Mr. BEAUMONTasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the proposed raising of the school age, the Hadow Report still represents the educational policy of His Majesty's Government?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: The raising of the school age was an integral part of the Hadow Report. The late Government rejected it. The present Government has adopted it.
    Mr. BEAUMONT: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us—the Hadow Report did not—what arrangements he proposes to make for the provision of central schools in areas entirely served by voluntary schools?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.
    Captain TODDasked the President of the Board of Education if, in his proposals for the raising of the school-leaving age to 15, he is making any provision for financial assistance to non-provided schools to assist in the provision of the new school places that will be required?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: I cannot at present add anything to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) on the 4th July, of which I am sending the hon. and gallant Member a copy.
    Mr. OLDFIELD: As well as making arrangements for meeting the representative of local authorities and teachers upon the matter of the school leaving age, is the right hon. Gentleman also making arrangements to receive those persons who are responsible for the building and the owning of non-provided schools?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: I have not been approached about the matter. I shall meet everyone who is closely concerned with the problem.
    Mr. OLDFIELD: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is meeting certain local authorities on Tuesday, I want to know whether he is meeting the representatives of the non-provided schools as well?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: I cannot meet everybody at once.
    Mr. LAMBERT: May we take it that no further assistance will be given to non-provided schools unless a further measure of public control is enforced?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: I have already answered that question.
    Lord EUSTACE PERCY: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman will not invite the voluntary bodies to meet him unless he receives a request from them first?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: I am quite certain that if, as collective bodies, they want to see me, they will come and ask. The local authorities have a definite duty in connection with the matter, and, therefore, must necessarily see me.
    Mr. SMITHERSasked the President of the Board of Education what increase there would be in the number of children attending elementary schools by raising the school age to 15; what amount of extra school buildings would be necessary; hew many more teachers would be required; and what would be the total cost to the State and to the local education authorities?
    Mr. A. SOMERVILLEasked the President of the Board of Education what he estimates will be the additional annual cost of raising the school leaving age to 15: how many additional school places will be required when the age is raised in 1931; in how many schools will these places have to be provided; and what he estimates will be the cost of providing such additional accommodation?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: The increase in the number of children who will be on the registers of public elementary schools a full year after raising the school age is estimated to be 401,000. For reasons which I have previously given, I am unable to give any reliable estimate at the present time of the cost of raising the school leaving age, the number of additional teachers, or the additional school places which would be required.
    Mr. SMITHERS: Are we to understand that the Government are embarking on this great scheme without any adequate idea, at all of what it will cost, or how much extra accommodation will be required?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: At present I cannot possibly have any exact estimate, because I have not yet fully consulted the local authorities. The situation varies exceedingly all over the country; it is costly in one case, and not costly in another, and it is impossible at present to give any definite estimates.
    Mr. SMITHERS: Is the Minister aware that if any other business was run on those lines, it would be bankrupt?
    HON. MEMBERS: This is not a business.
    Sir ERNEST SHEPPERSONasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the fact that the compulsory raising of the school age from 14 to 15 must seriously affect the whole agricultural industry, and particularly the interests of the agricultural worker himself, he will take steps to exclude rural areas from coming within the scope of the proposed Bill to raise the school-leaving age?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: No, Sir, I do not intend to propose the exclusion of rural areas.
    Sir E. SHEPPERSON: If the right hon. Gentleman is unable to exclude attendance between the ages of 14 and 15 in rural areas, will he consider making the attendance in agricultural areas between 14 and 15 voluntary and not compulsory?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: I do not want to put any class of children at a disadvantage.
    Mr. ROSBOTHAM: May I ask the Minister if he has found from experience that agricultural workers are as keenly interested in education as any other workers?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that that question arises.

    REORGANISATION SCHEMES.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has any statistics showing to what extent the reorganisation of primary education along the lines envisaged by the Hadow Report has already taken place?
    Mr. A. SOMERVILLEasked the President of the Board of Education in how many of the 317 educational areas in England and Wales schemes for the reorganisation of teaching for all children over 11 have been carried through; in how many other areas such schemes have been prepared or approved; and how long does he estimate it will be before such schemes will have been in operation all over England and Wales?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: I am sending the hon. Members a copy of the reply which I gave yesterday to a similar question addressed to me by the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor).

    PLAYING FIELDS.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the President of the Board of Education what is the estimated proportion of children in primary schools who have access to satisfactory playing-fields; and what steps are being taken by the Board to increase this proportion?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: I am unable to give the estimate asked for. In recent years, partly as a result of the energetic work of the National Playing Fields Association, authorities have increasingly recognised the need for playing fields for elementary school children. In the last four years the Board have approved about 200 purchases of land for this purpose; in addition numerous arrangements have been made for the fuller use of public parks and other available open spaces. I am considering what steps I can most effectively take to increase the existing provision.
    Mr. FOOTasked the President of the Board of Education if, having regard to the limitation of the facilities for children's recreation, steps can be taken to make school playing-fields and playgrounds available for children during the summer evenings and during the summer holidays?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the reply which I gave to a similar question addressed to me by the hon. Member for North Portsmouth (Sir B. Falle) a week ago.

    ATTENDANCE.
    Mrs. HAMILTONasked the President of the Board of Education what percentage of boys and girls between the ages of 14 and 16 years of age are attending schools, separating grant-earning and other schools; and what number of boys and girls are being educated together, under 14 and over 14 years, respectively?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: The number of pupils over 14 and under 16 attending grant-earning schools in 1927–28 was 320,949, or approximately 22.6 per cent.
    1476
    of the total population between those ages. I have no information with regard to the number of such pupils attending other schools. As regards the second part of the question, there were in mixed or infants' departments of public elementary schools, on March 31st, 1928, 3,673,041 children under 14, and 80,224 over 14.

    NURSERY SCHOOLS.
    Lady CYNTHIA MOSLEYasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is in a position to state plans for the more general extension of nursery schools; and whether he proposes to ask for powers to require local authorities to establish nursery schools in their areas?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: I am considering the beet way of securing an extension of nursery schools, but I cannot make any definite statement before the House rises to-morrow.
    Lady CYNTHIA MOSLEY: In view of the fact that the very poor districts are the districts that most urgently need nursery schools, will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving an increased grant in those districts?
    Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider receiving soon a deputation from those interested in nursery schools?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: I am considering all the aspects of the question, but I shall no doubt possibly see someone.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman receive a deputation?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: It depends on the deputation. I am very ready to meet any Members of this House, or anybody who speaks for any large body of public opinion.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Would the Minister receive the woman most responsible for nursery schools—Miss McMillan.
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: Of course, I would.

    STATISTICS (SOUTH SHIELDS).
    Mr. EDEasked the President of the Board of Education how many children there are between the ages of 11 and 12 years in the elementary schools of South Shields; the number of ex-elementary

    1477
    school children who enter secondary schools in the borough each year; and how the proportion between these two figures compares with the proportion for the county as a whole?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: On 31st March, 1927, there were 2,089 children between 11 and 12 years of age on the registers of elementary schools in South Shields. During 1927–28, 176 children from these schools were admitted to secondary schools on the grant list, the percentage being 8.4 as compared with a percentage of 11.1 for England and Wales.
    Mr. EDEasked the President of the Board of Education how many secondary school places there are in rate-aided schools in the county borough of South Shields; what proportion they are to the population of the borough; and how many free places there are in the rate-aided secondary schools of the borough?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: On 1st October, 1928, the number of pupils in rate-aided secondary schools in South Shields was 781, being 6.4 per thousand of the population in July, 1928, as estimated by the Registrar-General. The number of free place pupils was 248.

    SIZE OF CLASSES (DERBYSHIRE).
    Mr. LEESasked the President of the Board of Education what is the average number of children per class for elementary schools in the county of Derbyshire?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: The average number of children per class in elementary schools under the Derbyshire Local Education Authority is 35.

    PRIVATE SCHOOLS.
    Dr. HASTINGSasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the poor quality of the education provided in certain private schools, he will consider the introduction of legislation for the compulsory inspection of all schools?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: I am aware of the disadvantage to many children attending private schools of the poor quality of the education given in them; but I am not yet clear what alteration in the law would be necessary to enforce a reasonable standard of efficiency.

    CHURCH SCHOOL, ALFRETON.
    Mr. LEESasked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware of the insanitary condition of the Church elementary school at Alfreton, Derbyshire; and whether any steps are being taken to deal with this matter?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: I am aware that this school was included in the Black List, and I am inquiring what action is proposed with regard to it.
    Mr. LEES: In view of the wretched condition of this school, would it not be as well for the President to send an inspector there at once?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: I am inquiring into what action should be taken.

    ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, BELPER.
    Mr. LEESasked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware of the unhealthy condition of the elementary school at Belper, Derbyshire; and whether any steps are being taken to deal with this matter?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: If my hon. Friend will let me know which of the five schools in Belper he has in mind, I will send him an answer to his question.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Health whether he can give the reasons for the removal of the 46 insurance practitioners who have been removed from the medical list since 1913?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: The reason in each case was that the Minister was satisfied, after the prescribed inquiry, that the continued inclusion of the practitioner in the medical list would be prejudicial to the efficiency of the medical service of the insured.
  Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in the majority of these cases it was through neglect on the part of these practitioners?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: Their removal was due, not to one, but to many reasons. The general reason for exclusion from the panel is that they are acting prejudicially to the interests of the patients.

  HOUSING.

    RENT RESTRICTIONS ACTS.
    Sir BASIL PETOasked the Minister of Health whether he can now give any indication of the Government's intention with regard to the continuing or the amendment of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restriction Act?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement which my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, made on this subject yesterday in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Lathan).
    Sir B. PETO: Will the Minister consider setting up a Departmental Committee before whom evidence can be given both by tenants and owners of small house property coming under the Rent Restrictions Acts, so that when the Government introduce legislation they will have all the facts before them?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I should say that to set up such a Committee would be a work of supererogation. I think we are quite familiar with the hardships.
    Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: Is that not all the more reason why some legislation should be proceeded with this year?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to see about legislation at any time during the last few years.
    Mr. ARNOTTasked the Minister of Health if, in renewing the Rent Restrictions Act, he will consider the insertion of provisions making it illegal for owners of controlled houses to raise the rents of their tenants to meet any increased charges due to the reduction of excessive compounding allowances under the Rating and Valuation Act of 1925?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I may perhaps refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday that it-is proposed immediately to provide for the continuance of the Rent Restrictions Acts by means of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and if this is done it will not be practicable to introduce amendments at that stage. I am not sure what my hon. Friend's precise proposal is, but I will have his suggestion in mind for future consideration.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When the right hon. Gentleman is considering the housing policy as a whole, will he pay particular attention to this point in view of the fact that he spoke and voted against this very allowance to landlords during the last Parliament?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: Certainly I will consider it.

    COUNCIL HOUSES (SUB-LETTING).
    Sir ALBERT BENNETTasked the Minister of Health if he will state the policy of his Department on the subject of the sub-letting of council houses; and whether he can give the number and the names of the local authorities which have prohibited sub-letting?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The general management of houses provided by local authorities is by Statute entirely a matter for the local authorities, and the question of sub-letting is a matter for their discretion. The Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, requires it to be a term of the letting of any house on which subsidy is paid under that Act that the tenant should not sub-let except with the consent of the local authority. Information is not available as regards the last part of the question.

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES (POWERS OF ACQUISITION).
    Lady CYNTHIA MOSLEYasked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the advisability of providing the local authorities with powers and facilities for the purchase of existing housing accommodation in order to assist them in the better allocation of such accommodation and meet the requirement's of working-class families unable to pay the rent of new council houses and at present living in overcrowded conditions?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: Local authorities already have powers under Section 57 of the Housing Act, 1925, to provide housing accommodation for the working classes by acquiring houses suitable for the purpose.
    Lady CYNTHIA MOSLEY: If they have that authority, will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to see that they use it?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: One must have regard to the circumstances of a particular town. I believe that in the case of Birmingham that authority has already been given.
    Mr. OLDFIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman point out to the Westminster City Council that there are plenty of empty houses around Belgrave Square which might very well be divided up and made available.

    SOUTH-EAST LONDON.
    Dr. MORGANasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the numerous cases of over crowding in the South-East of London; whether he is aware that in areas where the Housing Acts are largely inoperative there have been many unnecessary prosecutions of poor persons unable to find alternative accommodation; that some have been imprisoned for this offence; that many of those prosecuted have been declined as tenants by local authorities; and whether he is proposing to take any legislative steps dealing with this question.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I am aware of the housing conditions in the South-East of London. My hon. Friend has brought some particulars to my notice, but I have no information as regards the second, third and fourth parts of the question. I have already, as he is aware, introduced legislation to facilitate the provision of additional housing accommodation by local authorities, and it is my intention to introduce further legislation dealing with the slum problem.
    Dr. MORGAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of issuing the circular to the local authorities specially in London who have not done their duty in regard to providing housing accommodation?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: It is not always possible for me to find out the particulars of such cases.

    BRICKS.
    Mr. AYLESasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in the Bridgwater and Bristol brickyards the price of bricks has gone up by 11s. per thousand; and whether he will take steps to prevent profiteering as the result of the acceleration of housing schemes?
    Mr. WALTER BAKERasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware
    1482
    that at the Bridgwater and Bristol brickyards the price of bricks has gone up by 11s. per thousand; and whether he will take steps to prevent profiteering as the result of the acceleration of housing schemes?
    Mr. ALPASSasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in the Bridgwater and Bristol brickyards the price of bricks has gone up by 11s. per thousand; and whether he will take steps to prevent profiteering as the result of the acceleration of housing schemes?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I understand that there has recently been some increase in brick prices in these localities, though not to the extent suggested. I have asked the Inter-departmental Committee on the Prices of Building Materials to investigate the matter.
    Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the increase which he understands has taken place?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I cannot say without notice. If the hon. Member will put a question down on the Order Paper, I will gladly answer it.
    Mr. AYLESasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in Bristol and in the West of England promoters of housing schemes cannot build houses to any extent, however anxious they may be, owing to shortage of bricks: that public housing schemes are only allowed to have a limited supply of bricks after private builders have had what they require; and whether he will take steps to see that the utmost facilities are provided for municipalities to obtain materials in order that they may be able to proceed as quickly as possible with the schemes in hand?
    Mr. ALPASSasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in Bristol and in the West of England promoters of housing schemes cannot build houses, however anxious they may be, owing to a shortage of bricks; that public housing schemes are only allowed to have a limited supply of bricks after private builders have had what they require; and whether he will take steps to see that the utmost facilities are provided for municipalities in order that they may be able to proceed as quickly as possible with the schemes in hand?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I understand that there has been some shortage in the supply of bricks, owing to the exceptionally large orders which have been placed recently so that houses might be completed by 30th September next. I am informed, however that it is not a fact that private builders are given preferenuce over housing schemes. I anticipate that the position will improve as a result of the decision to continue the present rate of subsidy under the Act of 1924, and I am in fact informed that already the position has become easier.

    RECONSTRUCTION SCHEME, PLYMOUTH.
    Viscountess ASTORasked the Minister of Health whether, seeing that an inspector of his Department visited Plymouth last autumn to look into and report upon matters connected with a reconstruction scheme for Castle Street and New Street, Plymouth, that the inspector submitted a Report on this scheme to the Ministry of Health many months ago, that later the scheme was approved by the Ministry subject to certain modifications and to the exclusion of certain properties, and that the details of these modifications and exceptions have never yet been laid before the Plymouth City Council, he can now state what modifications are required by his Department and what properties it is proposed should be excluded from the scheme; and whether he will give the reasons for such exclusion?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: It has been necessary to defer further consideration of the scheme having regard to the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of R. v. Minister of Health, ex parte Davis.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Can the Minister of Health give me any idea how soon we can have an answer?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The point is that it comes under the Derby decision, and we are now holding up claims until that decision can be rectified by legislation. It will come under my consideration in the immediate future.

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    TRADE REFUSE.
    Sir GEORGE HAMILTONasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the divergence of opinion as to the
    1484
    correct definition of trade refuse, he will consider the question of amending Section 42 of the Public Health Act, 1875, and Section 48 of the Public Health Acts (Amendment) Act, 1907, to permit a local authority to treat refuse from shops under the same heading as house refuse and to collect it without charge, thus altering the present situation whereby the refuse from one shop is house refuse and from another shop trade refuse?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: This matter has already been noted for consideration when an opportunity occurs to amend the Public Health Acts.
    Sir G. HAMILTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman receive a small deputation of the local traders of Ilford on this subject?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I cannot promise off-hand to receive deputations from every local traders' association, but, if representations were made to me by a national body, I would certainly be glad to see them.

    VACCINATION (GOVERNMENT LYMPH).
    Mr. BROADasked the Minister of Health when rabbits first began to be used in the production of Government lymph supplies; whether any cases of post-vaccinal encephalitis were reported in this country prior to such introduction of rabbits; and whether his medical advisers have considered the desirability of dispensing with the use of rabbits for the purpose in question?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: Rabbits have been systematically used for this purpose since 1902. No case of post-vaccinal encephalitis was reported in this country until December, 1922. As regards the last part of the question, the desirability of dispensing with the use of rabbits ha6 been considered, but it was not deemed necessary to recommend any change in the present practice.
    Mr. FREEMAN: In view of the deaths that have followed vaccination, will the Minister institute a full inquiry into the subject, with the object both of avoiding those deaths and avoiding unnecessary cruelty to animals?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: But there is no indication that these deaths necessarily arise from the use of rabbit lymph, and

    1485
    the question of deaths from encephalitis is under continuous and very serious consideration.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Is it not the fact that a committee has investigated this very question under the chairmanship of Sir Humphrey Rolleston?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: Yes, that is so, and made recommendations for further research, which is now being carried on.
    Mr. BROADasked the Minister of Health whether he is prepared to guarantee that any child or person vaccinated with Government lymph will not be seriously injured by the operation; and, if it is not possible, whether he will consider the desirability of introducing legislation to secure that compensation shall be given in such cases to the parents or dependants, as the case may be?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: It is impossible to give an absolute guarantee that no person vaccinated with Government, or any other, lymph will suffer injury, but I may point out that the lymph produced by the Government Lymph Establishment complies in all respects with the standards laid down in the regulations made under the Therapeutic Substances Act, As regards the second part of the question, as at present advised, I could not undertake to introduce legislation on this subject.

    WATER SUPPLIES.
    Mr. W. BENNETTasked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the advisability of creating a national water board to unify supplies, with comprehensive powers of land drainage and water conservation, so as to ensure for every town and village an adequate water supply?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I doubt whether the object aimed at by my hon. Friend would be best achieved by the creation of a national board. The step which requires next to be undertaken is a series of comprehensive local investigations by advisory regional committees on the lines advocated by my Department, and then the results of these investigations can be co-ordinated in a national policy. As to land drainage, a report on this matter was recently made by a Royal Commission and is under consideration by the Government.

    RIVER LEA (POLLUTION).
    Major CHURCHasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the River Lea from Tottenham lock downwards through the districts of Hackney and Homerton is, and has for many years been, in a foul condition; and whether, having regard to the fact that this stretch of the river is a menace to the health of residents near its banks, he will take steps to ensure that the river is restored to a reasonable standard of purity?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: Several large schemes of sewerage and sewage disposal have been carried out at heavy cost in recent years by local authorities with a view to improving the condition of the river. I am arranging for a visit of inspection in the near future.
    Captain AUSTIN HUDSON: Is the Minister of Health aware that most of those schemes have already been finished and that the condition of the river is very nearly as bad as it was five years ago? Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into this question?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I have already undertaken early inspection.

  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  Mr. E. BROWNasked the Minister of Health the average monthly rate of increase in the number of widows drawing pensions in England and Wales, and the total number in receipt of pensions on 30th June, 1929?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: As regards the first part of the question, the average monthly rate of increase during the past year in the number of widows drawing widows' pensions in England and Wales was, in the case of widows whose husbands died on or after 4th January, 1926, 4,432. In the case of widows whose husbands died before 4th January, 1926, there was an average monthly decrease of 1,073, so that the net average monthly increase of widows drawing pensions was 3,359. As regards the second part of the question, the total number of widows in England and Wales in receipt of widows' pensions on 30th June, 1929, was 232,248, of whom 64,980 were widows of men who. died before 4th January, 1926.
  Mr. BROWNasked the Minister of Health how many widows have ceased to draw pensions in England and Wales on account of their youngest children having reached the age limit under the Act; and the estimated cost of re-including them?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: As regards the first part of the question, the number of widows in England and Wales who have ceased to draw pensions on account of their youngest children having reached the age limit under the Act is 30,936; the information asked for in the second part is not available.
  Mr. BROWN: In view of the promises made by the Government during the Election, is the right hon. Gentleman taking steps to estimate the cost of re-including the pre-Act widows within the Act?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: A large number of suggestions are in my office and are receiving my consideration.
  Mr. BROWN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that replies I have received in the last 10 days show that the ignorance of his Department on this question is colossal?
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Notwithstanding the cost, is it not a fact that before the end of this year all the anomalies will be removed?
  Mr. GILLasked the Minister of Health whether consideration is being given to the position of those who, on reaching the age of 65, are automatically deprived of unemployment insurance benefits, but who, owing to a slight break in their health insurance contributions, are unable to receive the old age pension until several months following their reaching the age of 65 have elapsed, resulting in their having no income whatever during the intervening period?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I cannot at present add anything to the announcement made in the King's Speech that the Government are engaged on a general survey of the various National Insurance and Pension schemes.
  Mr. GILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman give special consideration to cases of hardship of the kind indicated in the
  1488
  question, when the amendment of the present Act is considered?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: Most certainly this is one of the class of cases which will be considered.
  Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that people have been disallowed benefit when they reach the age of 65 and yet cannot obtain pensions from his Department because the latter is not satisfied that they have reached the age of 65, and will he take steps to see that a consistent policy is pursued?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I have already replied to a similar question saying that that is also one of the questions now under consideration.
  Mr. MACLEANasked the Minister of Health (1) whether he can state if any steps are being taken to remove the hardships imposed upon widows whose pensions are stopped when their youngest child reaches the age of 14½ years, even when the child is continuing at school;
  (2) whether he has under consideration the anomalies that arise under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Pensions Act, 1925; and whether he will remove the conditions which prevent wives and widows between 65 and 70 years of age receiving pensions?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I can give no information in anticipation of the introduction of the amending Bill of which I have given notice.

  POOR LAW RELIEF, BETHNAL GREEN.
  Major NATHANasked the Minister of Health whether he will state for each quarter since January 1924, the number of persons in receipt of outdoor relief in Bethnal Green, distinguishing those persons who are normally in employment and the ordinary outdoor poor?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: As the reply contains a number of figures in tabular form, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the reply:

  STATEMENT showing for one month in each quarter since the beginning of 1924, the average number of persons in receipt of outdoor relief in the Parish of Bethnal Green distinguishing (1) persons ordinarily engaged in some regular occupation, and (2) the ordinary outdoor poor.

  Month.

  Average number of persons in receipt of outdoor relief (excluding persons in receipt of domiciliary medical relief only).

  Persons ordinarily engaged in some regular occupation and their dependants.

  All other persons in receipt of out-relief (including dependants).

  Total.

  March, 1924

  …

  …

  …

  4,551

  849

  5,400

  June, 1924

  …

  …

  …

  4,588

  832

  5,420

  September, 1924

  …

  …

  …

  3,919

  918

  4,837

  December, 1924

  …

  …

  …

  3,804

  1,024

  4,828

  March, 1925

  …

  …

  …

  4,014

  1,231

  5,245

  June, 1925

  …

  …

  …

  4,219

  1,305

  5,524

  September, 1925

  …

  …

  …

  5,458

  1,559

  7,017

  December, 1925

  …

  …

  …

  5,842

  1,815

  7,657

  March, 1926

  …

  …

  …

  6,762

  2,030

  8,792

  June, 1926

  …

  …

  …

  8,123

  2,423

  10,546

  September, 1926

  …

  …

  …

  8,271

  2,461

  10,732

  December, 1926

  …

  …

  …

  9,201

  2,439

  11,640

  March, 1927

  …

  …

  …

  10,033

  2,717

  12,750

  June, 1927

  …

  …

  …

  9,065

  2,735

  11,800

  September, 1927

  …

  …

  …

  8,116

  2,999

  11,115

  December, 1927

  …

  …

  …

  8,079

  3,094

  11,173

  March, 1928

  …

  …

  …

  8,113

  3,219

  11,332

  June, 1928

  …

  …

  …

  6,867

  3,188

  10,055

  September, 1928

  …

  …

  …

  5,940

  2,891

  8,831

  December, 1928

  …

  …

  …

  5,047

  2,602

  7,649

  March, 1929

  …

  …

  …

  5,226

  2,598

  7,824

  June, 1929

  …

  …

  …

  4,362

  2,581

  6,943

  AGRICULTURAL RATES ACT.
  Mr. J. W. BOWENasked the Minister of Health what are the estimated annual amounts by which occupiers of agricultural land and buildings in each county in England and Wales will benefit through the provisions relating to relief from rates which came into operation on 1st April in accordance with the terms of the Local Government Act, 1929?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: My hon. Friend presumably intended to refer to the Agricultural Rates Act, 1929, which antedates by six months the exemption from rates of agricultural land and agricultural buildings for which provision was made in the Local Government Act, 1929. It is estimated that the total relief to the occupiers of agricultural hereditaments under the provisions of the Agricultural Rates Act, 1929, will amount to
  1490
  £2,100,000 in the half-year beginning on the 1st April last. Particulars for each county are not available.
  Mr. HAYCOCK: May I ask how much of that sum will eventually go to the landlords?

  PERSIA.
  Mr. ANGELL(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement to the House concerning the situation in Southern Persia?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Dalton): His Majesty's Government have received reports concerning tribal disturbances in Southern Persia. They have also been informed of certain rumours current in Persia to the effect that these risings are being instigated by British agents; and

  1491
  in this connection I am glad to have an opportunity of stating that these rumours are devoid of any foundation whatsoever, and that the policy of His Majesty's Government remains one of strict non-intervention in Persian internal affairs. The Secretary of State is confident that the Persian Government, who have had ample evidence during the past few years of the friendly attitude of Great Britain, realise that in their present difficulties with their disaffected tribes they may count on the sympathies of His Majesty's Government, whose one desire is to see Persia prosperous and peaceful under a strong and independent Government.

  ROYAL NAVY (HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "VINDICTIVE").
  Commander SOUTHBY(by Private Notice) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any further information regarding the explosion reported by the Admiralty to have taken place at Chatham on board His Majesty's Ship "Vindictive"?

  LIQUOR LAWS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Mr. TOOLE(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is yet in a position to make any statement as to the composition and terms of reference of the proposed Royal Commission on Licensing?
  Mr. CLYNES: I regret that I cannot yet make any complete statement of the personnel of the Commission, but I am pleased to be able to inform the House that Lord Amulree, who is perhaps better known as Sir William Mackenzie, has consented to act as chairman. The terms of reference will be:
  "To inquire into the working of the laws relating to the supply and sale of intoxicating liquors, and into the social and economic aspects of the question, and to examine and report upon proposals that may be made for amending the law in England and Wales in the public interest."
  Mr. TOOLE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is the intention of the Commission to visit other countries in their investigations, and can he give any idea how long they will be occupied
  1492
  with their investigations; and is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention to introduce legislation founded on the findings of the Commission?
  Mr. CLYNES: I can only say that the Commission will make due inquiries and will have a very wide and complete control of its own procedure.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Will the Commission inquire into the question of drink sold in clubs?
  Mr. CLYNES: Certainly.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Will the Commission report on the different aspects of the question from time to time, or will it wait until the end of its labours before any legislation is possible?
  Mr. CLYNES: That depends on circumstances and the speed with which the inquiry is conducted.
  Mr. FOOT: Is it intended that the Commission will commence its operations before the reassembly of Parliament?
  Mr. CLYNES: Yes, it is our desire to complete the personnel of the Commission as speedily as possible. The names will be announced in the ordinary way. Of course, a good deal of time must be taken up in the preparatory work, but I think the Commission should set to work seriously before the House resumes.
  Sir HERBERT NIELD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, who knows the interest I have in this matter, whether, seeing the feeling that this particular question arouses, he will take unusual care to see that the Commissioners are perfectly impartial?
  Mr. CLYNES: I think that when the personnel is announced it will be seen that that has been the object of the Government.
  Mr. STEPHEN: Can my right hon. Friend tell us anything with regard to the Commissioners to be appointed for Scotland?
  Mr. CLYNES: I understand that the Secretary of State for Scotland will shortly make some announcement on that point.

  EXPORT CREDITS (EXTENSION TO RUSSIA).
  Mr. R. A. TAYLOR(by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is in a position to make a statement with regard to the extension of Export Credits to Russia?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): As part of the employment policy of my right hon. Friend, the Lord Privy Seal, the Government have decided that the Advisory Committee set up by the Acts governing the Export Credits Guarantee Scheme should be free from the 1st August to consider applications in respect of transactions with Russia.
  Mr. TAYLOR: Is the personnel of the Committee to remain unchanged?
  Mr. GRAHAM: So far as I know at present, there is no question of changing the personnel of the Advisory Committee.
  Mr. ALBERY: May I ask whether this was a condition imposed by the Russian Government before considering the resumption of diplomatic relations?
  Mr. GRAHAM: There is not the slightest foundation for that suggestion.

  CIVIL SERVICE (COST OF LIVING BONUS).
  Mr. BOWEN(by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the anxiety among civil servants as to their position in regard to the probable drop in the cost of living bonus on 1st September next, he will be able to make a statement on the subject before the House rises?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): Under the operation of the present bonus scheme for the Civil Service, bonus is subject to review on the 1st March and 1st Septmeber each year on the basis of the average cost of living figure (rounded up to the nearest multiple of five points) for the preceding six months. On this basis the bonus now in course of payment is related to a cost of living figure of 70, and it may confidently be assumed that the bonus payable tinder the scheme for the period of six months beginning 1st September next would fall to be
  1494
  assessed on the basis of a cost of living figure of 65. The arrangement by which bonus is recalculated twice a year on 1st March and 1st September is open to serious objection. It means inevitably that the civl servant's remuneration is higher in the summer, when living is cheapest, than in the winter, when living is most expensive. After full and anxious consideration, I have decided that the rate of bonus now payable shall remain in operation for the six-months period begining 1st September next. I estimate that the effect of this modification in the existing scheme will be to increase the remuneration of civil servants during this period of six months to the extent of approximately £800,000.
  Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: Will that involve a Supplementary Estimate?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I think it will. I believe the Estimates were framed on the assumption that there would probably be a drop in the present standard.

  ELECTORAL LAW (CONFERENCE).
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he can make any announcement with regard to the proposed conference on electoral reform?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. The negotiations for setting up the Committee reached a further stage yesterday, and I hope that a communication which I have addressed to the right hon. Gentleman to-day will enable us to proceed with the setting up of the Committee. I should like, myself, to see the work proceeded with as expeditiously as possible.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BIRKETT: On a point of Order. There is on the Order Paper a Motion which stands in my name and those of two of my hon. Friends, dealing with the school-leaving age. It has been represented to me that there is some desire to discuss that matter, if opportunity should serve, upon the Motion for the Adjournment. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether I may, with the concurrence of my two hon. Friends and by the general leave of the House, withdraw the Motion on the Paper?
Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that the hon. and learned Member cannot withdraw what is on the Paper now, but he can give notice to-day that it will not be on the Paper to-morrow.
Ordered,
"That other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[Mr. P. Snowden.]

BILLS PRESENTED.
  WIDOWS', ORPHANS' AND OLD AGE CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.
  "to amend the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, section three of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908, section three of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1819, and the enactments regulating the right to become a voluntary contributor under the National Health Insurance Acts, 1924 to 1928; and to provide for the exclusion of payments on account of widows' or orphans' pensions in the assessment of damages under the Fatal Accidents Acts, 1846 to 1908," presented by Mr. Greenwood; supported by Mr. W. Adamson, Mr. Pethick-Lawrence, Mr. Johnston, and Miss Lawrence; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 18.]
  COAST PROTECTION BILL.
  "to make further and better provision for the protection of the coast of the United Kingdom against erosion; for the management in the interests of the public of the shore and bed of the sea and other tidal waters, and with respect to the construction, regulation, and removal of works thereon; and for the transfer from the Admiralty to the Board of Trade of certain powers relating to harbours, conservancy, or navigation; and for other purposes connected with the matters aforesaid and with the foreshore," presented by Mr. William Graham; supported by Mr. W. Adamson, Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Noel Buxton, and Mr. Walter Smith; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 19.]

  THIRD PARTIES (RIGHTS AGAINST INSURERS) BILL.
  "to confer on third parties rights against insurers of third-party risks in the event of the insured becoming insolvent, and in certain other events."
  1496
  presented by Mr. Clynes; supported by Mr. W. Adamson and the Solicitor-General; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 20.]

  COLLECTING CHARITIES (REGULATION) BILL.
  "to provide for the investigation and regulation of charities appealing to the public for support," presented by Mr. Clynes; supported by Mr. Short; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 21.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—

Colonial Development Bill,

Housing (Revision of Contributions) Bill,

Development (Loan Guarantees and Grants) Bill,

Ayr Burgh Order Confirmation Bill,

Dundee, Broughty Ferry, and District Traction Order Confirmation Bill,

Dundee Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,

Falkirk and District Traction Order Confirmation Bill,

Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, and Dumbartonshire Education Authorities Order Confirmation Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill, without Amendment.

Amendments to—
Stoke-on-Trent Extension Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  LAND DRAINAGE BILL. [Lords.]
  Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  ARBITRATION (FOREIGN AWARDS) BILL. [Lords.]
  Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  SUPPLY.
  REPORT [24th July.]
  Resolutions reported:

  SUPPLY.
    CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1929.
      Class IV.
      1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £106,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Gallery, and of the National Gallery of British Art, Millbank, including a Grant-in-Aid for the purchase of Pictures."

      Class IX.
      2. "That a sum, not exceeding £100,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for a Grant-in-Aid of the National Radium Trust."
      First Resolution agreed to.
      Second Resolution read a Second time.
      Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      4.0 p.m.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not want to delay the House, as we have made such very good progress, but I would like to put one or two questions on this matter to the representative of the Minister of Health, or perhaps my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General would be good enough to answer them, as I know he takes a great interest in this matter, and is one of those who have noticed with great alarm the short supplies of radium in this country and its increasing price. I know also that he is aware of the vital nature of the problem, and how necessary it is to meet it. The point which
      1554
      I desire to make, and which I do not think was covered during the Committee stage yesterday, is that sooner or later it will be necessary for international action to be taken to conserve and distribute the supplies of this vitally necessary medical substance, and, furthermore, to prevent undue increases in its price. In the time of the last Government, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) and the late Minister of Health set up the Sub-Committee on whose Report this Estimate is based, and I know that they were exercised about this aspect of the question. You may at present have one Government competing against another. Already the Australian Government have taken steps to purchase £130,000 worth of radium. The Swedish Government have purchased a number of grammes, the Greek Government have done the same, and now His Majesty's Government have also taken this necessary action. Sooner or later you will have one Government competing against another, and the price will rise. In the most friendly way to my right hon. Friend I would ask him to continue the inquiries which were, I believe, put in hand by the Ministry of Health before, and have this very important aspect of the question explored. I throw that out only as a helpful suggestion. I followed this matter during the last Parliament. There will be general agreement as to its very great importance, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to have the necessary inquiry pursued.
      Captain BOURNE: There are two questions I want to put to the Minister. I am sure everybody in this House agrees as to the desirability of this Estimate, but I notice that in his speech he referred to the accounts of the Radium Trust, and also, I thought, of the Radium Commission, but on that point I was not quite clear. The money now being voted, together with that raised by private subscription, will purchase, I understand, 17½ grammes of radium. Is it intended, in the first place, to buy radium straight off, or very rapidly, or is it intended to invest some of this money in buying radium bit by bit? The second question I want to ask is, whether the Radium Trust or the Commission intend to be a profit-making body, letting out the

      1555
      radium, or does it intend to make free grants to the hospitals? If they are to be free, I do not quite see what accounts can be laid before this House, and, purely from the financial aspect, we are entitled to some explanation from the Minister.
      The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): On the question of radium supplies, I should imagine that the Trust will be only too anxious to cooperate with any other nation to get its supply at the lowest possible price. That is a problem which is causing anxiety, not only to us, but to other countries as well.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I suggest that the question might be explored through the very excellent machinery of the League of Nations, especially the health section, which, I believe, is most efficient.
      Mr. GREENWOOD: I am considering that question now. The health section of the League of Nations has already had radium under its notice, and has just recently published a highly technical report. On the matter of radium accounts, the accounts will be laid before Parliament. The difference is that they will not be accounted for in detail by the Accountant-General, as in the case of ordinary Departmental accounts, because, strictly speaking, part of the money is not public money in the ordinary sense; but the Treasury will require both the Trust and the Commission to present annual reports and accounts, to be audited by the Auditor-General, and Parliament will have as full information as it could have in the ordinary way. On the question of the purchase of radium, the matter is one, of course, for the Radium Trust, but the general idea was to purchase by instalments. If we go into the market to buy £250,000 worth or more of radium, obviously we might easily put up the market against us, and a great deal of care will have to be taken. I imagine the procedure will be to buy in a favourable market. It is not proposed that the Commission should operate at a profit. Of course, local hospitals will not be given radium; they will be lent the radium, which will continue to be held legally by the Radium Trust. It is proposed to make a small charge for the loan of the radium towards the cost of
      1556
      the administration of the scheme, and it is in that respect primarily that the accounts of the Commission will come before the House.
      Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

  ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of parts of the rural district of Axminster, in the county of Devon, which was presented on the 2nd day of July, 1929, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Bromyard, the rural district of Bromyard, and part of the rural district of Ledbury, in the county of Hereford, which was presented on the 2nd day of July, 1929, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the boroughs of Beverley and Hedon, the urban district of Cottingham, and parts of the rural districts of Beverley, Skirlaugh, Sculcoates, and Patrington, in the East Riding of the county of York, and for the amendment of the Kingston-upon-Hull Electric Lighting (Extension) Order, 1915, and the Kingston-upon-Hull Electricity (Extension) Special Order, 1922, which was presented on the 2nd day of July, 1929, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the rural district of Misterton, in the county of Nottingham, which was presented on the 2nd day of July, 1929, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban districts of Stanhope and Tow Law and part of the rural dis-

  1557
  trict of Weardale, in the county of Durham which was presented on the 2nd day of July, 1929, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the-Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the rural district of Tamworth, in the counties of Stafford and Warwick, part of the rural district of Atherstone, in the county of Warwick, and parts of the rural districts of Ashby-de-la-Zouch and Market Bosworth, in the county of Leicester, which was presented on the 2nd day of July, 1929, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Bonsall, and parts of the rural districts of Ashbourne, Belper, Repton, and Sudbury, and the parish of Codnor Park and township of Shipley, in the rural district administered by the Basford rural district council, in the county of Derby, which was presented on the 9th day of July, 1929, be approved."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

  GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS.
  Resolved,
  That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Cleveland Gas Company, which was presented on the 2nd day of July and published, be approved, subject to the following modifications:—
  Page 1, in the sub-heading, leave out "section ten of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920 (10 and 11 Geo. V., c. 28)," and insert "the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929";
  Clause 3, sub-clause (1), line 3, leave out "Gas Regulation Act, 1920," and insert "Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929";
  Page 2, after line 17, insert "'The appointed day' means the first day of January, 1930 ";
  Page 4, Clause 9, line 2, leave out from "by meter," to the end of the Clause, and insert "after the appointed day shall not exceed sixteen decimal eight pence per therm";
  Clause 10, sub-clause (1), line 1, leave out "Within three months from the date of this Order," and insert "On or before the 1st day of 'October, 1929";
  Clause 10, sub-clause (1), line 4, leave out from "calorific value") to end of the sub-clause, and insert "on and after the appointed day";
  1558
  Page 5, Clause 10, sub-clause (2), line 1, leave out "After the declared date," and insert "As from the appointed day";
  Clause 10, sub-clause (2), leave out the Proviso;
  Page 5, Clause 15, line 1, leave out "The following sections and parts of sections," and insert "Sections two, five, six, seven, and nine";
  Clause 15, line 3, leave out "declared date," and insert "appointed day."
  Page 6, in line 1, leave out from "under," to the end of the Clause, and insert" section six of the Gas Undertakings Act, 1929 (19 and 20 Geo. V., c. 24) in respect of the undertaking ";
  Clause 16, sub-clause (2), line 1, leave out "declared date," and insert "appointed day";
  Page 19, Clause 43, line 2, after "repealed," insert "as from the appointed day."
  Resolved,
  That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the county borough of Stockport, which was presented on the 2nd day of July and published, be approved, subject to the following modifications:—
  Page 1, in sub-heading, leave out "section ten of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920 (10 and 11 Geo. V., c. 28)," and insert "the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929";
  Page 2, Clause 3, line 4, leave out "Gas Regulation Act. 1920," and insert "Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929";
  Page 3, after line 9, insert "'The appointed day' means the first day of January, 1930";
  Page 8, Clause 19, sub-clause (1), line 1, leave out "Within three months from the date of this Order," and insert "On or before the first day of October, 1929";
  Clause 19, sub-clause (1), line 4, leave out from "calorific value")," to the end of sub-clause (1), and insert "on and after the appointed day";
  Clause 19, sub-clause (2), line 1, leave out "After the declared date," and insert "On and after the appointed day";
  Page 9, Clause 19, sub-clause (2), leave out the proviso;
  Clause 20, sub-clause (1), line 1, leave out "After the declared date," and insert "On and after the appointed day";
  Page 10, Clause 25, line 1, leave out "The following sections and parts of sections," and insert "Sections two, five, six, seven, and nine ";

  1559
  Clause 25, line 3, leave out "declared date," and insert "appointed day";
  Clause 25, line 4, leave out "section one of that Act," and insert "section six of the Gas Undertakings Act, 1929 (19 and 20 Geo. V., c. 24) ";
  Clause 25, line 5, leave out from "undertaking," to the end of the Clause.—[Mr. William Whiteley.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. William Whiteley.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Eleven Minutes after Four o'Clock.

EDUCATION.
  SIZE OF CLASSES.
  SIZE OF CLASSES.
  LLANDOVERY COLLEGE (WELSH LANGUAGE).
  LLANDOVERY COLLEGE (WELSH LANGUAGE).
  HEAD MASTERS, SECONDARY SCHOOLS (SALARY).
  HEAD MASTERS, SECONDARY SCHOOLS (SALARY).
  WAR SERVICE (WOMEN TEACHERS).
  WAR SERVICE (WOMEN TEACHERS).
  SWANWICK SCHOOL.
  SWANWICK SCHOOL.
  FEEDING OF CHILDREN, WEST RIDING.
  FEEDING OF CHILDREN, WEST RIDING.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  CROWN PROCEEDINGS BILL.
  CROWN PROCEEDINGS BILL.
HYDE PARK.
  THE SERPENTINE (BOAT-HIRING).
  THE SERPENTINE (BOAT-HIRING).
  RIDING TRACKS.
  RIDING TRACKS.
INDIA.
  MINES (EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN).
  MINES (EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN).
  HIGH COURT VAKILS.
  HIGH COURT VAKILS.
  AIR MAIL SERVICE.
  AIR MAIL SERVICE.
  KENYA (COMMON ELECTORAL ROLL).
  KENYA (COMMON ELECTORAL ROLL).
  TIN-PLATE WORKERS, JAMSHEDPUR.
  TIN-PLATE WORKERS, JAMSHEDPUR.
  MEDICAL SERVICES.
  MEDICAL SERVICES.
  ROYAL INDIAN MARINE.
  ROYAL INDIAN MARINE.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
BRITISH ARMY.
  OFFICERS' PAY.
  OFFICERS' PAY.
  OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS.
  OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS.
  GUARDSMEN (EMPLOYMENT AS SUPERS).
  GUARDSMEN (EMPLOYMENT AS SUPERS).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.
  IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.
  MILK TRADE.
  MILK TRADE.
  LABOUR CONDITIONS.
  LABOUR CONDITIONS.
  OUT-OF-DATE EQUIPMENT.
  OUT-OF-DATE EQUIPMENT.
  EXPORTS.
  EXPORTS.
  WOOLLEN TISSUES (IMPORTS).
  WOOLLEN TISSUES (IMPORTS).
  COPYRIGHT ACT.
  COPYRIGHT ACT.
  CINEMOTAGRAPH FILMS ACT (TALKING PICTURES).
  CINEMOTAGRAPH FILMS ACT (TALKING PICTURES).
  ENEMY DEBTS DEPARTMENT.
  ENEMY DEBTS DEPARTMENT.
  MARITIME PROPERTY (BRUSSELS CONVENTION).
  MARITIME PROPERTY (BRUSSELS CONVENTION).
  MERCANTILE MARINE (WORKING CONDITIONS, CREWS).
  MERCANTILE MARINE (WORKING CONDITIONS, CREWS).
  FOOD PRICES.
  FOOD PRICES.
  RABBIT-SNARES.
  RABBIT-SNARES.
AGRICULTURE.
  FARMING BANKRUPTCIES, SUFFOLK.
  FARMING BANKRUPTCIES, SUFFOLK.
  HOME-GROWN FOOD (MARKETING).
  HOME-GROWN FOOD (MARKETING).
  MINIMUM WAGE RATES (INSPECTORS).
  MINIMUM WAGE RATES (INSPECTORS).
  CONTAGIOUS ABORTION (MALTA FEVER).
  CONTAGIOUS ABORTION (MALTA FEVER).
  HOUSING SITE, STOCKWELL.
  HOUSING SITE, STOCKWELL.
  SUGAR (IMPORTS).
  SUGAR (IMPORTS).
  FARMING CREDITS.
  FARMING CREDITS.
  SMALLHOLDINGS, BRIDLINGTON.
  SMALLHOLDINGS, BRIDLINGTON.
  FIELD DRAINAGE (FINANCIAL AID).
  FIELD DRAINAGE (FINANCIAL AID).
  POISONOUS ROAD DRESSINGS (REPORT).
  POISONOUS ROAD DRESSINGS (REPORT).
  RIVER POLLUTION.
  RIVER POLLUTION.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  TITHE PAYMENT.
  TITHE PAYMENT.
FISHING INDUSTRY.
  ROAD TAR (RIVERS).
  ROAD TAR (RIVERS).
  SEPARATE MINISTRY.
  SEPARATE MINISTRY.
  HARBOUR LOANS (REMISSION).
  HARBOUR LOANS (REMISSION).
SCOTLAND.
  POOR LAW RELIEF.
  POOR LAW RELIEF.
  DAMAGE TO CROPS (RABBITS).
  DAMAGE TO CROPS (RABBITS).
  ROAD IMPROVEMENTS.
  ROAD IMPROVEMENTS.
  DEER FOREST (COMMISSION REPORT).
  DEER FOREST (COMMISSION REPORT).
  FISHERY BOARD DREDGER.
  FISHERY BOARD DREDGER.
LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
  PROTECTION OF MINORITIES.
  PROTECTION OF MINORITIES.
  INTERNATIONAL COURT OF ARBITRATION.
  INTERNATIONAL COURT OF ARBITRATION.
  CHINA AND RUSSIA.
  CHINA AND RUSSIA.
  RUSSIA (DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS).
  RUSSIA (DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS).
  FEDERATED MALAY STATES (INDIANS, WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION).
  FEDERATED MALAY STATES (INDIANS, WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION).
  ELECTORAL REFORM.
  ELECTORAL REFORM.
  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (LUNACY DEPARTMENT).
  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (LUNACY DEPARTMENT).
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  CLERICAL CLASS (PROMOTIONS).
  CLERICAL CLASS (PROMOTIONS).
  EXECUTIVE CLASS (EXAMINATION).
  EXECUTIVE CLASS (EXAMINATION).
  REDUNDANT OFFICERS.
  REDUNDANT OFFICERS.
  SALARIED OFFICERS.
  SALARIED OFFICERS.
  PAPER (ESPARTO).
  PAPER (ESPARTO).
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH.
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  CIVIL SERVICE (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  CIVIL SERVICE (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  PETROL DUTY.
  PETROL DUTY.
  ATTORNEY-GENERAL (EMOLUMENTS).
  ATTORNEY-GENERAL (EMOLUMENTS).
  ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY.
  ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY.
  BANKING AND CREDIT.
  BANKING AND CREDIT.
  TAXATION.
  TAXATION.
  PICTURES (PURCHASE FOR NATION).
  PICTURES (PURCHASE FOR NATION).
  FIRE, WELLING.
  FIRE, WELLING.
  HABITUAL CRIMINALS.
  HABITUAL CRIMINALS.
  POLICE (APPEALS).
  POLICE (APPEALS).
  PRISON SERVICE (HOSPITAL OFFICERS).
  PRISON SERVICE (HOSPITAL OFFICERS).
  DRUNKENNESS.
  DRUNKENNESS.
  CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT.
  CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT.
TRANSPORT.
  STREET ACCIDENTS.
  STREET ACCIDENTS.
  MOTOR ACCIDENTS.
  MOTOR ACCIDENTS.
COAL INDUSTRY.
  TRADE UNIONISTS.
  TRADE UNIONISTS.
  SCREENING APPARATUS, ABERCRAVE.
  SCREENING APPARATUS, ABERCRAVE.
  DISPUTE, BINLEY.
  DISPUTE, BINLEY.
  COAL MINES ACT.
  COAL MINES ACT.
  ROYALTIES.
  ROYALTIES.
  CLOSED COLLIERIES.
  CLOSED COLLIERIES.
  PIT-HEAD BATHS.
  PIT-HEAD BATHS.
  WAGES AND HOURS OF WORK.
  WAGES AND HOURS OF WORK.
  TIN MINES, CORNWALL.
  TIN MINES, CORNWALL.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  EXCHANGE FACILITIES.
  EXCHANGE FACILITIES.
  INSURANCE (DECISIONS).
  INSURANCE (DECISIONS).
  JUVENILE LABOUR.
  JUVENILE LABOUR.
  TRANSFER OF WORKERS.
  TRANSFER OF WORKERS.
  MINERS.
  MINERS.
  TRAINING.
  TRAINING.
  BENEFIT.
  BENEFIT.
  LEVEL CROSSINGS, LINCOLN.
  LEVEL CROSSINGS, LINCOLN.
  CRINAN CANAL.
  CRINAN CANAL.
  RAILWAY COMMUNICATION, LONDON-SOUTHEND.
  RAILWAY COMMUNICATION, LONDON-SOUTHEND.
  HUMBER (SCHEME).
  HUMBER (SCHEME).
  LEAD MINES, NORTH CARDIGANSHIRE.
  LEAD MINES, NORTH CARDIGANSHIRE.
  COTTON TRADE DISPUTE.
  COTTON TRADE DISPUTE.
  EMPLOYMENT (STATISTICS).
  EMPLOYMENT (STATISTICS).
HOUSING.
  SUBSIDY.
  SUBSIDY.
  ACQUISITION OF LAND.
  ACQUISITION OF LAND.
  LIVERPOOL (WEST DERBY UNION).
  LIVERPOOL (WEST DERBY UNION).
  SLUM CLEARANCE.
  SLUM CLEARANCE.
  BRICKS SUPPLY (BRISTOL).
  BRICKS SUPPLY (BRISTOL).
  RURAL WORKERS.
  RURAL WORKERS.
PUBLIC HEALTH.
  WATER SUPPLIES.
  WATER SUPPLIES.
  MIDWIVES (EMERGENCY CASES).
  MIDWIVES (EMERGENCY CASES).
  VACCINATION.
  VACCINATION.
  MENTAL DEFECTIVES (PLYMOUTH).
  MENTAL DEFECTIVES (PLYMOUTH).
  ARTIFICIAL SILK WORKS (FUMES).
  ARTIFICIAL SILK WORKS (FUMES).
  PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.
  PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.
  ROYAL COMMISSION ON LONDON SQUARES.
  ROYAL COMMISSION ON LONDON SQUARES.
  POOR LAW (CASUALS).
  POOR LAW (CASUALS).
  LUNACY LAWS.
  LUNACY LAWS.
  POPULATION STATISTICS.
  POPULATION STATISTICS.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  HEATH FIRES.
  HEATH FIRES.
Preamble
The House met at twelve of the clock, The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE on the Woolsack.

CHILDREN (EMPLOYMENT ABROAD) BILL. [H.L.]
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to extend the Children (Employment Abroad) Act, 1913, to persons under the age of eighteen years. I do this now in order that when we come back after the adjournment we may have business to go on with. I am anxious that we should. I may add that I propose to take the Second Reading on the Thursday after the Tuesday on which we return.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a. (Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, before we begin the business on the Order Paper I desire to put a Question to the noble and learned Lord, the Leader of the House. There stands upon the Paper in my name, I am sorry to say, a Motion which may lead to an important discussion. In ordinary circumstances no difficulty would arise, but there stands in front of it a Bill of importance, although not a controversial Bill. Had we been meeting at the usual hour that would have been a matter of very small importance. The Bill, which no doubt would be very adequately dealt with by the noble Lord the Paymaster-General, would have taken perhaps an hour, and the other debate would have come on without difficulty. But as matters stand, owing to the important social event of which we are all delightfully aware, it has not been possible to meet at the ordinary hour, and we are now meeting at twelve o'clock. If the debates took place, therefore, in the order in which they stand upon the Paper the result would be that the more important debate—if I may be egotistical enough to say so—would be put in a further difficult position.

273
I therefore make alternative suggestions, if I may, to the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House: cither that he should consent to let this Bill stand over till to-morrow when, as the House has suspended the Standing Order, the Bill could be taken through all its stages; or, if he would not be willing to do that, that he should, with the consent of your Lordships, alter the order of business to-day and take the debate on Egypt first. I have been making a rather hurried inquiry of the authorities, and it appears that, by the general consent of your Lordships, the order of business can be altered, even without notice, and I do not doubt, if I have any knowledge of the feeling of my fellow Peers sitting in every quarter of the House, that they would be willing that the debate on the Bill should come after the debate upon Egypt. Therefore I suggest very respectfully to the noble and learned Lord, the Leader of the House, that he should adopt either one or other of those alternatives.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I venture to support the appeal that has been made by the noble Marquess. It would be of very great importance to us to have the debate on the Motion standing in the noble Marquess's name taken at once. It is a matter of great importance, which we should like to consider, and there will be difficulties if the Development (Loan Guarantees and Grants) Bill is taken in advance of it. So far as we are concerned it matters not which of the two courses suggested by the noble Marquess is adopted—either that the Bill should be taken to-morrow, or that the Motion which stands in his name should take precedence of the Bill to-day. I hope that we may arrive at some conclusion by which we can get without delay to the discussion of a matter of such importance as the resignation of Lord Lloyd.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I am naturally anxious to do all I can to meet the general convenience of the House, and I will certainly do what is necessary to carry out the wishes of the House, as they have been expressed by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition and the noble and learned Marquess on the Liberal Benches. No doubt the matter is one of great importance. What I suggest is this. I think that all the
274
business on the Order Paper to-day will have to be dealt with to-day, and it can all be dealt with before the delightful engagement to which the noble Marquess has referred. I do not think that the Development (Loan Guarantees and Grants) Bill could well be postponed until to-morrow, because to-morrow is the actual day of the adjournment of the House for the Recess. Therefore, if it is to the general convenience of the House and if it is in accordance with Standing Orders, I should raise no objection whatever to the noble Marquess bringing on his Motion at the first convenient time. I think that will be in accordance with the general views of the House.
THE LORD SPEAKER (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I think a Motion is necessary and it can be moved with the leave of the House. The Standing Order is quite clear. Referring to the Notices of proceedings on Public Bills and other matters inserted in the Minutes of each day, it says:—
" the House shall always proceed with the same in the order in which they shall so stand, unless the Lord who shall have given any such notice shall….with the leave of the House, consent to its postponement."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It requires Lord Arnold's consent.
LORD PARMOOR: It will take a very few minutes and I think it would be convenient to get rid of the formal matter. Then, when the Second Reading comes on, my noble friend Lord Arnold could make the necessary Motion, or he could make it now.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ARNOLD): My Lords, I beg to move that leave be given to take the Development (Loan Guarantees and Grants) Bill as the last Order to-day.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

ANDOVER GAS ORDER, 1929. WEYMOUTH GAS ORDER, 1929. WATERINGBURY GAS ORDER, 1929.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Orders as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last be approved.
Moved, That the Special Orders as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last be approved.—(Lord Arnold.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
CLEVELAND GAS ORDER, 1929.
STOCKPORT GAS ORDER, 1929.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Orders as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last be approved with modifications.
Moved, That the Special Orders as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last be approved with modifications.—(Lord Arnold.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
BOSTON GAS ORDER, 1929.
DUDLEY GAS ORDER, 1929.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Orders as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last be approved with a modification.
Moved, That the Special Orders as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last be approved with a modification.—(Lord Arnold.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AYR BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, this Bill and four others come before your Lordships in the usual course under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899. I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

DUNDEE, BROUGHTY FERRY AND DISTRICT TRACTION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
DUNDEE CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
FALKIRK AND DISTRICT TRACTION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
LANARKSHIRE, RENFREWSHIRE AND DUMBARTONSHIRE EDUCATION AUTHORITIES ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.

EGYPT: RESIGNATION OF LORD LLOYD.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY had given Notice to call attention to the resignation of Lord Lloyd of the post of High Commissioner in Egypt, and to ask whether His Majesty's Government will make a statement as to the reasons which have governed their action in this grave matter; and to move for Papers. The noble Marquess said: My Lords, may I say how very much obliged I am to the noble and learned Lord for having fallen in with the suggestion I made in order to bring this debate on at once. I think that the country and, certainly, Parliament were astonished and, to a great extent, unpleasantly astonished by the news which burst upon them yesterday of the resignation of Lord Lloyd as High Commissioner of Egypt. We felt considerable doubt as we realised the news whether that continuity in British policy, which is so essential, was going to be maintained in this particular as between the present Government and the Government which preceded it. All of us remember how, upon the first occasion when the Prime Minister addressed Parliament, he asked for treatment of the Government as if we, instead of being opposing hosts, were a Council of the Nation engaged together in promoting the public good. That was upon July 2.
LORD PARMOOR: Which year?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: This year, three weeks ago, and yet upon July 3, as we know from what passed in another place last night, a telegram was sent to the High Commissioner in Egypt which, in the words of Mr. Henderson, the Home Secretary, "was of such a character that I think most people would have accepted it as an invitation to terminate their position." There appears to be, as I judge from what I read this morning in the Press, a strange misunderstanding that the initiative for this change came from Lord Lloyd, whereas it is quite evident from the answer I have just read, made by the Foreign Secretary in the other place, that the initiative came from His Majesty's Government. It was a provoked resignation. Let there be no mistake about that whatever—it was a provoked resignation. It was abrupt, and I wonder whether the Government realise that whatever you may do in home politics, when you are
278
dealing with these delicate questions of foreign and Imperial concern anything like an abrupt change of policy has the most sinister effect.
I speak of it as a change of policy, because we have before us this morning, printed in the Press, the terms in which Lord Lloyd's resignation was conveyed to the Government. He uses these words:—
" I had had every hope and desire to continue to serve under the new Administration "—
this is an additional proof that the change did not come from him—
" but I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that my views are not likely to be in sufficient harmony with yours "—
that is, with the Foreign Secretary's—
" to enable me conscientiously to discharge my duty to his Majesty's Government."
In the true tradition of the public service, when he found that he was unable to please the Government in his policy, he naturally expressed himself as quite willing to resign, but that imports some change, and we want to know what that change is. Why did Mr. Henderson, the Foreign Secretary, consider it necessary to send that telegram? Why did Lord Lloyd, as the result of the conversations which have taken place between himself and the Secretary of State—why did he say that he was satisfied that he could no longer work in harmony with the new Government? There must be some change, and we want to know what it is. I would assure your Lordships that in addressing you upon this important matter I do not want to bring prominently forward any personal consideration as regards Lord Lloyd himself. Whatever view your Lordships may take of that, that is not the most important matter. It is true, of course, that Lord Lloyd is a most distinguished public servant—
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: —and that he has in many parts of the world borne testimony to the traditional policy of this country and served us loyally throughout. In Egypt itself he has performed his task in circumstances of the greatest difficulty. I would remind your Lordships that when he took over the position of High Commissioner he found Egypt in a condition of profound unrest. There were riots; there were murders; even so great and distinguished a servant of the State

279
as the Sirdar was assassinated. It was in that connection and in that position that he became High Commissioner. The position in Egypt is always very difficult. Our place there is very delicate and the contemporary history of Egypt is fraught with difficulty. They are treading the road of representative institutions, and we know, by sad experience, that representative institutions in oriental countries are beset with difficulties, and our position was specially delicate because, as your Lordships will remember, at the time of the granting of independence to Egypt there were four important reservations made—reservations which were the essential conditions without which there would have been no independence in Egypt at all. I am not sure that I am going to quote them in their proper order—that is a small matter—but they were the protection of minorities, the safeguarding of foreign interests, all questions connected with the Sudan and, finally, the security of the communications of the British Empire in Egypt: that is to say, the safeguarding of the Canal itself and of all the posts and equipment and preparations which are necessary to protect the Canal.
In other words, there were committed to our charge the care of profound responsibilities—responsibilities to the Empire, responsibilities to foreign Powers and, indeed, the responsibilities which the possession of power always gives whatever the other conditions may be. These were the circumstances in which the independence of Egypt was granted. They are vital, these communications of which I have spoken, communications with India, with Australia, with New Zealand, and with South Africa, not a matter merely of national concern, not the kind of thing which can be decided in order to suit the exigencies of the policy of the Socialist Party, but things which go to the very heart of the safety of the Empire. These are the things which we have to regard in Egypt. Therefore, I am sure the Government will realise what a grave matter we consider it to be when a serious shock is given to the stability of that policy in Egypt. If the Secretary of State for Air had been here I would have reminded him that in addition to everything else I have said there is situate in Egypt one of the most important links in the chain of air communications which lie between this
280
country and our Possessions and Dominions in the Far East. All these things are the care, or ought to be the care, of the British Government.
I want to speak, I need not say, with great respect of the Government, and especially in this connection with respect of the Foreign Secretary, because I am aware—I have good personal reason to be aware—that the Foreign Secretary is familiar, not merely with ordinary foreign policy, but with these special responsibilities which rest upon his office. He has a great acquaintance with the Dominions beyond the Seas. He knows what sentiment is in New Zealand and in Australia. He is not ignorant. I confess I cannot help relying upon the Foreign Secretary to bring this great experience and knowledge which he possesses to bear upon these problems and these decisions. I should have been inclined to ask whether there was nobody even in the Foreign Office itself who would have reminded him of it. Was there nobody in the Foreign Office who could rise above the smaller Foreign Office problems to take a really Imperial view of these issues? Of course I am well aware that the Foreign Office is not very well equipped to realise all that the Secretary of State for the Dominions who sits opposite me has to realise. I am quite aware of that. I wish it were otherwise. Of course the administration of Egypt under the Foreign Office is an exceptional thing. It is the only kind of administration they possess and I am not quite sure that they are very well equipped for that purpose.
I say I should have been inclined to ask whether there was nobody who could have reminded the Foreign Secretary of those Imperial considerations, but really I come back to what I said before. I rely upon him himself. Cannot we hope that, freeing himself from any advice which is indifferent to these great considerations, he will bring to bear upon them his own knowledge of Imperial affairs? I come back, therefore, to the question in the Notice which I put upon the Paper: What is the nature of the change in the policy of His Majesty's Government which this provoked resignation of Lord Lloyd implies? That is what the country has an absolute right to know. We have great responsibilities. We do not interfere with the

281
Executive as long as we have confidence in their decisions, but when they come down with a great dramatic stroke of this kind, a dramatic stroke which re-sounds in every quarter of the globe, which is now the subject of conversation, I should think, in every bazaar in the East, then we have a right to know, we who are a self-governing country have a right to know, what has arisen which has led the Government to this position. And it is not only in this country that public opinion has a right to know. Did the Government—I see the Secretary of State sitting there—ask the Dominion of Australia or the Dominion of New Zealand whether they were prepared for a change in the foreign policy in respect of Egypt? He sits silent. I have no doubt no communication was made. But I tell him, and I tell the Government, that they cannot any longer, no Government can any longer, decide vital questions of foreign policy without communication with the Dominions overseas. They ought to have been aware of that before they provoked the resignation of Lord Lloyd.
This question, if I may say so, is a test of the capacity of the Socialist Government to rise to the height of being able to solve these great Imperial problems and to conduct the administration of the Empire. I earnestly hope that they will not be misled by the ignorant spirit of the hustings, the sort of things which are said at election time by ignorant Socialist candidates who have no knowledge of these great things. It is not that I despise members of the Socialist Party. They are as capable, as I know personally, of understanding and appreciating these great Imperial issues as any of ourselves, but they have not had the opportunity, most of them, for that purpose. It depends upon the Government that no mistake should be made. I earnestly hope that they will be governed by this consideration, and I put to them with every emphasis I can the Question which stands upon the Paper in my name: What is the reason for the change of attitude in His Majesty's Government which has provoked the resignation of Lord Lloyd? As regards Papers, the only Papers which were of importance at the present moment were Papers which
282
were published in The Times, and so I shall make no Motion. I put the Question.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, the noble Marquess has put to me questions which are undoubtedly of very great importance. I hope I shall be able to reply, categorically really, to the questions he has asked me, but I have to bear in mind that to-morrow in the House of Commons a fuller statement will be made, which I could not make, by the Foreign Secretary.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Why not?
LORD PARMOOR: You will see how much I can say to-day. I think it is perhaps the impatience of the other House that has troubled my noble friend Lord Brentford, but he will see when I come to it. You cannot make three statements at the same time, but he will see how far I think I can go. I am told that the noble Viscount is going to speak, and he will have an opportunity of criticising what I say, which, I think, is the more convenient course. As regards the history of this matter, I do not know how far it is advisable or how far we are entitled to go into it, but I should like to ask the noble Marquess this question—it will be sufficient for my purpose—whether, in making his speech and his attack, if I may so call it, on the present Government, he had in mind—I will not read it for I do not think I ought to do so; in these foreign matters one has to be careful—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Is the noble and learned Lord speaking of me?
LORD PARMOOR: Yes, you. Have you in mind the Despatch sent from the Foreign Office, from Sir Austen Chamberlain, to Lord Lloyd on May 28 of this year?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I believe I have thoroughly in mind that Despatch, but I would suggest to the noble and learned Lord that it is neither consonant with the practice of Parliament nor is it suitable to refer to a Despatch unless he is going to read it.
LORD PARMOOR: I think it is perfectly right that I should allude to the date alone. I do not propose to read it, because I think that on matters of foreign policy one has to be careful, and

283
I think I can answer the questions raised by the noble Marquess if he will give me time. I cannot say everything in one moment. I hope to give him a satisfactory answer.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: Will the noble and learned Lord allow me to interrupt him? Surely he knows the elementary rule of Parliamentary practice, never neglected either in the House of Commons or in this House, that if a Paper is referred to in the course of debate by a Minister, that Paper must be laid?
LORD PARMOOR: I referred only to the date. Whether it should be laid or not will be decided. I am not going further into it to-day on any account, and the noble Marquess has said that he is not asking for Papers.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think it is right to say, after what has passed, that I deny that that Despatch gives any right to the Government for the action that they have taken.
LORD PARMOOR: I am not going to rely on the Despatch.
LORD CARSON: Why do you refer to it?
LORD PARMOOR: I referred to it because I thought that it was a date which was of importance, and I asked the noble Marquess whether he had it in his mind. He replied in the affirmative. With that I was satisfied, and I do not intend to go any further. The noble Marquess has referred to the two letters, which passed between Lord Lloyd and the Foreign Secretary, to which I will refer by and by, but I do not think that his words "provoked resignation" are justified. I will come to the actual words of the letters later. What in effect has been suggested by the noble Marquess is that he gathers that we are changing the continuity of our policy as regards Egypt. I think that I am stating his point frankly. Perhaps this House will recollect that it fell to my lot in 1924 to make a speech on the question of Egypt and the Sudan. I represented the Foreign Minister at that time, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, and I made a speech to the effect that, so far as our Party was concerned, we had no intention other than to insist upon the four conditions to which the noble Marquess
284
has called attention. Never has there been any criticism of our insistence on those conditions, and never has there been any alteration whatever in the outlook of the Labour Party.
At the same time, if he will allow me to refresh his memory, the question of the Sudan was specifically raised, and I gave the undertaking then, on behalf of the Labour Party, that, so far as those undertakings were concerned which largely affected in many ways the inhabitants of the Sudan, they would be honourably observed and enforced by the Labour Party. Perhaps the noble Marquess may not have that occasion in his mind. I made rather a long speech on that occasion, and the matter was subsequently referred to on a good many occasions. What I want to say perfectly specifically is this, that as regards those four conditions and as regards the treatment of the Sudan, not only will there not be any change in what was our policy in 1924 in those matters and has been the policy of the Party opposite since that date, but I think I may say that we adhere to every statement that I then made and there is not the slightest doubt that, in reference to what I may call international or foreign matters, there will be no change as regards what the noble Marquess calls the continuity of our policy in Egypt.
Of course, on the other point of the internal affairs of Egypt, that is another matter. It has been known, and was stated in 1924 in negotiations at that time with Zaghlul, that we were desirous to make arrangements with Egypt which would allow them in substance, practically almost entirely, the rights of a self-governing community as regards their internal affairs. That is a policy which we have supported throughout—I do not think there has been any change in it—and which we shall certainly support in the future. I do not know that there is any great difference—I do not want to refer to documents by any means, or I shall arouse the noble Earl again—I do not know that in this respect there is any substantial difference between the Party opposite and ourselves. On matters of this kind, when you come to questions of procedure, you do get differences and always will get differences, but as regards the general object that we should come to an arrangement with Egypt so that in

285
all internal affairs the Egyptians should have the benefits and the privileges of a self-governing community, I thought that to a great extent that might be taken as a common purpose.
If it is not a common purpose, I have to say most distinctly that our view is, and always has been, that, preserving these four conditions and reserving absolutely and honourably the conditions in the Sudan, we have desired that arrangements should be made which would enable Egypt to become an independent and sovereign country as regards its internal affairs. I do not know whether the noble Marquess thinks that very wicked or not. I think it is absolutely right. There may be a change in continuity of policy in a sense, because it may be that the late Government determined to change the policy enunciated by Mr. MacDonald in 1924 as regards the internal affairs of Egypt. I am not going into that, and I should not like to go into differences upon questions of that sort. But if they did follow and desire to follow our policy in 1924, I can assure the noble Marquess that there is no change whatever, and that we desire now to carry to a successful conclusion the negotiations initiated by Mr. MacDonald in 1924. I think that, so far as the question of policy is concerned, I have answered the questions that the noble Marquess asked me.
There is another side of this question which I am rather sorry that he referred to, because he suggested that there had been something like discourtesy—I will not use a harder term—which brought about the "provoked resignation" of Lord Lloyd. I think that is an entire mistake, and I know and can say positively that no one connected with the Foreign Office, either Mr. Henderson or any one else, desired to do other than to treat Lord Lloyd with the most perfect courtesy and to acknowledge, as Mr. Henderson does in his letter, the services that he has rendered as High Commissioner in Egypt. Let me say here, so that there may be no mistake about it, that I am sure there is not a member of the present Government who does not feel the regret that was expressed, as I will read in a moment in Mr. Henderson's letter, that Lord Lloyd has found it conscientiously necessary, as I think he must have found it, to resign his position in Egypt, and surely it is perfectly easy to
286
understand. Suppose any one in Lord Lloyd's position, with all his ideas of what is right from a national standpoint, thinks he cannot carry out what we think is right to be done in the internal affairs of Egypt at the present time, is it otherwise than honourable on the part of Lord Lloyd and of Mr. Henderson that in those circumstances they both came to the same conclusion—namely, that the Agency, as it has been called (I should like to call it by some higher name), that the work of Lord Lloyd could not be conveniently carried on further at the present time? That is a matter which often happens. It would be a matter deeply to be regretted if there had been any discourtesy, but it appears to me there has been no discourtesy whatever, and no discourtesy, so far as I know, is suggested in Lord Lloyd's letter to Mr. Henderson.
There is one other matter that I would like to go back to. The noble Marquess is quite right in saying that Mr. Henderson, besides being Foreign Minister, has had an exceptional opportunity of seeing the international elements which necessarily constitute a most important part of our general foreign policy at the present time. I had the honour of being associated with him at Geneva in 1924, when many of these matters were discussed, and when, as noble Lords know, we thought that we had come to an international agreement of an important kind. Although continuity is often talked of, when we came back, although the 52 nations which were there were in absolute agreement upon the principles to be followed in order to bring about a world scheme of disarmament, those principles were not accepted by His Majesty's late Government, as is shown by the Despatch of 1926, which was read to the Council by the Foreign Secretary, Sir Austen Chamberlain.
I do not find fault with that. Of course it was a great disappointment to us, but if a Government thinks that some line of foreign policy is not in accordance with the real national interests, I say that they are bound in duty not to go on with that policy, whatever it may be, but to modify it in such direction as they think will best serve the best interests of this country and the highest interests of the world. I cannot imagine any Government going in a direction which they thought was not right. I do not think

287
that continuity ought ever to be used in that sense, when dealing with the practical steps to be taken in any particular case. Upon the other point raised by the noble Marquess, I am anxious to exonerate both the present Government and Mr. Henderson from any idea of what is called "provoked resignation." I do not know whether Lord Lloyd is in the House or not, but I would make it as clear as I possibly can that if Lord Lloyd has any view of that kind, it was certainly neither the intention of Mr. Henderson to provoke resignation, nor do I think that his words bear that out.
The noble Marquess pointed, quite rightly, to the two letters, and I would like to read them, in order to show most distinctly that the charge of "provoked resignation" is altogether, as I think, incorrect. I do not want to use a harsher term. Lord Lloyd's letter is as follows:—
" Dear Mr. Henderson,—Since my return from Egypt I have been thinking over in the light of my recent conversation with you the situation caused by the advent of a new Government in England, and the policy which I understand is to be pursued in regard to Egyptian affairs."
I think it was the most courteous thing possible, if Lord Lloyd came over, that conversations should take place—
" I had had every hope and desire to continue to serve under the new Administration "—
I do not think he could have served under a better Administration.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear! (and laughter).
LORD PARMOOR: I am sorry that noble Lords opposite should differ from me, but let them differ. The letter continues:—
" but I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that my views are not likely to be in sufficient harmony with yours as to enable me conscientiously to discharge my duty to His Majesty's Government. I shall be grateful, therefore, if you would submit my resignation to His Majesty."
What could be more proper than that letter? An administrator comes home from Egypt and, as is no doubt right, has a conversation at the Foreign Office, and says he thinks he had better resign.
LORD CARSON: Is it not a fact that prior to that there was a telegram from Mr. Henderson at the Foreign Office,
288
which Mr. Henderson himself said he had hoped would lead to Lord Lloyd's resignation?
LORD PARMOOR: It is quite right that Lord Carson should ask me that question, but I am sorry—
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Is it possible for the noble and learned Lord to inform us of the substance of that telegram? It forms a very important part in the debate.
LORD PARMOOR: I have not got it
A NOBLE LORD: Send a message for it. Telephone for it.
LORD PARMOOR: I am sure that noble Lords wish to be courteous. Perhaps I do not appreciate the meaning of it. I think, in a matter of this kind, we might listen to each other and not jeer. What is Mr. Henderson's answer?—
" Dear Lord Lloyd,—I have informed His Majesty's Government of your Lordship's decision to tender your resignation of the post of High Commissioner for Egypt and the Sudan, which you have occupied during the last four years. His Majesty's Government fully recognise the sincerity of the motives which have led you to place your resignation in their hands. In accepting it with regret, they desire to express their appreciation of the eminent services rendered by you in the high and responsible positions you have held in Egypt and elsewhere."
What is there about provocation there? I am sorry I have not the telegram, but I have sent for it and will see if I can get it. I did not expect this debate to come on at the time it did as the noble Marquess knows. I have been in communication with the Foreign Office, but I have not yet received a copy of the telegram. That is how the position stands. As regards what I may call the international and foreign affairs associated with Egypt, there has certainly been no difference in our outlook. If I gather correctly from what the noble Marquess has said, there is no difference between our views and the views of the late Government. The four points are to be insisted upon, and we are prepared to carry out our duties to the Sudan. The question of internal affairs is a different matter.
Whatever the result may be I cannot help thinking that Lord Lloyd was not treated with the slightest discourtesy. I am sure none was intended. He had this

289
conference with the Foreign Minister and afterwards he thought that he ought conscientiously to resign. On a matter of this kind which involved this meeting, no doubt important, between Lord Lloyd and Mr. Henderson, it is not very easy for any one to say more than I have said because, of course, I am no more cognisant of a matter of that kind that any other member of your Lordships' House. And I would ask your Lordships to remember this—I am sure the noble Marquess will appreciate the importance of it—that to-morrow in another place the Minister immediately concerned, who has himself been a party to all these transactions which we are discussing to-day, is to give an explanation and I hope a full and satisfactory one. Whether it is so or not will, of course, have to be decided after the discussion has taken place. I hope I have made it clear, at any rate from my point of view—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD PARMOOR: I know they say "No," that is a common thing to say; but I have made it clear from my point of view, I hope, that the suggestion of discourtesy or provocation to resign has no foundation unless it is to be found in the telegram. It would be the height of folly and impertinence to attempt to quote from a telegram I have not got, but as far as I have information I have given it quite frankly to your Lordships. I hope you will understand that we are entirely in favour of continuity of policy, the policy we look to being that of 1924; and the only difficulty that is likely to arise has nothing to do with the point to which the noble Marquess has referred, but would really be in connection with internal matters.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, none of you would desire to produce embarrassment to the Government in the discussion of foreign affairs, and I am perfectly certain that the noble Marquess who has asked the Question to-day has the desire to elicit information to satisfy the public mind, and does not wish, as I am sure that the Party with which I am associated does not wish, in the public interest, to cause inconvenience to the Government. By that I mean, and it is well understood especially in relation to foreign affairs, that there may be matters which cannot be discussed at the
290
moment in this House, and that it may be undesirable in the public interest to consider various aspects of policy which we might like to consider, and I have no wish to press the Government to give any answer which would cause that public inconvenience.
Nevertheless I must confess that I am disappointed, very disappointed, at the reply which has been made by the noble and learned Lord. I came to this House to-day with a desire to know what had happened—a desire shared by every member of your Lordships' House and by the public; and for two reasons in the main. The first is that on the correspondence which is published the impression is distinctly created—and I challenge contradiction—that the cause of Lord Lloyd's resignation is a change of policy by the new Government in Egypt. That is most definitely stated in the letter and it is not refuted by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the, reply which he gives. Consequently we must assume that there is a change of policy and I am the more perplexed in listening to the explanations which have been given.
There is a second point to which the noble Marquess referred incidentally, but to which great importance must be attributed. Lord Lloyd is a distinguished public servant with a fine record of service behind him. I would agree with the noble Marquess that we are not so much concerned to-day with the person of Lord Lloyd as with the public service and the conditions of public service, and more particularly the circumstances which could lead to correspondence of the character published this morning. It is a matter which can hardly be passed over without attention, and which requires explanation, that a public servant with a great record should resign in these circumstances. I can speak from close acquaintance with the services he rendered as Governor of Bombay. I know the difficulties he had to meet. I would even say that we were not always agreed in the discussion, although in the end we arrived, of course, at conclusions which were satisfactory to both. But nevertheless there could not have been a more public-spirited Governor than Lord Lloyd in Bombay, one who had to encounter greater difficulties and who dealt with

291
them with greater satisfaction both to those of us in the Government of India and to the Government at home.
Well, it is a little startling to find that after this record, when he returns to this country and is appointed to this high and distinguished position in Egypt, which I think he has filled for close upon four years, almost simultaneously with the change of Government which took place the position seems to be forced upon him—I use the word advisedly—that he must resign. I can well understand circumstances in which it would not be possible for one holding that high post to continue in relations with a new Government, because as time developed it would be found that there were matters upon which they were not agreed. For myself I dislike entering into personal matters, but I would instance to your Lordships conditions which happened to myself when I was Viceroy of India when there were changes of Government. There were indeed five changes of Government during a period of three and a half years, and there were four changes in the position of Secretary of State during that time. I never found that there were any difficulties of this character. No doubt, if changes which were desired had been forced upon the Government of India, or if changes which I desired had been refused by the Government at home it might very well be that resignation would have been necessary.
But what puzzles me is why in the very short time which has elapsed, and in the light of the conditions and circumstances disclosed to us to-day, in so far as they have been disclosed, Lord Lloyd should feel bound to hand in his resignation and the Government to accept it. I can well understand that there are circumstances which would have made it necessary, as I have said, but I am still perplexed by what the noble and learned Lord has said to understand what the differences are. Am I right in this view, first, that as regards the four reservations and the Sudan there is no change of policy?
LORD PARMOOR: Yes.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I am right in that assumption.
LORD PARMOOR: I think so.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: So I understood from others and it is true,
292
as the noble and learned Lord knows, if he will forgive me saying so. I think it is most unsatisfactory to us in this House, debating a matter of the gravest importance, in which we are not only entitled to take an interest but about which we are bound to enquire and ascertain what the position is, that the noble and learned Lord should tell us that he is not in a position to give information, but that we must wait until the Foreign Secretary states it in another place.
LORD PARMOOR: In reference to what the noble Marquess has said, may I say that on the question he is dealing with, the four conditions, I gave a distinct and positive answer. As regards matters which passed between Mr. Henderson and Lord Lloyd, I do not see how I possibly could.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I am quite satisfied as regards the four reservations and the Sudan, if the answer is as I now understand it from what the noble and learned Lord has said.
LORD PARMOOR: I thought I made it clear.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: He said very distinctly that there is no change of policy in regard to the four reservations and the Sudan. I understood from what the noble and learned Lord said that he adhered to that view. My only reason for putting the question to him was that I was not sure that I heard some of the sentences that fell from him.
LORD PARMOOR: I am very sorry if there is any dispute at all. I tried to make it as clear as I possibly could. Of course, we have only had this question recently. I thought I had made it clear.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I do not wish to prolong this part of the debate. We are rather seeking information at the moment—and what we understand from the Government is, as I understand the noble and learned Lord now, that there is no change of policy, and that it cannot be a change of policy either in relation to the four reservations or to the Sudan which has led to the resignation of Lord Lloyd. So far, at any rate, we are clear. Then we are left with the statement that in relation to the internal government of Egypt—and I should like the noble and learned Lord's attention because I want

293
to be accurate and to be quite sure that I understood him—there has been a change of policy.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not know what the noble Marquess calls a change of policy. I do not think there has been. There is, in one sense, a change of procedure. I think that the late Government always desired, as far as the internal policy of Egypt is concerned, after negotiation and arrangement, that it should have as much as possible the constitution of a self-governing community. I do not say about the methods followed. In that respect we probably go further. We have the same desire but a different way, no doubt, of proceeding.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I understand now that there is no difference in matters of internal government save, perhaps, in a matter of procedure.
LORD PARMOOR: That may be all-important.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I agree, it may be all-important. May I point out to the noble and learned Lord the difficulty under which we are now discussing this question? Your Lordships will observe the position we are in. We are seeking to ascertain whether there has been a change of policy which has led to the resignation of Lord Lloyd. We are told, first, that there is no change of policy as regards the four reservations and the Sudan; secondly, that there is no change of policy in regard to internal questions—would the noble and learned Lord mind giving me his attention? I am only anxious to have it in order that there should be no misconception between us about this.
LORD PARMOOR: I can assure the noble Marquess that I listened to him with all courtesy. I thought I had already twice answered the questions he put to me.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I was summing up what I gathered from what the noble and learned Lord said, and I dealt with only two points. The third is that the only change of policy could be in procedure, which I quite agree may be an important matter.
LORD PARMOOR: All-important.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I was then calling your Lordships' attention to the difficulty we are in. What is the change of procedure, what is the method, what is it that led to Lord Lloyd's resignation? It is not the two vital matters to which reference has been made—external affairs or internal affairs—but some method of procedure. Are we not to know what it is? The noble and learned Lord made reference to a document of May 28. Unfortunately, I have not got it and I have not seen it. I do not even know what the document is. It has not been laid on the Table of the House, and we are not able to deal with it. Apart from the technical rule, I gathered that the noble and learned Lord withdrew his observation with regard to it. Consequently, we have not got it.
There is one other document, again a document which I have not seen. It is dated July 3, and I gathered from the noble Marquess and again from an interposition from the noble and learned Lord, that the document was sent on July 3. That is, of course, the only document which, under this change of procedure, this change of policy, can have led to the resignation of Lord Lloyd. We have asked for that document. I have asked the noble and learned Lord to tell us the substance of it. We are left absolutely in the dark. We do not know what was in that document of July 3. The only thing we know is that Lord Lloyd came to this country soon after. I gathered from the Press that he arrived on Saturday last, that he then had a conversation with the Foreign Secretary and that, as the result of his conversation, he resigned. I submit to your Lordships that that is the most unsatisfactory condition in which we can debate a matter of this importance. I cannot think it is any excuse to say that the Minister responsible will make an explanation to-morrow in another place. After all this Notice was on the Paper to-day. An indication was given yesterday by the noble Marquess—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I told them at the adjournment.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: —that the Question would be raised; but the only document which, so far as I can gather, has any bearing on the point we are now discussing, is not before us, no

295
one on the Government side is in a position to tell us what is the substance of the document, or is able, so far as I am aware, to indicate the subject matter of it. We are left hung up on this matter and I suppose we shall have to wait until to-morrow for the information. I cannot but think that is most unsatisfactory. It does not enable one to understand what the noble and learned Lord referred to as the correspondence that passed. I do not wish to rely upon that especially after his admission, which, I am sure, was perfectly justified and well founded, that there was no intention of being discourteous. Nevertheless, the actual position and attitude of the Government, so far as I can understand it at present, leads to a very unpleasant feeling. I recollect that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs made an answer, which seems a little bit difficult to reconcile with what was said by the noble and learned Lord. The Foreign Secretary said:—
" The telegram that I sent to Lord Lloyd was of such a character that I think most people would have accepted it as an invitation to terminate their position."
That is tantamount to a dismissal. It is a matter of the utmost importance, more especially in relation to foreign affairs and to the East. I do not wish to refer to affairs in the East or to India, but I cannot conceive of anything more serious than to deal with one occupying that high place, who has done such distinguished service in the past, in a manner which really means that there is no option after the telegram that was sent and which we have not yet seen: "It must be left to you to take the only course open and send in your resignation!" I very much regret the Government have been unable to give us any better explanation, and, in particular, that the only document mentioned is still not available.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS AND THE COLONIES (LORD PASSFIELD): My Lords, I have the greatest diffidence in intervening even for a few minutes upon this subject, because, as your Lordships know, I perhaps am unskilled in diplomatic niceties and the necessity of weighing every word in these matters. I shall only speak with reference to some words that fell from the noble Marquess [Lord Salisbury] about the very natural interest
296
which our Dominions and the Government of India take in a question of this kind. What the noble Marquess was, and is, anxious about, I think, was lest this Government, with the competence of which he did not express any very great opinion, should be proceeding in this matter without proper reference to the wishes and the anticipations of the Dominions and the Government of India. I should like to say to your Lordships, because it is a matter in which I necessarily have had to be concerned, that no step has been taken in this matter, as in other matters of like character, without as much communication and as far as practicable consultation with the Dominions and the Government of India on all questions of this nature. I must go on to explain, because I do not want your Lordships to imagine that the Dominions or the Government of India were consulted, or could have been consulted, about the step which Lord Lloyd has taken. Obviously time did not permit of even telegraphic communication, and, moreover, when a resignation is tendered, it is not possible to have any further consultation about it.
But I quite agree with the noble Marquess who has just spoken [the Marquess of Reading] as to the extremely inconvenient position in which this House finds itself in attempting to discuss the subject at this moment. Of course the debate was not of our seeking, and as it was not of our seeking the Government must not be blamed for the inconvenient position in which the House finds itself. In these matters information must be given, but it must be given with due regard to negotiations which are pending, and it must be given with due regard to the position of the Foreign Secretary, who could not speak to-day in another place, and will have to speak to-morrow. That, again, was not of our settlement. With regard to the action taken by Lord Lloyd and the reply of the Foreign Secretary, it is obviously not in my power to refer to the correspondence which preceded the action taken. Not only is there a technical difficulty in doing so, but, again, I am new at the matter. It must be obvious that in negotiations of this kind it is not possible to publish and to make known what has been proceeding until the negotiations have reached a

297
stage in which publication can be made without actually upsetting the work that is in progress.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: To what negotiations is the noble Lord referring?
LORD PASSFIELD: The noble Marquess asks: "what negotiations?" I would remind him that it is a matter of fact of which he must be aware that there have been negotiations pending with the Egyptian Government on various matters for a long time, and it is not for me to make any statement about those negotiations or about the subject matter of them; and the noble Marquess is probably aware that if he wants to discover the ground of the reasons for this event that has happened he has to go a good deal further back than any telegram of the 3rd July, or of the correspondence that has been published. The noble Marquess will probably be aware—it will be within his memory—of the proceedings which have taken place, and it is not for me to dwell further upon them, or even to give the substance of them. They do not reflect any discredit, I need hardly say, upon Lord Lloyd and, if I may venture to say so, in my view they do not reflect any discredit upon His Majesty's late Government. But the matter did not begin with the General Election of May 30, or with the accession to office of the present Foreign Minister. As to the difficulty in answering whether there has been a change of policy, there is no difficulty with regard to the four major questions of reservation and the Sudan, no difficulty whatever with the general lines of policy which His Majesty's late Government and the preceding Government and the Government before that have always maintained with regard to our relations with Egypt.
It sometimes seems to be imagined that Egypt is a part of the British Empire, or that we are in Egypt under the conditions in which we are in India and in other places. But I should not like to say that it was the policy of His Majesty's late Government to take up that position. It is clear that the position in Egypt has not been satisfactory for a good many years, and successive Governments have endeavoured to get the relations put upon a more satisfactory footing, always maintaining to the fullest
298
extent the four reservations and the question of the Sudan, in which our position has been clear. I want to repeat what my noble friend has said, that with regard to those four major reservations and the Sudan, there has been, as far as I know, no change in policy by this Government as compared with the declared policy of successive previous Governments. I have heard individuals make utterances which were inconsistent with that policy, inconsistent with what successive Governments have always declared to be the basis of our position in Egypt, and the hopes and intentions with which the British Government carries on its relations with the Egyptian Government. Now it must be perfectly clear that with regard to those four major reservations, with regard to the Sudan, with regard to the repeated declarations of successive British Governments—I will not say for the last thirty years, but for a very long time—as to what is the basis of our position in Egypt and what the intentions of successive British Governments have always been stated to be with regard to the future relations with Egypt, there is no change of policy in the present Government from those repeated declarations of successive Governments in the past.
But have there not sometimes been in previous years recently, as well as before what can be called recently, individual acts and individual statements which are not consistent with that repeatedly declared policy of the British Government with regard to Egypt and with that repeatedly declared expectation and desire with regard to the future of Egypt? There comes in the difficulty of saying whether there is a change of policy or not. I say there is no change in comparison with the repeated public declarations of policy of the successive Governments which have preceded this Government. This Government, at any rate, intend to carry out that policy which has been so frequently repeated, so constantly reiterated. We are endeavouring to carry out that policy and we hope to bring about that relation with Egypt with regard to self-government which successive Governments have repeatedly declared, have repeatedly stated as the intention of the Government, and have constantly affirmed that they wish to do. We are proceeding on the same lines. When my noble friend referred to the

299
possibility of differences of procedure it is a question of taking one step after another and those steps cannot be described or cannot be given in detail so long as they are in process of negotiation.
I have ventured to say these things because I think it is desirable that there should be a very clear statement as to these statements about the supposed change of policy. But to come back to the immediate cause of this debate I do want to remind your Lordships once more that we cannot discover or infer the cause or causes of this present occurrence merely by enquiring what has happened during the last few weeks.
LORD CARSON: If the noble Lord will excuse me, may I ask if there is any difficulty in reading to us the telegram which was sent out to Lord Lloyd?
LORD PASSFIELD: We have not got the telegram.
LORD CARSON: Do they not keep copies of these things in the Foreign Office?
LORD PASSFIELD: I suppose they do keep them at the Foreign Office, but there is a certain distance between here and the Foreign Office.
LORD CARSON: That is a futile answer.
LORD PASSFIELD: I will not compete with the noble and learned Lord with regard to courtesy or amenities. I am inexperienced in the ways of this House, but I will endeavour to be courteous to the noble and learned Lord. I can only say that in due time, and with due regard to the difficulties which always arise with regard to the publication of documents relating to negotiations, I think it will be made manifest to your Lordships, as I have said, that the occurrence which we are discussing cannot be described, cannot be understood, and cannot properly be appreciated without reference to what preceded the coming into office of the present Foreign Secretary and cannot be dissociated from what actually did pass between His Majesty's Government and the High Commissioner in the time of the late Government.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Would it be convenient, as there is going to be an adjournment, to have the telegram sent for? The Foreign Office is not far. We might have the telegram perhaps.
LORD PASSFIELD: I am sure the noble and learned Marquess will realise that if correspondence is to be produced all the correspondence must be produced.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: Does the noble Lord suggest that there is any other communication to Lord Lloyd—other than the telegram of July 3, before Lord Lloyd came to this country?
LORD PASSFIELD: Yes. I am not saying from whom that communication came. I do not think I should be warranted—
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I do not want the noble Lord to misunderstand. I want to know whether the present Government made any communication to Lord Lloyd other than the telegram which they will not produce.
LORD PASSFIELD: I am not aware of any, but my whole point is that you cannot understand this occurrence without reference to what passed before the present Government came into existence.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: We know that.
LORD PASSFIELD: The noble Viscount says "We know that." If the noble Viscount knows that I am sure his colleagues and the other noble Lords who are here will take note of the fact that there were previous communications, there was previous correspondence, there were relevant exchanges before there was a change of Government. That is the reason why it is very difficult for any one on this Bench at this moment to publish correspondence or produce correspondence, not our correspondence; not merely for technical reasons but because, as I have already explained, they do refer to negotiations, to action taken and proposals made, not only by ourselves, which it is not convenient at this moment in the public interest should be made known, I do not say to your Lordships, but made known to the world. It is because of that that we find ourselves to-day in the inconvenient position of not being able thoroughly to go into this matter, but I do ask your Lordships to believe that we have endeavoured as far as in us lay to state what can properly be stated at this moment, and if that is not sufficient to enable your Lordships to form an opinion and pronounce

301
judgment that is because this debate is taking place at a time which is inconvenient for that purpose.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, would it be convenient to your Lordships to adjourn now? I do not know whether you think we might take an adjournment until a quarter past two.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Could we not say half past two?
LORD PARMOOR: I think a quarter past two would be better in view of other events this afternoon.
[The sitting was suspended at twenty-five minutes before two o'clock and resumed at a quarter past two o'clock.]
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, I do not propose to take up much of the time of the House, but there are one or two questions arising out of the speech made by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs and there are one or two further points that I think want clearing up as to what really happened in this unfortunate episode of the resignation or, as I am bound to say I should prefer to call it, the dismissal of Lord Lloyd. I want to call attention—because, until the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Dominions dealt with the matter, it had not been referred to here—to the statement made by the Foreign Secretary in another place yesterday. He began by saying that this was the resignation of Lord Lloyd, and it was not until he was forced by supplementary Questions that he told us of the telegram which he had sent to Lord Lloyd, and he also stated that the intimation to Lord Lloyd before the latter left Egypt—that was, of course, the telegram of July 3—was based upon "my reading of the attitude that he had adopted towards the policy of the late Government." The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, speaking just before lunch, reiterated that statement that the resignation of Lord Lloyd was practically asked for, and I think that we on this side of the House must definitely agree that the telegram mentioned by the Foreign Secretary yesterday in another place was distinctly such a telegram—I accept the words of the Foreign Secretary—that no ordinary man could do other than treat it as a dismissal.
Everybody knows, of course, that in affairs of State Governments do not
302
summarily dismiss their high officers. They send such a letter or such a communication as leaves to the high officer in question the inevitable necessity of placing his resignation in the hands of the Government, and any man of honour would do what Lord Lloyd did on receiving such a telegram. He at once came over here in reply to the telegram and in subsequent conversation, as we know, placed his resignation in the hands of the Foreign Secretary. I want to speak quite definitely upon this point. I was, of course, a member of the last Cabinet. There were sitting on this Bench this morning three or four members of the last Cabinet. Lord Lloyd was, of course, in constant touch with the Cabinet, it was the duty of the Cabinet to see him from time to time when he came over to this country on his annual visit, and it was the duty of the High Commissioner to keep in close touch with the Foreign Secretary and with the Cabinet. I go so far as to say that in all matters involving policy, it was the duty of the High Commissioner, the man on the spot, to make advices to the Homo Government—advices, if necessary, in the shape of criticism of any proposals that might be put before him. A man occupying that high position would really not be doing his duty to his country unless he were perfectly frank to the Government at home, giving them the fullest expression of his opinion with regard to any suggestions of policy that they might make.
Having said so much, I now desire to state categorically on behalf of those of my colleagues who are here—and I am quite sure that I can say so on behalf of the late Government as a whole—that Lord Lloyd never disregarded any instructions sent to him by the Government, and that he had the fullest confidence of the Government up to the very end of our remaining in office. Up to the very last Cabinet meeting that was held Lord Lloyd, as High Commissioner in Egypt, had our fullest confidence. From time to time, he was expressly thanked by His Majesty's Government for the way in which he was carrying on the very grave and very difficult duties of that high office. I feel that I must say that because not merely was a suggestion made by the Foreign Secretary but by the Dominion Secretary in this House this afternoon. The suggestion was that

303
he was asked to resign because of the difficulties which he had with the late Government. May I say with the very greatest respect that that surely is a matter for the late Government. You have no right to dismiss an official of the late Government because you feel that he had difficulties with the late Government. That was a matter for us. If the difficulties were of such a nature that they could not be reconciled it was our duty to deal with the matter, and I feel sure that if we had had in our minds any idea that the High Commissioner was acting contrary to our ideas, our views or our policy, we should have known how to deal with him. We had no such idea and I suggest that it is not for the succeeding Government to dismiss him. They may dismiss him because they do not agree with his policy, but that is their responsibility and not ours.
Then I want to ask about this telegram of July 3. The new Government had been in office something under a month and they had apparently formed a conclusion that it was necessary or desirable in the interests of the policy which they desired to carry out that the High Commissioner in Egypt should be asked to resign. I could not quite make out from the speech of the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether there was any other correspondence with the High Commissioner, or whether the telegram was sent to him in the midst of his arduous duties as a sort of bombshell which, as the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, left him no option except to resign. I do not know whether during the interval for lunch the Government have been able to get that telegram from the Foreign Office. It cannot be so far away. The noble Lord who leads the House made play of the fact that the Foreign Office is some distance from here, but we have been adjourned for forty minutes, and if the Government wanted to get the information for the House, clearly they could have got that telegram. There are telephones to the Foreign Office. They have chosen to send a telegram to a high officer carrying out very arduous duties—a telegram of such a character as to enforce his resignation—and they will not, as at present advised, present it to the House. Of course it may be said that all will be made clear in another place. I recollect that not twenty-four hours ago
304
the noble and learned Lord made a speech against the proposal that the Secretary of State for India should be represented in this House. The Lord President said it was not at all necessary, because he and those sitting beside him were cognisant of the views of the Government upon all important questions, and were able and willing to give any necessary information. Within twenty-four hours the noble and learned Lord is either unable or unwilling to give the information which the House has asked for and which I think it has a right to demand.
Then I come to the four points. The noble Marquess above the gangway, if I may say so, forced the Government into the position that they agreed with these four points. The noble and learned Lord said so, but the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Dominions said that although the policy would be the same, although they would pay lip service to the four points, there would be a change of method. I think we are entitled to know what that meant. Take the first of the four points—security of the communications of the British Empire in Egypt. The late Government have interpreted that as requiring certain troops to be maintained in Egypt, and, above all, certain troops to be maintained in Cairo. I can quite understand the noble Lord being prepared to pay lip service to that, but is he going to alter the methods? Is there going to be a change in the methods which we thought to be essential for the maintenance of the security of the Empire communications? The noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, does not appear inclined to give us any definite information upon that point. As to how the methods are going to be changed, and in what direction the changes are to take place which will enable him to salve his conscience, he will not tell us, and I cannot put him in the "thumb-screw" and make him tell us; but I must confess, the Government having stated yesterday that they were able and willing to give all the information to which the House is entitled, I think this is a matter which the House is entitled to know. Yet the noble and learned Lord tells us that he either will not or cannot give us this information.
May I refer for a moment to the declaration which was made by the then Prime Minister, Mr. Lloyd George, in

305
1922, when these conditions were laid down? The then Prime Minister communicated them to the Dominions in an important Despatch through the Secretary of State for the Colonies, signed by the Prime Minister. It quite clearly laid down certain conditions, to which I should be glad to hear whether the present Government adhere. The Despatch stated:—
" This pronouncement, while recognising Egypt as an independent sovereign State, lays down the position which we claim in Egypt, vis-a-vis all other Powers, and enumerates the matters in which the maintenance of our special position is vital to Imperial security."
Are we still to maintain, under proposals which we do not yet know, our special position in Egypt? The communication continues:—
" We propose to declare that the welfare and integrity of Egypt are necessary to the peace and safety of the British Empire, which will therefore always maintain as an essential British interest the special relations between itself and Egypt long recognised by other Governments."
Those special relations between ourselves and Egypt: are they going to be altered?
The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs told us that he was in constant communication with the Dominions. I could not quite make out whether he meant to infer that he had communicated to the Dominions the views of the Government upon the alteration in policy; whether he, having of course in his mind this document of 1922, which was the official intimation to the Dominions of our position in Egypt, before assenting to the despatch of the telegram to the High Commissioner, which made his resignation inevitable, had communicated to the Dominions that there was such a change of policy on the part of His Majesty's Government as would necessitate their sending a telegram to the High Commissioner and in fact dismissing him.
LORD PASSFIELD: If the noble Viscount will allow me, what I said was that with regard to those four points and the Sudan the Government had made no change in policy and had no intention of making a change in policy; but I also said that with regard to the negotiations which are in progress and other matters the Dominions were taken fully into our confidence in
306
repeated telegrams from time to time. I cannot remember at what date various telegrams were sent. And I would like to add that on all these other matters, besides the four points and the Sudan, it is a matter of negotiation and nothing has yet been settled.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: This is perhaps the most important statement that has been made in the debate this afternoon. Then there are negotiations proceeding between His Majesty's Government and somebody in regard to the position in Egypt. With whom? We know, of course, that several important Ministers of Egypt are in this country at this moment. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary of Egypt are here. Does the noble Lord really mean that these negotiations began before or after the dismissal of the High Commissioner? And was the dismissal of the High Commissioner almost an essential to the successful conduct of the negotiations?
LORD PASSFIELD: That is a matter of opinion, but as a matter of fact the resignation of Lord Lloyd had nothing whatever to do with the negotiations which are in progress.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: No, the resignation of Lord Lloyd is caused by a change of policy on the part of His Majesty's Government. Really, the noble and learned Marquess above the Gangway made that perfectly clear, but if it is disputed I do not want there to be any difference of opinion on this point. It was not merely that his views were not likely to be in sufficient harmony with those of the new Government, but Lord Lloyd in his letter, after referring to the conversation he had recently had with the Foreign Secretary, writes that he has been thinking over
" the situation caused by the advent of a new Government in England, and the policy which I understand is to be pursued in regard to Egyptian affairs."
He could only have understood that from a conversation with the Foreign Secretary.
LORD PASSFIELD: I am not able to give any information as to his conversation with the Foreign Secretary, but it is quite clear that his conversation with the Foreign Secretary took place after the

307
particular telegram to which the noble Viscount refers, and if, as I understand it, Lord Lloyd has in view in his letter some conversation which he had had with the Foreign Secretary, the Foreign Secretary will in due course state his view of that. I cannot—I mean I physically cannot, because I do not know what took place. As far as I know negotiations are still going on. The noble Lord asks, with whom? Is it not clear that with regard to the internal government of Egypt—and the noble Viscount will know that the internal administration of Egypt is not in exactly what you would call a satisfactory position at this moment on constitutional and other grounds—is it not clear that these negotiations must necessarily be with the Government of Egypt and that they are not yet concluded?
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: Of course, every question I ask of the noble Lord postpones the possibility of our getting to another form of entertainment without yielding us very much information. The noble Lord has a faculty for clouding the issue with a multitude of words, going back to the four points, but not in the least telling us what I aim trying to find out from him as to the negotiations pending with the Egyptian Government, although he is a member of the Cabinet. I cannot imagine that in an important matter of this kind the Foreign Secretary would carry on—may I say to the verge of a successful issue?—negotiations of the most vital importance not merely to Egypt but to our own country and the Imperial position without communicating full information regarding them to the Cabinet. The noble Lord comes and says he is not able to tell us what took place in these negotiations.
LORD PASSFIELD: The noble Viscount must not misquote. I said I did not know what had passed between the Foreign Secretary and Lord Lloyd at their interview. It is obvious that the noble Viscount is much better acquainted than I am with the proceedings of Cabinets, and he will realise that every member of the Cabinet knows a great deal more than he is at liberty to say.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I do not want to waste the time of the House. I will only say that in my limited experience of Cabinets there could have been no such conversation with a Cabinet Minister and
308
no such telegram leading to the dismissal of a High Commissioner without their coming to the knowledge of the Cabinet as a whole. We have been talking in the dark. We have endeavoured to ascertain from the Government what was the cause of Lord Lloyd's dismissal, what negotiations are now in progress, and what is the change of policy which caused the resignation. To all of those questions we have had unsatisfactory replies, or none at all. I cannot go further than that. Whether we are going to have a full statement in another place to-morrow I do not know, but I do quite definitely say, particularly to the noble and learned Lord who leads the House after his speech yesterday, that the withholding of information from the House which the House has a right to receive does not conduce to improve the position of the House of Lords. I think I heard him complaining of the position of this House yesterday and the confidence or lack of confidence felt in it by the public. The noble and learned Lord has not helped to give it that position in the country which it has a right to have. So long as this House remains an effective portion of the Constitution we are entitled to demand information from the Government. The Leader of the Opposition, the noble and learned Marquess above the Gangway and myself have endeavoured to get some information from the Government, and we have lamentably failed because the Government have taken refuge in vague generalities and will not answer the simple questions which are put to them, which are matters of fact, and if they know the facts, as they ought to know them, they could quite easily answer them.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, I will only add a word, because I for some years had some responsibility in relation to the East and in the days of the Coalition I was closely associated with this Egyptian question, and was a member of the late Cabinet Committee which dealt with the Egyptian anxieties at the commencement of their period of office. I am, I think, then of surviving Ministers the one who has had a closer association with Egyptian politics than probably any one in this House. I desire to make two observations. In the first place, if matters are to

309
proceed harmoniously here, the noble and learned Lord who leads the House must really form, while he leads it, a wholly different conception of what the surviving rights and privileges of this House are. Having received adequate notice of matters which must have engaged the attention of his Cabinet, he cannot treat us in this way—" I can only make a very partial and perfunctory statement because a full statement will be made in another place to-morrow." The House of Lords even in its present condition has never been so treated by a Leader of the House.
The proper method for the noble and learned Lord to have pursued when he received notice on the adjournment yesterday of the intention of the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition, was to go round to his colleague, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and say: "The House of Lords will rightly require to be adequately informed to-morrow of the circumstances which have provoked this crisis. Give me the information." I was a member of a Cabinet for twelve years and I never knew things handled in any other way. The noble and learned Lord is a colleague, I suppose an equal colleague, of the Foreign Secretary. There is no secrecy, or ought to be no secrecy, between Cabinet colleagues. And that the noble and learned Lord should have come to this House to-day so ill-equipped, without one particle of the necessary and relevant information, is a scandal and an insult to this House. Is the telegram of July 3 here even now, may I ask?
LORD PARMOOR: It has been thoroughly explained.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: It has not.
LORD PARMOOR: The noble Earl thinks it has not. It was thoroughly explained that we cannot produce this telegram at the present time. There are matters which cannot be produced in the circumstances because pf the public interest. I do not want to argue at all with the noble Earl. He can make what comment he likes.
LORD CARSON: Is it a question of economy?
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: The matter grows more astonishing with every explanation.
LORD PARMOOR: I am sure.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: The noble and learned Lord is well entitled to be sure of it. He knows himself and he knows his colleagues. Let your Lordships consider the position to which we are reduced. The noble and learned Lord conceives himself to be entitled to refer to a telegram and to found some sort of argument upon it—
LORD PARMOOR: No.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: —and then to say that it cannot be produced.
LORD PARMOOR: We never referred to it.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: Does he not really see that this is the pivot in the whole resignation story, the one that produced the answer from Lord Lloyd? And then the noble Lord says that high considerations of public policy make it impossible for them to produce it. Then we are never to know the story. It is not to be told. We are to reach a decision with that story untold. Let me for the further Parliamentary education of the noble and learned Lord venture, as one who has had some official experience in this House, to give him a further piece of advice. Never again make the basis of a Parliamentary argument a document which, when challenged, you say you cannot lay upon the Table of the House. It was my duty some years ago to give very elementary instruction to the noble and learned Lord upon this point, and I thought I had convinced him of the impropriety of that practice and of the absolute right of the House to insist upon a document so used being placed upon the Table. But in the twenty years during which I have been in Parliament, I have never known a Minister attempt to make such an argumentative use of a document which he did not intend to produce as that which was made by the noble and learned Lord to-day.
I do not know whether your Lordships observed the full implications. I noticed them very closely. At the beginning of his speech the noble and learned Lord said: "I do not know whether the noble Marquess is aware of the Despatches that

311
were exchanged on such and such a day between Lord Lloyd and the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs." I pass by the inconceivable affront to your Lordships of a private conversation between the noble and learned Lord and the noble Marquess in relation to documents of which the House was not cognisant. I have never heard of such a thing in all the years in which I can remember Parliament in either House. What was the inference, the indispensable inference which the noble and learned Lord attempted to draw—that he thought there was something in that document which showed that differences of opinion had arisen between Sir Austen Chamberlain and Lord Lloyd which afforded some justification for the attitude of His Majesty's present Government. Does he really think it decent to conduct a Parliamentary argument in that way? If the noble and learned Lord relies upon a document, let us have none of these hole and corner presentations, let him read to Parliament the documents on which he relies and let him be sure that Parliament will get these documents if they have not obtained them from the noble and learned Lord to-day. They are relevant and vital documents.
There is some foundation for the view expressed in more than one quarter to-day that the issue here is larger than the personal issue of Lord Lloyd. But though that is true, the personal issue of Lord Lloyd is of immense importance because the position of every man in the public service in difficult, critical and, perhaps, dangerous situations is affected by a precedent of this character. I make it plain that in my opinion it is the duty of Parliament to investigate the circumstances in which a man of Lord Lloyd's extraordinary personal distinction, who still desired to remain in the public service in that particular duty, has received a message from the Foreign Secretary, which, in the honest admission of the Foreign Secretary himself, made it necessary that a man of self-respect should resign. Is not Parliament entitled to know something of those circumstances?
I heard with satisfaction from the noble and learned Lord the clear and unequivocal statement—it was the only clear and unequivocal statement which has been made from that Bench to-day—that the reservations are to be maintained in
312
their integrity and that no variation of established policy will be undertaken in the Sudan. Those two, therefore, I find it unnecessary to examine further. It was a reassurance which gave me great satisfaction. But the noble and learned Lord said that except in matters of procedure (I agree that he added "which might be all-important procedure ") there were not to be other changes of policy. Then cannot someone explain to us—someone, if I may venture to express a preference, who has not hitherto made any attempt to explain anything—cannot such a one, somebody fresh, explain to us whether or no Lord Lloyd was made aware of what this modification of procedure, which might be all-important, was?
Was that ever conveyed to Lord Lloyd? If it was conveyed to Lord Lloyd, presumably Lord Lloyd would know it. I ask this question not without some foundation to base myself upon. Is it not the fact that Lord Lloyd expressly asked the Foreign Secretary what changes of policy were contemplated, and that the Foreign Secretary said he could not discuss those questions with Lord Lloyd? If that be true—I do not as a rule ask questions without having some material to base myself upon—what becomes of the whole story which has been told us to-day from the Bench opposite? It has no contact with any relevant fact in the dispute. If, on the other hand, Lord Lloyd was made aware of the Government's policy, one would perhaps have expected that we should have been given to-day some evidence of his differing from the conclusions which the Government had reached. I, on the contrary, have some reasons for saying that negotiations of a formal character were actually taking place between His Majesty's Government and high personages who represent Egypt without any communication of any kind having been made to His Majesty's High Commissioner. If that be true nothing more scandalous ever took place.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: Lord Lloyd had a responsibility to Parliament, to the King, and to the public, and that any Government, without keeping him closely informed until the very moment that he ceased to be Commissioner, should have undertaken negotiations is a proceeding

313
indecorous as, happily, it is unprecedented in our political history. I would make this further observation. Negotiations, as we now know definitely, are in progress. They are important negotiations. They may be, as the noble and learned Lord has told us, matters of procedure of all-reaching importance. The nebulousness of the language which the noble and learned Lord invariably employs leads me to some confusion as to what he really means. I find it difficult, in any precision of phrase, to envisage a mere act of procedure which is of all-reaching importance. If it is of all-reaching importance upon matters of high political consequence it is not a mere matter of procedure. But what I want to know is this—and this is the important point in the debate—are these negotiations to reach a conclusion without Parliament being informed? Are we to separate to-morrow—the House of Commons to separate, your Lordships to separate—and are we to find that behind the backs of Parliament—
A NOBLE LORD: And the High Commissioner.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: Well, the High Commissioner has gone—are we to find that behind the backs of Parliament this agreement has been reached? What stage of these negotiations has been arrived at? I do not ask the noble and learned Lord—I am too familiar with these things—to tell us what has been discussed, but are they approaching any finality? I hope a rumour which has reached me that a document has actually been signed is untrue. It would, indeed, be incredible. But when is a conclusion likely to be reached, and is Parliament to have the opportunity of criticising it before it is signed? Is the noble and learned Lord possessed of any information upon that point, because it is one of vital importance?
I would remind the noble and learned Lord that in the days of the Coalition we were frequently compelled, and rightly compelled, when Parliament separated at critical moments to keep the machinery open by which in case of a grave necessity, Parliament might be re-summoned. I affirm boldly that this is such an occasion. If a Government which, after all, is a minority Government, which represents a section of public opinion in the country, which though considerable,
314
gives it no right to make bold and novel experiments in the fabric of the Empire—if it is the purpose of this Government to do that in the absence of Parliament, I say, without hesitation—although I am no longer in official politics, I still have a duty as a citizen and a member of this House—I would use the whole of my influence, whatever the consequences, to put them out of power if they attempted so monstrous a usurpation of the rights and privileges of Parliament.
The noble and learned Lord may smile. It would be a very easy matter on any point upon which the Liberal Party agreed with us to take such a step. It is not a matter for hilarity. I observe that the sense of humour of our new recruit is apparently highly developed. I am glad to have excited it and contributed to it. I would point out to him that this is not really a very comical matter, and he will discover, when he has had much more experience of Government, that an attempt of this kind to carry these negotiations through and present Parliament with an accomplished fact is one which will not be successful as long as the House of Commons and this House retain the powers which, they have heretofore exercised, and so long as the political conditions which maintain are the conditions which maintain to-day. That we shall obtain answers to these questions here to-day is of course extremely improbable. I hope that the House of Commons will be more fortunate, and I hope again that whatever debates may take place under the leadership of the House by the noble and learned Lord we shall never have such excuses put forward again for the reticence in giving information to which we are entitled which has been exhibited by the noble and learned Lord.

DEVELOPMENT (LOAN GUARANTEES AND GRANTS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, though the hour is, in a sense, somewhat late. I feel it my duty to place before your Lordships an explanation of the main provisions of this measure and its object, but I trust not to detain the House at any great length. Following upon the Colonial Development

315
Bill, two days ago, this Bill is a further instalment of the Government's unemployment policy. My right hon. friend the Lord Privy Seal has already outlined in various speeches some of the Government's plans for dealing with unemployment. As regards his plans for roads no legislation is needed, at any rate at present. The prospects opened up by the Colonial Development Bill, to which I have referred, were outlined and discussed in your Lordships' House as recently as two days ago, and therefore I need not touch upon those matters. Another field in which employment may be increasingly looked for is electrical development. As regards the necessary finance for that the position is that the Central Electricity Board has already considerable statutory borrowing powers. Again, it was only last evening that the Housing (Revision of Contributions) Bill was passed through your Lordships' House. This was the first step in the Government's housing policy, and, as time goes on, we trust that that policy will also increasingly help unemployment, quite apart from what it will do for housing.
The Bill of which I now move the Second Reading is intended further to help unemployment by giving statutory authority for Government financial help, in ways carefully regulated and administered, for sound schemes which will help unemployment. And—this is an important consideration—these schemes would otherwise not be proceeded with at the present time. The Bill is intended to help schemes of that kind in the case of public utility undertakings working for profit and public utility undertakings not working for profit. It is also intended to help local authorities' schemes. I will explain to your Lordships in a few words what the term "public utility undertaking" is intended to cover, and also will make clear the difference between a public utility undertaking working for profit and one which is not working for profit. A public utility undertaking, for the purpose of this Bill, is one for providing means of transport or communication, or for providing gas, electricity, power or water. A public utility undertaking trading for profit is one which can pay dividends to its shareholders. There are statutory limitations and obligations under which it works, but it can pay dividends to its shareholders. As
316
examples I may name railways, tubes, gas companies and so forth. A public utility undertaking not working for profit is one, for instance, like the Port of London Authority or the Metropolitan Water Board. Such undertakings have stockholders but they have a fixed rate of interest upon their stock holdings, and, if there is any increase in the net receipts of the undertaking, any increased net revenue does not go in increased dividends or interest, but goes either for the improvement of the undertaking or for the reduction of its charges.
The operative clauses of this Bill are in Parts I and II. It is Part I which deals with public utility undertakings working for profit, and Part II deals with schemes of local authorities and those other public utility undertakings not working for profit. Part I, that is the Part which, as I say, deals with public utility undertakings working for profit, provides two forms of assistance. The first is in Clause 1 and it is a State guarantee of principal or interest or both of any loan raised for the purpose of carrying out an approved scheme. The procedure here, is really very similar to that of the Trade Facilities Acts. The second form of assistance, which is set forth in Clause 2, is a direct grant from the Exchequer to assist the undertaking in defraying either in whole or in part interest on a loan for carrying out an approved scheme for any period up to fifteen years from the raising of the loan. An undertaking can have one or other of these forms of assistance. It can have a guaranteed loan or guaranteed interest, or it can have an interest grant, but it cannot have both a guaranteed loan and an interest grant.
I think your Lordships will readily see the advantage of this plan in helping forward various works. The State guarantee of a loan will assist undertakings which have difficulty in raising money at a reasonable rate, and the second and more substantial form of assistance, an actual grant of interest or towards interest, will help those undertakings which cannot proceed without this more substantial form of help. These interest grants are intended to assist approved schemes where the prospects of an early return on the capital expenditure are not very assured. As regards procedure, application for a State guarantee or for an interest grant will be examined by an

317
advisory committee. My right hon. friend the Lord Privy Seal has called in the aid, which is being readily given, of some very experienced and very able business men, and their co-operation in this work will, I think, assure your Lordships that the best experience is being obtained in the working of the plan. The term of this Bill is for three years; that is, three years in which the various loans can be made, but interest in respect of them will in many cases run on for a much longer term. The actual operation of the Bill is three years from August next.
Now I come to a question about which there has been considerable discussion—that is, the limit to be put upon these forms of help. There is definitely in the Bill a limit to the help provided by Clause 1, a limit of £25,000,000. The Government have also undertaken—this is not in the Bill, but the Government have undertaken—that as regards the second form of assistance which I have outlined there will also be a limit of £25,000,000. The Government will not exceed that amount—at any rate not until Parliament meets again. The words of the pledge are: there shall be no commitment of any sort or kind over a capital expenditure of £25,000,000 between now and November. I hope I have made that clear. The matter is complicated, and if any noble Lord should ask a question I will do my best to deal with it later on.
I now come to Part II of the Bill, which gives statutory authority for grants to be made by the Unemployment Grants Committee, usually known as the St. Davids Committee. This authority is given by Clause 4 of the Bill. I should explain before I go any further that amongst other provisions Clause 4 gives the St. Davids Committee a statutory basis which it has not hitherto had. The Committee has been in existence for many years—in fact since 1920—but hitherto it has had no statutory basis at all, and before I explain the terms and conditions upon which grants will be made by the St. Davids Committee I should like very broadly to remind your Lordships of some of the facts about this Committee and of the work which it has done. The Committee, as I have said, was formed in 1920, and from 1920 to 1925 it assisted works to the value of upwards of £100,000,000. That was between
318
1920 and 1925. In all, down to June of this year, the Committee has assisted work to a total value of about £113,000,000. Between 1920 and 1925, I repeat, the amount was rather over £100,000,000. But in November of 1925, almost at the end of the year, the late Government practically stopped the work of the Committee by a circular which they issued, and its operations which, as I have said, had been averaging about £20,000,000 a year, fell to £700,000 and then to £300,000—as low as that. Therefore the Committee was very nearly stopped working. At the end of last year, however, a fresh development of the Committee's work was decided upon.
I should explain that broadly speaking the work of the St. Davids Committee from December of 1925 until November of last year was confined to giving assistance to areas where there was 15 per cent. of unemployment. It was a high percentage and it had a restrictive effect upon the Committee's operations. Right down to the end of last year the Committee's operations were confined to one class of area—that is, areas where there was 15 per cent. of unemployment. That is from 1925. I am not going into what happened before on that particular point. But last year a very important change in this matter was made, owing to the extreme desirability of transferring unemployed men from distressed areas like South Wales and Durham to areas where there was little or no unemployment. A circular was issued and authority was given to the Committee to assist works in those areas where there was little or no unemployment, provided that on works of that kind there would be engaged at least 50 per cent. of transferred men—that is, men transferred from these distressed areas.
It thus came about that its operations then were in respect of two areas—first, as I have said, those where there was a great deal of unemployment, and secondly, those where there was little or no unemployment. There, remained another class of area—those areas where there was substantial unemployment, not so great as 15 per cent. and yet sufficiently large to take them out of the category of areas where there was little or no unemployment. The Government holds, and I think it is clearly desirable, that the operations of the Committee should

319
be enabled to be extended to this third class of areas, and it is with a view to effecting this that new regulations are being issued, and, as has been stated, the 15 per cent. of unemployment will be reduced to 10 per cent. Nor is that final, because, if it seems desirable, the volume of employment in an area can be taken into account as well as the percentage. Indeed, the Committee will have a wide discretion to consider all aspects of the problem in special cases—and I stress those words.
Next—and this should be a helpful provision—assistance can, in special circumstances, be given in a transfer scheme notwithstanding that the proportion of labour proposed to be transferred does not reach 50 per cent. These matters, I know, are complicated and technical, but I am endeavouring to cover the ground so that everything may be made as plain as possible, I trust in not too long a time. These various changes will open up before the Committee an increased field of operations and we believe that they will lead to fruitful results in securing employment, in getting men transferred and in helping works of real utility to the community. A factor which has to be taken into consideration by the Committee is how far schemes are calculated to promote economic development. The change in policy last December also authorised the Committee to resume grants in respect of non-classified roads in distressed or non-distressed areas. Since 1925 that power has been taken away from the Committee. Prior to the inhibition of 1925, road work of a considerable magnitude had been assisted from time to time. I find that the total amount of road works assisted in the five years 1920–25 amounted to £23,000,000. That sum, I should make clear, is included in the total sum given for that period of rather over £100,000,000. Another vital change that is just being made is that, whereas according to the Government circular of 1925 grants could only be made when a work would not otherwise be undertaken for at least five years, what is called the acceleration period is now to be reduced to three years. That is a change of considerable magnitude. I should add that this condition regarding five years, now to be reduced, was never applicable to areas where schemes of transferred labour were authorised.
320
The whole Bill is limited in its operation to three years, so far as the giving of grants and assistance of various kinds is concerned. The actual terms upon which grants will be made under Part II of the Bill—that is, grants to local authorities and public utility undertakings not trading for profit—are not set forth specifically in the Bill. The clause in the Bill which refers to this point lays down that grants shall be made upon such terms as the Ministry of Labour, with the approval of the Treasury, may determine. As a matter of fact the terms will continue, at any rate for the present, to be what they have been in the last few years. The definite limitation in the Bill in these matters is the proviso to subsection (1) of Clause 4, which says that the grants of interest in connection with a loan shall not be for more than thirty years. That is in the Bill. In this matter of grants by the St. Davids Committee, there will also be a limit of £25,000,000—the same limit as applied to the other two forms of assistance of which I have been speaking. There is a limit of £25,000,000 for the actual value of works assisted, and this limit is to be in operation at any rate until Parliament meets again. That is an undertaking, but it is not in the Bill.
I do not think that it is necessary to trouble the House with the actual terms upon which interest has hitherto been granted and will, at any rate for the present, continue to be granted. They are very complicated and lengthy. I have them here and, if any noble Lord wishes to ask any question, I shall be very pleased to reply, but I do not propose to give them to your Lordships unless I am asked to do so. But there is one provision that I should mention in this connection. The St. Davids Committee has had the power to make a percentage grant of 75 per cent. of the wages cost of certain schemes, and it will continue to have this power. It has been almost entirely used for comparatively small schemes of various kinds, such as recreation grounds, resurfacing of roads and so on. I think that, out of the total operations of the Committee throughout its existence, which, as I have said, amount to £113,000,000, these wages grant schemes have amounted to about £17,500,000. Hitherto wages grants have been confined to the areas where there is

321
15 per cent. or more of unemployment, but it is intended to relax this, and they can now be given to practically all areas, if the scheme is approved.
As I have told your Lordships, between 1920 and 1925 the average amount of schemes assisted by the Committee was £20,000,000, and the bearing of this upon the unemployment problem can be seen if I give your Lordships one or two figures. It is estimated that the expenditure—this is a very vital figure in this whole matter—of £1,000,000 on schemes of the kind we are discussing employs directly 4,000 men for one year. In addition to this, some of the schemes, at any rate, employ as many more men in indirect labour, in the preparation of materials, in factories, workshops, transport and so on. On this basis the expenditure of £1,000,000 would employ 8,000 men for a year, and the expenditure of £20,000,000 would employ some 160,000 men for a year. That may be somewhat on the high side in certain schemes, but it has worked out so in others and it is a figure which I think we are entitled to put forward, at any rate for the purpose of illustration and discussion. On any-think like that basis, it is clear that the expenditure of £20,000,000 would lead to a considerable amount of employment and have a sensible effect upon the unemployment problem. Hitherto, practically every form of municipal activity has been assisted by the St. Davids Committee. I might toll your Lordships—I have nearly finished—a rather interesting fact. The operations in certain road works undertaken by the Committee unearthed a tablet showing that the particular road had been originally constructed over a hundred years earlier by unemployed men. That, I think, is at any rate a tribute to the good work that was done by the unemployed.
There is one specific scheme of which I should like to tell your Lordships as an illustration. It is a scheme that has just been approved in the Midlands, where eight local authorities have submitted a plan to deal with 3,000 out of the 10,000 pit tips, slag heaps and brick mounds which abound in the Midlands, deface the countryside and considerably reduce the economic value of the land. Of these various mounds and heaps 3,000 are to be levelled by eight authorities.
322
This will improve the value of the land, increase the rateable area and make the land available for the building of houses, factories, recreation grounds, allotments and so on. This scheme will, I think, take about five years in all and will employ 2,000 men for that period. It is a considerable scheme, and I think that it will be generally agreed that it is a matter for congratulation that such a scheme is going to be undertaken. A scheme which was undertaken some time ago was the Nottingham-Trent Canal whereby as the result of dredging, widening and building locks, a great inland City like Nottingham has been made in a sense into a port, which can now be reached by 100-ton barges from the sea. I do not think that I need say more. I have done my best to outline the provisions of the Bill, and I hope I have made it clear that the Bill, and the other plans to which I have referred, are only part of the Government's unemployment policy. We have only been in office a few weeks, but we have not been idle. The Lord Privy Seal and Ministers particularly associated with him are working on this unemployment problem with relentless industry, and as time goes on the policy of the Government will be more and more fully developed. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Arnold.)
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for his very careful exposition and explanation of this Bill. It was rather difficult to get hold of a copy, because it was only circulated this morning, and it was only by reading the discussions in another place that I have learned a certain amount about the measure. It has, however, been very ably explained by Lord Arnold, and I quite understand from him that it is one of the series of measures for curing unemployment which the Lord Privy Seal is initiating. I can assure him that on this side of the House we are just as sympathetic with, and as keenly anxious to do, anything which will bring about a cure for unemployment, as any other Party. I can assure him that we shall always do all we can to support the Government in measures of that sort, and give it every assistance in order to bring about

323
such a desirable result. I do not think it is necessary at this hour for me to refer to any of the many subjects over which he has travelled. I notice that in another place there were no Divisions, and apparently the debates were very harmonious. Everybody was very sympathetic towards the Bill. There was, as he said, a limit of £25,000,000 put down for Clause 1, whereas for Clause 2 there was no limit, and it seemed rather like giving the Minister a blank cheque. However, I notice that the right hon. Gentleman met the objections by giving the undertaking to which Lord Arnold has referred, and that there will be no capital commitments between now and next November. I will not go any further into the Bill, and the only question I would like to ask is when we shall be told the constitution of the committee which is to be set up. Perhaps the noble Lord cannot give it now, but it might be interesting to know.
LORD ARNOLD: I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for his words about this Bill. With regard to the committee, I cannot say exactly when it will be constituted. The matter is being pushed on most relentlessly, and although I cannot give the exact date, I can assure the noble Earl that no time is being lost. We are as anxious as anybody can be to get on with the work. As the noble Earl knows, it takes a little time to constitute a committee. May I say one word with regard to his complaint that the Bill was
324
only circulated this morning. In that matter I can claim to have done all I could. I went to the officials to make certain that the Bill was being circulated this morning. With regard to another Bill which was circulated late, I was informed that that was not unprecedented in this House during the last week of the Session.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY indicated dissent.
LORD ARNOLD: That is what I am told, and I think it must be so in certain cases, because if a Bill does not pass another place until nine o'clock, it cannot be printed in time to be circulated the next morning. Of course, copies can be obtained of the Bill as presented in another place, but that is not very satisfactory. I am not complaining at all of what the noble Earl said, but I only mentioned this in order to show that no time had been lost in circulating the Bill. The Government have done everything to supply the House with all the information they could, and I think in these matters they are doing as well as previous Governments.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past three o'clock.

GLASGOW CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
JOINT COMMITTEE ON CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Message from the Commons to acquaint this House that they have appointed a Committee of six members to join with the Committee appointed by this House, as mentioned in their Lordships' Message of the 17th instant, to consider all Consolidation Bills of the present Session.

EAST HULL GAS ORDER, 1929.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the East Hull Gas Company.
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

HORSHAM GAS ORDER, 1929.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Horsham Gas Company, Limited.
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
WEST DERBYSHIRE ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1929.
ALTON GAS ORDER, 1929.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Orders, and that there is nothing in these Orders to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.