Sitting of 25 March 1929

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Asiatic Steam Navigation Company Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Crowborough District Water Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.
Lancashire Electric Power Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, with with Amendments.
Nottingham Corporation Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.
Sheffield Gas (Consolidation) Bill, [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Southport, Birkdale and West Lancashire Water Board Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.
Tyne Improvement Bill (King's Consent signified),
Bill read the Third time, and passed.
Royal Victoria and Other Docks Approaches (Improvement) Bill,
As amended, considered.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
London County Council (Money) Bill,
To be read a Second time To-morrow.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Merthyr Tydfil Water Charges) Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA.

    LEPROSY.
    Sir ROBERT THOMASasked the Under-Secretary of State for India approximately the present number of lepers in India; how many treatment centres are now open; to what extent those centres are State supported as regards initial establishment, maintenance and payment of their medical staffs; and whether the British Empire Leprosy Relief Association receives any financial aid from public funds?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): The number of persons in India returned as lepers at the census of 1921, the last official figures available, was 102,513, but it is probable that the number of lepers in India is considerably in excess of that returned. Information is not available as to the number of treatment centres, now open in India. With regard to the remainder of the question, as public health is a transferred Provincial subject, the matter is one for the local governments and legislative councils. The Indian Council of the British Empire Leprosy Relief Association work in co-operation with the Provincial Governments and voluntary agencies and in each Province the local governments either support the leper institutions or make a capitation grant to the institutions under the administration of the Mission to Lepers.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Is the Noble Lord aware that there are more lepers under the British flag than under any other flag?
    Earl WINTERTON: That is exceedingly probable, in view of the fact that one-fifth of the whole population of the world is under the British flag.
    Mr. DAY: Is it not the fast that the latest remedy for leprosy is greatly alleviating that disease?
    Earl WINTERTON: Yes, I believe that is so. My Noble Friend has a very distinguished medical adviser at the India Office, who was closely associated with the discovery of that particular remedy.

    ARRESTS.
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has any further information as to the arrests of trade union officials in India who are alleged to have engaged in illegal and seditious activities, and can supply that information to the House; whether, in particular, he can give any information regarding the arrest of the secretary of the jute workers' union at Calcutta; whether any documents, the property of and necessary to the work of the union, have been seized; and where and when the trials of these arrested trade union officials will take place?
    Earl WINTERTON: As regards the first part of the question, there is little that I can properly add to my statement of the 21st March. I have, however, ascertained that the secretary of the Jute Workers' Association was arrested, though it has not yet been possible to obtain any information whether any documents belonging to the association were seized. The trial of all those arrested on this charge of conspiracy will take place at Meerut, but I am unable to say how soon.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the Noble Lord sure that under cover of the arrests of plotters against the King, bona fide trade union officials have not been taken up as well?
    Earl WINTERTON: Quite obviously, when arrests on this scale take place, it is necessary for the police to seize a large number of documents, and, if any of them have no connection with the case in question, they will be returned to the people to whom they belong.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am asking about men; is the Noble Lord certain that some of the men taken are not bona fide, trade union officials?
    Earl WINTERTON: I do not quite know what the hon. and gallant Gentleman means. It does not matter whether a man is a bona fide trade union official or not; if he has committed a crime, he will be arrested like anybody else.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does not the Noble Lord see that under cover of one thing it is possible to do another?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is argumentative.
    Mr. THURTLE: Will the Government urge upon the Government of India the desirability of bringing these men to trial at the earliest possible moment?
    Earl WINTERTON: Yes, Sir; that is an entirely reasonable request, and of course it will be carried out. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the practice in India is the same as in this country. It is necessary that the case shall be prepared with some care, and I cannot say what the exact date will be, but there will be no avoidable delay.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: Will the Noble Lord explain why people arrested at Calcutta are to be tried at Meerut, which is 700 miles away?
    Earl WINTERTON: Because the warrants were issued by the magistrate at Meerut.
    Mr. SAKLATVALAasked the Under-Secretary of State for India in what towns and cities were raids and arrests carried out in India last week in connection with labour or political agitations and how many in each; of the persons searched and of the persons arrested how many, respectively, are definitely members of the Communist party and how many are members of, or are officially connected with, trade union organisations; of the premises raided or searched how many were in the use of registered members of the Communist party; and what was the number of police, magistrates and military force employed, respectively, during the above raids and arrests?
    Earl WINTERTON: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the arrests on a charge of conspiracy that took place last Wednesday. As I stated on the 21st March, 31 arrests were made in all. I understand that these took place principally in Bombay, Poona, Calcutta, Dacca, Allahabad, Lucknow and Lahore, but I cannot say how many arrests occurred in each place. The nature and extent of the Communist connection of the 31 persons arrested will appear in the course of the trial and I am not prepared to make any further statement about them at present. Seventeen of them are reported to be either officials or members of trade unions. As regards

    2043
    the searching of premises, I have no detailed information. With regard to the last part, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I am giving to Question No. 8.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what these men did at Meerut which caused the magistrate at Meerut to issue warrants wholesale over all parts of the country beyond his jurisdiction?
    Earl WINTERTON: He did not issue warrants beyond his jurisdiction, and the hon. Gentleman makes a very serious charge against the magistrate in question in saying that he did. He issued the warrants within his jurisdiction.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: That is not an answer to my question. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain whether these men went to Meerut, and what particular thing they did at Meerut winch caused the magistrate at Meerut to issue the warrants?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That point does not arise out of the question at all.
    Mr. WELLOCKasked the Under-Secretary of State for India the number of troops and police, respectively, that were used in Bombay and Calcutta in making the arrests of last Wednesday; and whether they have since been removed?
    Earl WINTERTON: As a precautionary measure, military assistance was asked for in Bombay and military pickets consisting of about three companies were stationed in Bombay city from 6 a.m. on Wednesday morning. They were withdrawn on Friday evening. No troops were used in Calcutta, and I have no information as to the number of police used in making the arrests.

    COAL MINES (WOMEN).
    Mr. KELLYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India the number of women who were employed in the coalmining industry in British India in each of the last four years; and what proportion of these women miners were employed underground?
    Earl WINTERTON: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with
    2044
    the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. KELLY: I am asking the Noble Lord to give the figures for last year, with the proportion.
    Earl WINTERTON: They are very complicated figures, but I can give the figure for 1927. The total was 47,443.
    Following is the answer:
    Figures for 1928 are not yet available. The daily average number of females employed in and about the: coal mines in India for the years 1924–1927 is as follows. The figures from 1926 onwards are shown in a slightly different form from those of earlier years:

    —

    1924.

    1925.

    Employed below ground—

    Miners

    30,795

    28,963

    Others

    10,421

    10,655

    Above ground

    21,994

    18,913

    Total

    63,610

    58,531

    1926.

    1927.

    Employed underground

    28,496

    28,041

    In open workings

    7,111

    5,800

    On surface

    14,825

    13,602

    Total

    50,432

    47,443

    EX-MAHARAJA OF NABHA.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India is placing any obstacles in the way of the Maharani, the wife of the ex-Maharaja of Nabha, and her children joining her husband during his enforced internment without trial?
    Earl WINTERTON: I would refer the hon. Member to the Debate on the Motion for the Adjournment on the 19th April last, in the course of which I stated that the Government of India had passed no Orders enjoining on the ex-Maharaja separation from his wife and children.
    Mr. THURTLE: Does that bear the ordinary interpretation that no obstacles are being placed in the way of her joining her husband?
    Viscountess ASTOR: Does that not look as if she did not want to join her husband?
    Earl WINTERTON: I am not prepared to say that no obstacle is placed in the

    2045
    way. There is no legal ban on the ex-Maharani joining her husband if she wishes to do so.
    Mr. THURTLE: If there are obstacles, can the Noble Lord say what is their nature?
    Earl WINTERTON: It would be impossible to do that within the limits of a Parliamentary answer, but I think that the ex-Maharani has had advice from various quarters as to the inadvisability of returning to her husband.

    ARMY TRANSPORT VEHICLES (SUBSIDY).
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will give information concerning the scheme put forward last year by the Army headquarters in India for securing by a system of subsidies the use of private commercial vehicles to reinforce the Army in emergencies?
    Earl WINTERTON: I am placing in the Library a copy of the memorandum issued on the subject by the Government of India last August.

    POLICE INVESTIGATIONS.
    Mr. D. GRENFELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for India if any arrests were made in connection with the raid by the police on the 22nd February on the offices of the Burman Publishing Company and the Vidyodda Press, Calcutta; and whether he will inform the House of the object of the raid?
    Earl WINTERTON: I have no information on this matter, but will make inquiries.

  MALAYA (SOCIAL HYGIENE).
  Viscountess ASTORasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, if his advisory committee on social hygiene, which has recently been examining the new enactments in the Federated Malay States giving power for the compulsory examination of certain prostitutes, has presented its Report; and, if so, if it will be published?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): I have received the Report, which it is hoped to publish in about a month's time, the delay being due in part to the fact
  2046
  that it has been thought advisable to publish it simultaneously in Malaya and in this country.

  JAMAICA (BROADCASTING).
  Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOKasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that keen interest is felt in the island of Jamaica regarding broadcasting; whether he has yet considered the application which has been made for a licence; and, if so, what wave length and strength will be allotted?
  Mr. AMERY: No application for a broadcasting licence in Jamaica has come to my notice.

  CEYLON (CONSTITUTION).
  Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can yet state the policy of His Majesty's Government towards the recommendations of the Donoughmore commission of inquiry into the future constitution of Ceylon?
  Mr. AMERY: I cannot at present add anything to the replies given to the hon. Member's previous questions on this subject.
  Mr. MALONE: Has the report of the Governor been received?
  Mr. AMERY: Not yet.

  KENYA.
  Sir ROBERT HAMILTONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House any information regarding Sir Samuel Wilson's mission to Kenya, as to the instructions given to him, and the date of his proposed departure?
  Mr. AMERY: I hope to be able to make a statement on this subject in the course of the next few days.
  Sir R. HAMILTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement on this question before the House rises for the Recess?
  Mr. AMERY: I hope so.

  PALESTINE (MR. JABOTINSKY'S BAGGAGE).
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet had any Report from Palestine as to the examination of Lieutenant Jabotinsky's baggage, showing who was responsible and why it was done?
  Mr. AMERY: Yes, Sir. The High Commissioner has reported that the examination of Mr. Jabotinsky's baggage was conducted in accordance with a general practice obtaining at the time of his entry into Palestine. The practice has since been terminated. There is no foundation for the statement that the authorities made photographs of correspondence or extracts therefrom.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it the normal procedure, in examining a man's luggage when he goes into Palestine, to go through his personal letters?
  Mr. AMERY: I do not know about that. A certain amount of examination was the normal practice, but that is no longer so.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this is quite an isolated case and that no documents were ever examined except in the case of this man?

  GIBRALTAR (NEWSPAPER "HOJAS LIBRES").
  Mr. KELLYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received the Report from Gibraltar as to the action of the Colonial Secretary and Chief of Police confiscating the newspaper "Hojas Libres"?
  Mr. AMERY: No, Sir. There has not yet been time for me to receive a report on the subject.
  Mr. KELLY: Will the Colonial Secretary press for a report on this matter as the suppression of this paper is not to the advantage of this country?
  Mr. AMERY: I communicated with the Governor as soon as the hon. Member gave notice of his question.
  Mr. KELLY: By telegram or by letter?
  Mr. AMERY: I think it was by telegram.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Was this paper a pro-Government or an anti-Government paper?

  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
  Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can state the net balances outward of assisted British migrants from the United Kingdom to British North America, Australia and New Zealand during the 12 months ended to the last convenient date?
  Mr. AMERY: The number of persons who proceeded to British North America, Australia and New Zealand with assistance under the Empire Settlement Act, 1922, during the 12 months ended 31st December, 1928, was as follows:

  British North America

  27,523

  Australia

  20,619

  New Zealand

  2,175

  Information is not available regarding the number of assisted migrants who returned to the United Kingdom during the period.
  Mr. DAY: Is it not a fact that many of the assisted British migrants who have arrived in New Zealand desire to get back again to this country as they find that the conditions are not what they were represented to be when they went out there?
  Mr. AMERY: No, Sir, I am not aware of that fact.

  IRISH FREE STATE (COUNCIL OF STATE).
  Viscount SANDONasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what reply has been made to the representations received from the Government of the Irish Free State as to the constitution and composition of the Council of State?
  Mr. AMERY: It has been agreed, as the result of correspondence with His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State, that the position could most appropriately be discussed at the next meeting of the Imperial Conference.

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    BRITISH INVESTMENTS ABROAD.
    Mr. CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will consider the advisability of extending the functions of the Empire Marketing Board to developing inter-imperial trade by seeking in its propaganda to inculcate in the minds of the investing public a voluntary preference for investment of capital within the Empire rather than in foreign countries?
    Mr. AMERY: On the general question of enlarging the scope of the Empire Marketing Fund I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Anglesey (Sir R. Thomas) on 18th March. But I would point out that statistics show clearly that a voluntary preference such as that referred to by my hon. Friend already exists. I understand that the annual investment of United Kingdom money at home and in the rest of the Empire has since the War been on an average ten times as much as the money invested in foreign countries.
    Mr. CAMPBELLasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether his Department has any information in regard to overseas investments which will show the approximate total of British investments of all kinds within the Empire and in foreign countries;
    (2) how much of the £285,000,000 shown in a recent Board of Trade Report to have been earned by British investments overseas came from investments within the Empire and how much from investments in foreign countries?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): As stated in the article in the Board of Trade Journal to which my hon. Friend refers, the results of a recent investigation carried out by Sir Robert Kindersley have been utilised in framing the latest estimate of the importance, in calculations relating to the balance of trade, of our income from investments abroad. The particulars published with regard to this inquiry are not sufficient to show, in respect of the whole field of overseas investment, the proportion of the total capital invested within the Empire or the proportion
    2050
    of the total income derived from investment within the Empire.

    TRUSTEE SECURITIES.
    Mr. LOOKERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the question of setting up a committee to consider the desirability of extending the present list of trustee investments, in view of the changed conditions in the investment market as compared with those which were prevalent when the existing list of trustee securities was prescribed?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): The matter was thoroughly investigated only last year by the Trustee Securities Committee and I would refer the hon. Member to their published Report (Command Paper 3107), in particular to paragraph 20.
    Mr. LOOKER: Does not my hon. Friend consider that the time has arrived for the creation of some standing machinery to advise the Government of the inclusion in the trustee list of securities not now comprised in it?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I rather feel that my hon. Friend has not realised that there are already £8,000,000,000 of securities in the Public Trustee List.
    Mr. LOOKER: Have the Treasury realised that the cost of living is very different now from what it was when that list was compiled and that it may be desirable to consider the inclusion of higher yielding securities of equal stability in the list?
    Mr. SAMUEL: All these matters were taken into consideration when the Lord Chancellor's Committee sat.

    DEATH DUTIES (INSURANCE).
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the desirability of a provision in his forthcoming Budget whereby it may be possible for an individual taxpayer to take out an insurance policy in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to provide for the payment of the death duties which will eventually be payable on his estate without having the amount of such insurance added on to the estate in question, whereby additional death duties on the amount insured would be payable?
    Mr. SAMUEL: My hon. Friend may rest assured that all suggestions are considered before every Budget.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Does my hon. Friend fully realise the undesirability of having the accumulated capital of individuals used to pay national current expenditure, and does he not see that the suggestion made in the question would enable individuals to make an annual contribution to an insurance office, so that the duty could be paid to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on their death without involving the sale of capital?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I cannot without notice answer that series of supplementary questions, but my hon. Friend may rest assured that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not lost sight of his suggestion.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    WELSH ANTHRACITE (CANADA).
    Sir R. THOMASasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he can state the quantity of Welsh anthracite exported to Canada during the past 12 months to any convenient date; and can he say how Welsh and American anthracite imported into Canada compare as regards average price per ton retail and the average cost per ton of transport from mine to consumer?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): For the year ended 28th February, 1929, direct shipments of anthracite to Canada from South Wales ports amounted to 357,980 tons. As regards the remainder of the question, in such a large country as Canada costs of transport and therefore retail prices must necessarily vary so greatly that no general comparison between Welsh and American anthracite can be given.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that there are 400,000 Canadian homes on the Eastern seaboard and that these householders prefer Welsh anthracite; and is he aware that they would get it if there was better organisation in selling?
    Commodore KING: No, Sir.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman make inquiries?
    Commodore KING: That point does not arise out of the question, but, if the hon. Gentleman will put another question on the Paper, I will give him an answer.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Surely my supplementary question does arise. I asked whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not take an interest in this matter and use his influence to get a better organisation in selling.

    EXHIBITIONS, DOMINIONS AND COLONIES.
    Mr. REMERasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if his Department are prepared to organise a series of exhibitions in the leading cities in the Dominions and Colonies of similar goods as were exhibited at the British Industries Fair to enable Dominion and Colonial buyers to realise the value of British goods?
    Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): While my Department is ready to assist such projects to the best of its ability through its home and overseas services, it is unable to finance or to organise a series of exhibitions in the Dominions and Colonies.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Has the Overseas Department endeavoured to secure joint action of all the firms in a particular trade in order that exhibitions of this kind may be held, and can the hon. Gentleman do anything to promote that object?
    Mr. HACKING: We do everything that we can to assist in that direction.
    Mr. TAYLORWill the hon. Member say what trades have beer advised to adopt this method?

  AGRICULTURE.

    OUSE DRAINAGE.
    Sir DOUGLAS NEWTONasked the Minister of Agriculture if he has received any representations from the Ouse Drainage Board regarding the carrying out of the works proposed by the Ouse Drainage Bill, 1927; and, if so, what action he proposes to take in respect to it?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): I have received the representations referred to, which are now under consideration. My hon. Friend may be aware that the new proposals would involve a much larger measure of State assistance than was contemplated under the Bill of 1927.
    Sir D. NEWTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this matter is one of considerable urgency, and, if floods should arise, there is considerable danger that much land will be thrown out of cultivation and more men will be unemployed?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I agree that the matter is very urgent and that is why we did our best to pass the Bill dealing with it two years ago. We are making a grant for certain smaller works within this area pending a settlement of the whole matter.
    Sir HUGH LUCAS-TOOTH: Would not this work be suitable for unemployed miners?
    Mr. GUINNESS: Yes. In some cases these schemes are suitable for unemployment grants loans.

    LAND DRAINAGE, NORFOLK.
    Lord FERMOYasked the Minister of Agriculture the acreage in Norfolk which, first, is urgently in need of drainage and, secondly, which is capable of improvement by drainage?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The Ministry is aware of some 80,000 acres of land in Norfolk urgently in need of arterial drainage and of further large areas capable of improvement by arterial drainage, but a complete survey has not yet been made. I am unable to say what area might be improved by field drainage.
    Mr. NOEL BUXTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to introduce any other special drainage Measures in addition to the Doncaster Area Drainage Bill?
    Mr. GUINNESS: No other special Measure will be introduced, but we are preparing for a general Act in whirl Norfolk as well as other counties will be dealt with.
    Sir H. LUCAS-TOOTH: How long will it be before the general Act can be brought before the House?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The survey is being pressed on as fast as possible, but until we get the report I am afraid that I cannot give the date.
    Sir H. LUCAS-TOOTH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the survey will be completed?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I cannot say.
    Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: Will the general Act have anything to do with land drainage? Is it not on a much larger scale?
    Mr. GUINNESS: It will probably not deal with field drainage, because that is a matter for the landowner and the occupier, but it deals with arterial drainage and the law of assessment.

    GERMAN WHEAT IMPORTS.
    Lord FERMOYasked the Minister of Agriculture if he can state the amount of bounty-assisted German wheat imported into England in January and February last, respectively?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The total imports of wheat from Germany into the United Kingdom in January and February last were 312,979 cwt. and 26,126 cwt. respectively. I have no information as to what quantity of these imports is covered by export certificates granted by the German Government.

    CATTLE FEEDING.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Minister of Agriculture in view of the fact that the countries that export meat, are in the southern hemisphere, where it is to their advantage to fatten cattle while British agriculturists are selling, whether he will endeavour to arrange with exporting countries, and the companies concerned, to give British agriculture a close season in the autumn so that it can reap the full advantage of fattening cattle on grass and selling to the butchers at the end of the summer before more expensive feeding commences?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I regret that I cannot see my way to accept my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Will my right hon. Friend confer with the chairmen of the meat companies in view of the fact that the suggestion was originally made by the Chairman of the Smithfield and Argentine Meat Company?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I am in touch with the various meat companies. My reason for the answer is that, on examining the figures, it is evident that there is not the seasonal variation of imports suggested by the hon. and gallant Member; and to carry out these proposals would mean a fundamental dislocation of the whole of the Argentine meat trade with heavy reactions upon prices in this country.

  SMALLHOLDINGS, STORNOWAY.
  Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, seeing that he issued recently a statutory notice to the proprietors of Melbost farm, Stornoway, of his intention to proceed with a compulsory scheme of land settlement on the farm, and that within 72 hours afterwards a further notice was served cancelling the first and indicating his intention not to proceed with the settlement, he will say what steps he now proposes to take to provide holdings for landless men in that area?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): The Statutory notice, which was issued in order to postpone the conclusion of arrangements for a new lease pending further discussion with the owners as to the future use of the lands, has not been withdrawn; but it is not intended to continue proceedings for the development of a small holding scheme if it can be shown that under a new lease the lands will be used for dairying. With regard to the last part of the question, I would remind the hon. Member that, with the exception of this relatively small subject and the Manor Farm owned by the Stornoway Trustees and used for dairying, all available agricultural subjects in Lewis have been secured for Small Holdings Schemes.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: When is the right hon. Gentleman likely to take a final decision on the matter?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: When I have received a definite undertaking that the farm will be equipped and used as a dairy farm.

  HOUSING.

    SLUM CLEARANCE, SOUTHWARK.
    Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Health whether he can give details of any Government plans for the clearing of slums in the Metropolitan Borough of Southwark?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The responsibility for dealing with slum areas in the Metropolis rests with the London County Council and the metropolitan borough councils. Schemes for the clearance of three areas in Southwark and the rehousing of the displaced persons have already been confirmed by my Department, and are being carried out by the London County Council, who have also a further scheme under consideration.
    Mr. DAY: In view of the very deplorable state of the inhabitants of Southwark, will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to these other authorities asking them to speed matters along?
    Sir K. WOOD: I think the hon. Gentleman's Division might take the matter in hand.
    Mr. DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this matter has been represented, by myself and other Members, to both of the other authorities, and that, until his Department makes representations, nothing will be done?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir; I am not aware of that fact.

    NEW ERA HOUSING SOCIETY, LIMITED.
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he has seen the Report of the inspector appointed to inquire into the affairs of the New Era Housing Society, Limited; and whether it is proposed to institute proceedings against any person connected with the company?
    Mr. SAMUEL: My attention has been drawn to the Report in question. I am

    2057
    informed that certain proceedings have already been instituted by the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies.

  RADIUM SUPPLIES.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Minister of Health whether he has received the Report of the Sub-Committee of the Committee of Civil Research on Radium and Radium Supplies; and whether it is proposed to publish it in whole or in part?
  Sir K. WOOD: The Report has been received, and will be published in full very shortly. I may add that a statement of the intentions of the Government in the matter will be made immediately on the reassembling of Parliament.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Mr. WALLHEADasked the Minister of Health what is the number of persons above 65 years of age who are in receipt of old age pensions; and what is the total cost per annum of these pensions?
  Sir K. WOOD: The following particulars relate to England and Wales:
  On 31st December, 1928, the latest date for which the figures are available, 766,223 persons were in receipt of old age pensions under or by virtue of the Contributory Pensions Act, 1925. Of these pensioners, 475,808 were between the ages of 65 and 70, and 290,415 were over the age of 70.
  The cost per annum of providing pensions for 766,223 persons is approximately £19,922,000.
  As regards persons over the age of 70 in receipt of pensions under the Old Age Pensions Acts of 1908–24 independently of the Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, a question should be addressed to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

  POST OFFICE.

    TELEPHONE SERVICE.
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Postmaster-General what is the daily average use of the telephone by existing subscribers?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): During 1928, about five calls per line on a full working day.
    Captain STREATFEILD: Does this figure include calls under the heading of "Sorry you have been troubled"?
    Viscount WOLMER: No, Sir.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Postmaster-General whether any artificial restrictions are imposed upon the work of obtaining new subscribers for the Post Office telephone system?
    Viscount WOLMER: The answer is in the negative.

    BAIRD TELEVISION SYSTEM.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Postmaster-General if he is now in a position to state the conclusions reached by his Department as a result of the recent demonstration of the Baird television apparatus?
    Viscount WOLMER: I am in communication with the parties concerned in this demonstration, but I am not yet in a position to announce the result.
    Mr. THURTLE: Can the Noble Lord say when he is likely to be able to announce this result, seeing that it is some time now since the demonstration took place?
    Viscount WOLMER: The Postmaster-General hopes to be able to issue a statement in a very few days.

    MEN AND WOMEN EMPLOYÉS (PAY).
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Postmaster-General whether any further progress has been made with the question of granting equal pay for equal work in the postal service?
    Viscount WOLMER: The question of equal pay for men and women is one which does not concern my Department alone; and I understand that representations on the general question are about to be made to the Prime Minister.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is there any difference between the work done by the one section and that done by the other as regards quality?
    Viscount WOLMER: There may be in regard to some classes of work and not in regard to others.
    Mr. HARDIE: Since there seems to be no doubt that both sexes can do the work with the same efficiency, why should they not benefit to the same extent?
    Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not true that in some cases one sex can do the work much better than the other?

  COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY.
  Mr. MALONEasked the Postmaster-General the state of the negotiations between His Majesty's Government and the interests concerned in the formation of the proposed Communications Company; whether the conditions of service of the transferred Government employés have yet been settled; and whether the rental of the beam services for use of radio-telephonic communication by the Post Office has been agreed?
  Viscount WOLMER: Negotiations are well advanced towards the settlement of the terms of the licence and of other agreements necessary for Post Office purposes. With regard to the second part of the question, the terms and conditions of service of the staff to be transferred are still under discussion with the representatives of the company and the staff concerned. The answer to the third part is in the negative. All that I propose to include on this subject in the agreements is a provision that the Postmaster-General, if he so desires, shall be at liberty to make use of the stations for wireless telephony services on such terms as shall have been agreed.
  Mr. MALONE: Can the Noble Lord say when those conditions of the agreement which require Parliamentary sanction will come before this House, and in what form?
  Viscount WOLMER: No, Sir.
  Mr. AMMON: Can the Noble Lord say whether an agreement has yet been arrived at with the South African Government?
  Viscount WOLMER: No, Sir; I think the matter is still under discussion.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: May we take it that the contract regarding the use of the beam wireless will be presented to the House?
  Viscount WOLMER: Any contract that must be laid on the Table of the House will be so laid.

  PACIFIC CABLE BOARD BILL.
  Mr. MALONEasked the Post-master-General whether he has considered the terms of the Pacific Cable Board Bill; whether his Department was consulted before the Bill was drafted; and whether he has made a Report on this Bill?
  Mr. SAMUEL: I have been asked to reply. The Pacific Cable Board Bill has been promoted by the Pacific Cable Board to substitute the Communications Company for the Pacific Cable Board in the trust deeds of certain pension and provident funds established on behalf of the staff. The Bill is a necessary step in carrying out the policy laid down in the Imperial Telegraphs Act, 1929. It has been promoted at the request of the Partner Governments interested in the Pacific Cable and West Indian Cable undertakings. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    MEDICAL OFFICERS (DESTROYERS, CHINA STATION).
    Major-General Sir RICHARD LUCEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that in three of the destroyers serving on the China station the medical officers have been obliged to see their patients and keep their medical stores in part of the latrine accommodation of the ships; that the same medical officers unable, owing to lack of accommodation, to obtain cabins, have been refused hard-lying or other allowance in compensation or their discomfort; and if he will inquire into the matter?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): No, Sir. There is no information at the Admiralty which would support the allegation in the first part of the question. From such reports as are available, it is clear that the best arrangements possible have been made to provide emergency accommodation for the additional medical officers whom it was found necessary to appoint to the

    2061
    destroyer flotillas in China. The only application received for the payment of hard-lying money was in 1927. This was refused, as the conditions which were represented to exist were not such as to justify the grant of extra pay.
    Sir R. LUCE: Was not hard-lying money instituted for this purpose?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Hard-lying money is not ordinarily payable to officers in destroyers, and the abnormal conditions were not regarded as sufficient to justify a grant of extra pay.
    Sir R. LUCE: Is it not a fact that this extra work has been going on for some considerable time?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I could not answer that question.

    PERSONNEL (COMPLAINTS).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Board has yet decided on any alterations to the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions with a view to defining more clearly the methods by which the personnel of the Royal Navy can prefer complaints, into which question he promised to inquire after the court-martial of the flag-captain and commander of His Majesty's Ship "Royal Oak"?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Yes, Sir. The revised articles will be promulgated to the Fleet this week.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The First Lord was good enough to say that he would send me a copy. Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman see that that is done?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Anything that the First Lord promises will be done.

  EGYPT.
  Mr. PONSONBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the protracted delay in the negotiations between the capitulary Powers and the Egyptian Government for the transfer of certain powers from the Consular Courts in Egypt, and in view of the fact that His Majesty's Government has repeatedly affirmed its sympathy with the objects desired by the Egyptian
  2062
  Government in these negotiations, His Majesty's Government, by virtue of its peculiar responsibilities in Egypt, is prepared to consider the advisability of summoning a conference of the capitulary Powers with a view to securing the transfer be the mixed Courts or to the Egyptian Courts of trials for offences connected with the traffic in women and children and with drug traffic?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): No, Sir. In view of the status of Egypt, it is not for His Majesty's Government to take the initiative in summoning a conference. On the other hand, they have already declared—in reply to an invitation from the Egyptian Government—that they are ready to be represented at a conference to discuss the points mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

  CHINA (BOXER INDEMNITY FUND).
  Mr. LOOKERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he proposes to release any portion of the Boxer indemnity funds, now in the hands of His Majesty's Government, without prescribing such conditions as appear desirable to him to ensure that the expenditure of the portion released is duly safeguarded?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): The funds in question are subject to the China Indemnity (Application) Act, 1925. The Act will require amendment if those funds are to be dealt with in any way other than is provided for therein.
  Mr. LOOKER: Can we have an assurance that, before any amendment of the Act is considered with a view to releasing any portion of this fund, the question of safeguarding its expenditure will receive due consideration?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Yes, certainly.

  PORTUGUESE WEST AFRICA (BRITISH SEAMAN'S ARREST).
  Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now make a statement with regard to the case of Mr. A J. Brewer;

  2063
  and whether a reply has yet been received from the Portuguese Government to the representations made by His Majesty's Consul at Lisbon?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: A reply has not yet been received from the Portuguese Government, and I am not at present in a position to make any statement on this case.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the right hon. Gentleman pressing the Portuguese Government for a reply, in view of the very long time that has elapsed?
  Viscountess ASTOR: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think, considering the treatment this man received, that it would do the Portuguese Government good to be pressed by the British Government?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have caused representations to be made to the Portuguese Government, but I am not clear that a very long time has elapsed since those representations were made, and I think that the Portuguese Government are entitled to have full time for consideration.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In the meantime, does the question of compensation for Mr. Brewer remain outstanding?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir.

  MARITIME LAW.
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make as yet any statement as to the conclusions of His Majesty's Ministers as to the question of the freedom of the seas; and whether he hopes to be in a position to make any approach to America on the matter before the Dissolution of Parliament?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not yet in a position to make any statement with regard to this question.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman will not be able to make a statement before the Dissolution; and is the consideration of the matter still going on, or has it been closed?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The matter is still under consideration. I cannot say whether it will be possible to make a statement before the Dissolution or not, because that depends partly upon the date of the Dissolution and partly upon the progress made.

  GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (DUAL CITIZENSHIP).
  The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Colonel WEDGWOOD:
  "43. To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is considering any proposal to offer to citizens of the United States of America resident within the British Empire the rights of dual citizenship on either a mutual or a unilateral basis; and, if so, does he hope to be able to open negotiations before the Dissolution?"
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: On a point of Order. I put this question down to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I am sure that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will forgive me if I say that I have no interest in hearing his answer to the question, and, therefore, it is postponed sine die.

  AIR SERVICES (LONDON-INDIA).
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Secretary of State for Air whether the difficulties in respect of ports of call in Greece for the projected air mail to India have been overcome; and, if not, whether the negotiations are likely to be concluded in time to permit the service to be inaugurated on 31st March?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): While I am not yet in a position to make any detailed statement in the matter, I may say that the few minor points outstanding between the Italian Government and His Majesty's Government have been satisfactorily settled as a result of friendly negotiations, and I have every hope that the service will be duly inaugurated at the end of this month over the route originally contemplated.

  CHANNEL TUNNEL.
  Mr. THURTLEasked the Prime Minister if he can now make a statement as to the nature of the inquiry into the Channel Tunnel project and when the inquiry will commence?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The Prime Minister hopes to be able to make a statement before the House adjourns for the Easter Recess.
  Mr. CRAWFURD: If the present Government should remain in power—
  Mr. SPEAKER: This is a hypothetical question.
  Mr. CRAWFURD: May I ask a question relative to the Channel tunnel? I was only going to ask, if aliens are excluded, and also foreign goods, what will the tunnel toe used for?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is also hypothetical.

  TRANSPORT.

    ROAD FUND.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister what answer he has sent to the resolution received from the Corporation of Hull with reference to the diversion of the proceeds of the taxation of road transport and its fuel from its proper purposes of maintaining and developing roads, and urging His Majesty's Government to provide that the Road Fund should be increased to enable the Minister of Transport to have substantial funds available to finance new road construction on a scale commensurate with traffic requirements and other proposals of a like nature, especially in view of the large number of men at present unemployed?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to answer this question. This and other resolutions have been acknowledged and the views expressed in them have been noted. I am not in a position to add anything to the statement recently made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reply to a deputation from the organisations representing motor users and motor manufacturers.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman send this Resolution from the Corporation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Certainly.

    PARKING REGULATIONS.
    Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Minister of Transport what steps, if any, he has taken to inform the general public of the Regulation that cars may not be left with doors locked at official parking places?
    Colonel ASHLEY: This Regulation was made on the advice of the London Traffic Advisory Committee. Notice of my intention to make it was given in the "London Gazette" on the 29th August, 1927, and the Notice included the statement that copies of the Draft Regulations could be obtained from H.M. Stationery Office. On the 30th August a Press notice was issued giving wide publicity to the fact that the proposed new Draft Regulations were available, and stating that any representations in regard to them should be submitted within 40 days from that dace. The Regulations were actually made on the 24th January, 1928, when a further Notice was issued to the Press, and copies of the Regulations were laid in both Houses of Parliament for 28 days and were available in the Libraries of the two Houses. Further, there is a Notice conspicuously displayed at every authorised parking place to the effect that its use is permitted by and is subject to the provisions of the London Traffic (Parking Places) Regulations, 1928, copies of which may be obtained directly from H.M. Stationery Office, or through any bookseller, price 6d., and also indicates that there is a penalty for breach of the Regulations of £5.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Is not my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that, as a matter of fact, the Regulation to which he is referring does not mention the locking of doors at all, and when he approved of it did he expect that that interpretation would be put upon it?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Yes, certainly it was included in the original Regulations.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does not my right hon. and gallant Friend realise

    2067
    that the only people who benefit from this Regulation are the sneak thieves?
    Mr. DAY: Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman considered the point of giving instructions to the attendants or messengers who are in charge of these ranks to inform car owners that this Regulation is in force?
    Colonel ASHLEY: There is a notice on all parking places.
    Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend consider that anyone having seen that notice is going to the Stationery Office to pay 6d. in order to get a book of Regulations to find out what he should do?
    Mr. CRAWFURD: In view of this latest example of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee's activities, are any steps being taken to protect the property of those who leave their cars in parking places?
    Mr. AMMON: Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman given consideration to the number of cases where doctors have had dangerous drugs and that sort of thing stolen from their cars?
    Colonel ASHLEY: It is a matter really more for the police than for myself. The police are very anxious that these Regulations should be maintained, but I am perfectly prepared to confer with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to see if some modification can be made.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Does it now become a punishable offence to leave your car locked, and what protection is to offered to the public by way of compensation?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The hon. Gentleman must remember that parking on the public highway is an indulgence and that local authorities, having spent large sums of money in widening the streets, now consider that these should be used more for traffic than for parking places. As I have said, I will confer with my right hon. Friend and see what can be done.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider that anyone who can afford to own a motor car should help the unemployed by keeping a, chauffeur?
    Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Minister of Transport how many prosecutions have taken place under Statutory Rules and Orders, No. 27, 1928, against persons who have left their motor cars at parking places with the doors locked?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I have been asked to reply. Since 31st January, 192S, when the Regulations came into force, the number is three.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Does not that show that the Regulations are rather bureaucratic and unnecessary?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My duty is merely to enforce them. I must refer my hon. and gallant Friend to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. I am going to consult with my right hon. and gallant Friend.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: As the right hon. Gentleman is going to consult his right hon. Friend, perhaps both right hon. Gentlemen will take that fact into account?
    Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Minister of Transport if he has any information of towns, other than London, where it is illegal to have a motor car with its doors locked at a public parking place; and, if so, what are those towns?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Outside the London Traffic Area I have no jurisdiction with respect to parking places. Under the provisions of the Public Health Act, 1925, and of a few local Acts, local authorities have power to make their own regulations for the control of parking places. These regulations did not require the approval of any Government Department. I am not, therefore, in possession of the information desired by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Highlands people leave the doors of their houses unlocked?

    UNCLASSIFIED RURAL ROADS (GRANTS).
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Minister of Transport the average grant per mile of road in the year 1927–28, in respect of unclassified roads in rural areas?
    Colonel ASHLEY: As its shown in Appendices 1 and 16 of the Annual Report on the Administration of the Road

    2069
    Fund for the year 1927–28, the total amount of the grants made from the Road Fund during that year in respect of the maintenance of scheduled unclassified roads was £1,661,076, while the total mileage of such roads was 55,053 miles. On the basis of these figures the average amount of grant made for maintenance works on these roads was about £30 per mile.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    SPRINGBURN EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE.
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Minister of Labour when the staff and furniture is to be removed from the present Exchange in Springburn in preparation for rebuilding; and when rebuilding begins?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): It is hoped to start the rebuilding work in two or three months. The staff will be removed immediately prior to rebuilding.

    ALIENS (VALETING).
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Minister of Labour how many permits have been issued during the past four years for aliens to take up employment in the renovation of clothes and provision of a valeting service?
    Mr. BETTERTON: The only class of person to which the hon. Member's question appears to apply, and in respect of which information is available, is the "invisible" mender. Nine permits for such persons were issued during the last four years.

  MERCANTILE MARINE (CERTIFICATE EXAMINATIONS).
  Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any decision has now been arrived at with regard to the arrangements for the examinations for certificates of competency for masters and mates in the mercantile marine?
  Mr. H. WILLIAMS: In order to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee on the Examinations of Masters and Mates, it has been decided that in future all papers shall be set and corrected at headquarters; but, in order
  2070
  to avoid any hardship to candidates, it has been decided to retain the present places of examination and the present frequency of examinations, subject of course to the right to review should circumstances change in the future.

  MERCANTILE MARINE (CERTIFICATE EXAMINATIONS).

    GAS-MANTLE INDUSTRY (EMPLOYMENT).
    Sir HENRY JACKSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the average number of workpeople employed per week in the gas-mantle industry during the last quarter of 1924 and the last quarter of 1928, respectively?
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: From the information supplied by the manufacturers, it is estimated that the average number of workers employed in the gas mantle industry during the last quarters of 1924 and 1928 was about 1,900 and 2,200, respectively.
    Mr. BENN: Did the gas mantle manufacturers that he mentions say what is the bonus paid to the German combine?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I understand that, after the industry was safeguarded, an arrangement was made with the German manufacturers whereby the British industry had the great advantage of having no competition from Germany.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Is it true that the combine on this side pay a fixed price per mantle to the Germans for keeping out?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I believe it is true that, after the industry was safeguarded, a very satisfactory arrangement for the British industry was concluded on those lines.
    Mr. BENN: As the hon. Gentleman knows so much about it, cannot he tell us the amount of this Danegeld?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: No, because the details were not disclosed.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
    Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Minister of Pensions the number of ex-service men employed in the Ministry on 1st January, 1928; the number employed

    2071
    on 1st January, 1929; and the number of other employés at the same two dates?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): The number of ex-service men employed by the Ministry on 1st January, 1928, was 4,675, and on 1st January, 1929, 4,052. The remainder of the Ministry's staff consisted of 2,893 women and 173 non-service men on the former date and of 2,506 women and 157 non-service men on the latter date. Of the whole male staff of the Ministry over 96 per cent. are ex-service men.

    SALARIES (EASTER).
    The following question stood upon the. Order Paper in the name of Mr. MONTAGUE:
    63. To ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will explain why it is proposed to defer payment of the salaries of the Inland Revenue staff for the period ending 31st March, 1929, until after the Easter holidays when, in similar circumstances, last year the Department made arrangements to avoid the hardship occasioned by deferment by making the payment before the Easter holiday?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: I believe that this question has already been answered?
    Mr. SAMUEL: That is so. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, gave to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) on the 21st March. I am sending him a copy of that reply.

  BAKERIES (NIGHTWORK).
  Mr. KELLYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the International Convention on prohibition of nightwork in bakeries is still awaiting ratification; and what action he proposes to take?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The question of ratifying this Convention was fully considered by the Government, and their decision not to ratify was communicated to this House in April, 1926. Briefly, the reasons were that the provisions of the Convention went much beyond the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on the subject and were too drastic. In particular, objection was
  2072
  taken to the prohibition being applied, not only to the operative baker, but also to the master baker himself. Moreover, it appeared from a Report by the Royal Commission on Food Prices that the effect of prohibition, if the supply of bread was to be continued as at present, would be to increase the cost of the loaf. These objections still hold good, and I see no grounds for reconsidering the previous decision.
  Mr. KELLY: In view of the request from those engaged in the trade, will the right hon. Gentleman give further consideration to this matter?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am very glad at any time to receive any suggestions.
  Sir H. BRITTAIN: At what hour in the morning does the night end?

  HAMPSTEAD HEATH (WOMEN POLICE).
  Sir R. THOMASasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that a deputation to the Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan police on 16th March from the Hampstead branch of the Women's Freedom League asked for 50 women police to patrol Hampstead Heath to protect women and children from molestation; and, seeing that at present the heath is so dangerous that many parents at Hampstead will not allow their children to play there, is action to be taken along the lines asked for?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Commissioner has informed me of the deputation. For the present, I can only say that the whole questions is under my consideration.
  Sir R. THOMAS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when these considerations and deliberations will come to an end?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Certainly not. The hon. Member has seen that the Royal Commission reported last week dealing with this very question. It is quite impossible to arrive at a decision of this magnitude within a, very few days. The matter is being very carefully considered.
  Sir R. THOMAS: Is it not well to know that the facts as pointed out in the question

  2073
  are correct, and is it not a very simple matter either to verify or to deny them? If the facts are correct, is it not necessary to take prompt action and not wait for a Royal Commission for weeks and months?
  Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the women have been pressing for this, not for the last year, but for five years, and does he realise that, although he is himself in favour, there are certain people in the Home Office who are not in favour, and will he watch them?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Noble Lady must not say that. I have submitted to a good deal of pressure from her, rather willingly. I can assure her that when I arrive at a decision I will communicate it.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In the meantime, is there any truth whatever in the allegation that it is not safe for women and children to go to Hampstead Heath?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think there is the slightest.
  Sir R. THOMAS: Arising out of that answer, does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that the Women's Freedom League would go to the Chief Commissioner of Police and make statements of this kind?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I told the hon. Member that the statements made by that deputation, which was not to myself, but to the Chief Commissioner of Police, were being inquired into and that a report will be made, and considered by me. At the moment, I cannot go further than to say that my general knowledge is that it does not bear out the statements.
  Sir R. THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a promise to the House that he will make a statement before the Adjournment for Easter?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, Sir; I cannot promise anything of the kind. It involves, first of all, a very serious statement with regard to the condition of Hampstead Heath which must be fully inquired into, and, secondly, it involves the whole question of the substitution of men police by women police.
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: In view of the reciprocal pressure referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, will he consider the matter a little further?

  METROPOLITAN POLICE (EX-CONSTABLE HUTCHINS).
  Mr. W. BENNETTasked the Home Secretary whether he will hold an inquiry into the circumstances attending the resignation of ex-Constable Hutchins from the M Division of the Metropolitan Police Force, in view of the fact that he was punished for making allegations against a sergeant to the effect that the latter had committed perjury against a prisoner who was sentenced to three months' hard labour and that this prisoner was, following inquiry, released from prison at the expiration of about five weeks of the three months?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This case was the subject of careful inquiry in 1926 and I know of no reason for re-opening it. The grounds on which I advised the remission of a portion of the prisoner's sentence were entirely unconnected with the ex-constable's allegations.
  Mr. BENNETT: Is there no appeal for this man, except to yourself?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is quite true. This matter was inquired into and discussed in conjunction with Dr. Haden Guest, who was formerly a Member for an adjoining constituency of the hon. Member, nearly three years ago. As I announced my decision then, I am not prepared to re-open it now.
  Mr. BENNETT: You are not prepared to re-open it under any circumstances on account of lapse of time?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I made my decision then. If the hon. Member can bring any fresh facts before me, they will be entitled to be considered, but, on the then facts, I adhere to my decision.
  Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSON: May we know the reasons for the reduction of the sentence?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Surely, my hon. and gallant Friend knows that after the events of 1926, when a very large number of men had been sent to

  2075
  prison, the clemency of the Crown was invoked and in all proper cases I reduced the sentences.

  METROPOLITAN COUNTY COURTS.
  Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Home Secretary if he will consider the advisability of taking the necessary steps to place the Metropolitan County Courts in the same status as the provincial county courts in regard to jurisdiction, and amend Section 84 of the County Courts Act of 1888 accordingly?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I have been asked to reply. The rule in the Metropolitan County Courts is that proceedings may be taken in the Court of the district in which the plaintiff or defendant dwells or carries on business, as opposed to the rule in provincial County Courts where proceedings have to be taken within the district in which the defendant dwells or carries on business. In the latter case, however, proceedings may be commenced with the leave of the Court in the district where the cause of action arose, and any alteration on the lines suggested would inevitably result
  in a number of successful applications of this nature, involving more trouble and expense to the administration of the Courts and to the suitors themselves than under the present system. I would remind the hon. Member that the area comprising Metropolitan County Court districts is not so large as many a provincial County Court district and has better travelling facilities.
  Mr. CROOKE: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of the prevailing hardship on those unable to defend summonses in London on account of the heavy travelling expenses involved?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I have no doubt that there are hardships in individual cases as there are under all systems.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings of the Committee of Supply be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided. Ayes, 176; Noes, 74.

Division No. 272.]

AYES.

[3.44 p.m.

Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Harrison, G. J. C.

Albery, Irving James

Clayton, G. C.

Hartington, Marquess of

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

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C M.

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Apsley, Lord

Colman, N. C. D.

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

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

Conway, Sir W. Martin

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

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

Cooper, A. Duff

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

Astor, Viscountess

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

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

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

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

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

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

Betterton, Henry B.

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Hurst, Sir Gerald

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

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

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Eden, Captain Anthony

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

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Brass, Captain W.

Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

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

Brassey, Sir Leonard

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

Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Briscoe, Richard George

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Brittain, Sir Harry

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

King, Commodore Henry Douglas

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Cement

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

Knox, Sir Alfred

Brown-Lindsay, Major H.

Fermoy, Lord

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

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

Forrest, W.

Locker-Lampion, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Fraser, Captain Ian

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

Bullock, Captain M.

Ganzoni, Sir John

Looker, Herbert William

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Gates, Percy

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

Campbell, E. T.

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

Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Herman

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Grant, Sir J. A.

Lumley, L. R.

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

MacAndrew, Major Chartries Glen

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

MacIntyre, Ian

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Macquisten, F. A.

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

Hacking, Douglas H.

Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

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

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Hamilton, Sir George

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Christie, J. A.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Malone, Major P. B.

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

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

Meyer, Sir Frank

Rye, F. G.

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Warrender, Sir Victor

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Sandeman, N. Stewart

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

Sanderson, Sir Frank

White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple

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

Sandon, Lord

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Mond, Hon. H.

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

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

Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Winby, Colonel L. P.

Murchison, Sir Kenneth

Smithers, Waldron

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'd.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Withers, John James

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Wolmer, Viscount

Oakley, T.

Streatfield, Captain S. R.

Womersley, W. I.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

Penny, Frederick George

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Tasker, R. Inigo.

Wood, Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)

Pilcher, G.

Thomson, Sir Frederick

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Preston, William

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)

Tinne, J. A.

Wright, Brig.-General W. D.

Remer, J. R.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Major Sir George Hennessy and Captain Margesson.

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Wallace, Captain D. E.

NOES.

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

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

Oliver, George Harold

Ammon, Charles George

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Ponsonby, Arthur

Batey, Joseph

Hardie, George D

Potts, John S.

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

Saklatvala, Shapurji

Bellamy, A.

Hirst, G. H.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Benn, Wedgwood

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

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

Snell, Harry

Briant, Frank

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Broad, F. A.

Kelly, W. T.

Strauss, E. A.

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Kennedy, T.

Taylor, R. A.

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

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

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

Cluse, W. S.

Lawrence, Susan

Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Lawson, John James

Thurtle, Ernest

Crawfurd, H. E.

Lee, F.

Tinker, John Joseph

Dalton, Hugh

Lunn, William

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Day, Harry

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

Wallhead, Richard C.

Dennison, R.

Malone, C. L' Estrange (N'thampton)

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Gardner, J. P.

March, S.

Wellock, Wilfred

Gillett, George M.

Maxton, James

Westwood, J.

Gosling, Harry

Montague, Frederick

Windsor, Walter

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

Morris, R. H.

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Granted, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Mosley, Sir Oswald

Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Whiteley.

Grundy, T. W.

Naylor, T. E.

Bill read a Second time, and committed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Llanelly Corporation Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law with respect to gas undertakings, and for purposes connected therewith." [Gas Undertakings Bill [Lords.]
Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Oldbury Urban District Council to acquire lands and execute street improvements; and to make further and better provision for the health, local government, finance, and improvement of the district; and for other purposes." [Oldbury Urban District Council Bill [Lords.]
Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the time for the completion of certain widenings of the Knottingley and
2078
Goole Canal; to make further provision with regard to shipping dues and wharfage rates at the port of Goole; to relieve the undertakers of the Aire and Calder Navigation of the liability to maintain and keep navigable a portion of the River Aire; and for other purposes." [Aire and Calder Navigation Bill [Lords.]
Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the Halifax Corporation with respect to their tramway, omnibus, and electricity undertakings; and for other purposes." [Halifax Corporation Bill [Lords.]
Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide as to the abandonment of the railways authorised by the Jarrow and South Shields Light Railways Order, 1901; to repeal the said Order; and for other purposes." [Jarrow and South Shields Traction Bill [Lords.]
Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make provision for the abandonment of the light railways, tramways, and tram-roads owned or worked by the Chatham and District Light Railways Company; to authorise the company to run omnibuses; to change the name of the company; and for other purposes." [Chatham and District Traction Bill [Lords.]
Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Cheltenham and District Light Railway Company to abandon their light railways and provide and run omnibuses; to change the name of the company; and for other purposes." [Cheltenham District Traction Bill [Lords.]
Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Mexborough and Swinton Tramways Company to run omnibuses on their trolley vehicle routes and elsewhere; to make further provision in regard to their trolley vehicle undertaking; to change the name of the company; to reduce the existing capital of the company; to authorise them to raise additional capital; and for other purposes." [Mexborough and Swinton Traction Bill [Lords.]
Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Mansfield and District Light Railway Company to provide and run trolley vehicles and omnibuses; to change the name of the company; and for other purposes." [Mansfield District Traction Bill [Lords.]
Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the abandonment of the tramways of the Portsmouth Street Tramways Company and to provide for the running of omnibuses in substitution therefor; to alter the existing powers of the company to run omnibuses and to change the company's name; and for other purposes." [Gosport and Fareham Omnibus Services Bill [Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to vest in the Urban District Council of Newport (Salop) the property and liabilities of the Newport Town and Marsh Trustees; to make provision in regard to the supply of gas by the council; and for other purposes." [Newport (Salop) Urban District Council Bill [Lords].
Local Government Bill,—That they do not insist on their Amendment to the Local Government Bill to which the Commons have disagreed.
Oldbury Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
Aire and Calder Navigation Bill [Lords],
Halifax Corporation Bill [Lords],
Jarrow and South Shields Traction Bill [Lords],
Chatham and District Traction Bill [Lords],
Cheltenham District Traction Bill [Lords],
Mexborough and Swinton Traction Bill [Lords],
Mansfield District Traction Bill [Lords],
Gosport and Fareham Omnibus Services Bill [Lords],
Newport (Salop) Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

WINCHESTER WATER AND GAS BILL.
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY.

    CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1929.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair,"—[Sir G. Hennessy.]
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
    "this House views with grave concern the continued existence of a gigantic volume of unemployment; deplores the refusal of the Government to take any active measures for stimulating industry by well-considered schemes of national improvement and development, alike in this country and in the Dominions and Colonies; specially regrets the discouragement by the Government of the efforts of the municipal authorities to effect local improvements; and condemns the failure of the Government to provide maintenance and training for the tens of thousands of willing workers for whom the Employment Exchanges can find no situations, and the slow and inadequate provision of additional centres."
    This is yet another of many Debates on this subject in this House. I have been a Member for about seven years and I have heard more than a score of Debates on this question, but this occasion is perhaps more important than any of the rest; not because of the terms of the Motion or because it stands in my name, but because it will be probably the last opportunity of discussing this subject before this Parliament ends. Unemployment is a very old question. It has been before the country for nearly 100 years. The records of the House show that interest has at times been keen, at other times less intense; but during the last 80 or 100 years Parliament has frequently taken some interest in the subject. I have taken the trouble to look up the records of this House and I find that a most interesting Debate, lasting several days, took place in 1843, a period known as the "hungry forties," when the people of this country suffered great privation and distress. The Debate took place on a Motion by Earl Stanhope calling attention to the distress in the country in these terms:
    "That this House do resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House for the purpose
    2098
    of taking into the most serious consideration the present condition of the productive classes in the United Kingdom with a view of providing for their profitable employment and for the due remuneration of their industry."
    The population of the country in those days was much less than it is at the moment; probably it was about half the present population, but owing to the development of machinery in industry there were, even at that time, all the symptoms of the disease which modern industry carries with it. Unemployment is too often mistaken for a disease whereas, in fact, it is a symptom of the industrial system under which we live. In that Debate one Noble Lord referred to an old friend of ours—namely, the law of supply and demand, which was given as the excuse for the hardship and misery imposed on the toiling masses of the country. Among the many interesting speeches I noticed an observation of Sir Robert Peel, which I will quote, because he seems to have realised what an important effect the use of machinery would have in the industrial life of the country. These words should be kept in mind when we study the problem of unemployment in these times. He said:
    "That great effort of British ingenuity, whereby our machinery has been brought to such perfection, instead of proving the greatest blessing to the nation would prove its bitterest curse."
    That is a prophetic statement, and, in view of the prevalence of unemployment not only in this country but all over the world wherever machinery is used, it is worth noting that Sir Robert Peel, even in those days, appreciated the significance of the change from handwork to large scale machinery manufacture. This evil of modern civilisation, this unemployment, which is so widely distributed all over the world and so persistent in every modern civilised country has been the subject of attention by many statesmen, social students and public-minded men, who recognise the hardships which unemployment brings. The question has been asked whether this disease can be cured. I hear no cheers from the Liberal Benches. In the last few days they have proclaimed a great discovery which is going to conquer and cure the evil of unemployment. It will be received with interest all over the world, for there is no country which is not waiting for a solution of this problem.

    2099
    It cannot be solved, however, until we understand the real character of the disease itself. While there are many means of alleviating the disease, many palliatives and many ways of minimising the effect of unemployment, there is no cure without a much more fundamental treatment than that entertained by any of the leaders of the Liberal party. I have figures here showing how true was the statement of Sir Robert Peel in 1843.
    4.0 p.m.
    In America and Germany they have paid more attention to the effect of rationalising, or modernising, industrial practice. Starting with a clean slate some hundred years ago the United States has built up the finest and largest industrial equipment the world has ever seen, yet the volume of unemployment proportionately is as large as our own. These figures show how tremendous has been the improvement in production in the United States, due to the addition of machinery and the perfection of industrial processes. If you take 1919 as the basis year, with an index figure of 100 for the production in that year, you find that by 1927 the production of the United States had gone up to 126. The aggregate number of industrial workers in the same-period, taking the 1919 figure at 100, is represented in 1927 by 92—s fall of 8 per cent. The production per head in the same period had gone up from 100 in 1919 to 137 in 1927. The aggregate wages had gone up from 100 in 1919 to only 105 in 1927, and the wages per head were raised from 100 in 1919 to 114 in 1927. From these figures it will be observed that there is an enormous disparity between the rate of production and the increase afforded to the workers in the form of wages. It shows that an increase in the individual production is accompanied by the displacement of a very large percentage of the working people—that an increase of production has meant a decrease of 8 per cent. in the total number of industrial workers in America. That explains, to a very large degree, the prevalence of unemployment in that country, and explains, by the same sort of calculation, the prevalence of unemployment in this very much older country.
    The American example, however, is only one. The fact is that all over the
    2100
    world productive machinery has been slowed down or stopped, and men have been displaced. Germany has its quota of unemployment. Belgium has its quota. So has far off Australia and even Japan, that country which has jumped seven centuries in seven decades, the latest recruit to the industrial army of the world, has found this problem of unemployment and excess production The problem will require radical treatment, and we on these benches are not forgetful that a programme of reorganisation is one to which I shall not be allowed to refer to-day, because I should be out of order on the Motion that has been allotted to me. But I we are not-permitted to discuss the problem of re-organisation, we can show that the Government have entirely misunderstood and miscalculated the tendency and the degree of unemployment, and have entirely misdirected their efforts towards the alleviation of this complaint.
    Having gone as far back as 1843, I come to more recent times. About 50 years after 1843 there appeared in this country a new political party, deriving its authority and owing its responsibility to the great mass of the people of the so-called productive classes referred to in the Motion of 1843. For the first time, the working people decided themselves to take a hand in the political affairs of this country, and from the very first day of their political party activities, they paid attention to this question of unemployment. Soon after 1893, there appeared in this House one by one, following each other, working-men from the mines and the fields. They made their appearance here among strange surroundings, but with their experience of life they found here an opportunity to ventilate the grievances of their fellow-workers. The question of unemployment was discussed on many occasions, until 1905 the first Unemployed Workmen Act was passed in this House. It was not a very comprehensive Act. It did not go a very long distance even towards the alleviation of this trouble, but it started the way, and the Labour party—a few in number in this House—kept on agitating and pressing this House to the consideration of more generous and more useful Measures. In 1907, another Bill was brought in. It received its First Beading only, but in 1908 it was brought in again. I should say that, prior to the Second

    2101
    Reading of the Bill in 1908, a debate took place in this House, and I should be serving the House well, perhaps, if I read a statement made during that debate on a Motion by Mr. Percy Alden, who was a Liberal. I find that the Seconder of the Motion made this remark during his speech:
    "Unemployment tended to impoverish the State, and therefore it was the business or the Government to face that question, and seek to remove the evil."
    The Liberal Member who pronounced those words in 1908 did a service to the House at that time, and also, perhaps, helped to call the attention of the Government to what was really a Government's responsibility and a Government's duty. In 1908, the same Liberal Government refused a Second Reading to the Bill that was brought in. There were Bills brought in in 1911, 1912 and 1913, and they were defeated by the Liberal party who were then in power in this House. When Liberals take to themselves the sole credit for the interest they have shown in this subject, it should not be forgotten that the Government of those days was a Liberal Government—a Government committed to laissez faire, to a do-nothing policy in regard to this subject. Our old friend Supply and Demand was then the most popular motto in that party, and when the Unemployed Workmen Bill was up for Second Reading we find that there were certainly 74 Liberals who voted for the Bill, but 184 voted against and 136 abstained, so that in 1908 the Liberals voted in part Aye, in part No and a part did not vote at all. I regard that as a case of history anticipating itself. There has been no great change in that matter.
    In 1914, the War came, with its effect upon employment, and for 4½ years there was no unemployment in this country. When 5,500,000 were away fighting their country's battles on land and sea, there was no unemployment. There was plenty of work, and even wages were tolerable in those years, but those people who recognised what an important thing it was to maintain the homes of the workers in comfort, and realised what a mass of disorder there would be when those men came back in a body, the War Emergency Committee and other committees, in 1916 and 1917, made repeated
    2102
    representations to the Prime Minister and the Government of that day, and in 1917 a very comprehensive policy on unemployment was submitted by the Labour party to the Prime Minister by deputation and memorandum. The memorandum contained details for road-making, afforestation, land reclamation, construction of public buildings and all those parts of the scheme now so well advertised by the Liberal leader in this country. All these things were told him personally in 1917, 1918 and 1919. In 1918, there was a General Election, and the great mass of the people in this country were led to believe that, not only would they not be concerned with unemployment, but that they need not work any more, because the Germans were going to do all the work required to keep the workers of this country in idleness and plenty. The responsibility in this matter does not fall entirely on one side of the House. We have it on the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself that he was "in the swim" on the subject, and on both sides of the House there are those who are responsible for that stupid and foolish attempt to divert the real issue at the end of the War, in order to gain political advantage from the catch-cries and phrases which were so recklessly flung about in those days. Soon after the War a conference of employers and workpeople was called. The Prime Minister of those days made a speech at that conference. I have here a quotation from the speech, because I think it is well to remind the House of what was said by people as far back as 1919. This is what the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said in 1919 to that conference:
    "During the War the workers have been removed for four and a-half years from the terrible dread of unemployment, and it is only those who have lived in industrial homes who can realise what a horror that prospect is. For four and a-half years that has been eliminated from their lives. It has been taken away from the horizon. Now peace has been established, and the spectre reappears, and there is a general feeling that something must be done to suppress it, to destroy it, to eliminate it for ever from the lives of the workers. These are questions that have to be examined and have to be determined."
    That was the speech made by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs on 27th February, 1919. He was Prime

    2103
    Minister of this country then, and again in 1920, 1921 and 1922, and no real attempt was made to remove the spectre of unemployment, to remove the shadow of poverty from the homes of the workers of this country. Nothing tangible was done, and if I allow other critics to take my place for the moment and pass their judgment upon him, it may be taken with better grace than if I deliver that criticism. I have here a Liberal leaflet, No. 2595, of 1922, referring to the responsibility of the Prime Minister of the Coalition Government:
    "1919, 1920, 1921, 1922. Who is responsible for those four years of failure? Mr. Lloyd George and the Conservative party are equally responsible. Mr. Lloyd George has been head of the Government all the time.
    Total unemployed persons registered, 3rd January, 1919–231,756.
    Total unemployed persons registered 21st August, 1922–1,427,311."
    This Liberal pamphlet goes on to say:
    "Thus unemployment is to-day more than six times as bad as it was when the Government took Office. These are the two things we want—work by which to live and homes in which to live. In both these things the Lloyd George Government have failed."
    I would express my gratitude to those who joined in that severe and merited criticism of the present-day Liberal leader. Now we come to the present Government.
    Major CRAWFURD: What about the 1924 Labour Government?
    Mr. ERNEST BROWN: There was no Right to Work Bill then.
    Mr. GRENFELL: In 1924 there was a reduction of the unemployed. I would call attention to the figures that I received from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour a week ago. I asked for the figures for a purpose. I wanted to see how the productive industries, the main industries of the country, were faring. I had heard it stated in Debates that a larger number of men were employed than had been employed when the Government took office in 1924. I am not prepared to question that fact to-day. With a population increasing rapidly the number of men employed should be increased proportionately. I do not deny that there is a slight increase in the total number of employed persons, but it is not an increase
    2104
    commensurate with the increase of the total of employable persons. I find that in the heavy industries, such as coalmining, blast furnaces, iron and steel, shipbuilding and engineering, there is a reduction in the number of unemployed, but, taking the figures relating to a great variety of industries with which the Parliamentary Secretary supplied me, I find that whereas in 1924 there were 4,000,000 men, women and juveniles employed, the number has since been reduced by 244,000.
    I know that the reply of the Minister or of the Parliamentary Secretary will be that men over 65 have been taken out, but, even making allowance for that, there is an actual diminution in employment in those very important and fundamental industries. The rate of unemployment is increasing. I hold the Minister of Labour and his Government responsible for the great mass of unemployment in at least two industries. In the mining industry unemployment is almost entirely due to the action of the present Government. I know the comparative figures of output and unemployment very well, but I have not time to go into great detail. I say that if there had been no extension of working hours, if the seven-hours day and the rate of production under the seven-hours day had been maintained, side by side with the present demand for coal, there would have been an actual shortage of mine workers in this country. The rate of production has been raised so much that the margin of unemployment is easily explained by the enforced increase of individual production. Men are overdriven, driven too hard and driven too long to produce, with the result that 150,000 people are out of work. It is the eight-hours day alone that is responsible for unemployment in the mining areas to-day. During the last three months every miner who is capable of following that occupation could have been working if the seven-hours day and old rate of production had been maintained.
    Let me turn next to the building industry. There we find 160,000 workers idle. The number reached over 200,000 a few weeks ago during the severe weather, but, even omitting those who were temporarily stopped by climatic conditions, we find that 160,000 are idle. That is because the Government has interfered

    2105
    with housing policy and reduced the sum of money available for the building of working-class houses. There need not be a single building trade worker or miner idle to-day. I shall not examine the figures further, but shall pass to what the Government claims to have done. The Government takes credit for its activities in regard to transference and migration. Those are the two special activities by which the Minister of Labour justifies his existence. I shall expect to hear from him to-day, as I have heard from him on previous occasions, details of men who have been transferred here and there, the number of those who have found places, and the assistance given in providing travelling expenses and so forth. All these things hardly touch the fringe of the unemployment problem, and it is an insult to the House and to the country to attempt to make the one or the other believe that here are any measures even for the alleviation of unemployment.
    The Minister is riding off too hard on this transference business. He is taking credit for removing young men from the coalfields and the industrial districts—from Durham, South Wales and other parts of the country—to be employed in miscellaneous occupations elsewhere. I am not satisfied that the present extra demand for coal is to be maintained. I hope it may be; I should like to believe that the demand would be maintained at its present level for some time to come. But let me warn the Minister that if the demand be maintained, some of the young men who have been forced to leave home and have been driven to a life of vagabondage elsewhere, will be wanted. I have good authority for saying that at the present time the absence of single men from the mining industry is being very much felt. In a parish or township where you have 1,000 unemployed a pit re-starts and requires only 500 men. It may find difficulty in getting the right kind of men. Our young people are indispensable. I warn the Minister from my personal knowledge that in driving our young people about the country in a search for work he is driving them to worse than degradation and demoralisation. The policy has been worse than futile; it has been cruel in many cases, as I know. As to emigration I do not think the Government
    2106
    can hope to find satisfaction in what it proposes to do or take credit for what it has done. We hear the broad open spaces of Canada and Australia spoken of with pride, and the Empire feeling is aroused by such references. I know emigration conditions very well, and if I know anything about labour problems I do know the labour problem of Canada, where I worked some time time ago. I know that there to-day there is no room and no welcome for the unemployed. If one wants to do a service to the Empire one can do it, not by sending men with empty hands and pockets, but by keeping men away from those counties. I can conceive of nothing more injurious to the Empire than the dumping of our surplus unemployed in a country where they are not wanted, whether Canada, Australia or elsewhere. I protest very strongly against the idea that this sending of men away, under special arrangements with steamship companies and railway companies, is of service to emigration.
    Let me read something taken from a book on Canada that I saw. In the last nine years, that is from 1919 to 1927, Canada has received about 1,100,000 immigrants. But she has lost to the United States 950,000 in the same period, and she has lost, through men who have been there returning to this country, 150,000. The incomers and the outgoers in the case of Canada almost balance each other. Canada does not want our unemployed, and enlightened opinion in that country is very strongly against the dumping of our men there. Those who go to Canada cannot stand the conditions. It is only a delusion to suggest that men with empty pockets and hands can find work. The Canadian point of view is expressed in an article in the "Queen's Quarterly," of Canada, of September last, in which Professor McArthur writes:
    "Our immigration problem is a problem of keeping immigrants, not as is generally supposed a problem of getting them. There can obviously be no adequate adjustment of supply and demand as long as companies interested in the revenue derived from the transportation of immigrants are able to direct the flow of immigration."
    Here is another quotation:
    "Our supreme need is a more careful adjustment of immigration to economic and social conditions in our own country."
    That is a statement from a Canadian who has only one purpose to serve, and that is

    2107
    the interest of his country. Canada is a great country and ought to have at least twice the number of its present population. But will not Ministers ask themselves the simple question: Why is it that when Canada was discovered many years ago there was for long a very sparse population? Why is it that Canada has not since become thickly populated? The same questions apply to Australia and to many other broad spaces on the face of the globe. The explanation is that these countries are countries in which it is hard to live. In Canada many months of the year are hard winter. That fact prevented the original inhabitants from multiplying. What is wanted is not only plenty of space, but moisture and an equable climate. Australia is no more exempt than Canada from adverse natural conditions. The only way to find room for men who wish to settle there is to send them with the capital required. In Australia they could then construct railways and bore artesian wells, and eventually make homes, but if you send them without the wherewithal to develop the country they will not stay, but will leave the countryside and flock into the towns, to the great danger of people already there. Thus you have an over-congested condition in the cities while the countryside is denuded of population. There is no way of getting our people off our hands except by sending them with abundant capital for use in the development of these open spaces and for making homes.
    I turn now to another aspect of this question. I wish to deal with what has been done by the Unemployment Grants Committee. I know that the Minister will be very touchy when I refer to an interview which he had recently with the representatives of the Municipal Corporations Association. They came to him a few weeks ago and complained of a provision in a circular which the right hon. Gentleman sent out on 8th November last. I have here a return of the answers supplied by 14 large municipal corporations to a questionnaire which was sent out on this matter. The corporations concerned are those of Barrow-in-Furness, Birmingham, Blackburn, Burnley, Cardiff, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newport, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Salford, Sheffield, Swansea and Walsall.
    2108
    These cities represent a population of over 5,000,000 and a rateable value of over £36,000,000. Each one has a large amount of unemployment, and it is of interest to note that the number of unemployed in each of these cities—with one exception—is higher than it was when the Government took office.
    The sole exception is the case of Walsall and the aggregate increase is 30,000 as compared with the number five years ago. The local authorities concerned have done their best and among them have spent nearly half of their rateable value. They have spent £15,000,000 on their own account, and they have received just over £3,000,000 from the Unemployment Grants Committee. They were allowed to spend on much more favourable terms than the present terms until 1925, when restrictions were placed by the Committee on the supply of credit. Since then the replies given by these corporations to the Committee go to show that they cannot carry on work for the relief of unemployment on the terms now offered. In this questionnaire, we find a whole series of negative replies in regard to the prospects of finding employment.
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Member, further than to say that the terms for these places, if they are given credit facilities by the Unemployment Grants Committee, are precisely the same now as they were before.
    Mr. GRENFELL: The terms for these places include this—that if they are not distressed areas, they are to take in 50 per cent. of the labour from outside.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Those which have a considerable degree of unemployment are, as I said, going to get precisely the same terms as before. [An HON. MEMBER: "What do you call a considerable degree? "]
    Mr. GRENFELL: It will be within the recollection of hon. Members that on Thursday last we had the representatives of the municipal corporations here in a room upstairs and they made up their minds after a long discussion, that, having approached the Minister of Labour, they would now approach the Prime Minister in the hope of inducing him to withdraw that clause in the circular

    2109
    and to give them permission to employ their own people. In this connection I wish to speak more particularly of my own town of Swansea. In 1925, partly because of relief works and partly because of trade conditions, the number of unemployed there was less than 5,000 but now the figure is over 9,000. Swansea, having spent over £1,000,000 in relief works, cannot find any more money on the conditions laid down by the Unemployment Grants Committee. The Corporation will not take the responsibility for bringing into the town any unemployed from outside areas. It would not be tolerated by the townspeople themselves and, because of this restriction, schemes are being held up. The Unemployment Grants Committee and the St. Davids Funds might just as well not be in existence.
    I give some instances of local authorities who wish to carry out public works and are entitled to assistance. Birmingham has spent on its own account £3,087,000 and has received from the Government only £619,000. The city of Salford, with a population of 247,000 has spent on its own account £2,426,000, or over £9 per head of the population in relief of unemployment and the Government have given them £410,000. They cannot carry on under the new conditions and they cannot be expected to welcome people from outside areas who will come in to receive wages which they think ought to be paid to their own unemployed. As I say, in Swansea there are schemes to the value of £400,000 ready for immediate prosecution if the Government waive this Clause. The case against this Clause is put in a letter from the town clerk of Chester to the secretary of the Unemployment Grants Committee, dated 31st December lasts as follows:
    "I have now to state that until the Council can be satisfied that they are not bound to absorb into an area where unemployment already exists, further unemployed men from the depressed areas, provide those unemployed men with housing facilities, and, when the relief works for which they are employed are completed, have those men as additional unemployed men in the city with the possibility that preference will be given to them in obtaining employment of a permanent nature over their own local unemployed, the Council feel that they cannot, in justice to their own unemployed citizens, proceed any further. I am to ask for an assurance from your committee in connection with this matter."
    2110
    That letter expresses what local authorities all over the country are thinking about this matter and shows the absurdity of transferring men from their own homes where they have connections, and the possibility of employment if industry recovers, to places where they are strangers and have no homes. I observe that the suggestion has even been made that some kind of compounds or barracks should be provided for the reception of these men. The public authorities of the country will be very glad if the Government express a willingness to remove this objectionable Clause. Had time permitted I would have spoken at some length on the question of training centres. The Ministry take some credit, and I give them credit, for this work. Where training centres have been established, they are doing good work and she young men who are kept there, are being well looked after, but the facilities are not as numerous or as extensive as they ought to be. The work is not touching an appreciable percentage of the young people who are unemployed. If the Government wish to stand well before the electors in the next few weeks they should, even at this stage, do something to stop the further demoralisation and deterioration of our young men.
    Mr. J. BAKER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I wish to appeal for the sympathy and help of the House on behalf of the landless and workless men whose one desire is to earn their living by their own toil. They accept the injunction:
    "In the sweat of thy face, shalt thou eat bread."
    These men would be only too glad to do the work to which they have been accustomed, if they had the opportunity. I believe that this House can help. I know that in the past it has hindered. It has done much harm, but I believe that, with a change of policy, it could do an equal amount of good. My first introduction to this problem was when I was eight or nine years of age. Going down the main street of Stockton-on-Tees, I saw a string of men parading behind a banner on which were the words "Let Stockton flourish." When I asked what it meant I was told that those men were out of work. I wish to emphasise

    2111
    that they were men who had been doing work a few weeks previously, and they were parading the town advertising their desire to go on doing more work. They were not the loafers of the town. They were not the kind of people who had never worked and did not want to work. They were men whose one hope was to get a job of any sort so that they might earn bread and shelter.
    My next experience of the problem was in 1892. We had then reached the end of the period of the substitution of iron by steel in shipbuilding. Our iron works were closed down. Fewer men were required to produce a sufficient quantity of steel than had been required previously to produce a sufficient quantity of iron. We were solaced then, not only by our old friend, the law of supply and demand, but also by the assurance that this was a trade cycle, that trade cycles came and went uncontrolled, that no man could control them, and that, while it was a pity that people had to suffer, nobody could do anything. I never believed that story for a single moment. We started agitating that something should be done, if only by way of relief works. But these men were abused in the Press, from the platform and from the pulpit and ultimately they were treated as common criminals and given penal work to do. They were put into sheds to tease oakum, as a test so that they might qualify for a few shillings a week from the board of guardians. In other cases people were given soup two or three times a week. I suggest that this country ought to have bigger ideas than that in regard to dealing with the people who produce its wealth.
    We made many statements in our agitation for work on that occasion and probably the Press did not believe them, but, in any case, one Northern paper sent a commissioner to make inquiries. We took him to a number of the houses of the unemployed. We had not manners enough to knock at the doors; we simply opened the doors and walked in. The commissioner selected the area of the inquiry and there was no pre-arrangement because we did not know of his arrival until 10 o'clock that morning and the people in the houses did not know that we were going to call on them. In the first house which we entered there was
    2112
    a woman ill in bed, there was a dead baby in the house, and there was no money, no food and no fire. By the time we had taken the commissioner to half a dozen houses—and we might have taken him to hundreds which were just as bad—that man who was, perhaps, not as case-hardened to poverty as we were, was shedding tears, and he had to get Dutch courage before he could continue his inquiries.
    In other words, in Durham in the winter of 1892–1893, you had exactly what His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales saw in Durham in 1929. In both periods complacent Governments said that this was not their work, or their responsibility. Then, as now, we were told that if this House interfered it would interfere for the worse. Until that policy is changed, all this suffering will have to go on. At that time we were advocating schemes for the building of houses, the laying out of streets, the making of harbours and the building of a railway on the north bank of the Tees. That scheme had already been sanctioned by this House but was being delayed by the North Eastern Railway Company. We were also advocating the clearance of slum areas, improved sanitary services, the cleansing of local streams so that they could deal with storm-water and prevent flooding and the reclamation of the foreshore of the Tees. We advocated the dredging of the Tees up to its higher reaches, and the repair of its banks where they were falling in, and a whole programme of that sort. That work could have been put in hand if we had had a House of Commons which was desirous of helping. If we had had a council desirous of helping, and if we could have got the funds—and Parliament could have got the funds—there would not have been any need for a single willing worker on Tees-side to be out of work during that particular depression.
    But we realised in those days, as we do now, that all those remedies were temporary and were no solution of the unemployment problem. I believe that unemployment is inherent in the present system of wealth production and distribution, and that if we want to remedy the senseless, useless, needless, idleness among 1,500,000 people, we have got to change the system of wealth production and distribution, but we cannot do it

    2113
    by temporary measures. We have been pointing that out for 40 years. The next period when this House caused unemployment was in 1906, when it raised the load line on ships and enabled the ships afloat to carry, it was estimated at the time, 1,000,000 tons more cargo. At that time we were building about 900,000 tons a year, clear of naval construction. In other words, this House, by a stroke of the pen, put 1,000,000 tons of ships into the water, closed our shipyards, and threw our workmen out of work. We had 75 per cent. of our shipbuilders, 50 per cent. of our engineers, and large numbers of iron and steel workers and others thrown idle in 1906–7 by the raising of the load line by this House. This House caused that, and I feel safe in asserting that had the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) realised the harm that was going to ensue from his action, he might have refrained from signing a document, which really inflicted immense misery on the workers of the North.
    The next time we got this House interfering directly with trade was in 1920, when it decided to start to revalorise the pound. Hon. Members will remember the phrase, "We are going to make the pound look the dollar in the face." On the 15th April, 1920, the Bank rate was raised to 7 per cent., and the unemployed in this country on the 30th April of the same year numbered 325,915. In one year they had increased to 1,661,852. Credit was restricted, trade fell off, and men were thrown out of work. I stop at March, because the point where unemployment reached as high as 2,700,000 came after there had been an industrial dispute, but that dispute was caused by the action of this House. We now have the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs telling us that the return to the gold standard was a cause of the present depression. We agree, but he started the ramp in 1920. It is not the work of the present Government or of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer alone; they are merely following on a policy that was adopted in 1920.
    Now the right hon. Gentleman takes the platform and tells us that we can cure or conquer unemployment, and I am very pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has accepted our view of this matter. It
    2114
    has taken us 20 years to educate him up to that point, and it gives us hope that we might even impress the present Government in the course of time. In the old days we used to send petitions and deputations to Ministers. Now we are sending petitions in boots and we have knocked at the door of this House so loudly that we have actually disturbed the slumbers of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. I hope he will be successful in conquering unemployment, and I wish the Government would do something to help. There is a large amount of work that can be done, but we have to change our viewpoint and our outlook. After the War this House compelled the Germans to give cheap reparations coal to Belgium, France and Italy, and threw our own miners out of work. We took the German mercantile marine, closed our own shipyards, and compelled the Germans to build new fleets of the most modern construction with which the more successfully to compete with our ships.
    We collected scrap from all the battlefields in Europe and sold that scrap to steelmakers, closing down our own blast furnaces. Out of over 600 blast furnaces that we have in this country, we worked an average of only 140 last year. Now all scrap is getting scarce, and probably a few more of those blast furnaces will be brought into requisition in the immediate future. But that policy had a wrong angle of view and did not think of consequences. The German fleet was sunk at Scapa Flow, but we had to take steps to raise those battleships so that we might have scrap, and we kept our blast furnace-men out of work. I might be asked the question, "Would I leave those ships there?" I want to retort to that question that if to-night or to-morrow you or I or any other person could discover an unlimited supply of gold, we would never be allowed by the Governments of the world to put it on the market because it would disturb trade and upset the markets. What would be done with that illimitable store of the means of exchange, we ought to have done with these other things that I have mentioned. We should have asked what the consequences of taking that particular course of action would be likely to be. It seemed on the face of it as though somebody was going to gain, but, as a

    2115
    matter of fact, I believe the world has been the poorer because of the suffering inflicted on workmen, not only in this country, but in other countries.
    There is a large amount of work that needs doing now and that could be undertaken without sacrificing any principle of individualism. Hon. Members opposite can stick to their shibboleths until we have either talked them to death, converted them, or voted them out of existence by a new race of people accepting the view that co-operation is better than conflict. They have accepted the building of houses as one of the things that can be done by the State in an emergency, and I suggest that, if we have 100,000 building trade employés out of work, that is a state of emergency so far as they are concerned. We ought to reverse the order reducing the housing subsidy, because we need those houses and we have not attempted slum clearance. We have done very little indeed in the way of clearing slums and building new houses to take the place of the old ones. All that we have done has been to build new houses for the newcomers.
    In my own constituency the three urban district councils desire to go on building more houses, but the reduction of the subsidy stops them going on with that work. Wolverhampton has many schemes in hand which will be delayed if it cannot get Government assistance. Those schemes will be carried out ultimately, but in the meantime people who might have been working will be out of work and will be receiving public funds in return for no effort. That is not good, either for them or for the general public. The town clerk tells me that they cannot comply with the Clause requiring 50 per cent. of people from distressed areas in the new arrangements. Sedgley had a scheme of deep sewerage sanctioned by the Grants Committee, but when three-quarters of that scheme had been carried out, the grant was cut off. A building company owns the surface of the land, and if deep sewers were put in, Dame Rumour says that they would be prepared to build 700 middle-class houses. If, by the expenditure of some public money we helped Sedgley to get sewerage into that area, and so could get some £750,000 or £1,000,000 of private money put into the building of houses there, that would be good for the country as
    2116
    a whole, and it would certainly be good for the Urban District Council of Sedgley and for the workmen there.
    At the present time, as we have heard very much lately in the Press, slum areas need clearing, roads and harbours need reconstruction and schemes; have been laid before this House for the drainage of areas which might become profitable agricultural land if it were drained, but the private owners cannot afford to drain it. Our industries need cheap credit, cheap raw materials, and cheap transport, so that they may be restored to prosperity. But the industrialists of this country seem to prefer to face bankruptcy rather than have the help of this House to restore them to prosperity. This House has a responsibility to the community which is greater than that of the owner of any particular industry, and I believe this House could secure cheap credit for industries which are desirous of getting it, because that is the proposal of the Balfour Committee. The proposal is not that this House should scatter loans of money at cheap rates to all and sundry, but that the industries which are desirous of being restored and are prepared to take the first steps themselves might be helped. The Committee are not very definite in their statement, and I wish they had been more positive, but they state that such industries might have the assistance of the State in being restored.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Surely credits would need legislation, which cannot be discussed on this occasion.
    Mr. BAKER: I wish I could get the hon. Members opposite to change their views on this matter, because so long as we, as a nation, believe that unemployment is no concern of ours, that each individual is doing his best for the race when he is looking after himself, and that if I am all right, everybody is all right, I do not think this country will be as great as it might be. If we had a little more mutual consideration and mutual help, it would be better for everybody.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I have listened with the greatest interest to the two speeches delivered this afternoon. Interesting as they were, there seemed to be one peculiarity in both of them. They agreed entirely as to the impossibility

    2117
    of dealing with unemployment by any partial measures, but, at the same time, both agreed that it was necessary to condemn this Government and all previous Governments, except presumably the Socialist Government of 1924, for not having dealt with problems which, in the opinion of these speakers, were really insoluble. The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell), in the first part of his speech, referred to the programme for doing away with unemployment altogether which has been put before the country by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). He spent a good deal of time showing us that the Liberal party has been in fact in this matter the really conservative party in this House, inasmuch as they have not changed in any way for something like 30 years, and that, at the same time, they are putting forward proposals which have been put before the country not only by the Socialist party but also by the Conservative Government and Coalition Governments.
    I do not want to follow the hon. Gentleman into any consideration of the programme put forward by the Leader of the Liberal party. I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs himself believes in the statements that he is reported to have publicly made as to his ability to do away with unemployment by a stroke of the pen, by the expenditure of money which he is to get somehow as a conjurer, and at the cost of nobody; but I am perfectly certain that the bulk of the Liberal-minded voters in the country do not believe in it, and I doubt whether the bulk of the Liberal party in this House believes in it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs—I am sorry he is not here, and I do not say it in any unpleasant or vindictive spirit—always reminds me of a famous character in Bunyan's "Holy War." This was a very famous gentleman, a man who was at the head of the society of his time and in his city. He was a man who was supposed to be very clever and very agile in debate, but he had a family crest, and that crest was a very delicately poised weathercock. Round that weathercock was the motto: "We always change our judgment according to the necessity."
    Mr. J. JONES: Your quotation is wrong.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Will the hon. Gentleman give it exactly?
    Mr. JONES: I would give it exactly, but I am not allowed to speak.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I should be delighted to give way to the hon. Member, not only because it would be polite to do so, but because it would show the House that he has a knowledge of Bunyan's work for which no one here has given him credit.
    Mr. JONES: I am obliged to the hon. Member for giving me credit for so much ignorance. In this case, the weathercock was a windmill.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: In the consideration of this problem there is, I think, one very important factor on which everyone should be in agreement, and that is that this question of unemployment is not a matter to be settled by any partial method, but is one which far transcends any question of party politics. It is true that we have a large problem of unemployment, and the figures are heavy; but I wonder if it is realised how different is the method by which these figures are computed to-day as compared with the manner in which they were produced previous to the War? It must be remembered that in the figure of 1,000,000 or 1,250,000 of unemployed, there exists about 250,000 women who were not previously included in the returns, and that there is a floating population which did not come into the calculations of those who prepared the figures in pre-War days. I think it is probable that a very careful examination would show that the problem is not really as heavy as at first sight it might appear to be. I do not mean by that to minimise it. It is a heavy problem, heavy in this country and in other countries. But if one realises that the last figures available from America showed something like 3,000,000 unemployed there and in Germany something over 2,000,000, with consequent partial unemployment of a further 3,000,000 people, it will be seen that unemployment is not a problem in this country alone and that it cannot be dismissed with any proposals of temporary Government works, or that schemes which are not carefully thought out and prepared can possibly be successful even in relieving it.

    2119
    Probably it is very little understood how changed are the conditions of our industry in this country to-day as compared with those of the latter half of last century. I do not refer to the claim of the days previous to the War, when we were supposed to be the workshop of the world. That has gone; we cannot hope to hold that position to-day. But I want to draw attention to the conditions under which our industries originally grew up, and to the difference in the conditions which prevailed then and now. Practically all our great industries were started from small beginnings, very largely by individual enterprise. You have a proof of that in the very common and very much quoted saying, "Shirt-sleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations," and sayings of that kind. That kind of individual effort does not get the same chance today. I say quite frankly that we have to recognise that the modern system of finance in this country and other countries is all against any help being given to the small man. The whole conditions have altered, and in this country the small man has a very poor chance indeed. I do not blame the joint stock banks; indeed I do not blame anybody for the conditions which exist; but, in the old days all over this country, in the days of the private banker, the passing of whom many of us regret, the small man was able to get help, not because he had behind him War Loan or Consols or some other security which would satisfy any lender, but rather that he had behind him the reputation of himself and his family, the fact that he was a hard-working fellow who would probably make good with a little help. To-day these things have to be settled by a board in London, and undoubtedly the small man finds it more difficult to get support than he did in the old days. But it is just that very kind of man whom we want to get going if we are to help unemployment. He seems a very small figure—the little joiner or builder with two or three men growing to 10 or 12 men—but, all over the country, he is the man we want to get started, the man who is working to make good for himself and for those dependent upon him.
    I would go further. Is it not the case that the present system of finance is not only against the email man primarily, but is against the industrialist altogether?
    2120
    Again, I wish to make it clear that I am not attacking the joint-stock banks; far from it. I may not go the length of the gentleman who, every time he went past a bank on the top of an omnibus, is stated to have reverently raised his hat, but I owe too much to the bankers to say anything against them. At the same time, I say frankly that the whole banking system of this country wants examination from the point of view of two things: first, whether the gold standard and the basis of the Bank Charter Act we are working under are suitable for the transactions carried out in this country; and, second, whether the great joint-stock banks have not rather dried up the credit which the small man got in the old days. The greater problem, no doubt, is that which has been referred to by an hon. Member, who said that getting back to the gold standard had caused great hardship to industry. I am not prepared to dispute that it caused hardship to industry; I think it did. At the same time, I am not prepared to say that it was not the right thing that we should get back to the gold standard. I think it was. The whole question is how to do it, and the rate of progress by which you make the change. Gold is a commodity like everything else, and, if gold is to be the standard for settlement of international obligations and exchange—and nobody has suggested any better standard for the purpose—I do suggest that it is worth while for the country to consider whether gold is equally necessary as a standard of obligation between two nationals living in the same country, who at the present moment are prepared, and do daily take as between themselves a piece of paper with a promise written on it as the only means of negotiating their payments and obligations. I question very much whether now that we have a large fiduciary currency, we could not with advantage follow to some extent at any rate the example of the Federal Reserve Bank of America, and base some of our credit upon trade bills and obligations of our own people, and this prevent our being so much tied, as we are at present, to the operations of the American banks and American speculators.
    The Bank of England is to be congratulated in some respects on the way that it

    2121
    has handled the position in the last few months. What it did was possibly to save us from something much worse, if indeed it has been able to avert further serious consequences which, I think, is not yet certain. But there is no doubt that in January last the Bank Rate was suddenly raised just at the moment when trade was looking up again and undoubtedly industry was thus dealt a very serious blow. It is worth considering whether there are not some means by which we can free ourselves from the necessity of being tied to the operations of those on the other side of the water. It is an extremely intricate and difficult subject, but I think that it is a matter for inquiry. If it is a question of industry as a means of providing employment, and restored and active industry is the only real remedy, then the industrialists should get a fair show. Is he getting a fair chance, financially and otherwise? The banker has to look after his shareholders and his profits and he may rightly say that it is not his business to support industry in its early stages, but anyhow there is no doubt that it is to the interest of the banks to deal in short-dated bills rather than to lock up their money in long credits. Is there not a chance, therefore, for the Government to help the industrialists by a reorganisation of what used to be called the Trade Facilities Act? That Act was excellently administered, but I want a different Act altogether, an Act which will not allow a great shipping company or a great public company which has already plenty of credit in the market, to raise its money at 5 per cent. instead of 6 per cent., and lock up a certain amount of Government money. I want an Act which will help the small industrialist to get that credit which the present banking system does not permit of his getting even if it means the Government taking some measure of risk of loss.
    We are often told that the industrial employer is out to reduce wages. That is not true. No industrialist in the country really wishes to reduce wages, for the obvious reason that productive industry is entirely based upon buying power. The statement with which I am in entire agreement is constantly made from the Labour benches that we will never have successful and prosperous industry in this country until we have a
    2122
    high purchasing power, and that means a high standard of living. It is not the 1,000,000 people unemployed that worries me, but the 10,000,000 people who are living too near the margin of want, because these people should be in the mass the best customers that we can have. Does it not follow that no industrialist wants to reduce the buying power of his customers. We prevent a man who conducts an industrial business from in any way controlling the prices of his raw material; we prevent him controlling the price at which he can sell his goods, because we allow free imports and competition from abroad, whatever the standard of living of the people who make the competing goods. How then is he to economise and put himself in a position to compete. Broadly speaking, only three things enter into the matter—the price of his raw material, the price at which he sells the manufactured article and the cost of his labour. If he reduces wages, he is forced to it partly because of the system of free imports which prevents him having any chance of competing on reasonable terms with those who send goods from abroad, goods made by cheap labour living under conditions much lower than those existing in this country or than anyone ever wants to see exist here.
    I suggest that the Government should put into force the Safeguarding Act. One of the greatest misfortunes to-day is the fact that in the last four or five years we have not been able to put that Act into force in the way that many of us hoped. I do not suggest that the criticism which we sometimes hear from the Liberal benches, to the effect that we have not gone far enough to show any results, is correct. The results are remarkable so far as they have gone, but the conditions under which we have had to work this Act, owing no doubt to the pledge which the Prime Minister conceived was given—but which I personally have never been able to find—have had the result that it enables our opponents to say that we have not gone far enough to convince everybody.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): The hon. Gentleman is getting very near the question of new duties, which would require legislation.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I hoped, Sir, that if I was getting near, I was not getting over the border. I was only suggesting putting into force the Safeguarding Act, which exists at the present time; the procedure under that Act is not a matter, may I submit, which requires new legislation, but merely a White Paper.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No new duties can be imposed without legislation.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I will not pursue the matter further, but I hope that the position with regard to the future will be made clear in the country, so that everybody will know where they stand in regard to this matter at the next Election. The Government might do one other thing to help industry. We are constantly told that they ought to economise. Economy is all very well, and I am always in favour of it, particularly because the Government is under present Income Tax conditions a 20 per cent. partner in industry, taking a large part of the profits but paying no share of the losses. It is difficult to get industry keen and active under these conditions. What has been done in connection with economy in the fighting forces is excellent, and if we had a Ministry of Defence, it would give us a chance of discussing the whole problem and enabling us to say where further economies could be made. Possibly, in the air, for example, it is not economy but expenditure that is required.
    With regard to migration, the hon. Gentleman who spoke last put his case much too strongly. He said that we were doing harm to Canada by sending people there, and he referred to the fact that people are coming back from Canada saying that there was no demand for labour in that country. We know that that is not correct. The hon. Member omitted to tell us anything of the immense numbers of people going into Canada from other countries. It is not true to say that Canada does not want British migrants. Canada wants people from this country rather than from any other country, but the hon. Member was right when he said that these people would have the best chance who were sent out either with capital or with opportunities partly made for them.
    2124
    When this matter was discussed not long ago in the House, I was gad to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) refer to a scheme which I put forward in the House a year ago when the Empire Settlement Bill, brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Somerville), was being discussed. This was that this country might take over some district, Such as the Peace River district of British Columbia, which would eventually be handed back to the Canadian Government, and develop it with British money saved to us by the fact of the men not having to be supported here. That would give a wonderful chance for people who were sent from this country. Such a scheme, worked out in co-operation with the Dominions, would I think be welcomed, and I do-not think that we should find any serious opposition from any authority in Canada, it being clear that these men are not to remain supported from this country but are to become Canadian in every respect and adopt that great land as their home. I agree that it is useless to suggest migration from the point of view of merely dumping people overseas as a cure for unemployment; on the other hand, the statements that, have been made as to the impossibility of increasing migration, are not only wrong but dangerous. They give a wrong impression, and they are not a true picture of the facts. I would like also to see an unofficial Board of Migration which would co-ordinate the work of the State and the work of the many wonderful voluntary societies engaged in migration work. If that were done, quite apart from the Government, a, great impetus would be given to settlement in the Dominions.
    The main problem in connection with reducing the bulk of unemployment—we can never do away with every unemployed man—is that of providing assistance to the men who give employment, that is to the industrialist. We should assist him, and consider his interests as apart from those of the person who is only interested in goods coming in and going out of the country. The Government should consider whether what they are doing to help trade and industry is really a help to that man, or whether on the other hand the whole system is not one which

    2125
    aims more at helping those who only import goods. We spent some £383,000,000 in 1927 on social services; that is, £76,000,000 more than six years before. There must be some limit to the amount. Housing, education, unemployment and health insurance are all excellent. The figure has to be increased by something like £37,000,000, which represents the decrease in war pensions, so that the increase in these six years amounts to over £100,000,000, and however estimable these services are, they are a charge on industry, and there must be a limit and a time when the country must consider the rate at which it is moving. I do not believe that our troubles will come to an end by increased expenditure on social services or by maintaining people in unwilling idleness, but if we can get our own individual industries working again, we raise the purchasing power of our people, increase their comfort and contentment and really solve the unemployment problem. In fact, I believe that there would be before very long a shortage of labour. There is a shortage of skilled labour to-day, and there would be a shortage of all labour within a few-years if we support and encourage by all the means in our power the man who provides the employment. To-day this Government or any other Government has to face that problem. We have had a very difficult time and there has been a good deal of change in industrial conditions since this century began. The whole country wants waking up to the fact that it is the industrialist that matters, and those who talk so much about Free Trade are very often, I think, people who have never engaged in it, and do not seem to realise the burdens or the expenditure, whether it be for the purposes of Government or for the professional services of the lawyer, doctor or schoolmaster, for example, fall in the end upon the productive industries of the country. If hon. Gentlemen opposite would turn their minds more to helping those who employ labour, they would find before very long that we should really solve the unemployment problem.
    Sir OSWALD MOSLEY: The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne) has made a most moving appeal in favour of economy. While listening to that appeal the thought passed through my mind as to whether the hon.
    2126
    Member supported the Government a week or two ago when they were compelled to spend £400,000 more than they felt bound to expend in subsidising certain landlords in Southern Ireland. I do not know on which side lay the sympathies of the hon. Gentleman in that struggle. We are always hearing of appeals for economy in general from the opposite benches, but when it comes to the particular on which they wish to economise it turns out to be the social services or the working class who have to bear the burden. We have just listened to an argument against expenditure on the social services, and the hon. Member for Kidderminster said that the industrialists have to bear the burden of that expenditure. Surely when we build schools by public expenditure we are providing a market for the building industry. When we spend large sums of money by means of direct cash payments like War pensions, what in fact are we doing? We are simply transferring purchasing power from certain taxpayers to other members of the community. The hon. Member for Kidderminster and myself are taxed by means of the Income Tax and Super-tax, and instead of having that money to spend on objects which please us, it is devoted to enhancing the purchasing power of that part of the population which is for the most part the working class. Why should we assume that the objects upon which the working class spend this money will not provide a better market for our industries?
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: The argument which the hon. Baronet appears to be using is that the more money we spend, the better off we shall be. Surely he does not advocate unlimited expenditure and no thrift?
    Sir O. MOSLEY: The argument is perfectly clear. Industry must have sufficient capital accumulation for new developments. Under a Socialist system that would be done by these industries setting aside sufficient reserves for their own development. Under the present system we rely for that capital accumulation upon the private investor, and under this system sufficient money must be left to the taxpayer to provide for capital accumulations. Over and above the necessary capital reserves it is purely a question of who spends money on consumption.

    2127
    Is it to be the rich taxpayer who is taxed for the social services, or the poorer members of the community who are assisted by those social services? I submit that actually the money is more likely to be usefully spent in promoting trade in the hands of the working class than in the hands of the hon. Member for Kidderminster or myself, for the reason that the working class demands stimulate the staple trades of the country such as the cotton and woollen trades and the boot trade, which are among the main productive industries upon which the strength of this country has grown up. It is purely a question whether by our measures we leave money in the hands of the richer class to be spent on luxuries which are manufactured for the most part abroad, or whether by measures of taxation we take from the richer class a part of their money and spend it on the social services, a policy which the hon. Member for Kidderminster deplores. By spending money on social services in this way we increase the purchasing power of the working class, and stimulate the staple trades of the country.
    The hon. Member for Kidderminster addressed a considerable argument to us on the subject of migration. What has the Conservative party done to encourage migration from this country? We are now asking the Dominions to do something for nothing. The policy of the Conservative party in the past has been to tax the food of the people in order to provide a market for the products of the Dominions. That policy has now been abandoned for electoral advantages, and now the Conservative party in this connection have no policy of any kind. On the Labour Benches we have a policy for the bulk purchase of wheat and meat and a system of direct supply to the consumers of this country, and by this method we would be able to assist the staple trades of the Dominions and at the same time to provide cheaper food to our own people. In return we could ask the Dominions to give proper facilities to any of our population who desire to migrate to secure employment and reasonable standards of wages. It is idle for the Members of a Conservative party to suggest that a big policy of migration is possible, because they have absolutely nothing to offer
    2128
    the Dominions in return. The Imperial cry of the Conservative party is entirely bankrupt, and they are going to the country without a Dominion policy of any kind whatsoever.
    Then the hon. Member for Kidderminster advanced an argument which seemed to me to constitute a very powerful support of our pleas for the proper control and development of our banking system. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that in Joint Stock Bunks purely rule-of-thumb methods are now adopted; they regard only the securities which are offered by their customers and not in any way the social uses for which the credits supplied will be used. That old consideration of the private banks has vanished altogether under our present banking system. For these reasons I welcome the hon. Member's strong support for our plea that there should be a reform of the banking system for the qualitative as well as the quantitative direction and control of credit. When I heard the hon. Member opposite refer eulogistically to the semi-Socialised Federal Reserve system of America, I almost rose in my place to invite him to come over and sit on these benches. The hon. Member for Kidderminster then spoke of the only policy by which the Government claim to be dealing with unemployment. I should not be in order in dealing with the de-rating Bill now, but I can point out that a; a cure for unemployment it has been set aside, and it was turned during its later stages into a purely Local Government Bill. Consequently, we now come back to the safeguarding policy, which the party opposite claim is doing so much for industry.
    I would like for a few moments to analyse this policy in order to see whether in fact the one and only suggestion of the Government for dealing with the problems of the day is having any beneficial effect, or can have any effect, upon the grave condition of unemployment in this country. The suggestion of the Government is that under the stimulus of their policy new industries are taking the place of the old ones, and that we are gradually carrying through a big transfer of our productive activities from the old basis to the new basis upon which we can recover our prosperity. What test can we apply to the success of this safeguarding policy? As a first test, there is none

    2129
    better than that which was suggested the other day in a speech by the Lord Chancellor, who judged the success of the safeguarded industries by their export trade. Stimulated by that suggestion, I have looked into the matter of what safeguarded trades have actually improved their export position. I find that only three—motor cars, artificial silk and musical instrument trades—have increased their export trade during the last three years. If the rest of the safeguarded industries are considered in this respect, we find a total decline of £1,278,000 in their total exports during that period. The three industries which are expanding and improving their export trade are-all industries the success of which obviously depend in a far greater measure on new scientific inventions and general progress than upon any measure of safeguarding. Can anyone seriously suggest that the motor car trade would not have expanded in any case during the last few years? Who can contend that the artificial silk trade would not have expanded without safeguarding, and who believes that with the progress of modern inventions and modern tastes the musical instrument trade would not also have been an expanding trade?
    While it may be true that these three industries alone have improved their position by the tests which the Lord Chancellor has applied, whether they will continue to improve is another big consideration because the Government by their action, or rather by their inaction, in raising the price of petrol and by their raiding of the Road Fund are crippling the development upon which the motor industry depends for its success, and they are doing very much to upset any conceivable advantage which they may claim that this industry has derived from safeguarding. If we add to that the consideration that the motor industry has to meet an ever-increasing competition from America and from the Dominions, the outlook for that trade, I am afraid, cannot be so bright in the future as it has naturally been in the past.
    Let us examine the claim that the new trades are effectively replacing the old trades. What has been the expansion in the motor trade during recent years? Between 1923 and 1927 the total number of cars used in this country rose from 87,000 to 209,000, or an increase of
    2130
    150 per cent. Even with this immense and unparalleled expansion of the trade, the number of workers employed only increased by 38,000. In the same period the number of workers employed in the coal trade decreased by 250,000. How can we claim or pretend that the new trades are effectively taking the place of the old trades? Take the case of artificial silk. That is admittedly a substitute trade. Between the years 1923 and 1928, this trade absorbed 33,000 new workers; but in the same period the cotton and the woollen trades declined by 40,500 workers. At every stage we see the decline in the old trades far and away outstripping any increase in the new. To take other new trades in a different category, electrical engineering has increasd by 36,500, but general engineering has declined by 84,800—again an increase in the decline of the old above the rise of the new. In the chemical industry we have some of the most surprising figures of all. In that industry since 1923 there has actually been a rise of 9 per cent. in production, but a fall of very nearly 4,000 in the number of workers employed. That is the process of rationalisation and scientific development.
    What policy, what suggestion, have the Government for meeting a situation of that kind? On facts and figures which make the situation only too tragically clear, the decline is progressive, the new trades are failing completely to take the place of the old, and the Government have no plan or suggestion to apply beyond the safeguarding policy. But the safeguarding policy is one which does not and cannot apply to the overwhelming majority of the unemployed in this country. No fewer than 856,857 persons, or 64.5 per cent. of the registered unemployed in December last, are employed in trades right outside the scope of any safeguarding policy. It is quite easy to define those trades. They are industries with no import problem at all, such as mining or shipbuilding, or industries in which labour is sheltered, like building and internal transport, [Interruption.]. I do not think there is any very big import problem in the mining industry at the present time. When the hon. Gentleman comes to reply, possibly he can supply us with figures, but I have noticed before that, when observations are made from these

    2131
    benches, the hon. Gentleman adopts a very derisory attitude, though when he comes to reply the facts and figures which can refute the observations are entirely lacking from his speech. I was trying to develop the argument that this safeguarding policy does not and cannot apply to industries in which 64.5 per cent. of the unemployment in this country occurs.
    Major PRICE: Has the hon. Member included the steel industry?
    Sir O. MOSLEY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman may rest assured that in the course of my argument I will cover the whole field.
    Major PRICE: Have you included the steel industry?
    Sir O. MOSLEY: No; that will be included in another set of figures which I will give in a moment. There are industries, such as those of internal transport and building, where labour is sheltered and where this policy does not arise; and there are industries which obviously are not and cannot be safeguarded, such as shipping and distribution. Then there are the food, drink and tobacco industries, for which not even the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) has yet suggested a tariff policy. These four categories of industry account for some two-thirds of the total unemployment registered in this country in December last. Remaining beyond that there were some 472,000 unemployed registered in December, or 35.5 per cent. of the total unemployment of the country. Of those 35 per cent., two-thirds are employed in the textile and metal trades, to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred. Both of those trades are overwhelmingly export trades. In the metal trade the export surplus over imports is 28 per cent., while in the textile trade it is as high as 56.1 per cent. They are overwhelmingly export trades, and the safeguarding policy does not apply to them and cannot assist them.
    If you take some half-dozen of these remaining industries—textiles, metals, chemicals, oils, vehicles, apparel, earthenware pottery and glass—you will find that 92.9 per cent. of the remaining 35 per cent. of unemployment is accounted for,
    2132
    and all of those trades are overwhelmingly export trades. You come, therefore, to this conclusion, that only one-fortieth of the total unemployment in this country arises in trades which are not predominantly export trades, and that, therefore, by any policy of safeguarding, only one man in 40 of the total unemployed can conceivably be assisted. If these facts and figures can be answered, I shall be very happy to hear the answer. They are derived from very reliable sources, which so far have not been challenged. They show that, if we take out of industry trades which obviously cannot be safeguarded, and if we further take out trades which are predominantly exporting trades which cannot be assisted by safeguarding, we are left with industries which account for only one man in 40 of those who are unemployed.
    Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: The hon. Baronet has pointed out that the real problem is that of the export industry. Can he now explain, in view of what he said in the early part of his speech, how those industries are to be helped by increasing the purchasing power of our own working people?
    Sir O. MOSLEY: If the industrial genius of the hon. Gentleman will apply for guidance to the industrial genius of Mr. Ford, he will find a very simple answer. Mr. Ford has is frequently pointed out that the high purchasing power of the American people has developed that mass production method which has enabled him, not only to sell cheaply in American markets, but to capture the export markets of the world.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: My only objection to that is that it is not an answer to my question.
    Sir O. MOSLEY: I have always found in Debate that any answer which is effective is not regarded as an answer by the recipient. Possibly the hon. Gentleman is suffering from something which affects us all. I myself always have the same sensation when I get a reply to which I cannot immediately see the answer.
    To return to my main argument, so far as we are aware the Government have no policy of any kind in relation to unemployment except this safeguarding

    2133
    policy. I have striven to show by facts and figures that that policy cannot apply to the overwhelming majority of those industries which account for unemployment, and that as regards only one man in 40 of the unemployed can it be even technically argued that assistance can be given by that policy. What plan and what suggestion have the Government for dealing with unemployment? We are at the end of 4½ years of their tenure of office. Unemployment is higher than when they took office, and they have no single suggestion or policy to put forward except a policy which in practice has proved a failure, and any extension of which in theory can very easily be exposed and exploded. The Government have evidently surrendered to unemployment in advance of the election. They are going into the election with their hands up. Their whole record and their whole policy show that they have no suggestion of any kind to offer. I must admit that I had hopes from another quarter this afternoon. Where, oh, where, is the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George)—
    Mr. E. BROWN: He will be there next time!
    Sir O. MOSLEY: The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) is a very industrious but I am afraid, if he will forgive me for saying so, rather inadequate understudy. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs has produced a remedy for unemployment. This is the first Debate that has taken place since we had the advantage of hearing his proposals, and it may be the last Debate on unemployment before this House goes to the electors; and yet the right hon. Gentleman, having maintained silence and not having given us the benefit of his counsel on this subject for the 4½ years which this Parliament has lasted, now, on the last occasion when we can debate the subject, does not come down to this House, where his proposals can undergo the test of debate, where they can meet reasoned analysis, and where, if they could be sustained, they would come through the ordeal to the triumph which the hon. Member for Leith imagines. The right hon. Gentleman has great resources of publicity at his disposal, but where his arguments can be met on level terms, where they can be analysed and, if they be fallacies,
    2134
    destroyed, the right hon. Gentleman, the new knight who is to cure unemployment, is sadly lacking from the field of battle. Even in his absence, however, we might put one or two questions, which I am sure will be adequately answered by the hon. Member for Leith.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs has developed a great attack upon the policy and administration of the present Government. He claims, and I think rightly, that their policy of deflation was responsible for the great coal stoppage and the industrial struggle of 1926; but he has omitted to mention that he initiated the whole of that policy; that he adopted the recommendations of the Cunliffe Committee, which started that policy; that he applied it far more rigorously than the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has ever applied it; that where the present Chancellor of the Exchequer aimed by deflation at a fall of 10 per cent. in our price level, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs actually achieved a fall of 50 per cent. in our price level, or five times as severe a deflation as that aimed at by the present Chancellor.
    All through that period the bottom was falling out of the market, prices were descending, manufacturers were selling their finished products on a lower price level than that on which they paid for their labour costs and raw material, and, as a result of precisely the same policy, but applied in a more rigorous degree, as that which he now denounces, the right hon. Gentleman piled up a total of unemployment in this country amounting to some 2,000,000. At one period during the application of that policy, when unemployment was reaching its height, namely, on the 24th October, 1921, he replied to representations from the Federation of British Industries asking him to modify that policy and to reopen an inquiry into the whole of the recommendations of the Cunliffe Committee, from which this policy originated. His reply was to turn down any suggestion of the kind, with observations which are pathetically reminiscent of the speeches in the country of the present Prime Minister. What do we find the man of executive genius, the man of push and go, the man who is going to cure unemployment, saying at that time? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs replied

    2135
    thus to the Federation of British Industries:
    "The idea that there is some short cut to the recovery of normal conditions is, in the nature of things, not unlikely to prove illusory."
    When he had the opportunity to do these things which he now promises to do, the answers he returned were in language almost identical with that of the present Prime Minister. He went on to say:
    "At the present moment, after going through a period of unexampled depression and weathering the three months of coal stoppage,"
    which was caused by his policy,
    "trade and industry are beginning to show the first faint symptoms of recovery."
    6.0 p.m.
    The right hon. Gentleman then, like the present Prime Minister, was seeing the first faint symptoms of recovery. Every Prime Minister sees those symptoms about once a year. When the right hon. Gentleman was seated upon those benches, when he had an opportunity to put these plans into action, those were the answers he gave.
    I should like, all the same, if the Government would be good enough to make some observations upon the plans the right hon. Gentleman has advanced, for the simple reason that they are taken in bulk from the programme of the Labour party and, therefore, are of some interest to us. There is only one proposal in the right hon. Gentleman's suggestions which is not to be found in the Labour programme, and that is the novel suggestion of extending the telephone system to some 90,000 working-class homes, a benefit for which those who pay with difficulty for their Sunday dinners will no doubt thank the right hon. Gentleman. I should be grateful if the Government would put forward what are the reasoned objections of the Treasury to the whole policy of raising a loan or incurring capital expenditure for the relief of unemployment, a policy long advanced from these benches. The Prime Minister dealt with it in a very jejune way at Leicester the other day. He said that
    "capital money employed on such a purpose would merely be taken from the rest of industry and, consequently, would not add a single man to the aggregate of employment."
    That seems to me to be an argument which applies to the development of all
    2136
    new enterprises. If a new factory with a promise of success is started and draws capital from the investment market, does it damage other enterprises?
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Permanent employment.
    Sir O. MOSLEY: Quite. Why should we not absorb the unemployed in works of this kind, certainly until you can by other measures stabilise the employment situation? This argument applies with equal force against any new development and any new enterprise. Really it is the duty of the Government to advance a reasoned contravention of this policy unless they themselves, as their newspaper supporters suggest, are prepared to adopt it before the election.
    But it is not suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs to reduce unemployment below what he is pleased to call the "normal." I should like to address this question to his understudy. What is normal unemployment? I have seen the figure put at 500,000. I believe that is roughly the relation of pre-War unemployment to the present situation. Can we be content with a permanent unemployment of 500,000? It is true that the system the right hon. Gentleman supports depends for its existence upon the surplus of unemployed. No matter if your unemployed are 1,500,000 or merely 500,000, as long as you have that large surplus you have still the roots of the unemployment problem with you. What is the real evil of unemployment? It not only affects those who are actually unemployed, it affects every worker, because every man in industry knows that unless he is ready to work in bad conditions and at low wages some poor fellow who is out of a job is only too glad to get his job at any wage or under any conditions, and if you have your 500,000 surplus, that is going to be a lever which is for ever beating down wages, for ever reducing conditions and preventing that rise in purchasing power which alone can give a home market upon which a real industrial revival depends. Therefore, though I naturally agree that these Labour proposals for public utility works are essential and should be undertaken, and although I agree that they can do much to reduce unemployment in a very short space of time, yet, in themselves, they are not enough. For that purpose

    2137
    two other Measures are necessary which are not found in the programme of the right hon. Gentleman and are found in the programme of the Labour party alone—the removal at one end of industry of the aged, and at the other end of the young. Give to your old workers a pension upon which they can retire, if they wish, in decent conditions, and let their place be taken by the able-bodied unemployed. At the other end raise your school age and pay maintenance allowances to the mothers.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I fancy that some, if not all, of the proposals would need legislation.
    Sir O. MOSLEY: I bow at once to your Ruling, Sir. I only submit that there is a kind of pension system at present in existence, and I thought possibly I might suggest that a development of that system could be used to remedy the unemployment that we are discussing. But I do not want to develop this theme. I have merely suggested other measures which are quite beyond the scope of anything suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, and measures such as that, combined with these great public utility works, can go far towards reducing unemployment to vanishing point, and not until you have got rid of that surplus of unemployed can you expect that great advance in working-class conditions which will give us the large home market which is the basis of a real industrial recovery. Almost the whole of American prosperity rests upon the high purchasing power of the working class, and America, in addition to being the largest Free Trade area in the world, has other advantages. It has that federal reserve banking system, and it has, in addition, certain immigration laws, which have maintained a permanent shortage of labour. The result has been that labour is in a strong position and has fought for, and won, high wages.
    Mr. OLIVER STANLEY: Is there no permanent pool of unemployment in America?
    Sir O. MOSLEY: There was no substantial unemployment in America until the Federal Reserve System altered their policy, and the reason they altered their policy was that speculators got out of hand on Wall Street and their system
    2138
    was inadequate to deal with the situation without hitting industry. They pursued the extraordinary policy, although it is necessary to the present system, of a restriction of credit irrespective of the source to which the credit was flowing. The speculator is a man who borrows for a short time in the expectation of a very big return, and he does not mind so much paying a high rate of interest for his money as industry, which borrows for a longer period in expectation of a much smaller return.
    Mr. STANLEY: Surely the hon. Baronet is incorrect when he says the Federal Reserve System has not differentiated as to the reasons for which credit is required. Surely the whole basis of the difference between the Federal Reserve Rate to-day and the rate in Wall Street is the fact that the Federal Reserve has been loaning money to industry on lower terms.
    Sir O. MOSLEY: There is, of course, a difference between call money and the ordinary Federal Reserve rate, but that difference is not, and cannot be, nearly sufficient to check the present speculation. We are now getting the extraordinary situation that, not only is speculation out of hand in America, but you are having the large English bankers saying the rate of the Bank of England had to be raised primarily to check speculations in Wall Street. So we come to this, that dear credit obtains here, industry is slowed up and unemployment is created in Britain because our bankers are co-operating with the Federal Reserve board in a frantic effort to reduce speculation in New York. But this is all a divergence from the theme on which I wish to conclude my observations. If you can, by analogous measures, raise the purchasing power of your working-class population, your problem is on the road to being solved. Those analogous measures are to remove the surplus of unemployed by the expansion of your pension system for the old and by maintenance at school for the young, and at the same time to modernise your banking system and to direct its operations towards industry rather than to the maintenance of certain positions on the international money market. That must be the basis of any real remedy for unemployment, the gradual raising of

    2139
    wages and the increase of working-class purchasing power will supply the home market for our great staple trades which industry lacks. Any suggestions to that end are lacking from the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon. Any suggestions of any kind are lacking from the policy of the Government and such a policy and such proposals come alone from the Labour party.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: It always seems to me when I listen to the hon. Baronet that it would be a wise provision if all Members of this House at some time in their life had to earn their own living, because his speech shows a total lack of knowledge of the actual facts of industry. Apparently, to take one example, he is unaware that the Federal Reserve System has broken down completely, and that American industry and finance and commerce is faced at present with an appalling situation. The credit position has got completely out of hand, very largely owing to the existence of the Federal Reserve System. The enormous money rates which obtain for call money for speculative purposes in New York are got very largely from the surplus balances of the industrialists of the United States. To a very large extent, they are not bank credits at all, and every endeavour the Federal Reserve Bank makes to curtail loans for speculative purposes is bound to fail. If they pursue the policy of providing artificially cheap credit for industry, the only effect is to help industrialists by giving them cheap loans, so that they will have still further surplus funds to lend at a higher rate of interest for speculative purposes. The hon. Baronet also pointed out that several Prime Ministers in the past have come to this House and talked about the symptoms of reviving trade and he suggested that the present Government was guilty of the same offence. Very briefly I will give the hon. Baronet one or two present symptoms of reviving trade. The most recent Returns from the coal industry of this country show that we have now reached the normal output of coal. They also show that our exports of coal are mounting; that there is actually a bigger demand for export coal than what we are able to supply at the present time. They show that the prices which we are
    2140
    obtaining for export coal not only in South Wales, but also in the north country as well, are prices which are highly profitable to the coal industry of this country; so highly profitable that every coalmining district in this country is now making a fairly satisfactory profit—a profit which will enable the wages of the miners of Great Britain to be increased within a comparatively short space of time. That is one symptom of reviving trade.
    Another symptom is that thee actually is at the present time a very grave shortage of coke for the blast furnaces of our country, and so grave is the shortage that in one case at least a modern blast furnace has been blown out, simply because there is not coke enough. There is not coke enough because prices which are being offered for coke both for home use and for export are such that the production of by-product coke in this country is not sufficient to supply the furnace demands which exist at present. Another sign is the fact that the steel industry is now turning out what in the days before the War would be considered a thoroughly satisfactory output. Furthermore, one branch of the iron and steel industry which many of us thought was doomed to failure in the near future—the production of pig iron—is already in the position that there is a positive shortage of pig iron in this country at the present time. The steel works which have been using in recent years a very high percentage of scrap—higher than we used before the War—are finding a shortage of scrap since the flush of scrap iron and steel resulting from the War has now come to an end. A higher percentage of pig iron will have to be used in the open-hearth furnaces and that reacting upon the blast furnace trade will inevitably demand a further production of pig iron and actually the relighting of any furnaces of modern construction now blown out and probably the construction of still more modern furnaces in a comparatively short space of time.
    I am informed that in one of the neighbouring towns of Lancashire which is one of the most depressed areas in the cotton trade that the present unemployment figures in that trade are falling, and finally I may remind the hon. Baronet that week by week the

    2141
    total figures of unemployment are falling steadily and that actually there are very much larger numbers of people employed in the country now than there were eight years ago. Therefore, there are obvious symptoms of trade reviving in this country at the present time.
    I wish to refer to two other portions of his speech. He pointed out to us that the really depressed industries where unemployment is most severe were the export industries of this country, but he had already informed us that the one cure for unemployment was increasing the purchasing power of the working classes of the country. I ventured to interrupt by his permission and to ask him how he reconciled those two statements, that he was going to cure unemployment by raising the wages of the workers in this country although unemployment on his own figures was really a problem of the export trades. With his usual delicate taste, humour and courtesy, he endeavoured to make out that he had answered my question, but I submit to hon. Members who were present when I asked that question and when he made his reply that his answer had nothing whatever to do with the question and was in no sense a reply, and that the dilemma in which I placed him still remains.
    Of the unemployment figures of the present day we have to bear in mind that something like 200,000, or thereabouts, relate to the coal-mining industry of this country. Let us consider for a moment what those 200,000 may represent. They represent the redundant men that were brought into the industry during the period of the coal control. They represent the men who were retained in the industry by the passing of the Seven Hours Act. They represent the men who were still further retained in the industry by the policy of the Ministry of Mines in the Labour Government in 1924. If there is one thing which is perfectly clear to those of us who have no party bias—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Has anybody any objection to that statement?
    Mr. J. JONES: I have absolutely. You have class bias.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: I am willing to give way to any hon. Gentleman who wishes to make an observation. Those
    2142
    men were retained in the industry by the policy of the Labour Government of 1924. Those men had to be ejected from the industry if that industry were to survive and if the workers in that industry were to have a reasonable expectation of a proper wage for their work. In the main, those men are what we call the floating population of the mines. It has been usual in the coalmining industry of this country almost from time immemorial that there shall be a certain number of what we call the floating mining population, that is to say, men who prefer work in and about the mines when coal is fetching a high price and wages are high. When there is a slump in the coal trade and wages fall they have found occupation hitherto in other trades. These 200,000 have been the problem which this Government have had to face. The Government to my mind have done their best in that respect. They set up a strong committee to go into the whole question and to make recommendations. What was the gist of those recommendations? It was simply that there is no broad general policy which can deal with those 200,000 unemployed in the mining industry. Only by a succession of comparatively small schemes can we hope to reduce that number to reasonable proportions. As far as I can make out the Government have followed out the recommendations of that committee to the best of their ability and up to the present with very considerable success.
    The hon. Baronet referred to the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and he was inclined to pour scorn upon that scheme. But I would remind the hon. Baronet of this, that many years before he joined the Labour party, before he became an independent Member, and in fact in the remote days when he was a Conservative, the Labour party published a little pamphlet towards the end of the War, in which they outlined the whole scheme to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs has now attached his name. When it was first produced, there was nobody apparently who could say a decent word for it or encourage it in any way and that scheme was dropped only to be revived in the yellow pamphlet

    2143
    which was placed on the market just recently.
    The hon. Baronet, misled by having been deprived of the privilege of earning his own living at any time in his life, said that if people condemn this scheme of borrowing money to employ men for two years in making roads which are not wanted, they also condemn all borrowing of money for private enterprises of any kind. I would like to point out this, that if any of us industrialists borrow money to carry out schemes we do not anticipate that those schemes will only endure for a period of two years, nor do we anticipate that we should be able to raise money on the market or from the banks to carry out a scheme which like the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman is emphatically not required, certainly not urgently required, in this country at the present time. If there is one more useless way of wasting money than another in this country at the present time it is in the further extension of roads. Therefore, I would point out to the hon. Baronet that in private enterprise we do not borrow money which will be a burden upon us for the rest of our lives to carry out a scheme which will have come to an end in two years and will have produced something for which there is no demand. I commend to his consideration these few remarks from one who is pleased to say that he has had the privilege of earning his own living ever since his school-days.
    Mr. E. BROWN: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) indulged in remarks about taste and delicacy, and I must say that the last passage of his speech shows that he lacks a good deal of both. If I were to indulge in the personalities in which he indulged and if I were to describe him, I should say that he is a political pharisee and leave it at that. The Debate has been a very remarkable one. We have had speeches from all quarters of the House, and every one of those speeches seemed to centre round the personality of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). I am very pleased to note that, as I have no doubt will be the right hon. Gentleman when he reads the Debate to-morrow. I do not wonder that this is so. [Interruption.]
    2144
    I have been challenged about it, and I propose to say a word or two. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why is he not here? "] I do hope that the hon. Gentleman's memory is longer than that of the hon. Baronet. The memory of the hon. Baronet ought not to be quite so short, for I was present on 9th November last when the right hon. Gentleman did make a speech. It would appear that the hon. Baronet gives more attention to reading and preparing his own speeches than to listening to and digesting the speeches of other people. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) at that Box said that it was the official policy of the Labour party not to make constructive suggestions in this House, and whatever may be that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, he did stand up and deliver a speech, two-thirds of which was full of constructive suggestions. More than that, he appealed to the Minister to adopt the suggestions and put them into operation. He delivered a speech of over an hour's duration, and a Conservative Member, the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) went out of his way to point out that there was a vast difference between the sterility and inaction of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley and the constructive nature of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. The Socialist party seemed to be in a strange dilemma.
    Mr. MAXTON: Where is the right hon. Gentleman to-day? That is what I want to know.
    Mr. BROWN: I am just going to quote from a right hon. Gentleman who was not on that bench. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), referring to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, says: "They do not exist; they will not act." He gives away his case by referring to Maskelyne and Devant, and, like most Socialists, he is 30 years behind the times. Devant has been dead a quarter of a century. [Interruption.] It would appear that the Liberal party can infuse more life into debate than all the Socialists combined. The Socialists are in a strange dilemma. The right hon. Member for Derby says that our proposals are empty,

    2145
    useless wizardry and magic. The hon. Baronet the Member for Smethwick (Sir O. Mosley) does not dare to say that. He says that they are Labour proposals. He asserts that, so far as the loan is concerned, that has always been argued from the Labour benches and is a policy of the Labour party. His memory of Labour politics is short. I sat in this House, four years ago, when the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. MacDonald) was Prime Minister, and the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) had a chance of initiating schemes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rabbits!"] I am not talking about rabbits. The appropriate comment about rabbits was made by an agricultural worker, who wrote some doggerel lines to this effect:
    "To bees you go for honey,
    For kittens you go to a cat;
    But what can you do with a bunny
    That won't come out of the hat? "
    I can assure the right hon. Member for Preston that the reference to rabbits did not come from me. The reminder came from his own benches. It will be news to the right hon. Member for Aberavon to learn that the hon. Baronet has stated that the policy of a loan has always been the policy of the Socialist party. What did the right hon. Member for Aberavon say in 1924, when his was Prime Minister? He said:
    "I wish to make it perfectly clear that the Government have no intention of drawing off from the normal channels of trade large sums for extemporised measures which can only be palliatives. That is the old, sound Socialist doctrine, and the necessity of expenditure for subsidising schemes in direct relief of unemployment will be judged in relation to the greater necessity for maintaining undisturbed the ordinary financial facilities and resources of trade and industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1924; col. 760, Vol. 169.]
    The hon. Baronet was kind enough to refer to my inadequacy. I accept his rebuke with due meekness, but his claim that a loan is part of the Socialist policy is inadequate, in the face of the statement which I have quoted from his own leader, at the time that he was Prime Minister. The one thing that arises from this Debate is that the Socialist party are perfectly prepared, as they have been during the whole of the past five years, to condemn the Government for not taking action; but they themselves are not prepared to put forward definite constructive proposals. The ex-Chancellor
    2146
    of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Colne Valley said, in this House, on the 9th November:
    "It is not for us to put forward proposals. We have innumerable proposals, but we are not discussing that question at the present moment. We are now discussing the failure of the Government to deal with this problem. On many occasions we have pointed out how the Labour party would deal with this problem, and we should not deal with it in the pettifogging way in which the Government now say they are going to attempt to deal with it by applying small remedies to great evils."
    The right hon. Gentleman also said:
    "It is not our business to put forward constructive proposals. We have not the authority of the country to put forward constructive proposals now."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1928; cols. 391–393, Vol. 222.]
    Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members of the Labour party consistently in the country claim that they, and they alone, know how to deal with unemployment, it seems rather farcical for them to put a Motion upon the Order Paper, condemning the Government. Ever since I was returned to this House two years ago and have sat in my box—[Laughter.] Hon. Members are amused. It is not for me to make a comment upon that slip. I have sat in this corner ever since I was returned, and in every unemployment Debate I have tried to put forward practical suggestions for remedying unemployment. It is not 80 easy for a Member who sits for a place like Leith to treat the problem of unemployment as the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) treats it. When one has 5,000 unemployed out of 25,000 workers, it is not so easy to address to the House purely academic arguments. There was a very wise man who told one of the highbrows the other day—
    Mr. HOPKINSON: I cannot give the number of unemployed in my district, but, seeing that its industries are coalmining, iron working, and cotton spinning, the probability is that, out of the 45,000 electors, precious few of whom are middle-class workers, there will be at least 5,000 who are unemployed.
    Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member has not helped his case. I say that quite bluntly. The hon. Member is very plain to other people. I should be ashamed to stand up in this House and to say that

    2147
    I had unemployed in my division and that I did not know the number. I consider it to be the duty of every hon. Member who has a large number of unemployed in his constituency to follow the returns that come out week by week, so that he may know the number of unemployed in his district. I will leave the hon. Member there. To-day's Debate although it has arisen on a Motion by hon. Members above the Gangway, has produced from those benches not a single proposal which would make one job for one out-of-work man. During the whole period of unemployment they have not produced one new or original idea to make one job of work for one unemployed man.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: That is not true.
    Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) will have his chance directly. There are three views on the Socialist benches. There is the purely destructive view, there are the creative views and there are the views which we may call the purely intellectual. The right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) takes the destructive view. Speaking of the policies of both parties, he said:
    "A plague on both your policies. We are going out, if possible, to smash them both."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th November, 1923; col. 553, Vol. 168.]
    The right hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson), speaking in the country about this problem said—I suppose this is the creative view—
    "There is only one way of tackling the problem—the introduction of a new industrial order based upon public ownership and democratic control of the primary sources of wealth."
    I do not profess to understand what the right hon. Gentleman means. When we come to the pure intellect of the party, the intelligentsia of the Socialist party, we find the late President of the Board of Trade, the right hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) saying:
    "The proper way to deal with unemployment is to prevent it from occurring."
    The Liberal party having attracted rather more than its fair share of time in this Debate, perhaps the House will allow me to say a few words about the future. The Government must not complain of criticism. My late opponent, the hon. Member for Rugby (Captain
    2148
    Margesson) will remember that at the last election there were ladders showing unemployment and employment, on the hoardings in the Rugby division. The Government complained four times when they were in Opposition and moved four Votes of Censure during ten months against the Labour Government, on this particular issue. They cannot now claim that they themselves shall not be judged by the same results that they asked for from their predecessors in office. The figures of unemployment are larger now than when they took office, although they have produced some constructive ideas, and I have no doubt that parts of the Local Government Bill will have an indirect effect upon unemployment, months ahead. Notwithstanding, I think the Minister of Labour has misled the Government, judging by his speeches, into believing that if they only left the problem alone for five years, recovery would be made. I cannot conceive that the Minister of Labour, with his knowledge of the industrial situation, would have permitted the cutting down of the work of the Unemployment Grants Committee by the Circular of the 15th December, 1925, if he had not hoped that the situation would have righted itself by the end of their tenure of office.
    The hon. Baronet the Member for Smethwick should be encouraged to pursue his researches a little further into the policy of the Liberal party. If he will read not only the small pamphlet which has proposed a definite policy for two years, but the larger volume—he can afford 2s. 6d.—he will find that he is not alone in suggesting the question of the school age alteration or pensions. If he will read the first report on the coal problem produced by any political party, namely, the Liberal party's policy, "Coal and Power," he will find that suggestions were made by the Liberal party long ago. I welcome the interest which has been shown in the personality of the Liberal leader and the proposals which he has made, I am sure that what has been the case in this House to-day will be the case in the country, and with this result, that the country will do what my right hon. Friend is doing—it will call for action to cut down the number on the live register of unemployed.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I cordially welcome this Motion. The strongest supporter

    2149
    of the Government could hardly have done it a kindlier act than has been done by the putting of this Amendment upon the Order Paper. The country has the right to discuss what the Government have been doing or are likely to do, and the country has a right to know what the Liberal party and the Socialist party have in their minds to do. Now, for the first time, after four years of dreary, unconstructive criticism, we have the other parties out in the open to-day, and this Motion gives us a chance of comparing policies. The Motion
    "views with grave concern the continued existence of a gigantic volume of unemployment; deplores the refusal of the Government to take any active measures for stimulating industry, by well-considered schemes of national improvement and development."
    It is still a gigantic volume of unemployment, and it is a volume that we deplore. It is a volume that is not less through the action that the Leader of the Opposition took at the beginning of the general strike. It is a volume made none the less by the journalistic activities of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) during the same period.
    We deplore it, but at last it is improving, and rapidly. Hon. Members opposite have referred again and again to the fact that, even now, the figure of unemployment is higher than when we took office. They are out of date; it is not higher. I have received the preliminary figures of the results for next Wednesday. There was an improvement last week of 118,000, of which about 45,000 were due to the stoppage of the cold weather and 70,000 were due to sheer improvement in trade. This week the increase in employment due entirely to improvement in trade, 86,000. Mark the joy of the hon. Members opposite! I have never see a real improvement in trade greeted with such hang dog looks. At the present moment the figure of unemployment is some 36,000 less than when we took office. That is not the whole story. Hon. Members opposite will no doubt appreciate the fact that while it is 36,000 less than when we took office, 550,000 fresh people have entered into the insured trades. In other words, judged by percentage, which is the proper method, the percentage has been reduced from 10.9 when we took office to 10.3 now, and that half per cent. in figures means an improvement in numbers
    2150
    of employed persons of 84,000 as com-pared with when we took office four years ago. That is the present figure of unemployment, and I say that it is stills too large. Hon. Members opposite now know the facts which they have received with such pleasure.
    I come to the "well-considered schemes of national improvement and development." As the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) has said, one naturally thinks first of the most recent and spectacular. He said that no doubt the attention of the House would be drawn to these proposals. He has referrd to the fact that the leader of his party is not present to-day on just the one occasion when his proposals might have been debated. I have no doubt that the attention of the country will be drawn to them as well, and that on any occasion when he can be tackled, the right hon. Member will be absent as he is to-day. Might I ask the House briefly to consider the pledge which the right hon. Gentleman gave:
    "I am prepared to give a definite pledge with regard to unemployment. This is very important. I have considered even the very words of it. That is why I will not give it to you except in the very words which my colleagues, and I will stand by."
    Then he says:
    "We are ready with schemes of work which we can put immediately into operation….The work put in hand will reduce the terrible figures of the workless in the course of a single year to normal proportions."
    and without any cost to anybody.
    Mr. E. BROWN: He did not say that.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: He said:
    "These plans will not add one penny to the national or local taxation."
    Mr. BROWN: That is not the same thing.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs says that he has considered the very words he used by which his colleagues and he will stand; and that he will reduce unemployment in a single year. This is the only place where these schemes can he properly debated and examined. Take housing. I do not think anyone will accuse the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs of being a house-builder with his record before the War, when he reduced house building so much that the problem which confronted us afterwards

    2151
    was far greater than it otherwise would have been. Take two points which have not yet been fully mentioned. He is going to put between 580,000 and 600,000 men at work by his schemes. Electricity is to provide work for 62,000 more men in the next year. Is that in addition to the Government programme, or is it the Government programme, If it is the Government programme he is bearing testimony to the electricity scheme of the Government.
    Mr. BROWN: It is his own programme.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If it is in addition to the Government programme, then let me say that if he would consult, as I have, people in the industry and connected with it, who know the facts, they will tell him that at the present moment in order to fulfil the orders that are being given out the trade is strained to its uttermost, and to add orders which will give work to 62,000 more men, or half that number, is a sheer impossibility. Every practical person in the trade knows that. I take one other type of statement that was made. In addition to ordinary road building, another 350,000 men are to be put on to make roads within the year. I should like to ask the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs a question—let me ask it through the hon. Member for Leith. We have had comments lately about the Defence of the Realm Act. Is the right hon. Member going to acquire the land by ordinary procedure—
    Mr. MacLAREN: Land Taxes.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That means legislation, and will take months—or is he going to call to his help the old Defence of the Realm Act procedure? Let us know which. If he is going to apply the Defence of the Realm Act procedure everyone will know where they are and where the right hon. Gentleman stands. If not, it will take months to start, as everybody knows, with the ordinary service of notices, and yet he is going to do it within the year. I have been concerned in building roads, and I have consulted surveyors, and I put it to the ordinary common sense of every hon. Member that if anyone wants to build a road they have to get it surveyed, get the plans made, the quantities
    2152
    taken out, the specifications drawn up, and then they have to let the contracts. It is an absolutely inconceivable possibility to put 350,000 more men on to roads in a year, and everyone knows it. Any hon. Member of this House without any special technical knowledge or experience has Been roads being made with 50 or 100 men at work, and they have seen quite inevitably how slowly it goes on. If that is the case with 50 or 100 men, you have to multiply that by 3,000 in order to produce the right hon. Gentleman's figures. And we have to realise that all the costs are to be borne by the Government, and have to go, quite properly, under examination and criticism by Government Departments. That is why when I put a question to one or two most competent surveyors the answer was given to me in language which I am not at liberty to repeat in the House.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Give us the effect of this opinion, leaving out the adjectives.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The effect of it was that it was absolutely and inconceivably impossible. Then, briefly, what good will be done when the roads are made? The object on which the money is spent makes all the difference in a matter of this kind. If anyone were to raise £1,000,000 and build a factory, what would happen? When the factory was built and the machinery installed, after the construction work had been finished, after the builders and masons had finished their jobs, and the engineers had finished their work, you would have a productive asset left which gives employment at once in an ordinary business way. That is one result when the work is justified. On the other hand, what would be the case with roads? There is a limited amount of road making which no doubt is desirable. One hundred years ago, when railways were being made they did not give employment directly at once like a factory, but they facilitated an improvement in production later. That may be the case with a few roads, but to ask any transport specialist to produce thousands of miles of new roads quickly cannot be justified on any economic ground whatever. When the work is over there is no immediate return and the men are back on the streets again.

    2153
    We all know the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs—his Corn Production Act passed one year, and repealed the next. His land taxes first imposed, as rare and refreshing fruit, and then the tree cut down and thrown on the ash-heap. Now he has planted it again. With regard to safeguarding, it is just the same. First, he opposed anything of the kind, then he put on Safeguarding Duties, and now he is a Free Trader again. The party opposite have a similar opinion about his work, his promises and his schemes, but the most unkind cut of all comes from one of his own colleagues—and remember they have considered the very words of his pledge: "That is why I will not give it to you except in the very words which my colleagues and I will stand by." Let me read the words of his principal colleague in this House, the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman). Speaking last November, he said:
    "There have been large public works, as the right hon. Gentleman so truly said, done at public expense, which really have brought very little return, and in some cases no permanent return whatever. We have passed from the stage where that is likely to be or can be a solution of these very difficult problems."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th November, 1928; col. 275, Vol. 222.]
    And his colleague has repeated these words since the proposals were made. He repeated them at Liverpool:
    "He did not believe that anyone could by State action bring about a permanent cure of unemployment. The only way for that was by a genuine expansion of trade."
    Mr. BROWN: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to read this?
    "The most practical suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman was with regard to expenditure on public works. I am sure the House must heartily agree that, if money is to be spent on relief works, it had far better be spent on remunerative work than on any other. No one has more consistently advocated expenditure on wholesome relief works than those who have been authors of the Liberal scheme."
    7.0 p.m.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Then why does he now say we do not believe that anyone can by State action bring about a permanent improvement? That is the type of scheme we are given by the Liberal party, which its author does not come to defend. The position of the Labour party is at least as instructive.
    Mr. MAXTON: What about the Conservative party?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am dealing with them all. I now deal with the Labour party. We are told that the Labour party will make no "stunt of unemployment." What is making a "stunt of unemployment"? Surely, making a "stunt of unemployment" means drawing attention to it for political purposes or making it a pawn in the party game, and the people who made that statement have been doing that for the last four years.
    Mr. T. SHAW: Does the Minister forget that we deliberately proposed to make unemployment a non-party issue?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The right hon. Gentleman's party continues to treat it as the opposite. I have read with great care through all their publications, and there are only a few suggestions which can be reduced to the concrete, and to start with they are primarily those dealing with finance. We are told that one great method by which the Labour party hope to reduce unemployment is by increasing the purchasing power of the people in this country. That has been stated to-day. I agree with that if it is coupled with production, but not if it is based on what cannot be described as anything else but a gigantic system of doles. The Leader of the Labour party, in his recent speech, referred to the increased benefits that would be given by the Labour party on their return to office. The whole policy of the Labour party on that question has been to give largely increased benefits by the aid of a new tax which they call the Surtax. I am precluded by the Rules of Order from discussing in detail the Surtax, and I shall in passing say this: It was produced out of the minority report of the Colwyn Report. It was said it was going to produce £85,000,000. That has now been admitted by its author to have been miscalculated and to have been built up on one vast mistake, and, instead of producing £85,000,000, the maximum that it can possibly produce would be about £40,000,000 a year. The Leader of the Opposition is also pinning his faith to it by saying: "Make no mistake. That is what we are going on with." I refrain from discussing

    2155
    it further because of the Rules of Order. I asked the House to pay attention to the benefits which have been referred to and stated without correction by the hon. Member for Smethwick (Sir O. Mosley) when he spoke just now. What are the benefits that are going to be given in order to increase the purchasing power? He advocates Old Age Pensions, costing £32,780,000.
    Sir O. MOSLEY: I never gave any figure.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, you never gave any figure, but we had the figure calculated on the data given by your party. They will find that data in Leaflet 174. Increased unemployment benefit will cost £51,500,000; education, which has just been referred to, will cost £32,400,000; health insurance, following the same course as unemployment, £27,000,000; widows' pensions, which they have mentioned specifically, would cost £64,500,000 at the least; other pensions to single women and orphans would cost £15,500,000, and other benefits would cost £5,000,000. If the money was all to come like manna from Heaven, we should not object. The total so far is £229,000,000 per annum for the benefits to which they officially pledge themselves. In addition to that, they are now pledged by their own publications to "work or maintenance" and also committed to it by this very Amendment. The calculation which has been made by my office is that that would cost £62,000,000 additional to that to which they are officially committed. In other words, they are committed on this score alone to over £290,000,000. They have to get that out of the Surtax. It is no good talking about other sources of income. They are hypothecated already to the Sinking Fund, the payment to the Poor Law, and so on.
    Sir O. MOSLEY: On a point of Order. Is the right hon. Member entitled to discuss the imposition of duties which involve legislation?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Member is not discussing how he is going to do these things.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: In his concluding remarks, the hon. Member himself said that these were their ways
    2156
    of dealing with unemployment, and they are dealing with it by trying to get £290,000,000 out of the Surtax.
    Mr. MAXTON: On a point of Order. My hon. Friend ventured to deal with the points with which the Minister is now dealing freely and was immediately called to order by the Chair. Is it to be permitted to the right hon. Gentleman to deal with them?
    Mr. SPEAKER: If hon. Members would not make so much noise, I would be able to hear what the Minister is saying. I am constantly saying during this Debate that this sort of question cannot be debated. Owing to the noise, I cannot hear what is being said.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not going to pursue this question further. I only dealt with it because the hon. Member raised it. Hon. Members opposite are objecting to my dealing with it now only because they do not like it. They know that, absurd as are the proposals of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, yet, as compared with those of the Labour party, their folly is "as moonlight unto sunlight, and as water unto wine." No wonder that, when he heard of these proposals, the Socialist ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer said that his blood ran cold. Though his blood ran cold, he toed the line in the end, and, shivering with cold, he supports them. The only comfort he can really take is that he knows perfectly well that neither he nor any of his side would ever endeavour to carry them out. If any more proof is required, it is to the leaflet in which these things are set out that I would turn. There are two editions of this leaflet, both of which I hold in my hand. In the first, they are given definitely, but in the second, while the rest of the leaflet remains the same, yet since criticism has been directed towards them, they have began not to put it to them quite so plainly. Those are their proposals for diminishing unemployment and increasing purchasing power. They have their other unemployment proposals besides those that are purely financial, and, as the Leader of the party opposite has told us:
    "in dealing with unemployment, we believe we have the programme, we have ideas, and we have the power no other party possesses."
    Well, naturally, when I listened to that claim, I waited with extraordinary interest

    2157
    for the proposals that the Leader of the Opposition would make when he made his great speech at Swansea. I wondered what they could be, what new ideas we should get put forward with all the power that they possessed. I looked through the speech, and then the murder is out. The new-ideas are these:
    "land settlement, afforestation in conjunction with small forest villages, drainage, building houses, clearing slums, and the development of electric power. On these lines actively and steadily pursued the Labour Government will go on tackling the problem."
    Above all programmes, what a complete absence of new ideas there is in this! We might be going back 30 years, for all the new ideas we get from the party opposite. Everything that the Labour party or the Liberal party suggests is exactly what we have ourselves been carrying out. Electrical development—over £6,000,000 of contracts have already been given out. The trade cannot possibly proceed at a greater pace and is being strained to the uttermost. That is being done. No one can possibly push the capacity of the trade further at this moment. Housing is the next item of which they speak. There have been 800,000 houses built in four years in England and Wales and 60,000 in Scotland. It is record unequalled by any country in the world at any time. Next there is slum clearance.
    HON. MEMBERS: Where?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Hon. Members do not know that there are slum clearance schemes. There are already 121 schemes approved. There have already been, in addition to house building, 15,000 properties dealt with, involving 75,000 people being re-housed and 16,700 new houses being built. In Scotland there are schemes for reconditioning 14,000 and building 14,000 new houses. Afforestation is their next new invention—a policy at present going forward, with £5,500,000, and £1,000,000 for forest workers' holdings. The Opposition seem just to have discovered this remedy. The only thing I can say is a caution that, so far as it means helping unemployment, the number of men that can be employed on even an enormous forestry scheme is comparatively small. It is wise building for the far future to replant and afforest,
    2158
    but the number of men that can be employed at the moment is not great, and the number of people who are needed to look after forest holdings cannot be great either.
    Drainage was their next discovery. There are two programmes of drainage in hand now, involving £1,300,000. Then we come to roads. This year, so far as the making and maintaining of roads that are necessary to meet economic needs are concerned, £12,000,000 has been spent on maintenance, and on an average during each of these last years £5,500,000 has been spent on the making of new roads. Let me pass now to the Resolution on the Paper. Take "maintenance and training." Fancy being condemned by the party opposite on the question of training! When the Socialists were in power, when they held the reins incompetently in their hands, they never produced a single proposal for training a single adult man—not one—these people who are now so much in love with the idea. Up to the present we have places for training 17,000 men a year for work at home or abroad. We have spare places which we are anxious to get filled. We have extended the training accommodation up to the full capacity that was wanted.
    Lastly, there is transference. We are transferring men, and it is a standing disgrace to the party opposite that they have not helped us in that matter.
    All the schemes that they have touched on, with their boast of new ideas, are things that we are doing at this moment, but we are not going round with a trumpet or a trombone to herald the fact. I have said what we have done and what- we are doing. All these schemes are good in themselves, but of course in themselves they are only palliatives from the unemployment point of view. They do some good, but they do not go down to the root of the question, and none of the schemes proposed by either party opposite has ever dealt with the root of the question. Any real remedy must go down to the causes of the trouble.
    The two chief causes of unemployment—I dealt with them in detail the other day, and will mention them only briefly now—are, first, the falling off in emigration since the War, which has meant an extra 300,000 to 400,000 on the labour market here; and, secondly, the falling off in the volume of foreign trade, which

    2159
    has meant the unemployment of from 700,000 to 800,000 in this country, calculated by the best-informed economists. Those are the fundamental causes which have made unemployment such an intractable thing to deal with. Let me take each of these causes. The decrease of emigration has meant that 300,000 to 400,000 insured persons have been left on the market here without jobs. That is the reason why we want safeguarding; that is the reason why we realise that if there is work that can be done just as well in this country, we should keep it for those 300,000 or 400,000.
    The hon. Member for Smethwick with a great air of wisdom said there were 800,000 people who were not interested in safeguarding, and he referred to coal and transport. Of all the people who will be helped, they would be helped as much as any. Suppose that iron and steel were safeguarded. Does anyone mean to say that in the making of a ton of iron or steel there would not be used two or three more tons of coal? Would not that help go to coal? What is true of that is true in greater or less degree of the other trades, all of which burn fuel. Again, take the case of transport. If I make a ton of machinery in this country, for that ton I have to bring in twice the amount of raw material. There is the transport. It is necessary to use three tons of coal and a ton of iron. It would mean six times as much transport on the railways as would otherwise be necessary. The result is shown in one trade after another. [Interruption.]
    Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask hon. Members to give the Minister a chance of speaking.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The result, in every one of the trades that have been safeguarded has been an increase in employment. That is one way of going to the root of the problem. Take next the falling off in the volume of our foreign trade. The calculation of Professor Bowley was that this falling off accounted for the unemployment of between 700,000 and 800,000 persons. To what is that due? To the fact that new industries have grown up in some overseas markets during and since the War, and that the competition from our Continental rivals, especially that aided by debased currencies,
    2160
    has been extraordinarily keen. That is where de-rating comes in. The object of it is to take from industry the burdens that go directly towards raising the cost of the article which has to be sold in competition with a similar article from other countries. The effect of de-rating is concentrated on just those industries which have suffered most by competition. It is there that the relief will be greatest.
    HON. MEMBERS: Breweries?
    Sir A. STEEL MAITLAND: Not only so, but the relief given to transport under de-rating is passed on in reduced rates, and merchandise is carried more cheaply and effectively to the coast. Thus we may hope to regain our foreign markets and to put back into employment some of the 700,000 or 800,000 men who have been thrown out of work.
    Those are the reasons why we come to this house and why we shall go to the country quite confidently. Every single thing which has been advocated by the party of ideas opposite is a thing which we have been doing for years. What we have done, in addition, has been to deal with the problem that really has caused the unemployment by adopting safeguarding and de-rating. That work we shall continue to do, when the schemes of our opponents have met with contempt and gone into oblivion.
    Mr. T. SHAW: I had not intended to take part in this Debate, out the extraordinary performance of the Minister of Labour has induced me to say a few words. He began by saying that he welcomed the opportunity of telling the House what the Government had done with regard to unemployment. He finished his speech by saying that his party would go to the country with confidence. I remember the right hon. Gentleman calling my attention, on one occasion, to a quotation from a Frenchman. He made a mistake with the name of the Frenchman, but his quotation was fairly accurate:
    "L'audace, encore l'audace, toujours l'audace."
    Audacity is possessed in full measure by any Member of the Government who welcomes an opportunity of talking about unemployment and who goes to the country with confidence. Such a Minister does not need to be told anything by

    2161
    Danton or any other Frenchman, for he has sufficient audacity to carry him anywhere.
    It being half-past Seven of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

  PACIFIC CABLE BOARD BILL [Lords]. (By Order.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
  I very much regret that the important Debate on unemployment has had to be interrupted for this Measure. The interruption, however, will allow Members of the party opposite a few minutes in order to get their chops and cool their heads before the Debate is resumed at half past eight o-clock. I wish to apologise to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is always so courteous and go willing to assist Members, for not having given him notice of the specific points which I intend to raise on this Bill. I was not able to do so because of the difficulty of knowing which Department is dealing with these telegraph and cable matters. Sometimes it is the Post Office, sometimes it is the Colonial Office and sometimes it is the Treasury. I understand that since we first put down this Amendment on the Paper, important conferences have taken place culminating in a conference held this morning at the Post Office. That conference, I gather, has gone a long way towards meeting some of the objections which we had in mind when we originally blocked this Bill.
  The first question which I wish to ask is why has this Bill been smuggled in through a back door in another place as a Private Bill instead of being brought in as a Government Measure? It was introduced in another place and then it
  2162
  came along here and if some of us had not noticed it on the Order Paper it might have been passed through all its stages without any discussion at all. I do not press the point but in considering the nature of this Bill we have to remember exactly what the Pacific Cable Board is. It is not a private concern. It is an official body comprising representatives of this Government and of the Governments of Canada, Australia and New Zealand. I see no reason why this should be a case for a Private Bill. The House will remember that the men who are dealt with in this Bill control a very important section of what is known as "the all-red route." The Pacific Cable Board covers the communications from the other end of the Imperial line, by-land line and submarine cable, via Vancouver to Sydney and New Zealand and by land line to other parts of Australia.
  The Bill on the surface appears quite simple and innocent. It proposes to do two things. Clause 3 proposes to continue certain trusts which deal with the provident and pension funds of the Pacific Cable Board and the West Indian Cable undertaking. I raise no question on Clause 3, but when we come to Clause 4 we find that powers are given to merge this provident fund with a provident fund which may or may not be formed by an unknown body called the Communications Company. The Bill, in effect, presupposes the formation of a Communications Company provident fund or pension fund, in which will be included employés now employed in the Pacific Cable Board, the West Indian telegraph undertaking, the beam wireless stations and the cable office of the General Post Office in London. We are, therefore, within our rights in discussing the terms of the transfer of all these men who are going to be dealt with by the Communications Company's provident fund. Clause 4 provides for any difficulties which may arise, and I wish to make the point that it allows for any officials or men who may be transferred continuing to enjoy the same rights as they have now. Subsection (2, a) provides that it shall be certified by the Government actuary that
  "the rights and benefits which are secured by the scheme to persons being beneficiaries under the trusts of the existing fund are at least as valuable as the rights and benefits secured by the said trusts."

  2163
  That seems all right, but only if the new terms of service in the new company are as good as the present terms of service—as, for example, if the men transferred are to have as much security of tenure as they enjoy now under these Government and semi-Government undertakings. It does not matter what pension you promise a man if he is likely to lose his job before reaching the age at which the pension is likely to be given. It is of no avail to him to prophesy the pension which he is otherwise likely to get. I raise this point on this Bill in particular because the cable officers in the Pacific Cable Board are not as well organised as those in other undertakings. I am given to understand that they are not connected with any of the big organisations of operators, and it is just because they have no organised voice with which to put their views before the authorities that it is necessary to consider their case.
  Up to the end of last year, there were wholesale reductions in the staff of the Pacific Cable Board as in many other cable undertakings. The chief reason was that up to a certain period these cables were operated by means of human relays. Instead of these relays certain mechanical devices are now used, and this led to a protest which is referred to in the report of the Pacific Cable Board published last year—which, I suppose, is the last trace of the workings of the Pacific Cable Board that the general public will ever see. This is what the report says:
  "Some dissatisfaction which took the form of a petition to the Board was expressed as to the consequences of the economies which it was necessary to make to meet the altered circumstances of the Board's working. These petitions nave been very carefully considered but, apart from certain minor concessions, the Board feel unable to authorise complete staff reorganisation pending (1) the control of the system by the Chairman; (2) the result of the Imperial Wireless and Cable Conference."
  Therefore, nothing was done to meet the complaint of the men who had been dismissed. When the merger takes effect, as we are led to believe it is going to take effect, there will be many more dismissals. When the cable concerns are merged with the beam wireless organisation more work will be done by wireless and less by cable. I would remind the
  2164
  House that we are dealing here with a substantial sum of money. In the provident fund there is £166,826 and in the pensions fund £147,772. I have not been able to obtain the figures of the West Indian concern's provident fund, and perhaps the Financial Secretary will be able to give them when he replies. That concern publishes no reports. Then there is another fund which is included in the last report of the Pacific Cable Board but which does not appear to have been included in the Bill—a pensions guarantee fund of £36,860. Therefore, without taking into account the fund of the West Indian concern, there is a total of £351,458. An actuary could say at once whether this was an asset or a deficit. From my own examination of the report of the Pacific Cable Board it seems to me that this fund is a great asset indeed.
  Last year, only a few thousands of pounds were paid out in benefits and pensions to the employés of the Pacific Cable Board while new securities purchased by the profits of the scheme amounted to between £20,000 and £30,000. I would recall to hon. Members that only £517,000 was paid for the whole Pacific Cable concern in this transaction, and, if we take this asset of £351,000, leaving out of account altogether the fund of the West Indian concern, we find that the Communications Company actually pay only £166,000 for the whole Pacific Cable undertaking. The Communications Company, when formed, will undoubtedly benefit by receiving this enormous sum of £351,300 and they will start off with a first-rate pension fund which looks, on the surface, capable of providing all the pensions required not only for those taken over from the Pacific Cable Board but for any other employés who may be transferred. It is all right to say that the employés of the Pacific Cable Board are going to get the same terms for pension as they get at present. Before we pass this Bill what concerns us is the question of the conditions of transfer apply-to these men. I have here a copy of a memorandum issued by the Post Office stating the proposed terms of transfer of the staff employed in these various undertakings. The first Clause is to the effect that the number of posts in the various grades to be transferred to the Communications Company is shown in

  2165
  an attached schedule and the schedule, with which I do not propose to trouble the House, is a list of a number of different grades of engineers and other officials.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): In respect of what service?
  Mr. MALONE: All these services.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: Are not the terms uniform for all the services?
  Mr. SAMUEL: Is the hon. Member referring to the wireless side of the transfer?
  Mr. MALONE: I understand, and I shall be glad of correction if I have been misled, that the Post Office have issued a suggested agreement covering the terms for all the employés who are to be roped in under the umbrella of the new Communications Company.
  Mr. SAMUEL: I would point out to the hon. Member that this Bill has nothing to do with the wireless service and if he is putting forward arguments based on assumptions of what wireless operators will or will not get, that question I submit has nothing to do with the Bill. This Bill simply deals with the employés of the Pacific Cable Board.
  Mr. MALONE: I did not mention the word "wireless." I am discussing the proposals as to the terms of service under the Communications Company when it is formed. Those proposals admittedly include beam wireless employés but they also include employés from the cable office at the General Post Office and employés of the Pacific Cable Board with whom we are specifically concerned in this discussion. If there is any other agreement I hope the Financial Secretary will bring it before us. The second Clause in the Post Office memorandum states that the staff engaged on certain work exceeds the number to be transferred, owing to rotation and part time employment. That means that the staff is in excess of the number of people likely to be transferred. Then there is a Clause which says:
  "The Company will take over members of the existing staff up to a number not exceeding that shown in the Schedule for each grade."
  2166
  That clearly presupposes a balance of men who will be left out of employment. This is more important. It says:
  "The Company will make an offer of employment to members of the staff who are or who have been engaged on the service, this offer being extended to a sufficient number of officers of each grade to secure, if possible, a transfer of the numbers shown in the Schedule."
  I want to say that no offer has yet been made by the Communications Company, and I do not think we should discuss a section of their future conditions until we know the whole of those conditions. Clause 5 says:
  "Where there are more eligible officers of a grade than there are posts to be transferred, the offer will be made to those officers in the order of their length of employment."
  That again clearly presupposes a balance of men who will not be employed. Then it says:
  "The Company will specify in detail the terms of service offered to each transferee. These terms will comply with the following conditions:"
  One of these conditions is very important. It is:
  "(a) they shall be at least as favourable as the terms enjoyed by him immediately prior to the date of transfer, including hours of duty, remuneration, allowances, pension, gratuity, and other superannuation rights, free medical attendance, sick pay, and other benefits or privileges, whether enjoyed as a right or by customary practice."
  That sounds very well, but I believe that under some of these conditions of employment a man does not attain his full privileges unless he has been in the service for a period of five years. There is no condition whatever that this period of probation shall continue uninterrupted when a man transfers from one of these concerns into the service of this unknown Communications Company. Then we come to the last of the points, which is very important:
  "The company shall guarantee at least five years' employment on the foregoing terms to each transferee, so long as he remains less than 60 years of age and subject to the maintenance of good health and conduct."
  I suggest that service on a guarantee of five years in a private company is not comparable with the permanent service which an officer under the Pacific Cable Board at present enjoys. I know that if the Postmaster-General were here, he

  2167
  would say there is no real continuity of service at present, but he is not here, and I suggest that anyone who knows anything about the Civil Service must realise that employment under these concerns cannot be compared with a Jive years' guarantee from a private company. There are some other Clauses with which I will not trouble the House, but those are the proposals that the Postmaster-General has presumably agreed with the Communications Company and which are about to be put to the employés concerned.
  Mr. SAMUEL: On a point of Order. Should not the discussion be confined, not to terms of service, but to pensions?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I am trying to make out what the Post Office has to do with this Bill. I thought it was the Pacific Cable Board that was concerned.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Nor does it deal with terms of service. It deals solely with the pension and provident funds.
  Mr. BENN: On a point of Order. May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the Assistant Postmaster-General said, when we were debating this question previously;
  "All men serving on cable ships will be in exactly the same position as any other postal servant."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1928; col. 1661, Vol. 223.]
  The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Amery): Surely that refers to people serving on cable ships under the Post Office, and has nothing to do with the Pacific Cable Board.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I certainly do not see what the Post Office has to do with the Pacific Cable Board.
  Mr. MALONE: The reference I have just made to the Post Office was concerned with the Memorandum produced by the Postmaster-General, which has been the basis of discussion of a conference, presided over, I understand, by Sir Basil Blackett, Chairman-Designate of the Company, in which all these interests were concerned, and I think it will be in order to refer to the conditions of service of the men before we agree to the transfer of their pension fund to some unknown body. I want to compare the terms offered by that Memorandum to
  2168
  the statement made by the Postmaster-General in this House on 7th December, when we were discussing the employés of the Pacific Cable Board and other organisations. He then said:
  "We promise that no unestablished man will be displaced, and that every established man will preserve his rights."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1928; col. 1662, Vol. 223.]
  If anybody reads the Memorandum which I have just quoted, which I hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury can say is the wrong Memorandum in this connection—
  Mr. SAMUEL: As the hon. Member appeals to me, I would ask him to look at the Title of the Bill, which is:
  "An Act to make provision as to the pension fund and provident funds established by the Pacific Cable Board."
  I suggest, with great respect, Mr. Speaker, that our Debate must be kept within: the limits of those words.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Malone) appears to be discussing all sorts of things except the Bill now before the House, which deals, so far as I can make out, merely with pensions for these employés.
  Mr. MALONE: Surely the pensionable rights of these employés depend on their length of service. If they are transferred to a company in which their security of tenure is very much worse than it is at present, their whole title to receive pensions at all will be seriously jeopardised, and that is the point I am trying to make. They are at present in the employment of semi-Government concerns, in which it might be: aid that they are in permanent employment until they reach the age of 60. I suggest that they will only be given a security of five years, and the other condition I have read out is a serious alteration of that security. I hope, however, that I have been misinformed, and that the Financial Secretary will be able to tell me that the Postmaster-General's pledge, given on 7th December last, is going to be carried out to the letter.
  Another point that I want to make concerns an omission from this Bill. In future, no publication will be made of the amounts of these provident and pension funds. Up to the 31st March last year, in the annual Report of the Pacific

  2169
  Cable Board, a full balance-sheet was published, showing the pension fund, the pension guarantee fund, and the provident funds. If we had succeeded in passing the Amendment moved in this House last December, the annual balance-sheet of the Communications Company and these pension funds would have been published every year. After this year, we shall be handing over £351,000 of pension fund, largely built up by private money, to a new company, the Communications Company, and the public will never again see the balance-sheet or the accounts of that fund. That is a very important point, and it affects the terms of service and the security of officials who have served this country and the Empire with great loyalty and fidelity in maintaining the all-red route.
  This Bill presupposes the formation of a body called the Communications Company. The House will remember the very strong opposition that was offered to the Imperial Telegraphs Bill, in which the Communications Company was not mentioned, but in which its formation was foreshadowed. There was such strong opposition that it occupied several days in this House. The way to carry out the recommendations of the Section of that Measure dealing with the very small part of the staff that is included in this Bill is not the way that the Government have chosen. The Government ought first to have come down to this House and told us all the conditions of transfer of all the men employed in the different constituent companies to be merged into the Communications Company, and at the same time we ought to have been allowed to vote either for or against the transfer of the very valuable property which is being handed over for a mere song.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is altogether outside this Bill.
  Mr. MALONE: I submit that it is within my province to suggest that we ought to have been told the conditions of all the men who were transferred before we were asked to pass a Bill dealing with only one section of the men. The Government have put the cart before the horse. They ought to have brought before us the general terms and the whole conditions, and then we could have decided on any section such as we
  2170
  are dealing with in this Bill to-night. I move the Amendment to reject this Bill because I believe its present form as a private Bill is out of order and deals unfairly with public servants who have served the country and the Empire with loyalty and fidelity, and because it makes no satisfactory terms for the future employment either of these men or of the men employed in any allied services; and in general I move it as a further protest against the action of the Government in handing over to private interests a great State asset which has been produced by public money, and in giving it to their friends for a mere song.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to second the Amendment.
  The Amendment has been moved, if I may say so, with great ability and in a very interesting and well-documented speech. The House should examine this Bill very carefully indeed. Everything that has been connected with this transaction has deserved very close scrutiny, and the views that were expressed when the original Bill was before the House have been thoroughly justified. I want to put one or two questions to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. What is the meaning of Clause 4 of the Bill, which states:
  "In the event of the Communications Company establishing either alone or jointly with any other company a pension fund or a provident fund."
  8.0 p.m.
  The House will be aware that under the original proposal, of which this is a sequel, we handed over all the means of communication that the Government had at their disposal to the company which is mentioned here, but which was not then formed, and which was to make a vast trust or combine. Are they going to form a still further trust? Does the portion of the Bill that I have quoted mean another communications company, another cable company, another wireless company, or some other company, such as an industrial assurance company, or a railway company, or a banking company? What does it mean? The chairman of this new Communications Company is a Governor of the Bank of England. I should have thought that of itself was a whole-time job, without taking on this as well. Does it mean that this scheme will be amalgamated with

  2171
  the Bank of England pension scheme? Does it mean some fresh merger? The whole order of the day seems to be international combines. Hon. Members opposite with their friends, supporters, their allies and their paymasters are not content with national trusts. They must have international trusts. They must have an international monopoly. What is in the wind? What is foreshadowed? What is behind all this?
  The other question I want to ask is this: What advantage is it to a man who is going to be dismissed to know that under this Bill the pension rights of his neighbour are to be kept on? What surrender value will there be to his own rights? Supposing when this Communications Company is formed certain employés are dismissed or thrown out after five years. What is their compensation for loss of superannuation or other pensions? My last point is this: I am glad to see what Clause 4, Subsection (2, a) says about the rights and benefits. That Sub-section reads:
  "The rights and benefits which are secured by the scheme to persons being beneficiaries under the trusts of the existing fund are at least as valuable as the rights and benefits secured by the said trusts."
  That seems to be all right. But how is it that we are legislating to-night for a non-existent company—a company that has not been formed, and may never be formed? We were told when the original Bill went through that all the Dominions had asked for it. We now know that the South African Government has objected and has refused to come into line. Are we simply wasting our time in passing this Bill? For the reasons I have stated, I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. GILLETT: The first point on which I should like information is in regard to the number of persons who will be affected by the proposed transfer of these undertakings, and who will be in a position to benefit under the large funds which have been mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend. The next point which, I think, has a distinct bearing on the matter is this. It is said that this has nothing to do with the Post Office service, but Clause 4 deals with, "Power to amalgamate Board's funds with corresponding
  2172
  funds established by Communications Company." In the pamphlet that was issued at the time when the report of the Imperial Wireless and Cable Conference, 1927–28, was published, we were told that the Communications Company was going to take over certain definite companies and that two are named here. On page 17 that pamphlet says:
  "The Communications Company will also acquire the Government Cables and hold the lease of the Post Office Beam Stations."
  Are these concerns also going to bring a number of men into some fund, of which this money is to form a part? What amount of money is to come into the fund on behalf of the representatives of the Post Office Beam Service and Government Cables? Are the Government to make a contribution to this fund for any of their members transferred? It may be that the funds that are coming for the two trusts are too large in comparison with the funds coming from other quarters. It is quite true, as is stated on page 4, that there is enough money to supply all that has been promised to these employés, but what if there is a large margin on these funds? You may build up a fund of this kind, and if there is such a margin is it simply going to mean that these accumulations that have been saved by these two companies will go into the general pool and provide pensions for men who come in from other services? Incidentally, the money might be used to provide pensions for the men transferred from the Post Office service. It seems to me that the relationship between the Government employés and this fund is very much closer than the Bill indicates.
  The whole matter is eminently unsatisfactory. In bringing up these piecemeal arrangements, there is very little information given to us. We only find out from my hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken actually what the funds are The Financial Secretary to the Treasury was not anxious to give us information to start with, but perhaps he will now be willing to do it. It seems to me that the postal service is closely connected with this matter, but there is no representative of the Post Office present to tell us what the position is. As far as we can tell from the information before us at this moment, all that we may be doing is to transfer large sums of money which may make ample provision for the men concerned

  2173
  but incidentally may provide for others also. Why should not the money be kept solely for the benefit of the men engaged at present in these two services, so that on their discharge they may get some extra payment? I should like to know if that point has been considered; but, as I have said, the whole of this matter is extremely unsatisfactory, and I support the Amendment.
  Mr. WELLOCK: There is one point that has not been mentioned, and that has reference to the men who are now in these companies but may not be transferred, either on account of the companies not transferring them or because the men do not want to be transferred. We do not know what the terms of transference will be, and it may be that there are a considerable number of men who are not satisfied with the terms of the transfer and who are not willing to be transferred. In regard to these men, as far as I read this Bill we have no guarantee as to what will happen to the men who, will not be transferred. If we refer to the words of the Preamble—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Clearly this Bill has nothing to do with the transfer of these men. I understand that has already been arranged for, and that the agreement under which they are to be transferred will be laid on the Table of the House.
  Mr. WELLOCK: On a point of Order. As far as we know, the terms of transfer have not been made yet, and we are dealing with a fund in which these men may be able to participate, but we do not know the conditions under which they will participate. I am referring to the last paragraph of the Preamble of this Bill, which says:
  "And whereas it is expedient that in the event of the said intended sale being carried into effect and of the persons who are contributors to the said funds or any of them being transferred from the employment of the Board to the employment of the Communications Company…."
  My point is that there will be a large number of men who will not be transferred, and who, when the terms of the transfer are made known, may not choose to be transferred. We have no guarantee under this Bill that those men will be able to make any claim whatever upon these huge funds that they have helped to accumulate, because the important
  2174
  part of Clause 4, that is, Subsection (2, a), says:
  "The rights and benefits which are secured by the scheme to persons being beneficiaries under the trusts of the existing fund are at least as valuable as the rights and benefits secured by the said trusts."
  We are told who the beneficiaries are. Yet a person coming under this category may refuse to be transferred by virtue of ignorance of the whole situation. I think it is a profound mistake. We are asked to take a Bill like this, while the major questions upon which this Bill is based are entirely unknown to this House.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Perhaps I may deal with one or two subsidiary points before I explain the general position. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Malone) asked me what the amount of the West Indian Provident Fund was. If he looks at the White Paper for the year ended 31st March, 1928, he will find that the amount is not a very large sum, it is £1,228. The contributions from employés amount to £534 17s. 6d. and, from transfers from the annual accounts, the amount also is £534 17s. 6d. That has since been slightly varied and the amount, to bring the matter up to date, is now £1,714. There was also a liability of£1,702 18s. 4d., therefore there was little or no surplus. As a matter of exact fact the surplus amounts to £11 5s. 6d. The hon. Gentleman also asked me what the Pacific Cable Board Provident Fund was. That amounts to £172,000 odd, and the Pensions Fund £140,000.
  Mr. MALONE: There are three funds in the White Paper; the Pensions Fund, the Provident Fund and the Pensions Guarantee Fund. The Pensions Guarantee Fund is not included in the Bill.
  Mr. SAMUEL: The Pacific Cable Funds amount to £312,000 odd. I think the White Paper explains the West Indian Cable position very fully. But I had better deal with the other questions asked me as I go along and the answers will then emerge. The House of Commons, as hon. Members know, passed the Imperial Telegraphs Bill a few months ago. The hon. Member for Northampton said that as this Bill is a Private Bill it is out of order. We are advised that it is not so. It has passed

  2175
  the Examiners of Private Bills in the House of Commons. The test of it being a Private Bill is, from what is it the result. If hon. Members will look at the remarks I made on 6th December last, they will find that I used these words:
  "Similar funds attached to the Pacific Cable Board hare not been overlooked, and that has been dealt with. It is not possible to deal with those funds in a Public Bill, as the rights of individuals are affected, but the Pacific Cable Board at the instance of the Government, are promoting a Private Bill to protect the interests of the staff in respect of these funds, and the necessary notices of a Private Bill have already been published."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1928; col. 1551, Vol. 223.]
  Mr. BENN: Who pays the costs?
  Mr. SAMUEL: The costs will be borne by His Majesty's Treasury. The Imperial Government have agreed to bear the cost of the Bill. The Imperial Telegraphs Act enables the Pacific Cable Board to sell the Pacific Cable to the Communications Company. The hon. Gentleman asked what the Cable Board was. It is composed of representatives of all the partner Governments and works under the 1901 Act. The Board owns property all over the world, and the transfer of the property to the Communications Company requires a considerable amount of work prior to getting the schedule in full detail. That schedule will appear in the agreement which will be laid in due course before Parliament. In the agreement will be embodied provisions to safeguard the position of the staff of the Pacific Cable on the transfer of the cable to the Communications Company. The staff of the Pacific Cable numbers about 400 and that of the West India Cable about 72.
  Mr. BENN: Will they be called civil servants?
  Mr. SAMUEL: They are not at present. The Pacific Cable Board is a private undertaking as it now stands. It was stated in Debate that the Government had insisted upon definite provisions to safeguard the interest of the employés of the Pacific Cable Board. The Communications Company have accepted the terms which the Government have stipulated; these terms will form part of the agreement. I cannot give the terms for this reason. The partner Governments
  2176
  are parties to these terms, and we are awaiting their replies. Until we have received information that the partner Governments have agreed to them, I cannot give the terms. Over a series of years the Pacific Cable Board has, in partnership with the staff, made allocations towards the pension fund and provident fund, which for brevity I will call the trust fund; there is also an accumulation which has mounted up over those years. Two members of the Pacific Cable Company Board are trustees for this fund. When the Pacific cable is taken over by the Communications Company, the Board will disappear and the trustees could not continue to act; therefore, the funds must be transferred to new trustees. That is the very essence of the need for this Bill. It is essential that there should be maintained in future, as in the past, the existing rights and benefits to which the staff are now entitled and that is the reason for this Bill.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) asked me about the amalgamated fund. The Bill contains a provision which gives a further safeguard for the Pacific Cable employés. It may be to their advantage that the existing fund should be thrown into the Communications Company's similar trust fund, in which case there would be a unified fund for the transferred Pacific Cable employés and for the existing employés of the Communications Company. As all these rights are private rights they cannot be dealt with in a public Bill; moreover, as the transfer of trust money is involved, we seek by this private Bill to obtain the necessary sanction of Parliament. The provisions dealing with the interests of the staff cannot be included in the schedule of the agreement, and we are asking for power to transfer the trust fund to new trustees. With regard to the point which the hon. and gallant Gentleman made about Clause 4, that Clause is meant to give wide power to the Communications Company to meet eventualities. It will enable them, for example, to say to one of the great British insurance companies, "We will insure with you the benefits arising from the trust funds held for the staff, because we think that by doing so we can get better benefits for our men."
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Under the present powers of the Pacific Board and the West India Board, can they make that private arrangement?
  Mr. SAMUEL: They might or they might not, but I do not think that in any case now bears upon the argument, because the Pacific Cable Company is to be dissolved. I need not say anything about Clauses 1 and 2 giving the title of the Bill and the definitions they are self-explanatory. Under Clause 3 the Bill preserves all rights of employés under the new conditions, and under Clause 4 these rights are preserved in the event of the amalgamated scheme to which I have referred. If there should be an amalgamated scheme, the whole spirit of the Bill is that the employés will not be a penny the worse off when the Pacific Cable is taken over. It is provided that the scheme for the amalgamation of the old trust fund with the Communications Company's fund must pass the Government actuary as sound and must have the sanction of the High Court. The Bill, therefore, does everything that human prudence and legal skill can do to see that the Pacific Cable men are not put in a position a penny worse than they were in before. The Bill is needed and designed to safeguard and protect the rights of the staff, and any postponement or alteration of the terms of the Bill will injure the staff.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. Gentleman has not said what happens to the rights of a man who is "sacked."
  Mr. SAMUEL: The Communications Company will offer employment to every man now in the employ of the Pacific Cable Board. Every man will have the opportunity of going on as he was before, and this Bill will safeguard his provident and pension rights. If a man says that he does not wish to transfer, he will continue to have the same rights that he would possess if the Board remained in existence.
  Mr. BENN: The hon. Gentleman is one of the most willing Ministers to answer questions, and no one suspects any deep and malicious design behind this Bill, but the questions that have been put to him have not been answered to the satisfaction of those who follow the proceedings. On the point about
  2178
  the cost of the Bill, the hon. Gentleman was specific in the Debate that the Government would pay, but Clause 6 says that the cost shall be paid by the Board, which, the hon. Gentleman told us, is a private undertaking. Is there any way of clearing up that difficulty?
  Mr. SAMUEL: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member, but I am in the position to say that I am right and he is wrong. The Pacific Cable Board will pay the cost to start with but the Imperial Treasury will reimburse it.
  Mr. BENN: I quite understand that this £400 is a small sum, but the Bill says that the Pacific Cable Board is going to pay.
  Mr. SAMUEL: The hon. Member must know the usual practice with a private Bill, and, if he will look at Clause 6, he will find that the Bill contains the usual formula. The cost is paid by the promoters—this is the common form of procedure, which the hon. Member seems to have forgotten—and the Imperial Government reimburses the cost.
  Mr. BENN: The hon. Gentleman said that the Government would pay, and now he finds that under this private Bill procedure they cannot pay. In the last discussion on this Bill we heard a great deal about the partner Governments and one of the favourite shelters of the Government in defending this Measure was behind the partner Governments. It was said that the Government could not do this or that without consulting the partner Governments, but I should like to know why it is possible to promote a private Bill in this way. How did it come about that the Pacific Cable Company, after all the talk about the impossibility of not being able to do anything because of this partnership—that a private Bill was promoted on behalf of the Pacific Cable Board? I think all this business might have been revealed to the House of Commons. I do not blame the Government in face of all their recent difficulties, and it seems unkind to pursue the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in the difficult position in which he now finds himself. The fact of the matter is that the Government have set to work to have the minimum of Parliamentary revelation and the

  2179
  maximum of private negotiation, and we have only had just a peep at what is going on.
  Another point is that these other companies have not been explained to us. We have merely been told that this Measure is to enable the Communications Company to insure with a great British insurance company, but we have not been told in the Bill whether it is to be a British company or not. It may be that we shall get a German or an American company, or the Marconi Company may merge this company into some pension fund of their own. It may be that Mr. Kellaway will merge this company with some fund of his own. When we were debating this question on a previous occasion we were told that everything would be satisfactory because there was an advisory committee. Surely the conditions applying to the staff, their pensions and employment, are matters worthy of the attention of the Government. Has the scheme for merging the funds ever been submitted to the Advisory Committee? The Financial Secretary is not so ready now to reply, and he does not seem sure that he is right. The fact of the matter is that the Advisory Committee is a pure fiction put up to get the Bill through the House of Commons. Finally, there is the question whether the rights of the staff are really being secured under this Measure. Hon. Members have already pointed out that while it is possible to frame a sound scheme in terms of pensions and superannuation, you can easily destroy the rights of the staff by premature dismissal or failure to employ them. The Financial Secretary has not given us any effective answer on that point.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The question of the terms under which the staff will be transferred does not arise.
  Mr. BENN: I am discussing those members of the staff who will not be transferred, and this Bill does not seem to me to protect their interests.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Bill purports to protect the interests of the persons who will be transferred.
  Mr. BENN: A reference to Clause 4, on page 4 of the Bill, will show that something must be certified, namely,
  "(i) the rights and benefits which are secured by the scheme to persons being
  2180
  beneficiaries under the trusts of the existing fund are at least as valuable as the rights and benefits secured by the said trusts."
  If they are not transferred then they remain beneficieries under the trust. If that is so, I certainly will not dispute the Ruling of the Chair, but this only proves that the case is far worse than we anticipated. There was a Debate in which this point was discussed. It is now clear that there is nothing in the Bill to fulfil the promise that the servants employed by all these other companies would be engaged by the Communications Company, and would have their rights safeguarded. If that is so there is nothing more to be said, but it makes the Bill very unsatisfactory.
  Mr. KELLY: I would like to ask another question as to whether or not those who are at present concerned with the existing fund have been consulted and have agreed to this arrangement. If they have not agreed, why is it being pressed forward, seeing that they are not subscribers to the existing fund which is going to be handed over to the new company? I suggest that those who have built up the fund have a right to a voice in this matter, and I would like to know whether they have been consulted.
  Mr. AMERY: The position as regards the partner Governments is quite simple. This is a private Bill dealing with private trust funds, and it is promoted by the Pacific Cable Board. The terms of the transfer of the staff made between the Pacific Cable Board and the Communications Company are quite a separate matter from the provisions; of this Bill, and those terms have been agreed upon between the companies concerned. Those terms have been referred to the various Governments for their concurrence, and, as soon as their concurrence has been obtained, we shall be able to publish the terms upon which the transfer will take place.
  Mr. BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the terms of transfer of the staff have been agreed between the staff and the Pacific Cable Board, and are being submitted to the Dominion Governments?
  Mr. AMERY: No, between the Pacific Cable Board and the Communications Company.
  Mr. BENN: What about the staff?
  Mr. AMERY: This Bill deals only with the pensions rights of the staff, and the object is to secure that none of the pension or provident rights are in any way diminished in the case of any man who is transferred, as I imagine the overwhelming majority will be. If any man does not wish to transfer, he has the same rights as to drawing out his equity in the pension and provident fund as he would have at this moment if, for ill-health or any other valid reason, he retired from the service of the Pacific Cable Board.

  SUPPLY.
  Postponed Proceeding resumed on Amendment to Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  Which Amendment was, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
  "this House views with grave concern the continued existence of a gigantic volume of unemployment; deplores the refusal of the Government to take any active measures for stimulating industry by well-considered schemes of national improvement and development, alike in this country and in the Dominions and Colonies; specially regrets the discouragement by the Government of the efforts of the municipal authorities to effect local improvements; and condemns the failure of the Government to provide maintenance and training for the tens of thousands of willing workers for whom the Employment Exchanges can find no situations, and the slow and inadequate provision of additional centres."—[Mr. D. Grenfell.]
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Mr. T. SHAW: I rise to continue the Debate that was interrupted at Half-past Seven. I would like again to congratulate the Minister of Labour on his cheerfulness in what many people would call depressing circumstances. If, with the results of the last by-elections, any Minister or body of Ministers can go to the country with perfect confidence, I think they must be very bad judges, or that they are prepared to blind themselves to facts—as, indeed, they have
  2182
  done on unemployment—to pretend that things exist which do not exist, and to refuse to accept the evidence of their senses as to the things which really are there. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) is not in his place. He seemed to think that the Labour Government when in office had done nothing and proposed nothing to deal with unemployment. I want to read to the House a short quotation from a speech made by a very well-known Liberal, which seems definitely to prove that at any rate some Liberals thought, not only that something had been attempted, but that something had been done. I shall try to demonstrate by actual facts and figures that something was not only attempted but definitely done, and I shall compare 1924 and 1929 in order to justify an assertion which I am going to make that, after five years of this Government's existence, with all the promises that they made in 1924, conditions are worse than they were in 1924; that the five years, instead of bringing stability and constant improvement, have brought neither stability in industry nor constant improvement; and that the whole record of the Government is a record of colossal failure in dealing with unemployment. Here is the quotation from that well-known Liberal, Dr. Macnamara, who was my predecessor as Minister of Labour:
  "The plea I make is this: Let the Government press on with these schemes for all it is worth."
  Evidently we must have propounded such schemes, when the plea of Dr. Macnamara was that we should get along with them.
  He continued:
  "We shall back them up for all we are worth. This thing is very urgent. These people have suffered great hardships for a long time; they are now drifting on to the fifth winter of hard times. Therefore, my one last word to the Government is this: Press on with this; do not waste time; and you shall have all the support we can possibly give you."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th July, 1924; col. 2125, Vol. 176.]
  Shortly afterwards we adjourned, and the Liberal measure of support when we reassembled was to put a knife into our backs.
  Mr. E. BROWN: Not at all.
  Mr. SHAW: That is the extent to which the Liberal party was concerned. Now I am going to examine, not our

  2183
  record, but the Tory record, because, after all, it is a Tory Government that has been in office for five years, with a crushing majority, with no Opposition that could do anything to defeat it, with unlimited power. If it had had any ideas, principles or policies that were sound, it could have put them into operation with no one to say it nay. What is the result of the five years work? The Government deliberately promised to the electorate in 1924 that it had a method of curing unemployment. [Interruption.] I would call attention to the fact that, when the statement was denied by the present Minister of Health, my right hon. Friend the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer passed to him the actual Central Office document in which it was stated quite conclusively that the Conservative party had a positive remedy for unemployment. About that there can be no doubt whatever.
  I know it is claimed that the Conservative party did propound a positive remedy in the shape of Protection, but the country would not have it. That, however, only makes the position of the Conservative Government worse. Surely, it is not a happy position when a Government which believes that a certain thing is necessary in order to cure the worst evil in our social system will swallow its principles in order to get office. That excuse only makes the thing worse. The fact remains that the Government did definitely pledge themselves to the statement that they had a positive remedy for unemployment. What have they done in these five years to keep that promise? The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour will know that I personally do not accept the present figures of unemployment at their face value; I do not think that they represent the number of unemployed in the country. But, taking them for the purposes of argument as they are given, how much improvement has this Government made between the position at this period of the year in 1934 and at this period of the year in 1929? The Minister of Labour cannot get away by comparing the end of March with the end of November. Everybody knows that for the last eight or nine years the unemployment figures have moved downwards and upwards according to the season of the year, so that the only fair comparison is between the same
  2184
  period in different years. I know that the Minister has given some figures to-day which are not yet available to the public. He claims, I think, that there has been a reduction of 260,000 in a fortnight—
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): No; he said that the figures this week would show a diminution of something like 86,000, which must be added to the previous diminution of 118,000, or whatever the figure was.
  Mr. SHAW: That is 200,000. I wish it were 1,200,000. Certainly there is nobody on this side who would regret seeing the figures tumble down. The more they tumble down the better we shall be pleased, and, so far as I personally am concerned, I do not care whether it is a Conservative, a Liberal or a Labour Government that brings into the house of every working man in this country plenty of food and plenty of clothing. Whichever it be, good luck to them! But we have to look at the facts of the case. The latest figures that I can get from the official returns show that, in April, 1924, there were 1,057,000 unemployed, while on the 25th February, 1929 there were 1,412,818. That shows a difference of nearly 400,000, so that, assuming that since those figures were given there has been a diminution of 200,000, we are still nearly 200,000 worse than we were at this period of the year in 1924. Therefore the Opposition claim that the announced policy of stability and a remedy for unemployment have proved illusory.
  Sir Clive MORRISON-BELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman carry in his mind the figures for April, 1926?
  Mr. SHAW: In April, 1926, the proportion was 9.2. In April, 1927, it was 9.4. It had risen, by 25th February, 1929, to over 12 per cent.
  Sir C. MORRISON-BELL: The figures just before the general strike, in April, 1926, came down below a million. That date is very important.
  Mr. SHAW: There is the startling fact that April, 1926, and April, 1927, show almost exactly the same percentage of unemployment. I am sorry I have not had the whole of the figures copied, but here are the percentages, and they clearly demonstrate that the theory that 1926 caused a tremendous increase in the un-employment

  2185
  employment figures is quite incorrect. I have given the official figures that you can find in the Library. It is useless to contradict unless one knows. The last time I spoke on unemployment I was contradicted by an hon. Member opposite who demanded a certain date. I could not give it him. He bluntly stated that I was wrong. As a matter of fact I was perfectly right and he was wrong. So it is as well, before contradicting these figures, to check them, and if they are incorrect, I at once withdraw all I have said. Here are the figures as taken from the reports in the House. On 3rd March, 1924, the total unemployment was 1,134,000. On 1st March, 1926, it was, 1,107,138.
  Sir C. MORRISON-BELL: My point is that in April, or the beginning of May, the unemployment figures were below a million. The general strike put them up, in May, to 1,600,000.
  Mr. SHAW: On 1st March, 1926—that was before the strike—
  Sir C. MORRISON-BELL: I am taking April. They were below a million.
  Mr. SHAW: The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that I am dealing with official figures. If he will give me an opportunity, I think I can demonstrate my point. The figures before the general strike and the figures after it were relatively the same—there was a difference of 37,000—and there was an enormous increase in 1928–9. So that there is no question at all about the facts. It is wrong to state that these figures are due either to the miners' lockout or to the so-called general strike, because 1927 shows a much less number than 1929. So that I hope we shall get out of our heads altogether the idea that in some way or other the miners' lockout, forced by the employers, was responsible for the huge increase in unemployment. The fact of the matter is that this increase has been the result of the last few months rather than anything to do with the general strike.
  The Minister adopted an attitude of optimism and care-free enjoyment which I cannot understand. I am a Lancashire man, and I know something of the textile trades and something of the people. I worked in a mill myself for 21 years and I know mill workers in many towns as thoroughly as any man
  2186
  could know them. When I go to my own town, and see the people I have known pretty well all my life, and see the men who used to be jolly and good-tempered—and there never was a jollier or better-tempered man in the world than the Lancashire working man—when I see them dejected and down in the dumps—what is the use of the Minister telling me what has been done and all the rest of it? It is simply not true that the conditions are such as to satisfy any decent man. As for the result of the inquiry of the Prince of Wales in the mining areas, what is the use of making the pretence that things are as they ought to be, that God is in His heaven and all is right with the world? The suffering and the degradation are enormous, and whether we are Conservative, or Liberal or Labour, we ought to try to get down to the facts. It is untrue also to suggest that we on this side have never helped. Who was it who proposed a joint Committee of the three parties in the House to try to find out what could be done? Who proposed that this Committee should render periodical Reports to the House in order that Members might know what was going on? Did we not do it, and if we did, what idle chatter it is to say we have never suggested anything but have simply acted the part of critics.
  Mr. REMER: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest anything now?
  Mr. SHAW: Yes, I suggest a General Election at the earliest possible moment. We have given our proposals over and over again. We are dealing now with a Government that have had five years, and we are saying: "Give us a report of your stewardship, and show us what you have done." It is no use talking to us about our being empty of proposals. What have you done? We have not been in office for five years with a two to one majority. We did not promise that we would cure unemployment.
  Mr. REMER: A positive remedy!
  Mr. SHAW: We did not promise. You asked us why in six weeks we did not cure unemployment? We ask you after five years, what have you been doing? We find that the positive result of your work is to make things worse. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are not worse."] Oh! yes, they are, and wages have been reduced. May I call attention to three

  2187
  things which I think ought to be known? There were three things which happened in 1924. Unemployment went down, wages went up and our exports went up. Those three things happened in 1924. Can the Conservative party after five years show us a record like that, of unemployment going down, of wages going up and of exports increasing? I will give the House a fourth point. The number of working men and women who were being driven to the boards of guardians went down, too.
  I was interested in the Minister's statement about the safeguarding of iron and steel. It was a very interesting statement. I will ask the Parliamentary Secretary if we are to take the Minister's statement about the safeguarding of iron and steel as being official? We are entitled to a plain answer to that plain question.
  Sir H. CROFT: I merely ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that his hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Sir O. Mosley) stated that you can give no advantage to labour in the steel industry by safeguarding, and that is why my right hon. Friend mentioned it.
  Mr. SHAW: That is like the flowers that bloom in the Spring—it has nothing to do with the case. The Minister spoke quite definitely about the safeguarding of iron and steel as being a remedy for unemployment. Is that official? Do the Government intend to safeguard iron and steel? I invite the hon. Gentleman to give an answer.
  Mr. BETTERTON: If the right hon. Gentleman asks me whether what my right hon. Friend says is true or not I have nothing to add to or detract from anything that he has said.
  9.0. p.m.
  Mr. SHAW: What am I to take that lack of frankness to mean? I do not know whether it is a declaration of policy or not. "You can take it as you like, and we can twist it as we like." Is that what it means? Will the hon. Gentleman state definitely whether it is a statement of Government policy or not? Even the Opposition is entitled to frankness and straightforwardness, and when a Minister makes a declaration as to the importance of safeguarding iron and steel for the curing of unemployment we are
  2188
  entitled to ask, does he mean it? If the hon. Gentleman says that he means it all, well and good, and there is an end of it. After hearing so many things, we have to be very precise in the statements that we get before we can know exactly what is meant.
  We heard a statement as to the Government's splendid work on housing. The Government have built over 800,000 houses. That is exactly like the Government's statement on the 3-hours day. How many of these houses were built under Government auspices?
  Major PRICE: They are built.
  Mr. SHAW: The Government have not built them.
  Major PRICE: That doss not matter; they are built.
  Mr. SHAW: Then if the rainbow comes you will claim the rainbow. The fact of the matter is, that the housing problem is largely a problem of houses built to let.
  Major PRICE: Surely if every house that is built is occupied, (hat is the main thing.
  Mr. SHAW: Really, I had better address myself to the House generally. I am going to claim that in regard to houses built to let, the Government have not built 100,000 houses under any but the scheme of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley). Outside those houses very few have been built to let and that is the problem that confronts us. To speak about the clearing of the slums! Heaven knows that there is plenty of work to do yet. A Government that cannot clear more slums than this Government have done after five years of untrammelled power is not a Government that ought to be bragged about in any sense of the word. Relatively little has been done to clear the slums and to give houses to the people at rents which they can pay. There was a certain pledge given to the building trade workers who, like doctors and lawyers, have their own rules. They were promised that if they would take steps to build houses, they should have certain guarantees of work. There are thousands of building trade workers idle now, and there are hundreds of thousands of

  2189
  houses needed, and the Government cut down the subsidy and prevent the rapid extension of the building of houses. That is what the Government have done—not what they said they would do, but what they have actually done. [An HON. MEMBER: "And reduced the price of houses!"] The price of houses in Scotland where the subsidy was not reduced came down at the same time. The hon. Gentleman has not gone closely enough into the subject, or he would have known that the price came down where the subsidy was on and where it was not on.
  The fact of the matter is, that in the present state of affairs a condition of the utmost gravity faces the country. I bitterly regret that the Government did not accept our suggestion to have an all-party committee to go into this question, to see if we could not get some policy that might have some degree of continuity in it, and that would get the support of everybody in the House. The Government were proud of their majority. And now we have been reduced, a proud nation, to sending round the plate, to begging like cripples at the gate, in order that our people may have assistance; I will not say sufficient to eat and wear, because they have not enough to eat and wear. "We have done that by begging. What a thing to do after five years of a Government with a two-to-one majority! What a result to present to the people. Nevertheless, the Minister of Labour says that he welcomes the opportunity of telling the country what this Government have done. I could tell the Government quite a lot that they have not done. They have not given a decent living to the hardest working, the most courageous and the most loyal of the workers of this country, the miners. They have not given a decent living to the most skilful workers of their trade in the world, the Lancashire cotton workers. They have not given a diving to the men whose skill is superior to that of the rest of the world, the shipbuilders. There can be no question that our shipbuilders are the finest in the world. The Government have not given a decent living to these workers, but they have secured certain things for very wealthy people. They have seen to it that very wealthy people should be helped.
  Sir H. CROFT: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean widows' pensions?
  Mr. SHAW: I mean the millionaires' relief fund. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, with tears in his eyes and in his voice, pleaded the sorrows of the poor millionaires, and took a chunk off their Income Tax.
  Major PRICE: And put it on the Super-tax.
  Mr. SHAW: We are paying now in actual production probably twice as much for the National Debt as we were when the debt was incurred. Our financial policy has been such as to take a larger and larger share, year after year, of the production of this country for the payment of interest. If we had been half as generous to the working people as we have been to the bondholders and the millionaires, no working man in this country would have gone short of a meal or have gone short of clothing. These are plain facts; they stick out and cannot be mistaken. What have the Government done in order to tackle the root problem of unemployment? I am one of those, and I make no apology for saying it, who fervently believe in a co-operative commonwealth coming to this country; but I want to make the best of what is as well as the best of what is to be. I cannot go to my constituents and talk to them about ideals for the future, if they have not a meal on their plate. I must, first of all, see if I can do anything to guarantee them the necessities of life, before talking to them about ideals.
  Unquestionably, the one thing above all others that we ought to do, if it be possible, is to increase the trade of this country, particularly its exports on that line and on that line alone lies the cure for unemployment. What have the Government done? There is no question of anyone in this House not desiring to develop trade with the Empire. The Labour party would take a lot more risks and spend a lot more money in developing trade with the Empire than the Conservative party is ever likely to do; but when we have finished with the Empire, the great basic producing and exporting trades must have other markets. There are three parts of the world that are primarily fitted to form a perfect square with this country. They produce raw

  2191
  materials in abundance but have not our skilled artisans. We need their raw materials and they need our produced goods; we are complementary one of the other. I refer to Russia, China and India. What have we done to develop trade with Russia? We have spent £100,000,000 trying to make the Russians have a Government that they did not want. What business was it of ours to interfere with the internal arrangements of Russia? We spent £100,000,000 there in destroying markets. A sensible Government would have spent £100,000,000 in making markets. What about China? I believe our policy there has improved very considerably of late. The difficulties in China began under this Government, at a Japanese mill in Shanghai, and we drew the fire of Chinese hostility on ourselves. We can only hope that China will quieten down, and that her huge market will be developed.
  What about India? Let me give the House a little sketch of the position as I see it. During the War, we gave the Indians, as a reward for going into the War, certain very definite promises. The Hindus, who were greater politicians than the Mohammedans, were promised a liberal measure of self-government. The Mohammedans were promised something quite different. I think I can repeat almost word for word the promise that was given to them. It was, that the Allies were not fighting to take away from Turkey her capital, Constantinople, or the rich and renowned lands of Asia Minor that were definitely Turkish in race. Everyone who has taken the trouble to study the question knows that the Sultan of Turkey at that time stood towards the Mohammedan faith pretty well as the Pope of Rome stands towards the Roman Catholic. The Hindus were certainly disappointed with what they got in the shape of self-government. The Mohammedans were worse, because they found that the Allies were egging on Greece to attack Turkey, and for the very things that the Mohammedans had been promised should not be touched. [An HON. MEMBER: "It was the Lloyd George Government!"]
  The Government that was doing it was not just the Government of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). The present Prime Minister sat on the Government Bench. Hon.
  2192
  Members forget. Have they forgotten that the present Foreign Secretary at one election tore up a bill and said to his audience that, whatever had been done in regard to Greece and Turkey, they were all in it. It was a very dramatic incident and was reported in all the newspapers. Greece was egged on to attack Turkey, in defiance of every promise that had been given to the Mohammedans, and for the first time in the history of India we witnessed the strange phenomenon of the Hindu and the Mohammedan combining to destroy our goods and not to buy them. Our goods were burnt in the streets and bazaars. Afterwards a tremendous boycott movement was started by Gandhi. Nobody knows what that movement has meant to the trade of this country.
  The cotton trade is the greatest exporting trade in this country, and on the trade and its exports depend a large number of other workers, shipbuilders, sailors, carpenters, engineers, miners and transport workers. Nobody can tell how much of our unemployment is due to the fact that we have this curious state of opinion in India. I am hoping that the day will come, and pretty quickly, when the feeling in India will be much better than it is now. Mr. Gandhi is now preaching another boycotting campaign. I hope he will change his opinions and realise that after all the world depends on all its parts and that it is just as impossible for India to rise to her fullest development without the rest of the world as it is for us to live without India. I am hoping that these things will come about, but they will never come unless we try to make them. When the Government turned down our offer of co-operation in the work of dealing with unemployment it made one of the biggest mistakes that a Government have ever made. I may be wrong, and I may be giving to ourselves greater credit for intelligence and a desire to help than we deserve, out I do think that the Government made a mistake in not accepting our offer.
  We have had many Debates in this House on the possibilities of migration to different parts of the Empire. I should be the last person in the world to try and prevent the ambitious pioneering young man going to any part of the Empire and trying to develop it, but I put in a humble plea, not very humble, in fact, that this country is part of the Empire

  2193
  and that we have thousands of acres of waterlogged land. Why do we not tackle that? Our men who go dragging stumps out of the vast Canadian lands might be developing our land at home. The Minister has said that you cannot employ many men in afforestation. I do not accept that statement. I believe that by a combination of afforestation and small holdings you can employ thousands of men, particularly in Scotland. Then there is the reclamation of land. A friend of mine, an old Member of this House, who knew what engineering was because he had been a large contractor all his life, said that it was quite possible in his opinion, and he had taken advice upon it, to add another county to England on the East Coast. Why should not our men be doing this work at wages instead of being on unemployed pay? The Government, after all, is merely closing down everything that was being done, not to speak of developments which were foreshadowed and prepared.
  While we have this large amount of unemployment why should be go on in this spasmodic way? Assuming, for instance, that the Liberal party came into power at the next election—I am assuming that because I like to give pleasure—what would they find? They would find a body of Ministries each with its own special work and a Chancellor of the Exchequer who would want to know definitely, for the purpose of making his Budget, what the demands on him were to be; and spasmodic demands which come from the Ministry of Health one day and the Ministry of Transport another day are bad. No Chancellor of the Exchequer can ever hope to keep his Budget right in that way. We made a suggestion to the Government, which they did not accept, that instead of this rule of thumb spasmodic way of dealing with national work that there should be a specific sum set apart each year so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would know exactly what he had to face, and that Ministers should meet together in order to have a co-ordinated common-sense policy best fitted to provide work for a large number of people. It is wrong to say that we have never suggested anything. We have kept on suggesting; and what has been the use? All our suggestions have been turned down, and we
  2194
  have the bitter spectacle that after five years the position is worse than when the Government began.
  In my own Division, we were told how a stable and commonsense Government would develop our nation, reduce unemployment, make us happy, and take from us the terrible danger of a Labour Government. The Government have succeeded in reducing wages and in lengthening hours; they have succeeded in making unemployment worse, and in making poor people go to boards of guardians. What a brilliant result for five years of work! And then the Minister of Labour says that he is glad to have an opportunity of putting before the country what the Government have done! We are not proud of what the Government have done. This state of things, I am afraid, cannot go on many more years without leaving permanent marks on our body politic. If I could convey to the House, if I had the language to convey to the House, the feeling I have when I go amongst my own people I am sure hon. Members would understand and appreciate and help us as far as they could to provide better treatment for these people. When I was working in the mills—I have told this story before—there was working beside me one of the best workers who ever entered a factory. He never lost a minute. He had, as far as one can see, no bad habits. He was an excellent worker, with a character just as good as his skill. I went to my constituency one week end and found that unemployment and sickness had caused him to throw himself in front of a train. Not long ago another friend of mine with whom I used to work as a colleague in my own trade union went the same way.
  Really, this problem is too grave to be treated lightly. I implore the Government to drop the idea that all is well. All is not well; and there is no excuse for any civilised nation allowing people to live under the conditions which some of our people are living under now. How can anybody who calls himself a Christian see these people short of boots and clothing, and even short of food? It is a monstrous thing in this 20th century. With the march of science and our capacity for production, we can produce wealth in overwhelming abundance; but we have capital lying idle on the one hand and skilled men lying idle on the

  2195
  other. Because we cannot bring capital and labour together do not let us wreak our vengeance on the people who are suffering. Whoever's fault it is, it is not theirs. If the Government cannot cure this problem I appeal to them, even at this eleventh hour, to take such steps as will relieve the necessities of those who are suffering most.
  Sir C. MORRISON-BELL: The House has listened with great interest to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. It always enjoys his speeches because he always seems to enjoy them so much himself, but, after many years of similar speeches in this House, I failed on this occasion as formerly, to find anything very constructive about his speech. I took an opportunity of making an interruption, and I asked him if his recollection carried him back to certain figures on a certain day. I will tell him why I asked him about that month, which was April, 1926. It was that, for the first time, the unemployment figures then came down to just under 1,000,000. It was the most heartening sign in this great fight against unemployment which we had seen for years. One month later those figures had risen to 1,700,000—the result of the General Strike. [HON. MEMBERS: "Miners' lockout!"] The Socialist party can say, anyhow, that in one month, through their action—and their action alone—they raised the figures from 1,000,000 to 1,700,000. I sometimes wonder how the Labour party can criticise the Government for unemployment when it can be said, without fear of challenge, that there is no party or body of persons more responsible for having stimulated unemployment in this country than the Socialist party who in one month, raised it from under 1,000,000 to 1,700,000. That is the record of the Labour party.
  There has been no constructive proposal made during this Debate, but the hon. Baronet the Member for Smethwick (Sir O. Mosley) did hint at one. I am sorry he is not in his place, for I would have liked to say how much I enjoyed his apologia for being a rich Socialist. It is a dreadful thing if his proposal is really the official policy of the Labour party. He said his party intended, if and when they came into power, to start a large Government concern for buying
  2196
  produce from our Dominions, such as foodstuffs, in bulk. His words were "bulk purchase." It is well known that the buying of provisions and foreseeing what is likely to be the state of the market, keeps some very clever men busy in Chicago, Winnipeg and in the Argentine and elsewhere, and it is their operations which we cannot avoid.
  Mr. DUNCAN: We will find a way.
  Sir C. MORRISON-BELL: I tremble to think of some clumsy Government—I do not care what Government it is, though a Socialist Government of all Governments would make me tremble most—trying to compete with these clever, active, brains who have made a whole life-study of the buying of food and foreseeing the state of the market. The Government would either be left short on the market and pay enormously in prices for provisions, or they would find there was a shortage of provisions, and that they could not get supplies for love or money. I hope that no Government will seriously consider, if they get the chance, starting any kind of Department for this bulk purchase, because I can conceive no course which would be likely to bring starvation nearer to the public than clumsy efforts of that kind.
  The right hon. Gentleman who has just-sat down mentioned the question of War debts. That gives me an opportunity of asking him if he can explain to him a poster which I saw on the railway bridges at Salisbury yesterday afternoon. There was a balance with two scabs, and in one side was put into the scale "Payments for wars, past, present and future—14s. 6d.," and on the other side of the scale, "Social services—4s. 6d." Underneath was written "Vote Labour." Is it the intention to put in the mind of the electorate that were a Labour Government returned it would be their intention to repudiate debts of past wars? If they started repudiating war debts and smashing our credit, I can hardly conceive anything which would bring starvation more quickly to this country than the complete loss of confidence and credit which this country now enjoys. The whole population of this over-populated, industrialised island is kept alive by what is called the capitalist system, and the credit system. If you once get your clumsy fingers into that, people will

  2197
  starve more quickly in this country than they would have done if the general strike had succeeded.
  I really rose to ask a question or two about the Liberal policy for curing unemployment. I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), and I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman who is responsible for this policy, is not here. That policy of curing unemployment in one year without any cost to the country is—and it must really be known to him, because the right hon. Gentleman is a man of acute intelligence—a cruel and fraudulent deception. Had the right hon. Gentleman put that policy forward in the guise of a prospectus in the city of London, he would have been hauled before the Committee of the Stock Exchange for a fraudulent prospectus, and he knows it.
  Mr. JAMES HUDSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the right hon. Gentleman put forward exactly the same prospectus when he was in association with his leaders, and it was allowed to go without any comment or objection.
  Sir C. MORRISON-BELL: I am not aware that any similar prospectus was put forward, and I do not think it is very likely that the right hon. Gentleman would repeat such a blunder. I should probably have remembered it if he had put it forward. I am dealing with the prospectus which is now the chief literary fare of papers which are supposed to be friends of the Conservative party, but from which every morning and evening, and Sundays, the Prime Minister gets a Judas kiss. How is this policy of the right hon. Gentleman being treated in the country and in the Press? It is being treated as a stunt, and as the right hon. Gentleman has said he does not wish to treat unemployment as a stunt, it is cruel to try to deceive people that this can be done. It is really a stunt. We have seen what an hon. Member who was very much respected in this House—one of the Liberal Members—thinks of this policy. I refer to Mr. Vivian Phillips. We now know what the Liberals themselves think of this policy. That is why I say that it is fraudulent. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) is pretending that there is some magic that can cure this great problem. The Labour Minister in
  2198
  the last Labour Government knows well that there is no magic way of curing unemployment. He admitted that honestly himself, and everyone knows that there is no magic way. Here is the cutting to which I have referred. It refers to the Liberal party and is meant to be a friendly allusion because there is a little boost of the Liberal party every day:
  "Certain members and candidates disapprove, but not the rank and file. Why should they, since it is winning them elections?"
  Why do they agree? Why should they disapprove? Probably most of the Members of this House in their heart of hearts disapprove. They know that no one can cure unemployment. But the programme is "winning elections." I say to the Liberals, "You may have won one or two elections during the past week, but you cannot go on fooling the people all the time."
  Mr. E. BROWN: You have had five years to do it.
  Sir C. MORRISON-BELL: I know what would help unemployment, though not cure it. The best chance the working classes have in this country is in another five years of Conservative Government. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh at the moment, but there are some of us who will live to see how nearly I am right. Long before the General Election comes on 30th May both parties opposite will have had a chance of putting forward their proposals if they have any. It is easy enough to come here and criticise the Government, but it is necessary to put forward something constructive. The Minister of Labour has told us this afternoon that every one of the schemes that are being put forward now as some new discovery has actually been put into operation by the present Government. The best chance that the country has is not by stunts to cure what is really a desperate problem, nor by pretending that you have some patent way of doing it, but by courage, energy and hard work on behalf of the whole nation, and the maintenance of public order. The best thing that can happen to this country is another five years of Conservative Government, and I wish I could make some of my party feel as confident as I am that the country will get it.
  Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: A very remarkable thing in this Debate is that whereas it appeared to be initiated, on a Motion from above the Gangway, in criticism of the policy pursued by the Government, the great bulk of the Debate from beginning to end has been devoted to the programme which has emanated from the leader on the Liberal Benches. If Members have asked who is in the House and who is not, no one has been looking either for Ministers on the Front Bench or for ex-Ministers on the Labour Benches, but everyone has been asking why the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) is not here; and the policy that has been attacked has not been the policy of the Government, but that which has been outlined from the Liberal Benches. It is a recognition of the fact, which is coming to be recognised everywhere in the country, that the policy on unemployment is now connected with the scheme put forward by the Leader of the Liberal party. [Laughter.] It is all very well for hon. Members who have not taken part in the Debate to laugh, but all those who have taken part in it have proved the truth of my statement by their action in devoting their speeches to the Liberal programme. If they thought it did not matter and was not the central point, how is it that it has been the central point of this Debate?
  I am not saying for a minute that unemployment can be dealt with only upon the lines of providing, by public action, constructive work. There are, of course, other avenues along which it must be approached, very importantly the avenue of foreign affairs. As the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Shaw) has pointed out in a speech with almost every word of which I quite agree, the foreign affairs aspect, our relations towards Russia and our own Dominions, must have a tremendous effect on the export trade which is such a valuable part of our market. I go further and say that I entirely agree with the speech which was quoted by the Minister of Labour from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman), that ultimately for the permanent cure of unemployment the improvement of our markets is the only thing that gives security. But, of course, we have to face an abnormal situation
  2200
  and have to face it in an abnormal way. I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken did not mean to misrepresent anyone, but he repeated the phrase that I have heard so often about there being a promise by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs to cure unemployment. It was a promise to reduce unemployment to the normal, and that is a very different thing. Those are the words of my right hon. Friend's pledge, and in the speech in which the policy was introduced my right hon. Friend said in terms this: "We have to get down to normal first. But we are not satisfied with the normal. After that we go on to attack the permanent problem. The permanent problem can be solved finally only by the restoration of our general trade."
  I appeal to the House in general, what are we to do in the meantime? It is going to take a considerable time for any Government to restore trade to normal, because restoration depends on many matters not all of which are within the control of a British Government. In the meantime here are 1,250,000 to 1,500,000 unemployed. Are we to be content merely to pay them for doing nothing? I do not think anyone would gladly embrace that solution. It is better to put men on any kind of work which will maintain their self-respect and pay them a decent wage, than to go on having this millstone hung round the neck of the nation and to get nothing in return. It is a simple proposition that work is better than idleness and that the men themselves want it. I welcome the pronouncement of the right hon. Member for Preston that if schemes are put forward, it does not matter what Government brings them forward. I associate myself entirely with that view. I shall support schemes, whoever brings them forward, for giving work to those people whom I see in my constituency decaying in body, mind and soul because they cannot get work.
  What kind of work are we going to supply? That is the practical question. You cannot set these people to any kind of work which immediately competes with other forms of industry. It is difficult to set them to work at a boot factory, for instance, because you have to consider the effect on the present

  2201
  makers of boots. When you are providing, by State effort and public effort, work to occupy to time of these men and to keep their hands skilled and to give them wages, you have to turn to the kind of work which does not offer any immediate dividend to any shareholder. That is the answer to the Minister of Labour when he asks what is the use of roads. He is thinking in terms of dividends. We have to get out of the habit of thinking in terms of dividends in a matter of this kind. Improving the transport of the country is improving the wealth of the country. Bringing more land into use, adding another county to the country as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston put it—that, again, is increasing the wealth of the country. It does not offer an immediate dividend to any shareholder, but for that very reason it is work which can be undertaken by public effort without putting other people out of employment and, therefore, it ought to be selected.
  When the Minister of Labour says that roads are of no value, I cannot understand what is passing through his mind. The United States are often held up to us as a model of efficiency. They do not take that view. A commission which dealt with the subject of roads in the United States expressed the view that you could not afford not to put your roads in order; that you were losing money all the time if you did not put your roads in order. I take this question of roads because it has been dealt with so much during the Debate and because it offers an obvious avenue for the employment of the greater part of the unemployed. That is why I emphasise the enormous importance of road work. I am not saying that I would willingly take coal miners, or iron and steel workers out of their own trades, to put them on to other kinds of work but we have to consider the abnormal situation presented by the statement of facts in the report of the Industrial Transference Board. We have to face the fact that there is a surplus of labour which, although it may not be permanent, is likely to continue for a considerable time. It is not only what is said in the Industrial Transference Board's report but what has been supported by leading speakers in all parties in this House.
  2202
  If that be the case, then for those people work of this kind is most certainly a great deal better than no work at all and that is the programme that is being put forward—a programme which would give to these people who are at present unemployed definite work which is not relief work. I do not mean digging a, hole and filling it up again; I mean work which will be of real value to the country. I say for myself that I welcome the pledge which has been given. I believe that that work can be given which will bring unemployment down to normal and that the financial basis of the scheme, as outlined is sound. Reference has been made to-night to a Member who sat, I believe in the last Parliament for one of the Divisions of Edinburgh. I dare say that the pace now being set by the Liveral party in this matter may be too hot a pace for some; but the pace that has been set by the Government for the last five years has been too slow for the whole country. We want at the present time somebody who will put real energy and drive into dealing with this problem and who will make this question the one dominant issue in the country. That policy has become the dominant policy and has been so recognised in this Debate. Since that policy has been put forward everything else has sunk into the back ground, and, if the result is to spur any other party on to producing a scheme better than ours, then I say "good luck to them." I shall be the first to hope that their efforts will prosper.
  Sir H. CROFT: The speech of the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Griffith) has been very interesting, and I, for one, am delighted to find that there is a certain livening of political interest in the country. I am particularly glad to find that the dry bones of the Liberal party have begun to rattle a bit and that Liberals have begun to take an interest in the subject of unemployment. The hon. Member took exception to what he regarded as an unfair description of his party's policy when one of my hon. Friends suggested that the Liberal party claimed that they were prepared to cure unemployment. I am sure my hon. Friend did not wish to offend hon. Members opposite and in any case we read on the outside of a book recently issued—the author of which is conspicuous by his absence to-night—that the Liberal party's policy is that they can conquer unemployment.

  2203
  I leave it to the House to decide whether "conquer" or "cure" is the more emphatic word.
  Mr. GRIFFITH: The statement made was that the Liberal party said they could cure unemployment in a year.
  Sir H. CROFT: I do not think there are many hon. Members in this House who believe that you can conquer unemployment in a year by schemes for which no preparation has been made. I think the Leader of the Opposition will agree with me as to the impossibility of putting in hand any schemes of work without any preliminary survey. It is to be remembered that these proposals all refer to additional work, over and above what has already been undertaken. The work which is now being undertaken is work which can be put in hand and which is effective, but everybody knows that the policy of the Liberal party is absolute moonshine. The hon. Member drew a pathetic picture of the situation in his constituency, and said that his constituents were decaying in mind and body. It is not going to be much consolation to skilled steel and iron workers to be told that they are going to be put for a few months, or even for two years, on to the making of roads and then to suggest to them that, later on, perhaps they might get back into industry—especially when the hon. Member and his party have taken no steps whatever to keep out foreign competition.
  I would remind the hon. Member that the present position has very largely come about owing to the fact that his leader abandoned the creed which he held in 1918. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) when he was in a position of responsibility had a far clearer impression of what was wrong with the state of affairs in this country than he has now. The right hon. Gentleman on that occasion issued a manifesto to the country in which he used words to the effect that where goods were being dumped, or were produced on the Continent at lower wages, we ought to safeguard our countrymen against such competition. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs held those views in 1918. To-day he has forgotten them. He finds it inconvenient to
  2204
  support any national policy of any party to which he is opposed. So he begs, borrows and steals bits of policies from the other parties in the State and parades them, posing as a kind or pioneer. Although he may have, for one brief moment, deluded some of the electors in a couple of constituencies, I think if he came down to the House and allowed his policy to be explored, and allowed a few questions to be asked, the enthusiasm would very soon evaporate.
  On the subject of by-elections, I remember in days gone by when I was youthful I was a very keen politician and I was longing for the decease of the Liberal party. In the year 1909 I remember waiting up night after night for the results of by-elections, and on five successive occasions messages came through that Conservatives had won Liberal seats. Then I thought the country was safe, but I was quite wrong. This was merely the result of the efforts of a few disgruntled people at the end of a long Parliament who wanted to have a kick at the Government, knowing they could do it no harm. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston in his remarks roamed all round the world and treated us to a lecture on Hindus and Mohammedans.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are they not our customers?
  Sir H. CROFT: I was going to say that what he said had not very much to do with unemployment. The right hon. Member for Preston, pointing the finger of scorn at us said, "What have you done?"
  Mr. J. JONES: Done everybody!
  Sir H. CROFT: The hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) always adds to the gaiety of nations when he interrupts, and even on a serious subject like this it is sometimes nice to have the atmosphere of the circus introduced just for a moment. I think the right hon. Member for Preston is entitled to an answer, and when he says, "What have you done? the answer is this, that since the present Government came into office, with all the difficulties of the world, there are something like 600,000 more workers at work to-day than when they came into office. Then the right hon. Gentleman pointed the finger of scorn at

  2205
  us—and I always remember his wonderful contribution to the Debate when he was a Minister and complained that he was not a conjurer—and, with regard to housing, he seemed to think we had done very little. In fact, he complained of the number of houses that we had built without the assistance of the taxpayers. I have never been able to understand why it is that hon. Members opposite object, if we build, under private enterprise, 200,000 or 300,000 more houses than could possibly have happened at the time when there was a lack of confidence and his own party were in office, but is it not a fact that with every single house that you build you release another house for a family of British citizens, and is it not desirable that, if you can, you should build houses without subsidies? If you build houses under private enterprise, what does it matter if they are sold? The people who buy them vacate other houses.
  I believe I am right in saying that some 27 per cent. of the houses which have been built under these various schemes have been built under the scheme of the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley). I believe I am also right in saying that 68 per cent. of the houses which have been built since the Armistice have been built during the time that this Government have been in office. If these are facts, why get up and be-little these results? I know the achievements of the right hon. Gentleman were as great as he could perform, but the fact that he failed and we succeeded is no reason for him to get up and sneer at these really remarkable results which have created records not only for this country, but for every other country in the world. Then he says, "What are you doing with the slums? I pity any Government that has done so little for the slums." What did his Government do in its year of office? I beg him not to be led astray by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. There is nothing more ludicrous than to attempt to pull down slums until you have got houses into which you can put the people displaced. That, we have achieved, and now we can go forward with our slum clearances.
  For a statesman like the right hon. Gentleman to get up in this House and to suggest that it was giving relief to
  2206
  millionaires to take 6d. off the Income Tax, when he knows that it was put on to the Estate Duties, is really unworthy of him. I cannot follow him in his talk about India, which was very interesting I have been unable to check his figures, but my impression is that our exports to India have maintained a very much higher level compared with our exports to all foreign countries. I do not think the Sultan of Turkey is any longer regarded as a Pope, and I hope he will not blame the Conservatives too much for the fact that the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was so anxious for the Greeks to go into battle against the Turks, because I think that was one of the principal reasons which brought about the break-up of the Coalition.
  10.0 p.m.
  I come to the programmes of the two Oppositions in regard to unemployment. We have heard rival speeches this evening, to which I have listened with the greatest interest, and all the speakers for the two Oppositions have been claiming the new Liberal plan as their own. As a matter of fact, I think it has been fairly accurately substantiated, since the Minister of Labour sat down, that these schemes, in so far as they are practical, do not belong to either of the parties opposite, but are merely extracted from the various schemes which my right hon. Friend has put into operation and planned during the last three or four years. We are absorbing, in our various electrical, telephone, and road construction schemes, practically all the men who can be usefully employed, without wastefulness and after due consideration. We are working now on a plan which is the outcome of the combined wisdom of our forebears and also of our own Government, and I think it is fairly clear to any man who ex amines these schemes that it would be absolutely grotesque to attempt to employ hundreds of thousands of additional men on them, anyhow in the next year or two.
  We have been lectured every year since we took office by Members of the Liberal party. Every year they have preached sermons to us and have insisted that the one thing which was going to restore prosperity to this country was to cut down expenditure and to cut down our national indebtedness, yet now they say ' Spend millions everywhere, whether

  2207
  they are wanted or not, on roads or anything else that you can find, and borrow another £250,000,000 to do it. That seems to me to be absolutely hostile to the whole conception of the policy which the right hon. Member for the Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman), and others of the true Liberal faith have advocated in days gone by. If I am right in my interpretation of the Press in the last day or two, it would appear so inconsistent, because apparently the leader of the Liberal party has been elected Vice-President of the Anti-Waste League. He is making it impossible for any financial transactions to be undertaken in the way of improving our loan position in the next 10 years, and at the same time he is encouraging this ghastly, wasteful expenditure.
  It is very remarkable, if the right hon. Gentleman had this scheme all the time, that he did not come down here and say, absolutely from a non-party point of view, "I have got the remedy within a single year. I can beat the right hon. Member for Preston into a cocked hat. Here, within 12 months, I can solve unemployment and reduce it to normal." Instead of that, he has said hardly a word. He never came down and offered this scheme to the country until now, and we are amazed to find that he dare not defend it. If he thinks it is possible to dump down some 300,000 or 400,000 unfortunate steel workers, cotton workers and others on our countryside, unhoused, uncared for, on roads unsurveyed—and in most cases unrequired—for two years, merely to dump them back on the Employment Exchanges at the end of that time, he will prove pretty conclusively, what most of us have thought before, that he is utterly bankrupt in statesmanship. On the day when the Liberal party nail their flag to the mast of extravagance and ever-increasing public indebtedness they will finally seal their doom.
  Mr. E. BROWN: You support Winston.
  Sir H. CROFT: The hon. Member need not worry me too much about those who are wise enough almost entirely to repent of their sins. Now that the fumes of the luncheon party are passing away, we find that this policy is beginning to stink in the nostrils of the orthodox Liberals, and every day we open our papers to see one
  2208
  Liberal after another repudiating that scheme as absolutely opposed to Liberal ideas. I do not want to rub it in too much, and I see that hon. Members opposite share my feelings. I would only suggest to the Liberals that if ever they come back to power in this country it will not be by way of this kind of bluff, and that they had much better stick to Liberal principles than copy an inferior type of Socialism. The Liberal party of Gladstone, Campbell-Bannnerman and Asquith would deplore the type of policy which is now being advocated. It is enough to make those gentlemen turn in their graves.
  There is only one way to cure unemployment, and that is to get right down to the causes of it and remove those causes. What are those causes? I am trying to talk seriously now, for, after all, we all at heart agree that this is the greatest problem we have to face, and that we ought to try to make a contribution to solving it. The first cause is the astounding fact that in this country our net population is 2,521,000 greater than it was in 1914. We have that much larger population to support.
  Mr. BROAD: How many people were there living in the country in 1814?
  Sir H. CROFT: I am very glad that the Socialist party have at last discovered a wag in their midst. If I said 1814 instead of 1914 it was a mistake. [Interruption.] I see that I did right in interpreting that as a jocular interruption.
  Mr. BROAD: Not at all jocular. In 1814, we had not a quarter of the population that we have now, but there was still unemployment.
  Sir H. CROFT: Really, I cannot go back 100 years. I am discussing now the position at the present day as compared with 1914. In spite of all those who were killed in the War we have this largely increased population in our midst. Up to the period of the war a quarter of a million of our population left this country as migrants every year. During the War that migration absolutely ceased and since the War it has almost been a bagatelle compared with pre-War migration. That is another reason for the existing state of affairs. It is no good saying that we have more than a million unemployed workers and that the Government

  2209
  are to blame. On the figures I have quoted, the situation in this country is really better than most people could have imagined it would be, though I am entirely with hon. Gentlemen opposite in saying that I am not satisfied with things and would like to see them better.
  A second reason for the position of affairs is to be found in our restricted exports, a subject referred to by the Minister of Labour earlier this evening. Pious resolutions are passed at Geneva, but, notwithstanding that, every country in the world has raised its tariff barriers against our goods, and countries on the Continent which before the War were our best customers have become our most active competitors. There is a complete change in the situation there. Thirdly, there is a large increase in the imports of competitive goods. We have, roughly, 1,200,000 unemployed persons in this country, and that state of affairs has been fairly chronic; but equally chronic has been the importation of foreign manufactured goods, which have given employment to more than that number of foreigners. If hon. Members opposite ask us how we can put this state of affairs right, I say it is not by setting our steel workers to dig up the lanes of the countryside but by giving to those steel workers the work which is now done by steel workers abroad.
  Mr. J. JONES: You have had five years to do it. Why have you not done it?
  Sir H. CROFT: I hope I shall have the help of the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. Jones). Whenever he comes to our aid England and Ireland pull together and we get ahead.
  Mr. GREENALL: Tell us why you have not done it.
  Sir H. CROFT: I will tell you something. Since the small policy of safeguarding has been in operation, with the McKenna Duties and the Silk Duties, I estimate that something like 300,000 additional workers have been absorbed in those industries. If we have not got along faster, it is because, on the one hand, the Prime Minister has been most anxious not to exceed his pledges—and everyone will pay him a tribute for that—and a further reason is that no other party has come to our aid in trying to solve this problem.
  Mr. GREENALL: Is that sufficient explanation why you have not done it?
  Sir H. CROFT: It is sufficient to show why trade unionists all over the country are now coming over to our party, as the hon. Gentleman will discover if he consults those whom he presumes to represent in the textile industry. The hon. Baronet the Member for Smethwick (Sir O. Mosley), in his ill-informed speech, attempted to suggest that safeguarding would not do much more good, that the field was very limited and that the vast proportion of our unemployed could not benefit from the policy; and he was particularly delighted that nothing could be done in this respect to help the transport workers. No workers stand to gain more from safeguarding than the transport wokers. I will give an example. I have urged during the last two or three years that we should do everything to exclude at least 2,500,000 tons of foreign steel which is coming into this country every year. Before the Balfour Commission evidence was given that, in order to complete a finished ton of steel, something like seven tons of ore, limestone, coal, pig iron, and so on, were used. It may be very good to carry 2,500,000 tons of foreign steel, but if we were making steel in this country the railway workers would be carrying over 17,000,000 tons of material.
  Captain GARRO-JONES: The hon. Baronet should address his own Front Bench.
  Sir H. CROFT: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not the Speaker of the House of Commons yet. If I am out of order, I will bow to the Chair, but I am not going to be led into an argument by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The hon. Gentlemen opposite are very interested at the moment in the railways, because they find that there is going to be a vast subsidy from the Liberal party to try and crush the railway workers, a point which is rapidly gaining the ears of the railway workers. I put it to them that if they had carried last year 17,000,000 tons of heavy haulage instead of 2,500,000 tons of foreign steel, would it not have been sufficient to prevent that drop in wages which the workers undertook in order to help industry along? We are importing into this country every year £200,000,000

  2211
  worth of foreign manufactured goods, which we might quite easily make ourselves if we made up our minds to do it, and at least three times the volume of these goods would be carried by our transport system. A year ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer made an alteration in the Sugar Duties in favour of the British manufacturer. It did no man any harm; the Chancellor of the Exchequer is very cautious in these questions; he reduced the duty upon raw sugar and left it on foreign refined sugar. The result has been that 500,000 tons of raw sugar is coming into this country, and I am told that it will be 800,000 tons in a full year. We have a net gain of something like 300,000 tons in transport owing to the fact that we bring in the raw sugar instead of the foreign refined sugar. I am also informed that as a direct result of that policy, in one year 4,000 more men were engaged in the refining of sugar.
  When the hon. Baronet the Member for Smethwick made his speech dealing with all those industries which he mentioned, and, when he claimed that the Labour policy would increase the purchasing power of the people of this country, he failed entirely to realise that even those countries which rely on their export trades were being undersold by foreign products in places where the machinery for producing those goods had been invented. Thousands of men in Lancashire might be employed to-day if Lancashire decided to keep out foreign piece goods, because that would give employment to thousands in the textile industries of Lancashire. Yorkshire has discovered this and is trying to remedy it. If you can secure your home markets, then manufacturers can reduce their overhead charges, and they can sell their goods abroad at a lower price. Mr. Samuel Courtauld, speaking the other day at the Annual Meeting, told us that they did not ask for these duties; in fact, he said they were opposed to them: but, as they had been imposed, he must now utter this warning that, if that protection were removed, it would be an utter calamity to everyone engaged in the industry.
  You are not going to cure unemployment by a policy of doles or temporary expedients. That will only help people
  2212
  for a very short time. I believe that you can conquer unemployment if you go out for a big Empire policy of development, building new railways all over the Empire, and doing these things on a really large scale. That is our opportunity. The other method is to safeguard your home markets and stimulate your production so that you may increase your export trade and your total overseas commerce. That is the issue. The present Government, with all their difficulties and all the opposition they have received, first from the right and then from the left, have definitely declared that our policy is the de-rating of industries and the safeguarding of industries, and that is the policy which will help producton and restore British trade.
  Mr. TINKER: I agree that this Debate has given the Minister of Labour an opportunity of getting off an election speech, although some hon. Members sitting behind him did not seem to enjoy it very much. I think, when the right hon. Gentleman's speech is more closely analysed, it will be found that it does not reflect very much credit on the Conservative party. The opening part of our Amendment must appeal to every Member of the House. It declares:
  "That this House views with grave concern the continued existence of a gigantic volume of unemployment."
  The hon. Member for Mosley (Mr. Hopkinson) appeared not to realise its whole significance; indeed, he showed signs of not realising it at all. He was really optimistic, and this is the first time I have ever known him to be so. I have always looked upon him as being a very doleful and pessimistic man-perhaps the most doleful in this House; but to-night he took satisfaction in certain things. One was that the Government had removed the Seven Hours Act from the Statute Book and made it an Eight Hours Act; and he went on to say that one of the causes of unemployment was the fact that the Labour Government brought about increased wages for the miners. He also said that we might expect a further increase of wages in the mining industry. I hope that he is correct. Three or four agreements will come to an end next December, and we are hoping that the hon. Member's words will come true.

  2213
  As to the question of dealing with unemployment, suggestions have been made for the improvement of roads, the widening of canals, afforestation, and several other methods. That may answer for the time being, but it is really not a solution. Safeguarding is not a solution, nor is increased spending power a solution. The only permanent solution that I can see is that where, with the advance of science, productivity increases, so that the same amount of production can be obtained in the same time by fewer workers, then, instead of a number of people being thrown out of work, the same number should still be employed, and their hours of labour reduced. That is the only real solution that will come about as a result of the advance of science. I have always understood that whatever benefit might accrue from scientific methods should be for the good of mankind, but, if scientific methods mean throwing out of work a certain number of people, there is no resulting improvement in the working conditions of the people. We have examples in the mining industry, and also in the glass industry, of men being thrown out of work owing to the adoption of improved methods, but there is no satisfaction in that, and, unless whatever Government may be in power determines to make full use of such improvements for the advantage of all concerned, I cannot see that there is likely to be any fundamental improvement in dealing with what is called the unemployment problem. I would urge any Government to take a strong line and give the benefit of increased productivity to the people employed in the industry. That can only come about under nationalisation; it cannot be done under our present system, and, therefore, I will leave that point.
  I should like to say a word or two on the administrative side of this matter. When a man signs on for unemployment benefit, if he has any dependants, he has to fill in a form giving particulars of his dependants. That paper has to be signed by a justice of the peace. It has come to my knowledge that, among a number of people in the Tyldesley area who signed on for unemployment benefit was a justice of the peace who had also signed these forms for others. The official in charge of the Employment Exchange told him that, owing to his having signed on for unemployment benefit, he had lost
  2214
  that power of signing these papers which he had as a justice of the peace.
  Mr. BETTERTON: The hon. Member will recollect that I at once gave instructions that the signature in that case should be honoured, because it was obviously given as a justice of the peace.
  Mr. TINKER: I was not going to divulge the conversation that I had with the Parliamentary Secretary, but he told me that this was an administrative order, and that, although he allowed it in that particular case, it could not be allowed in future, so that in future a justice of the peace, who happened to be receiving unemployment benefit would not have this power which he otherwise would have, and that is why I am drawing the attention of the House of Commons to the matter. I think it was never meant that way. If a man gets J.P. put after his name, he ought not to lose that dignity simply because he is unfortunate and is put on unemployment benefit. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to consider the whole matter. When a man such as I have described is in receipt of unemployment benefit, he should not be deprived of the power of signing these papers. I hope the hon. Gentleman will take notice of that and see that it is put into operation.
  Mr. J. HUDSON: I wish to refer again to the very interesting and enlightening speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft). As usual he came back to the well-worn subject of safeguarding and Protection, addressing to us, and to Members on the Liberal benches, a plea which, of course, all the time he ought to have been addressing to the leaders of his own party, for if all these benefits that he says could be obtained from the safeguarding of steel and the other big industries were possible, his case surely lies against his own Government for their failure to apply the methods which he says would have such beneficent results. He referred to the programme, as he called it, of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) in 1918. Perhaps he did not mean it, but his suggestion was that it was largely a plea for safeguarding and the prevention of dumping. But that programme included a great many other things than that. Indeed, safeguarding, and provisions to prevent

  2215
  dumping, played a very small part in the programme. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman laid out a scheme which, in my judgment, went much further than the scheme which has been so extensively referred to to-night. The question of road making, the building of houses, afforestation, land drainage, the provision of homes for everyone, a land fit for heros to dwell in, and everything that could be encompassed in the form of promises found their part in the scheme which made the electoral programme of the right hon. Gentleman in 1918.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Including the nationalisation of railways.
  Mr. HUDSON: Including everything. We need not bother much about details. Practically everything was there, especially when one remembers a speech like that in the Manchester Hippodrome, a very appropriate place for it, where the whole of the programme was laid out and where the wonderful promises were made. Although there seems to have been some complaint that we have given too much attention to the right hon. Gentleman's proposals. I want to spend a little time considering the new proposals, or, as I prefer to call them, the old proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs to deal with this problem of unemployment. In the year 1917, when the War was running its course and it was becoming pretty clear to everybody what would be the after-War conditions of this country, there were in existence a number of Commissions dealing with the reconstructive work that would be necessary in this country if unemployment were to be prevented. The Members of our own party in those days, reading those reports, and understanding the problems that would confront us pressed upon the Government then, and particularly upon the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, who was at that time Prime Minister, the necessity for preparing, at the end of the War, a scheme of things, including the roads, canals, light railways, afforestation, land drainage, and indeed, all those things that are now promised again by the right hon. Gentleman. They pressed those questions upon his attention and urged that some preparatory work should be done to mate those schemes possible. What happened? The
  2216
  right hon. Gentleman may say that he was too busy getting on with the War to give special attention to it, but at the end of the War he included in his promise all the points that this party had pressed upon his attention. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not quite."] At any rate, hon. Members put up with him very well for a time, and they were very glad in the 1918 Election to get the advantage of the extensive promises he then made.
  I rather imagine that one of the complaints at the present time is that the right hon. Gentleman is making his promises in such a way that the Conservative party will be able to reap none of the advantages of those promises. Let me come to what happened after 1918. An industrial conference was summoned at which all these questions were to be considered. They were considered on the employers' side as well as in this House of Commons. Statements continued to be made about the necessity of carrying out the plans that we then laid down. With what result? None of those extensive promises was accomplished, although there was then an enormous majority in the House of Commons to make it possible to accomplish all of them. On the other hand what actually was accomplished—and I draw the attention particularly of the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway to this—was that the right hon. Gentleman himself scrapped the one proposal that might have been of assistance to him in dealing with these schemes, the proposal that came down from pre-War days by which something could have been done to deal with the land problem. After all, the making of new roads, the opening up of afforestation schemes, the extension of land drainage schemes are all closely associated with the land problem. What is the situation to-day?
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs is now pretending that he can do all these; wonderful things, all promises, without making any considerable raid—without making any raid at all—upon public moneys. He suggests that the 350,000 men who are to be put on to the new road schemes within a year can be employed by the raising of a loan, which is to be partly mortgaged on what ultimately could be obtained by a betterment tax. It is suggested that by putting a special tax upon the improvement of the land value along the side of

  2217
  the new roads there would be a return which would cover the cost of the loan proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. Who would grant a loan to a Government for which the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs could ever be responsible, on the basis of a betterment tax that he would impose? Does not everyone know that on every side of the land question, particularly the taxation of land, the right hon. Gentleman has absolutely betrayed his trust? At the present time all that he is putting forward in the new financial scheme to cover the employment of men upon roads is something that he did not carry out when he had the chance to do it, and we know that if he had another chance—we all know that he will not get that chance—ho would fail, as he did before.
  When the right hon. Gentleman is making these revived promises, in almost exactly the same words that he made them in 1918, I wonder whether he cannot remember that, in the long run, if we are to allow to remain in existence the power of landlordism, as it has ruled in this country hitherto, neither afforestation schemes, land drainage schemes nor any effective schemes for the amelioration of our lot can be carried through. It is because we know, and because everybody in this House knows, that the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs has completely betrayed that central principle upon which any good thing must be done, that so few people can place confidence in his words.
  The Government claim that they have done certain constructive things during the last year or two. The Prime Minister, in giving a catalogue of the benefits that the Tories have accomplished in this country, indicated that in 1926 they had passed the Electricity Act. We have heard from the Minister of Labour to-day that under the Electricity Act they have expended £6,000,000, with a view to helping the reorganisation of the national electricity supply. They have spent this £6,000,000 not so much upon the unemployed as in bolstering up private interests in the electrical industry. We have had an example recently on the part of Americans who are anxious to share in the swag that is already being shared by the private electrical industry in this country, as a result of the
  2218
  benefits that have accrued from the £6,000,000 that have been spent.
  The re-electrification of this country on a scale necessary to deal with our industrial needs cannot be done until we apply electricity to coal in the same way that in Canada the nation has applied electricity to its water supply. So long as we allow the coalmines to remain in the possession of the private few, and so long as they are able to hold us off from the full electricial developments that are necessary, we may spend our millions, £6,000,000 or more millions, but the benefits will go not to the unemployed, not to the nation but to the bolstering up of private interests.
  It will be our aim in the coming election as Socialists, and honest Socialists, to stand by what we believe, in contradistinction to the Tories who pretend to oppose Socialism but when they get into power bring in a Bill which the hon. Member for Leeds described as a rotten Socialist Bill, a Bill which pretended to apply nationalisation to a concern but in the long run only uses nationalisation and socialism for the benefit of a few people who happen to be in control of the business. In the coming election, when we speak for the unemployed, we intend to stand by the principles we have taught throughout. We believe that if the land and the mines are to be made to serve the interests of the nation and the unemployed they cannot continue to remain in the possession of private individuals, and if the nation will give us a majority, which we hope and believe they will, then we can begin to do the real fundamental work by which the problem of unemployment may be dealt with.
  Mr. DIXEY: I should like to make just one or two remarks upon the position of unemployment in the country. It is amusing to hear hon. Members opposite refer to the Government schemes for dealing with unemployment in the cynical way to which we are accustomed in this House, but I should like to hear what concrete proposition they have to offer as a cure. I fully appreciate the fact that the Liberal party have stolen a march on the Socialist party and that for once they have found themselves out-promised in what they propose to do for the electors of the country. We on this side of the House stand for a policy which will do some good and make for

  2219
  real industrial progress. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has made promises before, but not one of them has, in fact, been carried out. As far as we are concerned, we appreciate the fact that we have not been able to solve the unemployment question, but if the Government would tackle the whole policy of safeguarding we might get some good results. I say quite seriously, that we all have a duty to the nation in this matter. The real solution must rest in giving our people a chance in the competitive markets of the world.
  It is a tragedy that the Socialist party will not appreciate the fact that, when all is said and done, it is a question of the employment of our people at an equal wage for the job in which they are engaged. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) and other people always say that if we indulge in the policy of Protection we shall be putting up prices to the consumer. I think we have proved definitely that the price to the consumer goes down if we put on Safeguarding Duties. Hon. Members may laugh. With the election pledges and policies of their leaders before them, they may say that they dislike the policy of safeguarding, but the actual proof is in the improvement in unemployment in those areas where the Safeguarding Duties have been applied. What do all the promises about nationalisation and gifts from the Road Fund for the people amount to? Nothing. The right hon. Gentleman for Carnarvon Boroughs was in office, and he did nothing at all to relieve unemployment. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon (Mr. MacDonald) was in office, and he did nothing to relieve unemployment.
  When the right hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. Baldwin) came into power, he did relieve unemployment to a certain extent by Safeguarding Duties in the particular trades to which they were applied. Nobody can dispute that 20,000 people more are employed in the motor
  trade in this country. Facts speak for themselves. We have got to justify our existence. [Interruption.] I agree, quite frankly, that we must go upon the improvement in industrial conditions. I am perfectly confident that if the Government have the courage to apply these duties which they have applied to smaller trades—[Interruption.] After all is said and done, promises will not win a General Election. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) may profess confidence in the pledges given by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs in securing employment, but he knows quite well that those promises to give every man a job are absolutely fantastic. He knows quite well that there is no danger of any test of that policy, because the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs will never have a chance of putting it into force. I really believe in the policy which I advocate, and I think, if hon. Members opposite would put their political beliefs second to their desire to benefit the people of the country, they would be the first people to come out and support the Safeguarding policy. They know quite well that the main question is the finding of more employment. Are the workers of this country treated in the same way as the workers in competitive countries? The right hon. Member for Preston and other minor Members of this House know that the wages in this country are better than those in competitive countries, particularly in the iron and steel trades. Is it fair that we should be obliged to compete in the export markets of the world with countries that have longer hours and lower wages? I appeal to hon. Members opposite at least to give serious consideration to a policy which would benefit the workers of this country and provide a remedy for the present deplorable position.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 149; Noes, 100.

  Division No. 273.]

  AYES.

  [10.57 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

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

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

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

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Brass, Captain W.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Bevan, S. J

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Brown-Lindsay, Major H.

  Hills, Major John Waller

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

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

  Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

  Calne, Gordon Hall

  Holbrook, sir Arthur Richard

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

  Campbell, E. T.

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

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Salmon, Major l.

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

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

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Christle, J. A.

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Kindersley, Major Guy M.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D

  King, Commodore Henry Douglas

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

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

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

  Cope, Major Sir William

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Smithers, Waldron

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

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  MacIntyre, Ian

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  McLean, Major A.

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

  Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

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

  Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel

  Tasker, R. Inigo.

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Makins, Brigadler-General E.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Dixey, A. C.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Thomson, Sir Frederick

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Tinne, J. A.

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

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

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

  Fielden, E. B.

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

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

  Forrest, W.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Ganzonl, Sir John.

  Murchison, Sir Kenneth

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Gates, Percy

  Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

  Wells, S. R.

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

  Neville, Sir Reginald J.

  White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

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

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Gower, Sir Robert

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

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Grant, Sir J. A.

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Oakley, T.

  Withers, John James

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Perring, Sir William George

  Wolmer, Viscount

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

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Womersley, W. J.

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Pilcher, G.

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

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Preston, William

  Wragg, Herbert

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Wright, Brig.-General W. D.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Raine, Sir Walter

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

  Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

  Reld, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Remer, J. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Rentoul, Sir Gervals

  Mr. Penny and Captain Wallace.

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  NOES.

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

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

  Ritson, J.

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

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Scurr, John

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hardle, George D.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Harris, Percy A.

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Batey, Joseph

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Shield, G. W.

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Shinwell, E.

  Bellamy, A.

  Hollins, A.

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Benn, Wedgwood

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Snell, Harry

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Briant, Frank

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

  Stamford, T. W.

  Broad, F. A.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Bromfield, William

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Strauss, E. A.

  Bromley, J.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Kennedy, T.

  Taylor, R. A.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

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

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

  Charleton, H. C.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Cluse, W. S

  Lawson, John James

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Lee, F.

  Townend, A. E.

  Connolly, M.

  Lowth, T.

  Viant, S. P.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Lunn, William

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Dalton, Ruth (Bishop Auckland)

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

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Day, Harry

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Dennison, R.

  Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

  Westwood, J.

  Duncan, C.

  Maxton, James

  Williams, David (Swansea, East),

  Edge, Sir William

  Montague, Frederick

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

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

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Gillett, George M.

  Mosley, Sir Oswald

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

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

  Naylor, T. E.

  Windsor, Walter

  Greenall, T.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Owen, Major G.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Palin, John Henry

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Griffith, F. Kingsley

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Whiteley.

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Potts, John S.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  Supply accordingly considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.
    CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1929.
      CLASS VII.

        ART AND SCIENCE BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.
        Resolved,
        "That a sum, not exceeding £181,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for Expenditure in respect of Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain."—[NOTE: £90,000 has been voted on account.]

        PUBLIC BUILDINGS OVERSEAS.
        Resolved,
        "That a sum, not exceeding £184,690, be granted to His Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for Expenditure in respect of Public Buildings Overseas."—[NOTE:£92,350 has been voted on account.]

        LABOUR AND HEALTH BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN
        Resolved,
        "That a sum, not exceeding £360,950, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for Expenditure in respect of Employment Exchange and Insurance Buildings, Great Britain (including Ministries of Labour and Health and the Department of Health for Scotland)."—[NOTE: £180,450 has been voted on account.]

        HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS.
        Resolved,
        "That a sum, not exceeding £63,800, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for Expenditure in respect of Houses of Parliament Buildings."—[NOTE:£32,000 has been voted on account.]
        Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
        Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  DONCASTER AREA DRAINAGE BILL.
  Resolution of the House [15th March] relative to the Doncaster Area Drainage
  2224
  Bill, which was ordered to be communicated to the Lords, and the Message from the Lords [21st March] signifying their concurrence in the said Resolution, read:
  So much of the Lords Message [21st March] as relates to the Resolution, "That it is expedient that the said Committee be the Joint Committee on the Railway (Air Transport) Bills," read:
  Resolved, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Resolution."—[Mr. Guinness.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.
  Ordered, "That the Doncaster Area Drainage Bill be committed to the Joint Committee on the Railway (Air Trans-port) Bills."
  Ordered, "That all Petitions against the Bill presented on or before the 17th day of April be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill."—[Mr. Guinness.]

  BASTARDY (WITNESS PROCESS) BILL.
  Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee
  PRESERVATION OF INFANT LIFE BILL [Lords].
  Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee

  SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES (AMENDMENT) BILL.

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

  BRITISH SHIPS (CREW SPACE).
  BRITISH SHIPS (CREW SPACE).
  POST OFFICE (TELEPHONE FACILITIES, BLACKBRAES).
  POST OFFICE (TELEPHONE FACILITIES, BLACKBRAES).
INDIA.
  LABOUR, MALAYA.
  LABOUR, MALAYA.
  AVIATION (EXPENDITURE).
  AVIATION (EXPENDITURE).
  INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE.
  INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE.
  SCHOOL HOLIDAYS.
  SCHOOL HOLIDAYS.
SCOTLAND.
  RATING RELIEF (BREWING AND DISTILLING INDUSTRY).
  RATING RELIEF (BREWING AND DISTILLING INDUSTRY).
  NEW HOLDINGS AND ENLARGEMENTS.
  NEW HOLDINGS AND ENLARGEMENTS.
  ALIENS (EMPLOYMENT).
  ALIENS (EMPLOYMENT).
  FACTORY INSPECTION (REPORTS AND PROSECUTIONS).
  FACTORY INSPECTION (REPORTS AND PROSECUTIONS).
  JURORS (STATISTICS).
  JURORS (STATISTICS).
TRANSPORT.
  ROAD ACCIDENTS.
  ROAD ACCIDENTS.
  LEVEL CROSSINGS.
  LEVEL CROSSINGS.
  RUBBER PAVING.
  RUBBER PAVING.
  HEAVY MOTOR VEHICLES (PNEUMATIC TYRES).
  HEAVY MOTOR VEHICLES (PNEUMATIC TYRES).
  BRITISH ROAD-STONE QUARRIES.
  BRITISH ROAD-STONE QUARRIES.
  RAILWAY PASSENGER TRAINS.
  RAILWAY PASSENGER TRAINS.
  LONDON UNDERGROUND RAILWAYS (OVERCROWDING).
  LONDON UNDERGROUND RAILWAYS (OVERCROWDING).
PUBLIC HEALTH.
  CANCER.
  CANCER.
  HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION, ROMFORD.
  HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION, ROMFORD.
  RHEUMATISM.
  RHEUMATISM.
  MILK SUPPLY (GRANTS).
  MILK SUPPLY (GRANTS).
  WATER SUPPLIES.
  WATER SUPPLIES.
  MELTON CEMENT WORKS (DUST).
  MELTON CEMENT WORKS (DUST).
  POOR LAW (RATE REDUCTIONS).
  POOR LAW (RATE REDUCTIONS).
HOUSING.
  RURAL WORKERS.
  RURAL WORKERS.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  POPULATION.
  POPULATION.
CHINA.
  BRITISH SUBJECTS (DEATHS BY VIOLENCE).
  BRITISH SUBJECTS (DEATHS BY VIOLENCE).
  PEKING-MUKDEN RAILWAY.
  PEKING-MUKDEN RAILWAY.
  ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY (GOVERNMENT DIRECTORS).
  ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY (GOVERNMENT DIRECTORS).
  BEER.
  BEER.
  FISHING INDUSTRY.
  FISHING INDUSTRY.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (MERTHYR TYDFIL WATER CHARGES) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
WESTMINSTER CITY (MILLBANK) IMPROVEMENT BILL.
Read 2a.
IVEAGH BEQUEST (KENWOOD) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
LLANELLY CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
OLDBURY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
AIRE AND CALDER NAVIGATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
JARROW AND SOUTH SHIELDS TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
CHATHAM AND DISTRICT TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
CHELTENHAM DISTRICT TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MEXBOROUGH AND SWINTON TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MANSFIELD DISTRICT TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
GOSPORT AND FAREHAM OMNIBUS SERVICES BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
NESPORT (SALOP) URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (NORTHERN IRELAND AGREEMENT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Cushendun).
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Confirmation of scheduled agreement.
1.—(1) The supplemental agreement set forth in the Schedule to this Act is hereby confirmed and shall have effect as if enacted in this Act.
(2) Any sums certified by the Joint Exchequer Board to be payable after the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty, under the principal agreement as continued by the supplemental agreement, from the Exchequer of the

825
United Kingdom to the Exchequer of Northern Ireland shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom or the growing produce thereof.
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD moved, at the end of Clause 1, to insert:—
"Provided that no sum shall be so charged and paid if there is a surplus in the Unemployment Fund of Northern Ireland and any deficiencies in that Fund have been made good."
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I wish again to make it clear that, so far as the Labour Party are concerned, we are not objecting to helping the Unemployment Fund of Northern Ireland when help is really needed. What we have said is that we think the help should be by way of loan, and not by way of gift, and there has been no misconception, as the noble Lord seemed to think, on our part. What I want to raise here is a point which seems to me of some importance, and that is, why should any payment be made from our Exchequer to the Government of Northern Ireland if their Fund is in surplus and all deficiencies have been made good?
As I understand it, under the Agreement signed in 1926 we should, even in those circumstances, under certain conditions, be liable to make a payment to the Government of Northern Ireland. For instance, supposing for the sake of argument that the unemployment figure in Great Britain had fallen to 3 per cent. and in Northern Ireland to 6 per cent., both those figures being below the 8 per cent. which is generally assumed to be the balancing figure of the Fund—certainly of our Fund—and supposing that all deficiencies had been wiped out, and that under these conditions both Funds were in the happy position of having a surplus, but the Northern Ireland Fund was not in quite so favourable a position as ours—it would not be on the assumption I have made—why in those circumstances should we have to pay, as I think we have to under the words of this Agreement, if you go back to the Act and Agreement of 1926? Why should we have to pay any money at all to the Government of Northern Ireland if their Fund is in surplus and in the conditions which I have adumbrated?
The noble Lord may say—and he has said it before in another connection—"Oh well! the agreement is reciprocal, and even although it may seem a somewhat strange proceeding, if it ever came into operation it would be the same for both countries, and so would even out the matter." As I ventured to point out last week, the Agreement is not really reciprocal. I say the White Paper is deceptive. On the last occasion the noble Lord said that I used strong language. I did, and I shall do so again. I say that not one man in a hundred reading the White Paper would understand what it means without having more information. It means this, that unless we alter the way in which we finance our Fund we can never get anything from Northern Ireland. We do not work our Fund on the basis of making a gift when in deficiency. We make a loan, and then we hope that when conditions improve the matter may right itself by the automatic operation of the Fund. If, however, you read this White Paper, you will find, I think, that nothing will happen unless when our Fund is in debit we give a grant out of the Exchequer, as we are doing to Northern Ireland. It seems to me that we cannot hope to get anything from Northern Ireland if we were in surplus. Moreover, it is extremely improbable that circumstances will ever arise when our figure of unemployment will be below the figure of unemployment in Northern Ireland. It is almost inconceivable. However, it is theoretically possible, and therefore to that extent it may be argued that the Agreement is reciprocal. But if when in deficiency we lend money to the Unemployment Fund and recoup ourselves when in surplus in the way which I have explained, would not that take us out of the operation of this Agreement? And would not the position, therefore, be this, that while we are liable, or might be liable, under certain conditions such as I have adumbrated, to make a payment to the Government of Northern Ireland, they would not be liable under the same conditions to make a payment to us unless we altered the basis of our Fund?
But why, in any case, should there be a payment at all if the Northern Ireland Fund became so prosperous that all deficiencies were wiped off and there was a clear surplus? Under this Agreement, as I read it, we are liable to make some

827
payment. The noble Lord may say: "Well, if you are going to alter this, you must go back and change the original Agreement. "Well, why not? This is the time to do it. You are supplementing the original Agreement with another Agreement under this. Bill, and therefore this is just the opportunity to make the change. And clearly it would, as I hold, make the matter very much more business-like and very much more defensible. We have the opportunity now of rectifying this matter, and I think it is an opportunity which should appeal to your Lordships, because the Agreement as it stands seems to me to be a very extraordinary one. I do not think it was properly thought out to this extent, and, if it was, it was said "Oh, the circumstances will never arise." I do not think that is a satisfactory thing for Parliament, and I think that this strange provision should now be put right. That would be done by accepting this Amendment, which I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 2, line 19, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Arnold.)
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (LORD CUSHENDUN): No doubt the noble Lord is quite aware of the fact that if this Amendment were accepted or carried it would have the effect of destroying the Bill. I gathered from the last few words that he uttered that he would not object to that—he wants to amend the original Act of 1926. But, at all events, let us understand that that would be the effect, because this Bill merely implements an Agreement between the Government of Northern Ireland and His Majesty's Treasury, which is scheduled to the Bill. Consequently, if you were to make an alteration in the Agreement itself, which this Amendment would do, obviously the Bill would have to be dropped, at all events until negotiations had proceeded between the two Governments and they had agreed to the alteration which the noble Lord proposes.
There is another preliminary objection which I think I ought to bring before your Lordships. If your Lordships will look at the place in the Bill where the noble Lord proposes to make this alteration you will see that the clause to which he wishes to add the proviso is not an enacting clause with regard to payments
828
or the incidence of payment; it is simply a clause which provides that, whatever payments have to be made, when agreed upon by the Joint Exchequer Board, shall be made out of the Consolidated Fund. I do not say that it is not within the province of your Lordships to make such an Amendment, but it would at all events introduce a very great anomaly in drafting to insert this proviso in this place. I quite admit that the noble Lord is in a difficulty because he really wants to amend the Agreement. He cannot alter the Agreement itself, there is no place to do it, he can only propose to amend the body of the Bill. But that does not get over the fact that this clause merely states that any payment that has to be made must be made out of the Consolidated Fund—it is entirely confined to that—but the noble Lord s proposal is to vary the payment itself, to vary, in fact, the whole structure of the Agreement.
But my objections to the Amendment are by no means confined to technical objections. There are very grave objections, I think, to the Amendment on the merits. It is not in the least necessary to make this Amendment. The noble Lord has repeated to-day very much the same criticism that he made the other day, and which I endeavoured, apparently unsuccessfully, to show was an entire misconception of the meaning of the Bill. After all, the intention is to make the two Funds stand on the same footing. The noble Lord continues to speak of making payments to the Government of Northern Ireland as if this payment was something in the nature of a "dole," or a concession, or a grant. It is nothing of the sort. It is simply an arrangement by which the two Funds, which ought to be one and indivisible, make an arrangement by which they can be kept on terms of equality. The noble Lord knows that the Agreement already provides that no payment becomes due from this country in any year in which the Northern Ireland Fund is in a better position than the British Fund, that is to say, a year in which it has proportionately a larger surplus: in such circumstances no payment is made.
Then the Amendment appears to be intended to mean that if, after the whole debt of the Northern Ireland Fund has been paid off, and all deficiency has been

829
removed—and let me remind your Lordships that that cannot take place for thirty years, and therefore there is no great urgency about the matter—if, then, there are in any year surpluses both on the British and on the Irish Funds, of which the Irish surplus is proportionately the smaller, then a payment has to be made under the Agreement. The noble Lord especially complains of a payment being made when the Irish Fund is not in deficit—that is to say, some period after thirty years. What would be the effect of that? I presume that the English Fund would also he in surplus. If it is a handsome surplus, if you have built up, by years of prosperous insurance, a considerable reserve, then obviously what takes place is that the contributions are lowered, or the benefits are increased to absorb the surplus money. When that takes place it has to take place equally on the Irish Fund and on the English Fund, and there is no way by which those two Funds could be kept on an equality except by this system of payments from one to the other, not dependent necessarily upon whether there is a surplus in the Irish Fund, but on the relative positions of the two Funds.
I do not, know whether I have succeeded in explaining that to your Lordships. It is, I admit, a rather complicated matter resting on a formula; but I can assure your Lordships that the matter has not been, as the noble Lord seems to suggest, hastily arrived at and not properly thought out. On the contrary, it has been most carefully thought out, and I submit to your Lordships that there is no way by which the end in view, to which the noble Lord does not object, of keeping the Irish Fund on an equality with the English Fund, can be reached except by the system of cross-payments which is embodied in this agreement and in this Bill.
The noble Lord, again, spoke of the procedure, which he thought involved an alteration of our financial system. I do not think that is so. If the English Fund was in a smaller surplus than the Irish Fund, then the English Exchequer would be entitled to make an equalisation payment to bring the two Funds on to an equality. When that had been done they could claim a proportion of the amount from the Government of Northern
830
Ireland. I agree with the noble Lord that the circumstances are never likely to arise; in fact, I said so the other day. Nevertheless, for the reason I gave last week it was thought desirable, and the Government of Northern Ireland were particularly anxious for it, that it should be in form, at all events, a reciprocal arrangement, and that it has been made. For those reasons I cannot accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, and I hope after what I have said that he will not think it necessary to press it.
LORD ARNOLD: The noble Lord has dealt with the matter fully to-day and I thank him for doing that, because I raised the point before and then there was really no reply given. Let me say again that it is not our object to destroy the Bill. We only want to change the basis of it. We are quite in favour of helping the Northern Ireland Unemployment Fund. It is true, as the noble Lord has said, that one of the difficulties which are unavoidable, if the Amendment is put in, is that it comes at the place where it would have effect on payments out of the Consolidated Fund. I cannot help that. That is my misfortune. I cannot put down an Amendment to the original Agreement. I would assure the noble Lord that on the main question there is no misconception as to what has happened. We understand perfectly well the basis of this Bill, but we do not agree with it. If I may say so, I think there is some misunderstanding in his mind. I took the point again and again that for us to get payments from Northern Ireland we should have to alter the basis of the finance of our Fund. He says that that is not so. I have just been looking through what the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself said in 1926, and he admitted it. He said that we would have to derange the whole basis of our Fund. We would have to put it on the same footing for this purpose as the Government of Northern Ireland Fund.
I still do not think, despite what he said, that any real and satisfactory explanation of why a, payment should be made when the Northern Ireland Fund is in surplus has been given. I do not think there has been any really satisfactory explanation of that point. It may be true that the surplus would not last very long, that it would more

831
or less equate itself to the alteration of benefits or payments and so on; but as a matter of business I do not think the noble Lord has made good the position that we should have to pay money when there is a surplus. When the noble Lord says that it could not arise for thirty years I do not think that matters. It does not make an Act of Parliament any better if in fifty years something is going to be wrong. We ought to make the Act right from the start, and I think that ought to be done now. I certainly shall not press the Amendment. As the noble Lord pointed out, it is an Amendment which it is very difficult to discuss in your Lordships' House because of its peculiar character; but, if I may say so, I think I have done right, in raising the point because we have now on record the position as explained by the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AMENDMENT) BILL
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, I desire to move the Second Reading of the Unemployment Insurance (Transitional Provisions Amendment) Bill, and I hope that it will be regarded as non-controversial. In another place there was a discussion on the Second Reading but the Committee stage and Third Reading stage passed without discussion. Your Lordships will remember that no one has attacked the principle of this Bill. Only the optimism of the Government in regard to the improvement of the state of unemployment when they fixed the duration of the operation of the transitional provisions of the Act of 1927 at twelve months has been attacked. Those hopes, unfortunately, have not been realised. Your Lordships are familiar, I think, with the history of these various Acts of which the present amending Act is the last.
832
Your Lordships are also familiar with what is known as the thirty contributions rule. This is the first statutory condition for drawing unemployment benefit. Under this rule the worker must have paid thirty contributions within the two years immediately preceding the date of drawing benefit for a new benefit period.
The Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927, contains transitional provisions under which the thirty contributions rule was not to come into force until twelve months after the operation of the Act had commenced, and the following conditions were substituted for that rule—(1), Payment of eight contributions during two years immediately preceding taking benefit or thirty contributions in all; (2), the worker is normally in insurable employment; and (3), the worker has reasonably been employed during the previous two years in insurable employment, considering all circumstances. These transitional provisions, as I have said, were to operate at any time within twelve months of the commencement of the Act; that is to say, twelve months from April 19, 1928. The present Bill merely substitutes twenty-four months for the twelve in the section of the principal Act which covers the duration of the transitional provisions, and prolongs their operation for a further period of twelve months. Your Lordships, I think, will understand that by reason of unemployment not having diminished to the extent to which we should have liked to see it diminish, it is necessary for the purpose of preventing hardship that the operation of the Act of 1927 should be prolonged for another twelve months. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, the noble Marquess in opening his speech said this Bill would be non-controversial. That is true in a sense, but it is net non-discussable, and I propose to say a few words about- it. I think the noble Marquess skated somewhat lightly over what he knows very well is the weak point of his case. I refer to the optimism of the Government in 1927 when they passed the Act of that year governing this very matter. It is not very much satisfaction to us in the Labour Party to say how right we were and how wrong

833
the Government have been, because we have been able to do that so often, but it has rarely been more to the point than in connection with this Bill. Most absurd expectations were held out by the Ministry of Labour about this matter, and the Bill is only another indication that the Government are incapable either of dealing with the problem of unemployment or of estimating what has to be done about unemployment.
In 1927 when the Bill was brought in the case of the Government was that probably unemployment would be reduced by the time this provision came into operation by one-fifth. Let us look at that. At the time the number of unemployed was about 1,200,000. Take one-fifth away and you get 960,000. Instead of that we have 1,268,000. As a matter of fact the Government calculation is about 30 per cent. wrong. We now have a debt on the Unemployment Fund of £35,000,000 at least. We do not oppose the Bill. It is inevitable what would happen if this Bill were not passed. At the time the original Bill was discussed the case of the Government was that if the provision went unamended possibly 30,000 men would be thrown out of benefit. As a matter of fact unless this Bill were passed 120,000 would be thrown out of benefit—four times as many as the Government estimated. There again the Government was wrong to the extent of about 100,000, yet this is the problem of unemployment upon which they obtained a great many votes in 1924 by saying it was their duty to deal with it and so on. It is not surprising in these circumstances, this being their record, that they are losing by-elections at a record rate. In nine by-elections this year their vote has fallen from 122,000 to 78,000—a drop of from 30 to 40 per cent. There has never been anything like it in the history of by-elections. It is not surprising that a large number of Unionist members are not standing again and do not wish to go before the electors when the time comes.
This Bill does nothing whatever to deal with the problem of unemployment. It is the negation of statesmanship. You will not find under this Bill a single job for a single man. All you do is to continue a state of things which is extremely unsatisfactory. This is apparently the last contribution this Government have
834
to make to the unemployment problem. There it is. We agree to it. We said it would be necessary; in fact, it does not really go far enough. We have suggested that all along. It is another commentary on the Government's mess, muddle and mismanagement of the last four and a half years. Happily the end is in sight, and as far as can be seen it is humanly certain that in a few weeks their place will be taken by another Government which will deal with these things in a more successful way.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I know the noble Lord does not like making a speech to which a reply is not given; in fact, the other evening he criticised my noble friend who sits behind me because he did not reply to him. I hardly think there is any reply necessary to the speech the noble Lord has just made. When he speaks of unemployment I would suggest to him that a great deal of the unemployment which now exists is due to the General Strike of 1926, to which the noble Lord did not object and of which those whom he calls his leaders were the leaders. They are the same individuals who are calling upon the country to return them to govern and control the destinies of this country. The noble Lord has ventured to make a prophecy and I also will make a prophecy. Although these by-elections are perhaps an index in some form or another, I venture to say that when we come to the General Election, which after all is the most important test, the noble Lord will find that those measures which were taken by his colleagues and leaders two years ago will be well remembered by the people of this country. The people of this country will realise that the figures of unemployment which my right hon. friend in another place has not been fortunate in bringing down are mainly attributable to the steps taken by the noble Lord and his colleagues and leaders two years ago.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I certainly do not want to embark at this stage on prophecies as to the effect of the General Election. The noble Marquess opposite may well take one view and I may well take another; but there is one point upon which I should like to say a word. It may be that the difficulties at the time of the General Lock-out or Strike, whichever you call

835
it—I call it a General Lock-out; certainly in the collieries of which I was cognisant it was a lock-out—arose from this cause: The Government themselves appointed a Committee or Commission to deal with the coal question generally, and after that Commission had reported, instead of implementing the Report by making it a matter of legislation, nothing was done. It was said sometimes that one party or the other did not agree to it. I dare say that may be so, but the duty of a Government is to do what they think right and it is a very strong thing to throw over the Report of a Commission which they themselves had appointed, and which most carefully had come to definite conclusions. I think that was a mistake. I do not want to go further into the matter and I should not have said so much if the noble Marquess opposite had not gone into ancient history, the effect of which no doubt may be found when the General Election comes along. All that I desire to do is to express a different opinion from that which he has uttered this afternoon.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

GAS UNDERTAKINGS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with certain of the Amendments made by the Lords agreed to, and with one Amendment disagreed to, for which disagreement the Commons assigned a Reason.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, you will see that the House of Commons has agreed with all the Amendments which your Lordships inserted in the Local Government Bill with the exception of one in Clause 65 of the Bill as it first reached us, and that was an Amendment which was discussed with great interest by many of your Lordships in all parts of the House. Many noble Lords supported its provisions strongly, and, therefore, I think your Lordships would wish me to go in some detail into the reasons which have moved the Government to venture to disagree with
836
the views that your Lordships held on that occasion. I would in the same way as my right hon. friend did in the House of Commons endeavour to explain those reasons. The Amendment appears in the clause dealing with the valuation of agricultural dwelling-houses.
The object of the original clause, Clause 65 of the Bill as it came to your Lordships' House, was not to make any change in the existing law. It was to maintain the status quo, the law as it exists at the present moment, and as it was established by the Act of 1896. The reason why it was necessary to put in that clause, to maintain the status quo, so as not to alter the provisions of the Act of 1896, was that by the Twelfth Schedule of this Bill the Act of 1896 is repealed. Therefore, unless a clause of this kind were put into the Bill, the provisions dealing with this class of house would have lapsed altogether. The Amendment to the clause creates quite a different situation. It goes a great deal further than the Act of 1896 and indeed establishes—or it would establish if put into an Act—a totally new principle of rating. The present system of rating is that a house should be rated according to the rent which a hypothetical tenant might reasonably be expected to be willing to pay on certain conditions; but if this Amendment were made it would provide that a person engaged in one kind of occupation—in this instance the occupation of agriculture—would carry that occupation about with him from house to house and the provisions of the Bill would apply to any house which he happened to occupy at the time. It would be difficult, I think, to confine such a provision to agriculture alone and, indeed, it was suggested I think by noble Lords opposite that the principle of the Amendment should also be extended to workers in industrial occupations.
As I said just now, the Act of 1896 had quite a different object. The principle of the Act of 1896 was quite different. Before 1896, before the partial derating of agricultural land was introduced, the farmhouse, cottages and buildings were assessed altogether with the farm as one unit, as I believe is the case now in Scotland. In 1896, when the 50 per cent. reduction in rating was made, the Act preserved to the farmhouses and the cottages and the build-

837
ings on the farm—which had, as I say, been previously assessed altogether with the land as one holding—security that they should not be assessed on a new basis simply because the land had been derated by 50 per cent. and was valued, therefore, separately from the land. This clause simply carries on the section of the Act of 1896 which provided that the buildings should not be assessed in a different manner because they were assessed separately from the derated land. Therefore I venture to hope that your Lordships will see fit to agree with another place in not accepting the Amendment which was put in during the passage of this measure in your Lordships' House. I have given some little explanation on the subject in the same way as my right hon. friend did in another place. I beg to move that the Commons Reason be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
[The reference is to Bill No. 39 as first printed for the House of Lords].
Clause 65, page 57, line 26, leave out from ("operations") to end of paragraph (b) and insert ("and whose wages are subject to the provisions of the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924.")
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:
Because by changing the basis of assessment as respects a certain class of hereditaments, it would effect an alteration in the incidence of rating burdens; and the Commons do not offer any further reason trusting that the above may be deemed sufficient.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist upon this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, I should like to correct a wrong impression which has appeared in some newspapers, who think that this Amendment derates agricultural labourers' cottages. I have one or two newspaper cutting in my pocket. I will not quote them but I should like that wrong impression to be put right. What this Amendment does is to put untied agricultural labourers' cottages on the same footing as the Bill puts farmhouses and tied cottages—that is to say, they are to be
838
assessed for rating purposes at their value to such occupiers. They would not be derated. As my noble friend the Earl of Onslow has just said, this is the only Amendment which has been rejected in another place. The Speaker said that it raises a question of Privilege. He said that of a great many of the other Amendments, and the Minister of Health where it suited him brushed the contention aside. What was the argument which the Minister of Health used against this Amendment? I think my noble friend the Earl of Onslow has used a good many of the same expressions, but I want especially to give the exact words used by the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health said:—
"ߪ it would introduce an entirely new principle of rating. Instead of saying that a house shall be rated according to the rent which a hypothetical tenant might reasonably be supposed to be willing to pay for it on certain conditions, it would say that a person engaged in a particular kind of occupation should carry about that occupation to whatever 'house he occupied."
Then he went on to say:—
"ߪ it is very difficult to see why it should be confined to a person following one particular occupation."
That is exactly what the Bill does as introduced without my Amendment, for it says that a farmer so long as he occupies a farmhouse is to have the house assessed at a low figure. Surely, that is saying that a person engaged in a particular kind of occupation should carry about that occupation to whatever house he occupies, and it confines it to a person following one particular occupation. It is not my idea. It is the Government's own idea. The Bill as introduced said that, a tied cottage was also to be so treated. I have only tried to extend the principle to untied agricultural labourers' cottages because under the Rating Act of 1925 these agricultural labourers' cottages are having their assessments put up to a very high figure in many places.
I speak more in sorrow than in anger at the attitude taken up by the Minister of Health, who refuses to accept my Amendment. I wanted the owners of agricultural labourers' cottages to go on accepting two or three shillings a week rent, or even less, and to continue to let these cottages to agricultural labourers so that the land could be tilled and the flocks and herds looked after. The Bill

839
without my Amendment invites local authorities to value those cottages at what they could be let for to somebody who enjoys an income far in excess of that enjoyed by the agricultural labourer who cannot afford to pay more rent that he does at present. In other words, the Bill invites the owner of these cottages to dehouse the agricultural labourer. I have done my best for agriculture and I am very grateful to all the noble Lords who supported me in my endeavour. The House of Commons has agreed with the Minister of Health. At the moment I do not think that I shall trouble your Lordships with a Division, but before I make up my mind I should like to hear what other noble Lords have to say on the subject.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, when this matter was dealt with by your Lordships at an earlier stage I was not in agreement with the noble Lord who has just spoken, but with the Government, who, I think, opposed the Amendment that was then brought forward. I think that the Government were right in opposing it, for the reasons which the noble Earl has already stated. I do not think it can be denied that the Amendment which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dynevor, would have resulted, not only in a new principle, but in a principle that is wholly out of accord with the ordinary principles of rating. I will not touch upon the other suggestions that were made at various times that seemed to me to be out of accord with ordinary rating principles, but this was a particular and specific case. The proposed result, no doubt; was laudable in that we all hope that the agricultural labourer may have his cottage on fair terms. I believe he does so at the present time, certainly in the district in which I live. But that is not the question. If you are going to have the rating altered according to the occupation and the character of the occupier, you introduce a system which really upsets the whole foundation of the ordinary principles of rating, which the noble Lord knows as well as I do.
When this Amendment was before your Lordships, I had an Amendment down, though unfortunately I could not be present to move it, to the effect that, if Lord Dynevor's Amendment were
840
accepted, the principle should be applied to the occupation by workers of all cottages used in connection with industrial works or for industrial purposes. I cannot see why, in a matter of this kind, special privilege should be given to the agricultural labourer, or why the same should not be done for all other workers who are in substantially the same position. I do not want to argue the point at any length. It is obvious, I think, that the statements made by the noble Earl are in accord with our rating principles. I am glad that the matter has been put straight again, and I certainly agree with the arguments that the Government have brought forward.
LORD FORESTER: My Lords, I supported my noble friend Lord Dynevor when this matter came before your Lordships before, and I should like to support him again. For my sins I am a member of the local authority in my own county, and your Lordships will remember that, under the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, we had to get to work and try to carry out that Act according to what we thought were the intentions of the Government. The Minister of Health appointed a Central Valuation Committee to try to bring uniformity throughout the country, and all the counties appointed county valuation committees to receive hints from this Central Committee and to follow them out in the various counties. I happened to be Chairman of our valuation committee. We considered this question of the derating of agricultural cottages. The rating authorities and the assessment committees wanted a lead on the matter, and we thought it was our duty to give it. We passed a resolution, and sent it round to them, that we considered that it was the Government's intention that both tied and non-tied cottages should be valued on the same lines. That has been done and, if the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Dynevor is cast aside, we shall have to alter the whole of our opinion, and we shall look pretty good fools. We have tried our best to carry out what we thought were the intentions of the Government in the Act of 1925, and to see that they were carried out throughout our county. Personally, I hope that my noble friend will go to a Division, and I shall certainly support him.
LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Dynevor, I very much regret that His Majesty's Government have not seen fit to accept this Amendment, and I regret it the more because I do not think that there is any more fervent admirer of this Bill than I am. There is one point on which I should like to address your Lordships. Noble Lords who sit on this side of the House believe in individual ownership, and so, I understand, do His Majesty's Government, who, I would remind your Lordships, even introduced a Bill during the present Parliament to enable agricultural labourers and people in that sort of occupation to own the cottages in winch they lived. It seems odd to me that, by refusing this Amendment, the Government should have thought it right actually to fine those men who have carried out the facilities given them by the former Act.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord who leads the Opposition said just now that he could not understand why the principle which my noble friend Lord Dynevor endeavoured to have applied to these cottages should not be applied to every employee in any occupation. The reason, of course, is obvious. It is that the Government have interfered with freedom of contract as regards the agricultural labourer. They have not allowed his employer to bargain with him regarding his wages and the rent of his cottage. That is taken out of the employer's hands, or at least a maximum is fixed, and a very low one, and consequently it appeared to us on perfectly good grounds that, since the Government have done this, the valuation of the labourer's non-tied cottage should be treated as we proposed. I confess that I do not agree with my noble friend entirely. I think that an alteration of the principle of the Rating Act, is rather a strong measure to endeavour to introduce into this Bill. I think that, sine, the principle of valuation has been laid down for so many years, we are bound to stick to it. I voted with him the other day in the hope that it might be possible to make some alteration in the Rating Act of 1925 which would meet our proposal. Since this is, if not impossible, at least very difficult, my personal view is that we ought not to press this Amendment to a Division.
842
But there is another point that I should rather like to raise. I refer to the Speaker's dictum that this is a question of Privilege. If it is a question of Privilege, I do not know why we are discussing it. We cannot alter anything and, if the Government accept the Speaker's dictum, it is no use our discussing this matter at all. But I should really like to know whether the Leader of the House does agree that this is a question of Privilege, because it seems to me to be spreading Privilege rather wide. Are we never to be allowed to amend a Valuation Bill? That is really what it comes to. I should rather have liked, if I had had time, to look back at the debates on the Act of 1925 and to see what line was taken in this House when it went through; whether we had introduced any Amendments, and if they were accepted by the House of Commons, and if so, why the present Speaker should differ from his predecessors. It is a point I think worthy of consideration, because the Privilege of this House as regards an important question like valuation is a safeguard to the people of this country, and I do not think we ought to sacrifice our rights without some protest.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, as my noble friend has appealed to the Government upon the question of Privilege, I will ask your Lordships' leave to say a word. The question of Privilege, as all of your Lordships know, is in a most unsatisfactory position, and many of your Lordships, I am quite sure, including my noble friend who has just sat down, have on many occasions entered protests as to its interpretation in another place. I have done the same thing myself, and one of the things which I had hoped would have been achieved, had it been possible two years ago to have carried those principles of reform of this House which were then debated, was that the question of Privilege would have been put upon a much stronger footing, and, among other things, this very question of rating would have been taken out of the purview of Privilege altogether. But that did not happen, and I do not want to go back to that question now.
I have not looked the matter up, but speaking right off I do not think it would

843
be fair to say that the distinguished public servant who is now Speaker has gone further than his predecessors in this matter. This House has repeatedly not accepted the decisions of the House of Commons in what were considered to be the extreme assertions of Privilege. There is one circumstance, however, which has to be borne in mind. The House of Commons has always treated Privilege as applying to expenditure or the raising of money from the taxes on a different footing from expenditure or the raising of money from the rates. That is to say, although the House of Commons has asserted its Privilege in both respects, yet it has been much more often willing to waive it in the case of rates than in the case of taxes and if your Lordships will carefully study the proceedings of last Friday in another place, you will find that on several Amendments—I think Lord Dynevor stated so—they did waive Privilege in respect of Amendments on this particular Bill.
Therefore rating is on a different footing, and personally I am not prepared to accept the extreme doctrine of Privilege laid down in the House of Commons. It was, if I may venture to say so, by my wish that my noble friend Lord Onslow, in arguing his case to your Lordships just now, did not put it upon the ground of Privilege at all, but upon the ground of merits, which of course he is very well qualified to argue. I would rather not approach this question upon the ground of Privilege at all. I think it is true that if the Privilege issued had been involved the decision that your Lordships might take would be a much more serious matter than otherwise it would be, but, speaking as one of your Lordships, and for the moment as Leader of this House, I should be very sorry to accept the extreme doctrine of Privilege laid down in another place. I do not think I ought to say more than that, and I hope your Lordships will not insist upon your Amendment.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: May I ask the Lord Chancellor, before he replies, whether, as the question of Privilege is not raised in the Commons Reason for disagreeing with the Amendment, we should take any notice of the Speaker's dictwm?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Loan HAILSHAM): My Lords, I am asked directly to deal with this matter. Of course you are not bound to accept the reasons given in another place although you may acquiesce in the rejection of your Lordships' Amendment, but I do not think it is quite accurate to say that the question of Privilege was not intended to be covered by the Reason given by the Commons for not accepting this Amendment—the question of Privilege is the ground on which they proceed. At the same time, as the noble Marquess has just said, because we do not insist upon our Amendment it by no means follows that we accept the doctrine of Privilege as laid down in the House of Commons by the Speaker on Friday last. I do not think that the doctrine as laid down goes any further than the doctrine as laid down by previous Speakers. On the other hand, that doctrine has not always been accepted by your Lordships' House, and there is no reason why we should accept the doctrine, although we may be willing, as we have been in the past, to acquiesce in the rejection of our Amendment. It is perfectly open to us, if your Lordships are good enough to take the advice of His Majesty's Government, not to press the Amendment. We can do it, not on the ground that we acquiesce in the view of Privilege, but on the ground that in the particular circumstances we do not wish to press the extreme issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Dynevor, seemed to think that I was going to answer his question. I had rather hoped that his point had been met by Lord Onslow, but I am quite willing to answer. I think that his argument goes to the historical basis of this clause. He said that the clause as it stood introduced a new principle of rating—namely, that premises are differently rated according to occupation. Your Lordships will remember how it is that this clause comes into the Bill at all. It comes in as a consequential provision, and it is a provision consequential upon the repeal Of the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896. Under that Act, for the first time partial de-rating was given to agricultural land, and that necessarily entailed that, in the case of agricultural land, buildings and land should be separately rated. It was feared in 1896 that this might in

845
volve an increased rating upon farm buildings. Obviously that was not intended by Parliament, and accordingly a provision appeared in Section 5 of the Act of 1896, providing that where a farm and farm buildings were being separately rated, and the buildings were being used in connection with agricultural land, they should still be rated as farm buildings, and not upon any other basis, preserving the status quo ante.
Since 1896 it has been the usual practice—I think almost the universal practice, certainly the usual practice—to treat the question of farm buildings as covering cottages of the farm used in connection with them. And therefore in this clause, when the 1896 Act is repealed, the Government desired to make it clear that that advantage was still retained, and that farm cottages on a farm should continue, while used in connection with a farm, to be rated as such, and not to be rated on a higher basis. They were not therefore introducing for the first time any new principle of rating; they were merely seeking to preserve with regard to the buildings on a farm, including the cottages, a principle which has been always the law and which had been the subject of express enactment when for the first time it became necessary to separate the land and buildings,
846
as was the case in 1896. It is because my noble friend's Amendment passed from that, and for the first time introduced a separate rateable value, not merely for farm land and buildings but for any cottages used in connection with land, that we really do think that he is mistaken in saying that he is not introducing a new principle. He really is in this Amendment seeking to introduce a new principle of rating. That is a very tall order in connection with a Bill which does not deal largely with the principles of rating, but only with the relief to certain named industries, including agriculture, with regard to rating.
I hope that that answer is clear to my noble friend and to your Lordships. I would venture to add my appeal to that of my noble friend who has spoken before me that your Lordships will not see fit to press your insistence on this Amendment to a Division, and create an unfortunate issue with the other House on a Bill which is of great importance, and the loss of which would, I think, involve very great misfortune to those very agricultural interests which, I know, my noble friend has so much at heart.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before six o'clock.

CROWBOROUGH DISTRICT WATER BILL.
NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
ROYAL VICTORIA AND OTHER DOCKS APPROACHES (IMPROVEMENT) BILL.
SOUTHPORT, BIRKDALE AND WEST LANCASHIRE WATER BOARD BILL.
TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL.
WINDERMERE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a and referred to the Examiners.
ASIATIC STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
LANCASHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
SHEFFIELD GAS (CONSOLIDA
TION) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
YORKTOWN (CAMBERLEY) AND DISTRICT GAS AND ELECTRICITY COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

DERBYSHIRE AND NOTTINGHAMSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the
848
opposition thereto having been withdrawn: Read and ordered to lie on the Table: The Orders made on the 19th and 21st of February last discharged, and Bill committed for to-morrow.

SUTTON AND DISTRICT WATERWORKS BILL. [H.L.]
The Order made on Thursday, the 21st of February last, appointing certain Lords the Select Committee to consider the Bill, discharged.
SUTTON AND DISTRICT WATERWORKS BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Birmingham Corporation (General Powers) Bill [H.L.] and other Bills do form the Select Committee for the consideration of Sutton and District Waterworks Bill [H.L.]: Read, and agreed to: All Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.
WESTMINSTER CITY (MILLBANK) IMPROVEMENT BILL.
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
REPRESENTATION OF THE LAITY MEASURE, 1929.
Text of the Measure: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed.
PAROCHIAL REGISTERS AND RECORDS MEASURE, 1929.
Text of the Measure: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed.
ECCLESIASTICAL DILAPIDATIONS (AMENDMENT) MEASURE, 1929.
Text of the Measure: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed.
WESTMINSTER ABBEY MEASURE, 1929
Text of the Measure: Laid before the House (pursuant of Act) and to be printed.

SOUTHPORT GAS ORDER, 1929.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Mayor, aldermen and burgesses of the County Borough of Southport:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Reported without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.