Sitting of 1 May 1929

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into not com-with),—
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have not been complied with, namely,
Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads Company Bill [Lords].
Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Crowborough District Water Bill,
Leamington and Warwick Traction Bill,
London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Bill,
Southern Railway Bill,
Tyne Improvement Bill,
Winchester Water and Gas Bill,
Windermere Urban District Council Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 30th April, and agreed to.
Mount Vernon Hospital Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (No. 5) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Yeovil Extension and Water) Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  KIRKCALDY CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,
  "to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Kirkcaldy Corporation," presented by Secretary Sir John Gilmour; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow.

EAST INDIA (INDIA OFFICE, RETIREMENT AT 65).
The following Notice of Motion stood upon the Order Paper:
"Address for Return of Copy of Minute by the Secretary of State for India, stating the circumstances under which an officer belonging to his permanent establishment has been retained in the service after he has attained the age of 65."—[Earl Winterton.]
Mr. THURTLE: May we have a word in explanation of this somewhat unusual Motion. In the absence of an explanation, I must object to it.
Consideration deferred until Tomorrow.

MOTORING OFFENCES.
Address for "Return showing, by police district, the number of persons dealt with for motoring offences, together with the number of the various offences and the results of proceedings in courts of summary jurisdiction, during the period July to December, 1928."—[Sir V. Henderson.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  BRITISH ARTISTS (FOREIGN CONTRACTS).
  Viscount SANDONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the revelations before the

  1527
  Public Control Committee of the London County Council recently, he will see that British Consuls abroad are informed of the pending visits to their areas of British women and girls on entertainment contracts and that they should protect their interests where necessary and report all irregularities?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): I think this answer also replies to the Supplementary Question put by the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. Briant) a few days ago. Before passports are granted to theatrical or variety artists who are taking up employment abroad, it is the practice of the Passport Office to consult the Stage Guild or the Variety Artists' Federation, as the case may be. Even if the artists are not members of either of these associations, these associations are always prepared to advise the Passport Office on the subject of the contract which an artist applying for a passport to take up work abroad must produce in order to obtain a passport. If the Guild or the Federation are unable to recommend an employer, the Passport Office make further inquiries from the police here or from His Majesty's Consuls abroad.
  According to the findings of the Public Control Committee of the London County Council in the recent case at Brussels, the fault lay with the London agents who had failed to fulfil their obligations to their clients by satisfying themselves of the conditions of engagement and the standing of the persons by whom they were engaged. The original contracts had been approved in the usual way by the Variety Artists' Federation before the passports were issued.
  Moreover, as soon as His Majesty's Vice-Consul at Brussels heard that the troupe were in difficulties, he offered to repatriate them, but his offer was refused. It would seem that if his offer had been accepted, the subsequent difficulties would not have arisen. This was an isolated case and I feel that the general position is adequately met by existing precautions.
  The protection of the interests of this class of British subject is part of the general duty of His Majesty's Consular Officers and oases of irregularities are
  1528
  of rare occurrence. Any such iregularities would be reported as a matter of course and the necessary action taken, as was done in the case to which attention has been called.
  Viscount SANDON: In view of the fact that, in spite of all precautions, the passport regulations may not make prevention of abuse absolutely watertight, and as irregularities have existed before, could there be any harm in circularising the consuls in advance as to these visits, as a greater safeguard?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: It would be quite possible to circularise the consuls as suggested by my Noble Friend, but I think that they are already fully seized of the obvious importance of this matter.
  Mr. DAY: Do the same arrangements apply with regard to artists, dancers, and chorus girls who are engaged for South America, as many of them get out there and find that they have been sent out under bogus contracts and are impressed into houses of ill fame?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Oh, no. I understand that these arrangements apply to everybody, and no passport is issued unless a contract is presented, and a contract has to be signed by the licence holder.
  Mr. DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these artists are booked by people who are not licence holders, that the licence only applies to the area of the County of London, and that many of these engagements are made in the provincial districts?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No, Sir. I have made very careful inquiries on various occasions, and this morning, and I understand that no passport is ever issued unless the contract is produced and is recommended or signed by the Guild or Federation.

  TRAVEL ASSOCIATION (PASSPORTS).
  Sir ROBERT THOMASasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the recognition and financial assistance which the Government is extending to the Travel Association of Great Britain and Ireland, whether he

  1529
  will facilitate the work of this association in attracting overseas tourists to these islands by simplifying passport regulations?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: As regards British passports, with the issue of which alone the various British authorities are concerned, the formalities have been simplified to the greatest extent possible. As regards the passports of the nationals of foreign States, the matter rests with their Governments. The requirement that any person landing in the United Kingdom shall be in possession of a passport or some other document establishing nationality and identity arises out of the Aliens Order, 1920, as to which I would refer the hon. Member to the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
  Sir R. THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the Secretary of State for the Home Department to endeavour to relax these regulations for passports after the 30th instant?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not know whether I have any influence with my right hon. Friend, but I am quite sure that he is looking after the interests of this country in the matter.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (MINORITIES).
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, as the Dandurand proposals are in their opinion the best means available to minorities to secure their protection, he will say whether in the committee of three now meeting he means to support the Canadian proposal or to accept the views of the French Government and Little Entente on this matter?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is mistaken in supposing that there is agreement on the Dandurand proposals among those interested in minorities; but my right hon. Friend feels that it would be discourteous both to the Committee and to the Council for him to make any personal pronouncement on the questions at issue now that the Committee is sitting to study the question.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not here. I should like to ask two questions: (1) will this matter be decided at Madrid in the early days of June, immediately after the General Election; and (2) can the right hon. Gentleman avoid committing this country in June, and thereby save the rights of any successor to carry through a policy more in accordance with the wishes of Canada and the Minorities, and break with the policy of supporting the French view in this matter?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The first question asked by the right hon. and gallant Member does not arise out of the question upon the Order Paper; it is completely outside it. As regards the second question, there is an almost similar one which stands upon the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Malone).
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Although it does not strictly arise out of the original question, may I ask whether the Committee of three which is now sitting will report before the meeting of the Council of the League at Madrid, and will they, when they meet at Madrid, commit this country definitely, or is the matter to be left over to a further meeting of the Council?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not want to avoid any questions put by the right hon. and gallant Member, but I would point out that the only point raised by his question was about the Dandurand proposals, and whether we accepted those proposals or some other proposals. I have answered that question. I should be glad to have notice of any further question regarding the particular matter referred to by the right hon. and gallant Member.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I press the other point as to the Dandurand proposals versus the Little Entente proposals? Am I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Minorities were not in favour of the Dandurand proposals? Is he not aware that the Council of the Minorities are definitely supporting the Dandurand proposals and that, in fact, they have had something to do with the drafting of them? What other body pretending to represent the Minorities differs from this Council of the Minorities and is not behind the Dandurand proposals?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: What I said in my answer was that there was no general agreement in regard to the Dandurand proposals. My right hon. Friend is not here to-day. He is actually now sitting on the Committee dealing with the whole of this matter.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is he committing us?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. and gallant Member has put five supplementary questions already.
  Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in view of the volume of evidence concerning minorities questions in all parts of the world which has been placed before the Minorities Committee, he will recommend the advisability of postponing any final decision on these questions from the meeting of the Council of the League of Nations on 10th June until the Assembly meets in September?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The committee of three is not competent to examine evidence in regard to the specific grievances of minorities or to recommend means of redressing them. The Committee is solely concerned with the problem of improving the procedure whereby questions relating to minorities come before, and are dealt with by, the Council of the League. The action taken on the Committee's Report will, I presume, depend on the nature and scope of the recommendations made.
  Mr. MALONE: Are we to take it that the decision on the procedure to be taken by the Minorities to air their grievances will be come to on the 10th June, or not?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have said in my answer that it entirely depends upon the nature and scope of the recommendations.
  Mr. RILEY: Is it the intention of the Government to examine the evidence before the committee of three before a decision is arrived at in the matter, and can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government have made up their minds?
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the committee of three which is now sitting taking any evidence from the Minorities, are
  1532
  they aware of the desire of the Minorities, and are they aware that Madrid is considered the worst possible place where this question could be decided—a place where there is no free Press?

  ROYAL NAVY.

    INVALIDED RATINGS (ALLOWANCES).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that in many cases when ratings are invalided from the Royal Navy the wife's allowance is stopped immediately, but no papers are received from the Admiralty for some considerable time; that during the period that elapses before it is decided what gratuity or pension shall be paid to these invalided ratings considerable distress is caused, especially when the man has to proceed to a sanatorium; and whether he will consider continuing the rating's allotment, etc., until his case for pension or gratuity has been settled?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): I am glad to be able to assure the hon. and gallant Member that the position is not as suggested in the first part of his question. In the case of ratings invalided, pay, allotment and marriage allowance are continued for 28 days from the date of the medical survey and in all normal cases the question of pension or gratuity is settled during this period. It occasionally happens that a rating is retained in hospital over the 28 days, and if in such a case he is entitled to pension, payment to him does not commence until his discharge from hospital, but his wife is eligible to receive money allowances from Greenwich Hospital Funds in the interim. If the hon. and gallant Member has information of any cases in which there appears to have been a departure from the procedure indicated and will give me particulars, I shall be glad to have inquiry made.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the last few days I have sent to him an actual case from my constituency, respecting a seaman who was invalided under these circumstances, and whose wife is now in great distress? Will he see that the man's papers are sent on with the least possible delay, so that, for example, the British Legion can conduct his case?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I will certainly do my best to expedite the matter. I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member's communication had not come to my notice before I drafted my reply.

    MARRIAGE ALLOWANCES.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is prepared to reconsider the question of granting marriage allowances to the officers of the Royal Navy on similar terms to those prevailing in the other two arms of the defence forces of the country?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 14th February (OFFICIAL REPORT, column 561) to the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha).

  NAVAL DISARMAMENT.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the proposals for naval limitations and reductions made at Geneva by the American delegate to the Preparatory Commission on Disarmament, it is proposed to retard the present programme of warship construction in this country?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Work on ships building will proceed. But as the hon. and gallant Member is aware it is not proposed to lay down ships of the 1929 programme until towards the end of the financial year.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman go a little further and delay further expenditure upon these ships until we know just where we shall stand in the future?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It would be rather premature to take any such steps until we know exactly what the proposals are.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the past we have lost a lot of the money of the taxpayers through proceeding with ships which it was afterwards agreed, by International Convention, not to proceed with?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am very much opposed to taking action prematurely in a case like this, not only because it
  1534
  would not improve our chances of agreement, but also because it would probably disturb work throughout the dockyards.
  Lieut. Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether following on the declarations of the American delegate at the Preparatory Commission on Disarmament at Geneva, it is proposed to recommence the conversations with America and Japan on naval reduction of armaments by mutual agreement which were interrupted by the breakdown of the Geneva Naval Conference in 1927?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: His Majesty's Government are studying the suggestions outlined by Mr. Gibson. When the full proposals are before us we shall desire to proceed with their discussion in the way which seems to offer the best prospect of success.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say something a little more hopeful than that? Cannot we agree in principle that the Conference shall again assemble, in view of the very satisfactory change in the situation?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I should have thought that from the observations made by my right hon. Friend in the House, and by Lord Cushendun at Geneva, the prospects were immensely hopeful.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    TRANSFERRED WORKERS, SOUTHWARK.
    Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons to date who have been transferred to the Borough of Southwark under the transference scheme; and the number of positions that have been found for these transferees?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): Up to 16th April, 60 men had been transferred direct from depressed areas into employment in the area of the Borough Employment Exchange under the Industrial Transference Scheme. Transfers under this scheme only take place when there is employment in view for the individuals concerned.
    Mr. DAY: As there are 6,632 people registered as unemployed in the Borough of Southwark, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that work could be obtained for some of them, instead of bringing people from outside areas?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The transfers that have been made have been made precisely in accordance with the principles adopted in "Labour and the Nation."
    Mr. DAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that among those 6,600 people there were enough persons to take these jobs in Southwark without bringing others in? Further, has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the fact that people have been thrown out of work there, for the purpose of putting transferred men in?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The last question put by the hon. Member does not arise out of the question on the Paper. If he will put it down, I will gladly give him an answer.
    Mr. BATEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me on what page of "Labour and the Nation" I shall find this policy?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have been far too lenient over this supplementary question. The hon. Member's question cannot arise out of the question on the Order Paper or the answer given by the Minister.
    Mr. BATEY: On a point of Order. Ought the Minister of Labour to have given an answer saying that we could find it in "Labour and the Nation"?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman was answering the question on the Paper.
    Mr. DAY: I should like to ask your Ruling. I have asked the number of positions which have been found for these transferees. The right hon. Gentleman has not answered that question and refers me to another point, which I have not asked.
    Mr. BATEY: On a point of Order. If a Minister makes a statement in answer to a supplementary question, is he not bound to produce the evidence?
    Mr. SPEAKER: If that were so, we should take even longer over questions than we do now.

    BUILDING INDUSTRY.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLEasked the Minister of Labour what are the variations in seasonal employment in the building industry in this country as compared with Germany and other countries?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the reply is somewhat long, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    Recent issues of the "International Labour Review," published by the International Labour Office, have contained a aeries of articles, under the title, "Seasonal Unemployment in the Building Industry in Certain European Countries," in which an exhaustive study is made of this question. The information given in these articles is too extensive to be condensed within the limits of a reply to a Parliamentary question, but the general conclusion is reached that, subject to corrections required by insufficient comparability of the unemployment figures in different countries "compared with those of Great Britain the seasonal fluctuations in the rate of unemployment in Germany are three or four times as great, in the Netherlands five times, and in Denmark 10 times as great," and that "the fluctuations in Italy also appear to be greater than in Great Britain, but less than in the other countries mentioned." For more detailed information, and for the statistics on which these conclusions are based, I would refer by hon. and gallant Friend to the issues of the "International Labour Review" for January, February and March, 1929.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLEasked the Minister of Labour the decrease in the total number of insured craftsmen in the building industry between January, 1914, and July, 1923; and what has been the increase in the number since 1923?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is estimated that the total number of insured craftsmen in the building industry declined by 88,850 between January, 1914, and July, 1923. Between July, 1923, and July, 1927, there was an estimated increase of 64,130 in the numbers aged 16 and over; and between July, 1927, and July, 1928, an increase of 430 in the numbers aged 16 to 64. It should be noted that these figures do not include persons

    1537
    belonging to occupations common to the building and other industries, as for example, carpenters or bricklayers, who at the respective dates were not classified as belonging to the building industry.
    Mr. KELLY: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me what is covered by the term "craftsmen"?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I want to give a precise answer, and, if the hon. Member will put the question down, I will give him a reply.

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Minister of Labour the number of young persons, male and female, under the age of 20 who are unemployed and the number receiving training; and the number that have been transferred from their home district to other parts of Britain monthly since January, 1928?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: At 22nd April, 1929, there were 99,689 males and 64,752 females under 21 years of age on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain. Corresponding statistics of the numbers under 20 years of age are not available. At the most recent dates for which statistics are available there were 6,237 males and 2,010 females under 21 years of age attending training centres, including Juvenile Unemployment Centres, in Great Britain. I regret that figures are not available regarding the total number in the same age group who have been transferred from one district to another.
    Mr. LAWSON: If it is the case, as stated by the Prime Minister, that all these young people can have training, why is it that such a small proportion are being trained?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: When it is a case of young persons up to the age of 16 years, or a year or so above, there is provision for them in the Juvenile Unemployment Centres, but I have never made any statement about the age being continued up to 21 years.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in one of his recent speeches the Prime Minister made a declaration to the effect that all young persons could now secure training before they were 21 years of age, and, in view of the fact that less than 4 per cent. of
    1538
    young persons are being trained, will he ask the Prime Minister to reconsider the statement and correct it?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will consult my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about anything, but I do not necessarily accept the inference which is being drawn by hon. Members opposite.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Labour the number of men and women registered at Employment Exchanges for the months of January, February, and March, 1926?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the figures are over and above one million?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: In no case are they over one million for men or women separately, but for men and women taken together they are over a million during the greater part of the period.
    Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Saturday night at Seven-oaks stated that in the early part of 1926 there were less than one million men and women unemployed? Was he not deceiving the people?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member should ask me for figures on a particular date. I cannot give him the figures with regard to a reference which he quotes from memory from some speech made by a Member of this House. If he asks whether at any date in 1926 there were under a million men and women unemployed, the answer is "yes."
    Mr. THORNE: Is the Minister of Labour not aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated quite definitely on Saturday night that in the early part of 1926 there were less than a million men and women unemployed?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY rose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: We have had quite enough supplementaries on this question.
    Following is the statement:
    The following TABLE shows the numbers of Men and Women respectively on the Registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain on each Monday of January, February and March, 1926.

    Date.

    Men.

    Women.

    1926.

    4th January

    990,726

    193,699

    11th January

    956,194

    193,587

    18th January

    955,470

    189,083

    25th January

    942,208

    187,060

    1st February

    917,351

    187,364

    8th February

    909,346

    186,945

    15th February

    893,628

    179,730

    22nd February

    883,769

    177,801

    1st March

    872,055

    173,153

    8th March

    863,470

    170,869

    15th March

    847,075

    166,622

    22nd March

    824,371

    160,452

    29th March

    804,783

    157,131

    INSURANCE FUND.
    Mr. FENBYasked the Minister of Labour the total sum lost to the Unemployment Insurance Fund in consequence of the reduction in the amount of State contribution to such fund under the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1926?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply (of which I am sending him a copy) given on 25th February last to the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

    EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, WEDNESBURY.
    Mr. SHORTasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department as representing the First Commissioner of Works whether a suitable site has been acquired for the erection of a new Employment Exchange at Wednesbury?
    Major Sir GEORGE HENNESSY (Treasurer of the Household): I have been asked to reply. A site which it is hoped will prove suitable is under consideration.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    P-CLASS CLERKS.
    Mr. FENBYasked the Minister of Labour the number of P-class clerks
    1540
    recommended by his Department for promotion to established clerical grade under Clause 5 of the Government memorandum of 12th January, 1925; and the number of appointments to the clerical class or classes of his Department from open competitions since 1st January, 1928?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The P-class clerks recommended by the Ministry of Labour for promotion to established clerical grades under Clause 5 of the memorandum of the 12th January, 1925, number 160. Since the 1st January, 1928, 50 male and 47 female officers have been appointed by open competition to the clerical classes employed in the Ministry.

    CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND POST OFFICE (PENSIONERS).
    Captain T. J. O'CONNORasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the hardship and inconvenience resulting to Government pensioners who have served in the Customs and Excise and Post Office Departments by reason of the Regulation which requires them to attend for identification by an authorised person four times a year, whereas pensioners who have served in other Departments have only to be identified twice in the year, namely, in April and October; and whether he is prepared to take any steps to abolish this distinction between different classes of pensioners?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): It has for some years been the practice of the Post Office to require attested declarations from pensioned officials of that Department twice a year only. I have already informed my hon. and gallant Friend that it has now been decided to require attested declarations twice a year only from pensioned officers of the Department of Customs and Excise also.
    Captain O'CONNOR: To a large number of a very deserving class this will cause great gratification.
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am very glad to hear it.

  AIRCRAFT (INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON).
  Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for Air the figures showing the present ratio of aeroplane strength of Great Britain as compared with that of France, Germany, and Italy?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Mr. Wellock) on 13th March.

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    BLIND WELFARE.
    Sir R. THOMASasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in some places there is overlapping and waste of effort in the administration of blind welfare work; and whether he will arrange for a conference of Blind Persons Act committees with a view to the adoption everywhere of methods making for a greater degree of unification in this work?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): If the hon. Member will furnish information as to the places which he has in mind, my right hon. Friend will be happy to consider it, but as at present advised, he sees no necessity for such a conference as is suggested. I may remind the hon. Member that the transfer under the Local Government Act, 1929, of Poor Law functions to the county and county borough councils should result in improved co-ordination of the work of local authorities for the welfare of the blind.

    RADIUM.
    Sir R. THOMASasked the Secretary for Mines whether he has any information regarding the existence of radium in disused lead mines near Mat-lock, Derbyshire; and, if so, will he make a statement?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): I have seen statements in the Press but no notification on the subject has been received by my Department.

  AMERICAN FILMS (IMPORTS).
  Mr. DAYasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of linear
  1542
  feet of positive and negative cinematograph films consigned from the United States of America imported into Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date, and the declared value of these films; and whether he has any statistics that will show separately the amount of linear feet of talking films that were included in this total?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): The total imports of positive and negative cinematograph films into Great Britain and Northern Ireland, registered as consigned from the United States of America during the 12 months ended 31st March, 1929, were as follow: Positives, 11,162,000 linear feet, valued at £64,000; and negatives, 3,512,000 linear feet, valued at £762,000. Particulars of talking films are not available.
  Mr. DAY: Is it not possible for the hon. Gentleman to find out what the importation of talking films is, and to ascertain whether talking films are not far outdistancing silent films?
  Mr. WILLIAMS: At present they are not separately classified; the documents which the Customs officials handle do not show separately which are talking films and which are silent films. The question whether there should be a different classification, when the classification is revised at the beginning of the year, is under consideration.

  ELECTRICITY SCHEME, SOUTHWEST ENGLAND.
  Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Minister of Transport if he can state the date upon which the scheme for South-West England, now being prepared by the Electricity Commissioners, will be transmitted to the Central Electricity Board; and will the Report be made public without any further delay?
  The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I understand that the Commissioners hope to complete their survey of the large area included in the South-West England and South Wales Electricity Scheme in the autumn, and to transmit the scheme to the Central Electricity Board before the end of the year. The Board will then proceed to publish it.
  Colonel WOODCOCK: Is there no chance of getting any information at all before the autumn, with reference to this scheme?
  Colonel ASHLEY: No, Sir. Until the Commissioners have formulated a scheme and the Board have received it, the matter must be confidential.

  SEVERN BARRAGE SCHEME.
  Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Minister of Transport if he has received the Report from the Expert Committee appointed on the recommendation of the Committee of Civil Research in 1926 with reference to the Severn barrage; if so, when will he be able to present the Report to the House; and whether any decision has been arrived at regarding the advisability or otherwise of constructing a Severn barrage?
  Colonel ASHLEY: I understand that the Expert Committee have presented a Report which will shortly be considered by the Severn Barrage Sub-Committee of the Committee of Civil Research. I cannot at present say whether this Report will be published.
  Colonel WOODCOCK: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether as early as 1920 the Water Power Board recommended this inquiry to be made, and whether in April, 1924, the Labour Commission allowed £30,000, and that since that time the Commission has been going on and no work or report has been made?
  Colonel ASHLEY: Because it is an extremely difficult and big proposition and would cost a good many millions. Therefore, every aspect of the question must be investigated.
  Colonel WOODCOCK: Does my right hon. Friend remember stating last year that the Report had been made, and is there no communication to be made with reference to that?
  Colonel ASHLEY: No. I think the Report that I referred to then was not the same one as this, but was on a different aspect of the matter altogether.
  Mr. THURTLE: Is not this inaction what "safety first" means?

  POST OFFICE (PACKAGES FOR INDIA).
  Mr. PILCHERasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, when several packages addressed to Calcutta are posted simultaneously at the General Post Office in London, it frequently happens that of such packages some are delivered to the Calcutta addressee on the appropriate inward mail day in India while others are delayed and delivered a week later; that even when receipts for such packets are paid for and taken by the addresser from the post office clerk in London at the time of posting, the General Post Office refuses both apology and redress; and whether, as a protection to those who mail important packets to India and take acknowledgments from the General Post Office, he will give instructions for both date and hour of receipt to be stamped or written by the counter clerk on the acknowledgment forms given in London?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): I am having inquiries made and will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible. In the meantime, I can assure him that all possible steps will be taken to ensure that there will be no delay in future in the despatch of the packets. I will give careful consideration to his suggestion regarding the addition to the certificate of particulars of the hour of posting.

  OTTOMAN GUARANTEED LOAN.
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money the taxpayers of this country have paid in all so far as interest on the Turkish loan of 1855 guaranteed by England and France; how much money the taxpayers of France have paid for the same purpose; and, if the amounts are not equal, what does he propose to do to rectify the matter?
  Mr. SAMUEL: The sums advanced by His Majesty's Government to provide interest on the Ottoman Guaranteed Loan of 1855 have now been repaid in full by the Egyptian Government in accordance with the Agreement of 17th March, 1929 (Command Paper 3305). Accordingly the remainder of the question does not arise.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that the British taxpayers have not paid any of this interest, and when was it that the Egyptian Government paid back this money?
  Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir. The details are in Command Paper 3305. The agreement was signed on 17th March, and we received over £328,000 about eight days later.

  BRITISH GOVERNMENT SECURITIES (INVESTORS).
  Sir FRANK SANDERSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the approximate number of investors of amounts of £100 and over in British Government securities, including the holders of War Savings Certificates?
  Mr. SAMUEL: I regret that the information is not available. The number of stock accounts of British Government securities, excluding Savings Certificates, is about 4,500,000, but considerable labour would be needed to ascertain how many accounts relate to amounts of £100 and over. Moreover, the number of accounts is of little guidance to the total number of investors, as one investor may have several accounts or conversely an account may be in several names. No information is available as regards the number of holders of Savings Certificates. It was, however, estimated as long ago as 1917 that there were 10,000,000 holders.

  NATIONAL DEBT (INTEREST).
  Sir F. SANDERSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the approximate net amount of interest paid upon the National Debt for each of the six years ending 31st March, 1929, after recovery of Income Tax and Super-tax chargeable thereon?
  Mr. SAMUEL: I regret that this information cannot be furnished. It is practically impossible to form a reliable estimate of the Income Tax and Super-tax finally paid on the National Debt interest.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. CLYNES: Will the Prime Minister tell us what business it is proposed to take to-morrow?
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): To-morrow is the tenth Allotted Day of Supply, and we are taking the Estimate for the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on any Private Business set down for consideration at half-past Seven of the clock this evening, by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, be exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House) and, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 8, may be taken after half-past Nine of the clock."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 153; Noes, 76.

Division No. 286.]

AYES.

[3.27 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

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

Christie, J. A.

Ganzonl, Sir John

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

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

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

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Cooper, A. Duff

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Cope, Major Sir William

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

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Couper, J. B.

Hamilton, Sir George

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Hammersley, S. S.

Berry, Sir George

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Galnsbro)

Hanbury, C.

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

Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

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

Haslam, Henry C.

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxford, Henley)

Brass, Captain W.

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

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

Hills, Major John Waller

Briggs, J. Harold

Duckworth, John

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

Briscoe, Richard George

Eden, Captain Anthony

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Ellis, R. G.

Hopkins, J. W. W.

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

England, Colonel A.

Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

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

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

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Burman, J. B.

Everard, W. Lindsay

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

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

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Fermoy, Lord

Hume, Sir G. H.

Campbell, E. T.

Fielden, E. B.

Hurd, Percy A.

Carver, Major W. H.

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Foster, Sir Harry S.

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

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Fraser, Captain Ian

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

King, Commodore Henry Douglas

Penny, Frederick George

Styles, Captain H. Walter

Lamb, J. Q.

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Thomson, Sir Frederick

Loder, J. de V.

Pilcher, G.

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.

Lougher, Sir Lewis

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

Radford, E. A.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Macintyre, Ian

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

Waddington, R.

McLean, Major A.

Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Mac Robert, Alexander M.

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Warrender, Sir victor

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Watts, Sir Thomas

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Sandeman, N. Stewart

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Malone, Major P. B.

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Sanderson, Sir Frank

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Sandon, Lord

Womersley, W. J.

Mond, Hon. H.

Savery, S. S.

Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwatar)

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

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

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

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

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Neville, Sir Reginald J.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

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

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

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

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Streatfeild, Captain S. H.

Major Sir George Hennessy and Captain Margesson.

NOES.

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

Hardie, George D.

Riley, Ben

Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Bridgwatar)

Harris, Percy A.

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

Ammon, Charles George

Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

Scurr, John

Barnes, A.

Kelly, W. T.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Barr, J.

Kennedy, T.

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Batey, Joseph

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

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Bellamy, A.

Lansbury, George

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

Lawrence, Susan

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Blindell, James

Lawson, John James

Snell, Harry

Bromley, J.

Lee, Jennie (Lanark N.)

Stephen, Campbell

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Lindley, F. W.

Strauss, E. A.

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

Longbottom, A. W.

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

Clarke, A. B.

Lowth, T.

Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

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

Compton, Joseph

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Connolly, M.

March, S.

Thurtle, Ernest

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities

Morris, R. H.

Tomilnson, R. P.

Day, Harry

Murnin, H.

Viant, S. P.

Dunnico, H.

Naylor, T. E.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Fenby, T. D.

Oliver, George Harold

Wellock, Wilfred

Gardner, J. P.

Owen, Major G.

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Gillett, George M.

Palin, John Henry

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Greenall, T.

Ponsonby, Arthur

Wright, W.

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Potts, John S.

Grentell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Paling.

BILLS REPORTED.

  SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee A.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
  Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords],
  MANSFIELD DISTRICT TRACTION BILL [Lords],
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

NAVY, ARMY AND AIR EXPENDITURE, 1927.
Resolved, "That this House will, upon Friday, resolve itself into a Committee to consider the surpluses and deficits upon Navy, Army and Air Grants for the year ended 31st March, 1928, and the application of surpluses to meet Expenditure not provided for in the Grants for that year.
Ordered, "That the Appropriation Accounts for the Navy, Army and Air Departments, which were presented upon the 28th January last, be referred to the Committee."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

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

Salford Corporation Bill, without Amendment.

1549

Metropolitan Water Board Bill, with an Amendment.

Llanfrechfa Upper and Llantarnam Water Board Bill,

Great Western Railway Bill,

Royal Victoria and Other Docks Approaches (Improvement) Bill,

Westminster City (Millbank) Improvement Bill,

Gas Light and Coke Company Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make void marriages between persons either of whom is under the age of sixteen." [Age of Marriage Bill [Lords].
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to consolidate the Government Annuities Acts, 1829 to 1888, and the enactments amending those Acts." [Government Annuities Bill [Lords].

AGE OF MARRIAGE BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 113.]
GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 114.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [9TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.
    CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1929.
      CLASS V.

        MINISTRY OF HEALTH.
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        "That a sum, not exceeding £14,228,664, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Health, including Grants and other expenses in connection with Housing, Grants to Local Authorities, etc., in connection with Public Health Services, including a Grant-in-Aid, Grants-in-Aid in respect of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Health Insurance Acts, certain Expenses in connection with the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, and certain Special Services."—[NOTE.—£7,000,000 has been voted on account.]
        The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): It has never been my practice in past years, when presenting the Estimates of the Ministry of Health, to enter into any very elaborate explanation of the increases which have been a constantly recurring feature of these proposals. I think the Committee has always realised that these increases were not due to any extravagance or carelessness in the administration of the Department, but were the natural and normal developments of services and policies approved by the House of Commons; that they naturally grew with the increase of population and were keeping pace with the expanding appreciation on the part of the people of the benefits which they receive from those services. Indeed, I think the Committee has felt that in so far as it would be possible to check or stop those increases at all, that could only have been done by reversing the wheels of progress and thereby undoing a great deal of the work which had already been done. Therefore, I have not, as a rule, troubled the Committee
        1556
        with many figures. I have preferred to confine myself to a review of some of the more salient or more interesting features of the work of the Ministry during the preceding year, and I do not think there is any reason on this occasion to make any departure from that procedure, which, I believe, has generally commended itself to the Committee.
        The Committee is aware that the work of the Ministry falls into four main divisions—housing; pensions and national health insurance; the administration of the Poor Law; and the health services themselves. I propose to touch upon some points in connection with each of these four sections, but not, I hope, at any undue length. I begin with housing. Housing is, of course, the largest single item of cost to be found in the Estimates. The increase in the total Estimates this year is £454,000. The increase in the item for housing alone is £485,000, so that the increase in this one item is actually rather greater than the increase in the whole Estimates. That discrepancy is, of course, accounted for by the fact that it is the product of a number of different items, some of which fall on one side of the account and some on the other. It will be seen that, out of a net total of £21,250,000, housing grants are responsible for no less than £11,150,000, and, before I touch upon the general policy and work of the Ministry in connection with housing during this past year, I think I must again call the attention of the Committee to what is certainly the outstanding feature of the housing position and, indeed, of the whole of these Estimates. Out of this sum of a little over £11,000,000, no less than £6,680,000 is in respect of a comparatively small number of houses—171,000 houses to be exact—built under the administration of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George).
        The capital cost of those 171,000 houses was £172,000,000, so that makes the average capital cost per house a little over £1,000, and, if we look, not at the capital cost, but at the actual annual cost which falls upon the taxpayers, and compare it with that which is involved in the case of the houses built under other Acts, I may remind the Committee that every Chamberlain house, as it is sometimes called, built under the 1923 Act, and which is being completed at the

        1557
        present time, involves the taxpayer in an annual cost of £4 for 20 years; every completed house built under the 1924 Act involves a cost upon the taxpayer of nearly twice that amount and for twice the period, that is to say, of £7 10s. per-house for 40 years. But when you look at the Lloyd George houses, you find that those houses, which have now been completed some time, are still placing upon the unfortunate taxpayer an annual charge of £38 10s. per house, which will continue for a period of something like 60 years from the completion of the house. I do not, of course, draw attention to these figures in order that the Committee may realise the relative advantages, from the taxpayers' point of view, of the Conservative Government's housing policy, or for the purpose of casting any aspersions upon the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, but I do think it is necessary from time to time to remind the taxpayers of these facts, because they serve as a monumental warning against making pledges which are of such an extravagant character that they cannot possibly be fulfilled, and against attempting to force through gigantic programmes at a speed which is far beyond that of which the resources of the country are capable.
        When I come to the general policy of the Government, I do not think I need have any difficulty in anticipating the criticism which will be made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. A. Greenwood) in the course of our proceedings this afternoon, because he has made it already, and I have observed that the party opposite are not very fertile in criticism and that once they have found or been provided with a line of criticism they go on repeating the same assertion over and over again, and without finding any new arguments with which to refute any contrary statements or assertions that may have been made on the other side. Therefore, I think I may safely anticipate that the hon. Member will tell us presently that, by reducing the subsidy, the Government have paralysed the building industry, and that, until the subsidy is once more restored to something like what it was before, we shall not have any considerable output of building. I do not anticipate that I shall get any reply from the hon. Member to my question, but I will invite him, when he comes to repeat
        1558
        that assertion once more, to explain to the Committee how a reduction of the subsidy can possibly have hindered local authorities from proceeding with their building programmes unless the subsidy has resulted in an increase in the cost. He is quite aware that exactly the opposite thing has happened. In December, 1926, just before the coming reduction in the subsidy was announced, the average price of a non-parlour house throughout the country was £448. Last March it was £336, so that you have this position, that after a reduction of the subsidy equivalent to £25 a house, there has followed a reduction in the cost of the house of no less than £112.
        Miss LAWRENCE: Does that include Scotland?
        Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not responsible for Scotland. Quite clearly, therefore, the local authorities are in a position to-day, in spite of the reduction of the subsidy, to place their orders for houses at a price substantially lower than they were before the reduction took place, and, in these circumstances, I think it is a little difficult to explain how a reduction in the buildng programme can have been brought about by the reduction in the subsidy. Again, I must anticipate another argument of the hon. Member, because I know he will repeat it again, as he has so often repeated it before. He will say that a reduction of price is not the cause of what has happened, but that a reduction of price has followed on a reduction of building. It is only, he will say, when you get a check in the programme of building that, of course, you get a reduction in the price. But that is not borne out by the facts, because the reduction in the price came first, before there was any reduction in the building, and it began the moment the coming cut was announced, and went on steadily, even though, as a matter of fact, the number of houses being completed every month was steadily increasing, and by the end of September, 1927, when the programme of house building reached its peak, already there was a reduction of no less than £45 per house. Therefore, I think I have established, to the satisfaction of any impartial person, that the policy of a reduction in the subsidy has been absolutely justified by the results and that it has brought about

        1559
        what at least nobody in this House will challenge, namely, the thing that is most necessary to-day in housing, a reduction in building costs which will allow houses to be let at lower rents.
        If I am asked, "How then do you account for the undoubted fact that houses are not now or have not in the last 12 months been built at such a high rate as they were just before the termination of the subsidy?" I can tell hon. Members opposite what, in my opinion, is the reason for the reduction. In the first place, it has been due to the natural reaction from the tremendous scramble that took place on the part of local authorities to get as many houses completed as possible before there was a change in the subsidy. The effect was that there was an abnormal rate of building, which came to an end in September, 1927, and after that everybody sat down and began to take breath. That has possibly passed away by now, but something else which has not passed away is the continued crumbling in the price of houses. Naturally, no prudent local authority, seeing that prices were not stable, but day after day and week after week continued to fall, were willing to place large contracts in a falling market. They were content to place small contracts, and nothing like the enormous number of houses that were completed in September, 1927, will be completed until local authorities are satisfied that prices have touched bottom. [Interruption.] It is a subject of continual grievance to hon. Members opposite that this fall in prices has taken place, but to people who are looking for houses which they can afford to rent it must be a source of satisfaction.
        As a matter of fact, the fall in the production of houses has not been anything like so serious as hon. Members opposite are fond of making out. Of course, for political purposes they prefer to take the figure of State-assisted houses, but, if you are to get a true picture of what is going on, and of how far the needs of the country are being supplied, you cannot confine yourself to houses on which there has been paid a subsidy by the State or local authority. You must take into account all the houses that are being erected, whether with a subsidy or without, and, if you do that, you find
        1560
        that the total output of houses completed in the year 1928 was no less than 169,000. Pick whatever figure you like as that which is required to meet the ordinary growth in the population, and to replace the wastage of old buildings—it is generally put at 100,000, though I think that that is much too high—but even if you put it at that figure there is a surplus of 69,000 houses in one year, which may be taken as indicating how largely the arrears have been eaten into and that the situation has therefore improved. If you compare that with the number which was built in 1924, the year when hon. Members opposite were able to show us what they could do, the figure was only 126,000. If you take State-assisted houses only, it was exactly half our's, and only 52,000 to our 104,000.
        Miss WILKINSON: Did the 169,000 include houses built for the middle and upper classes?
        Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The vast majority of these houses, as is well known, are under an annual value of £26 a year, and therefore it is not really to be asserted that the majority of these houses were built for the middle and upper classes. For the purpose of my argument, however, I do not care for whom they were built. My argument is that you must take the whole pool of houses, and, if you provide a large number of houses which are occupied, that must lessen the congestion in the country. Altogether, there have been built in this country since the Armistice no less than 1,241,500 houses, and the Committee might like to know how these were distributed between local authorities and private enterprise. Local authorities were responsible for 467,500, and private enterprise for 774,000. Any contemplation of these figures will indicate where we should have been if we had had to rely solely on local authorities for this purpose, and if we had not taken steps for the revival of private enterprise in building.
        This year we have been unfortunate in the weather. There has been frosty weather of exceptional severity and prolonged over an unusual period of time. Of course, while that weather lasted, building operations were undoubtedly held up to a very considerable degree, but now that the weather is milder the

        1561
        renewal of building activity is proceeding very fast. I find that in March this year, the number of houses approved for subsidy is 50 per cent. greater than it was in the corresponding month last year. While unemployment among bricklayers had on the 1st March risen to nearly 20,000, it had by the 25th March fallen to 5,000, and I anticipate that, as these new approvals begin to occupy labour, these figures will be reduced to very trifling dimensions. Before leaving this subject, I will only make this last observation. In considering figures of unemployment in the building industry, people sometimes talk as though the building industry meant the house building industry only. Of course, the figures we get do not apply only to people who are engaged on building houses. There are a great many other forms of building activity, and therefore it is not to be put down to the housing programme alone if from time to time there are variations in the number who are employed.
        4.0 p.m.
        Let me turn to the next section of our work—that of pensions—which is proceeding now, I think, with satisfactory regularity. I know that hon. Members from time to time have received a complaint from a constituent that an application has been put in and that there has been a very considerable delay in answering it. When one considers the extras ordinary number with which we are dealing, and the amount of information which has to be obtained in particular cases, requiring sometimes reference to a number of persons or bodies outside the Ministry of Health, I am surprised that the number of complaints of delay is so small. It may perhaps surprise hon. Members to know that even now the communications in and out of the Ministry of Health upon this subject alone average 100,000 a week, and that in a single week, at the time of the greatest pressure, we had no less than 400,000 applications or communications coming into the Ministry. It would indeed be surprising if work of that magnitude did not sometimes lead to delays, which to the applicant may seem intolerable, but which are hardly to be avoided in a work of such magnitude. We really could not get through the work with the staff that we have if we had not adopted some mechanical aids. The use of office machines is now
        1562
        extended in this part of the Ministry of Health. We have a number of ingenious machines which are used for the routine work, and which are performing now something like 9,500 operations a day. These will be added to, and probably reach, eventually, the neighbourhood of 15,000 a day.
        One aspect of pensions which was the subject of some speculation before the Act was brought into force was how far the relief afforded by the pension system to old people and to widows would be reflected in the reduced number of those who found it necessary to apply to the Poor Law authorities. I made some inquiry to see whether our anticipations in that respect had been fulfilled. I am very pleased, indeed, to find that no less than 88,560 persons, including the dependent children, who were before in receipt of Poor Law relief, have been able to free themselves entirely from the dependence on the guardians since they began to receive their pensions and allowances. That is not really the whole measure of the relief that is being made, because one has to add to that the number of all those who would have applied if they had not received the pension, but have been spared the necessity of coming to the guardians.
        Turning to the other side of health insurance, the feature of last year has been the coming into force of the recent Act. That Act contains a number of provisions which, I think, have been proved to be very beneficial to those who come under them. The system under which health benefits were suspended or cancelled because of arrears due to genuine unemployment was one which one could not regard as satisfactory. That has now been abolished under the Act. Now the genuinely unemployed loses nothing of his health benefit by reason of his arrears. He is credited with weeks of contribution by the franking of his card at the Employment Exchanges, and, as a matter of fact, although the arrears system has only begun to operate since July of last year, I am happy to find that there has been quite a number of persons who have been credited to an amount reaching the sum of 42s. 6d. for the 27 weeks of the last half yearly period. The Act of 1925 brought in a large number of voluntary contributors who had been previously excluded, and

        1563
        some 200,000 persons have taken advantage of that provision of the Act. In the Act of last year a grievance was removed in respect of share-fishermen, and also certain other workers who were really in the same sort of economic position as employed persons, but who would not be insured because they were not under contract of service. The provision which has brought them in has been received with great satisfaction, because when it was a question of pensions as well as health insurance, then they did feel that they had a serious grievance in being excluded from the benefits of that Act.
        With regard to the administration of the Poor Law, I think that we have now passed the worst period, and during the past year, although there may be not a very large reduction in the total numbers on the list we have seen a substantial reduction in the numbers of those who were in receipt of relief on account of unemployment. I should like to say a word about the provision of test work in connection with relief regulation orders, in connection with which a number of questions have been put to me from time to time in this House. It is a fact, as I am informed, that in very many cases the men themselves welcomed this test work, because it is a relief from the intolerable monotony of existence without anything whatever to do. But, of course, one would desire and I hope that we may achieve in time a system under which the test work is not merely the actual physical exercise which is involved in it, but is in itself some preparation for a life of permanent employment when the man is free from the Poor Law and is able to resume his occupation. I would like, in this connection, to say a word or two of commendation of an experiment which, I think, was initiated originally in the Salford Union, but which is now being taken up in three other places—Sheffield, Norwich and, last of all, Poplar, although Poplar has not actually begun the experiment yet. This was an experiment under which persons applying for outdoor relief were given a sort of education course. They were given instruction and training in handicrafts and physical exercises, and, as showing how valuable a system of this kind may be, I may say that in the Salford Union out of 441 men
        1564
        who passed from this training course, no less than 382 have gone off relief, and it is believed, with good reason, that most of them have found employment. That is certainly a very vast improvement upon the old system, and I hope very much that the experiment may be followed up.
        Mr. GREENALL: It was suggested by a Socialist chairman.
        Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I come to the health services themselves. There are four services which come under the purview of the Ministry of Health, and which have been the subject of percentage grants. This, I suppose, is the last occasion on which the main Estimates of my Department will be presented showing provision for percentage grants of this kind. There is also another service for which the Board of Control have been responsible, and which also is aided by a similar grant. The Board of Control are responsible for the treatment of insane persons and also mental deficients, and, as I did not on the last occasion touch at all on their work, I should like to take this opportunity of saying something about it now, because it is very important work. It is not work which is very attractive, perhaps, but it is work which is very valuable in the general interests of the community.
        The CHAIRMAN: I think I ought to point out that this question comes under another Vote, but as it is kindred to the subject with which the Minister is dealing, perhaps the Committee will not insist on the objection on that point.
        Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am touching on this feature here in order to give the Committee one or two facts about the position which I think may be useful. As to the magnitude of the problem, I may say that there are, at present, about 141,000 insane persons who are under care in England and Wales, and that number shows a fairly regular increase of about 2,000 a year. That may sound, at first, rather disquieting, but the increase must not be taken necessarily to mean that the number of insane persons in proportion to the population is increasing at that rate. Insanity is a disease which affects adults and not children and, of course, as the expectation of life continually increases, so a

        1565
        larger and larger proportion of the population reach the later ages, and become susceptible to this particular form of disease. Therefore, although the actual number we have to provide for is increasing, I do not think that we need draw from that any conclusion that would be serious to the general mental condition of the people of this country. There is another figure which is less satisfactory, I mean the figure of recovery. One must distinguish between insanity and mental deficiency. Insanity is a disease from which people may recover. Mental deficiency is an arrest of mental development from which there cannot possibly be recovery, but it is rather surprising and a little disquieting that the rate of recovery among insane persons seems always to remain about the same point, namely, about 30 per cent. I think, however, one may perhaps assume safely that with the greater knowledge we have to-day, medical superintendents are more careful in classifying cases as cases of recovery than they used to be, and that there may be an increase which is not accurately reflected in the figures at our disposal.
        Viscount SANDON: Can my right hon. Friend say how these recovery figures compare with foreign countries?
        Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid I cannot say out of my head, but I could get the information for my hon. Friend. There is one class of case, however, in which there is a definite improvement in the matter of recovery, and that is the case of the general paralysis of the insane which was for a long time considered incurable. It was very often fatal. The discovery which has been made reminds one rather of an old story of an American. A new practitioner came to his village with a medicine which he said was applicable to any complaint, and the man having gone to him and complained that he had the gout, the practitioner prepared to apply the medicine. The patient asked if it was good for gout, and the practitioner, after the usual reference to the nether regions, replied: "Gout? No! but it will give you fits, and I am death on fits." The new treatment of the general paralysis of the insane is to give the patient another disease, and that is malaria. It is a
        1566
        discovery which, I believe, came from Vienna. It has been found that by introducing malaria, a patient suffering from general paralysis of the insane, which before was very often incurable, is now in many cases capable of very considerable improvement, and possibly of cure. In going round a mental hospital to-day, one may see as part of the equipment a portion of the ward shut off and surrounded by mosquito curtains, with, perhaps, one or two beds in it. The patient is brought into this place, the infected mosquito is brought down from London, introduced into the mosquito curtains, and after that the matter works itself out in its own way. There is one direction in which I wish we could make further progress, and that is in the matter of research. At the present time, local authorities have no power to devote money to research. It is one of the matters which I certainly do not wish to discuss this afternoon, but it may well arise out of the Report of the recent Royal Commission, which, I hope, will form part of the work of another Parliament.
        Now I come to mental deficiency. Some misunderstanding seems to have arisen in the minds of some people as to the attitude of the Ministry of Health with regard to what is known as the Wood Report. The Wood Report is the Report of a, committee which inquired into various matters connected with mental deficiency. The Committee issued two very long Reports. One of them has been published, and I have been asked frequently whether and when I was prepared to publish that part of the Report which dealt with adults. It is a very long Report, and one of considerable complexity, and I have said that I really must have time to consider it before I can say whether all or how much of the Report should be published. But I hope hon. Members will not think there is any intention on my part to withhold from local authorities anything which they ought to know which is contained in this Report. Probably the most important part of it to them consists of the figures of Dr. Lewis's investigation into mental deficiency, which have already been published. As to the rest, it is having my personal consideration, and I hope to be able to make a decision before very long.

        1567
        The serious aspect of the figures is that Dr. Lewis estimates that there are 300,000 mental deficients in this country, a number which is about double what was estimated by the Royal Commission in 1908. That must give rise to serious anxiety and apprehension among all who care about the future physical and mental condition of our people. Naturally, a good many people have asked whether it would not be possible to take some steps which would prevent the propagation of a class of people who will never take their proper place in society. We are told that in some countries a system of sterilisation is practised, and we are asked why we should not follow that example. Personally, I think that some day there will have to be a proper scientific inquiry into this matter, because undoubtedly, up to the present, we have not sufficient data to enable us to come to any satisfactory and definite conclusion. But I would say this: The mental deficients in this country to-day are, broadly speaking, the product of one-tenth of the population, that is to say, it is only 10 per cent. of the population who are responsible for the production of mental deficients, and out of that one-tenth only one-tenth, or 1 per cent. of the whole, are themselves definitely defective. The others may be indefinitely defective, un-recognisable as such, they may even be only carriers, and therefore it must be clear that any process of sterilisation could not possibly deal satisfactorily with the problem.
        Mr. LANSBURY: Has the Minister any figures or any information showing the districts from which they come?
        Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think they can be said to come from any special districts. They are widely distributed all over the country.
        Mr. LANSBURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what class, what section, of the community?
        Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I could not say. The ideal method of dealing with these people, in the light of our present knowledge, is in colonies, which should consist of, probably, not less than 1,000 persons if they are to be carried on with the greatest efficiency. These colonies must be considered, not as places in which
        1568
        mental deficients shall be kept for the rest of their lives, but rather as places where they shall as far as possible be trained up to a point at which they can be released and allowed to go out on licence and under supervision. But, of course, it is not possible to carry out an ideal of that kind at a single step. It is a costly matter to provide one of these colonies; we have to have some regard to the financial limitations of the country, and I think we shall have to proceed slowly, bearing in mind that we can even now do a good deal to mitigate the lot of these unfortunate people and to render them less dangerous to society and to themselves. I believe that under the Local Government Act, by which a large number of institutions are placed in the hands of the county and county borough authorities, it will be possible to devote some of those institutions to the reception of certain types both of mental deficients and of insane persons, and, seeing that the cost of a bed in a mental hospital is about twice that in a mental deficiency colony, perhaps local authorities will make the best bargain for themselves if they allot some of these institutions to the treatment of insanity.
        Miss WILKINSON: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves this question, could he say one word as to whether he proposes to do anything to increase the care of the border-line cases—to make further provision for the treatment of border-line cases which are not yet certified?
        Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know whether the hon. Lady means that I should do it by legislation, because, if so, I could not discuss that question now; but, as far as the present administration is concerned, the answer is "Yes." It is part of the general policy which is being pursued by the Board of Control all over the country at the present time.
        The four State-aided health services which come under the Ministry of Health are tuberculosis, venereal disease, the welfare of the blind, and maternity and child welfare. Perhaps the Committee would like me to glance at some of these, to see whether we have been justified in the money which we have spent upon them in the past. In regard to tuberculosis, I am happy to be able to tell the Committee that last year, 1928, gave us

        1569
        the lowest death-rate on record both for pulmonary and non-pulmonary cases. I would particularly like to call attention to the non-pulmonary tuberculosis cases, because 80 per cent. of the decline has occurred among children, and I think it is very satisfactory to know that, whereas the death-rate among these cases in the 10 years from 1901 to 1910 was 500 per 1,000,000, last year it came down to 173. That is due to the greater care taken and the greater knowledge which now exists as to the best method of treating these cripples, as they generally are in the case of children. It is a source of satisfaction to think that the death-rate has been so much reduced, because one must bear in mind that at the same time the condition of those who have survived is very much better than it used to be, and many a child is to-day going about with straight limbs who formerly would have been a permanent cripple.
        As to blind persons, I think I may say, generally, that they are better looked after to-day than they ever were before. More of them have come under the attention of the local authorities, and there are more means and better means of making their sad lot tolerable. I must draw attention, in particular, to the cases of ophthalmia neonatorum, which in the past have given rise to so many cases of permanent blindness. In 1922, there were 8,000 patients of this most distressing disease. In 1927, the latest year for which I have the figures, that 8,000 had fallen to 5,000. The maternity and child welfare work has produced the most striking results of all our health services in the last generation. Last year, the infant mortality rate came down from 70 per 1,000, as it was in the year before, to 65. In the five years since I have been at the Ministry of Health, the figure has declined 10 points, from 75 to 65 per 1,000. Since it is rather difficult to visualise the effect of that, I will put it in this way, that in 1928 6,560 babies survived who would have died if they had been born under the conditions that existed in 1924. There, again, we must not look only at the actual lives saved; they are, as it were, a barometer of the general rise in the standards of health among young children, and we may be quite certain that for every one whose life has been saved there are half-a-dozen others who
        1570
        are stronger and healthier than they would have been. I cannot say that this wonderful fall of the death-rate in a single year was due to the actual work done during that year. It is the product of a number of causes all combining to work in the same direction, but I would give the figure of the actual expenditure in grants, which shows that there is a steadily expanding service, and I think we may fairly claim for that service at least a major share in the very satisfactory results. In the year 1924–25, the total amount spent by way of Exchequer grants on maternity and child welfare services was £814,000. In 1928–29, the sum was £1,072,000, and in the present Estimates the amount set aside for this purpose is £1,163,000.
        The Committee may remember that, after speaking of this same service last year, I indicated that there was one part of it on which I could not look with satisfaction. The figures of maternal mortality, the deaths of mothers in childbirth, had practically not moved for the last 20 years. I said then that I felt the time had come when it was necessary to make some new and vigorous attempt to deal with this very distressing problem. I set up two Committees, one to inquire into the whole conditions affecting the practice and profession of midwifery, and that is what I call the foundation stone of this matter. That Committee has been at work. It has nearly completed its labours, and I am hoping that in a few weeks I shall have its Report. The other Committee was one which was directed to trying to throw more light upon the causes of these deaths. It is a fact that even now we are, to a large extent, ignorant of what are the causes of this persistent maternal mortality. I set on foot an investigation with the help of the general practitioners of the British Medical Association and the local authorities with a view to getting a Report on every case of maternal death right through the country, and that work has been going on. The Committee began to function in the latter part of last year, and 311 deaths formed the subject of Reports. This year already we have had reports of 448 more cases.
        It is too soon to be able to say what conclusions we shall be able to draw from this evidence, but I can say to the committee that already the focussing of the

        1571
        evidence upon these cases, and the concentration of attention upon the whole subject has begun to show indications from which we believe we can see some of the flaws and weaknesses in our system which will enable us presently to direct our efforts to the weak spots. The general arousing of public interest, the fixing of attention upon this particular set of circumstances, upon the lamentable results to the health and life of this nation which come from this persistent mortality in itself has meant that greater care is being given already to these matters before and after birth, and, although I do not prophesy as a rule, I say with some confidence that from the mere fact of this attention being given without any special steps having been taken, we shall see a large reduction in this figure which has persisted for so many years.
        There are two other points to which I should like to refer. There has been a good deal of discussion on the question of small-pox within the last few weeks, and some very embarrassing restrictions have been placed upon the entry of our nationals into another country. That has arisen partly owing to the presence of certain cases of virulent small-pox which came to this country on a ship. I do not think that this state of affairs would have arisen at all had it not been that the attention of other countries had been drawn to the mounting figures of cases of small-pox of a mild character which have been so remarkable a feature of the last few years. In 1927, there were upwards of 14,000 such cases. Last year, there were not quite so many. Although the very fact of these cases being mild has tended to prevent anxiety, I feel myself that as long as we have a large part of our population unvaccinated we are running a risk which may seem to be small to-day, but which, if we should get any spread of a really virulent type, might cause something like a panic.
        The other matter to which I wish to refer is cancer. Unfortunately, I have to report that the number of cases of cancer is still on the increase in this country, nor have we been able so far, in spite of the amount of research, to say that we have got down to the real cause of cancer or of the agencies which encourage its development in the human body. What we can say is that after many experiments and some mistakes we have obtained now
        1572
        a fairly practical working knowledge of the method of treatment which has, been singularly successful, and has in fact quite superseded the older methods of surgery—I mean of course treatment by radium in one form or another. So established is the practice now of treatment of cancer in many cases by radium that the demands for that substance have become pressing and urgent. It is a substance which is only found in workable quantities in very few spots in the world, and it is a substance which, owing to its powerful character, requires most careful handling in its preparation. It is therefore a very costly substance, but a sub-committee, appointed by the Committee of Civil and Industrial Research examined into this matter and informed us that 20 grammes of radium were all that could be properly and efficiently used at this moment. Twenty grammes of radium were required and could be obtained at a cost of £200,000, and in the opinion of the sub-committee it was thought to be desirable that the Government should offer pound for pound for any sums raised for this purpose by the public. In view of that statement, the Government felt that they must at once accept that recommendation, and they undertook to find their share of the necessary money. I am sure the Committee will have seen with very great satisfaction that, as a result of the appeals made in the Press, a very large share of the sum required has already been forthcoming. Many generous donors have come forward, and I believe this is an appeal which is likely to have the sympathy of many people, for who knows which of us may not presently require the very treatment made available by this substance, and which of us, if that were so, would not be prepared to find any sum within his means to escape the anguish, the torture, and possibly death which might follow. It is a great satisfaction to me at the end of this period of my office to find that something has been done to bring relief to many sufferers in the future from this most terrible and terrifying of diseases, and I am confident that in a very few days we shall find that the necessary money has been secured and that we shall be able to proceed to the use of this most beneficent discovery.
        If I endeavoured to make a survey of all the departments of the Ministry of

        1573
        Health I should require many days to do it, and I am afraid that I should weary the Committee. I have to-day been able to touch upon one or two of the important subjects with which we deal, and I hope that what I have said to the Committee may be sufficient to convince them that the money which we spend on the health services of the Ministry of Health is an investment which brings us an ample return in the improved health and efficiency of the people.
        Mr. A. GREENWOOD: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
        On these occasions, we always listen to a most interesting speech from the Minister when he is reviewing the work of the year, and, if I may say so, the speech to which we have just listened has been as interesting as any of the right hon. Gentleman's speeches which I remember. With most of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I think the Committee will be in general sympathy. There was a passage in his speech which we on this side challenge, in which he referred to housing, and it is there that I must cease my compliments and put the case of the Minister's record in administering the Housing Act as we on these benches see it. The Minister of Health to-day is presenting his last Estimates, it may be, for many years. I know that hon. Members opposite regard some of the work of the right hon. Gentleman with admiration, and he is considered to be one of the great assets of the Government, but we on this side regard the major part of his record as inglorious.
        I propose to confine my remarks principally to the question of housing, but I cannot forget the right hon. Gentleman's administration of the Poor Law during the last three or four years; in fact, there is very little which would lead the public to believe that the administrator of the Poor Law was the same Minister who has just spoken so feelingly and sincerely on the questions of cancer and maternal mortality. The Minister of Health has not given the same sympathetic treatment to the administration of the Poor Law as he has given to the work of other Departments of his Ministry, and it seems to me that an attempt has been made to revive the old system which used to regard the poor as people who ought to be suppressed and
        1574
        harried from pillar to post. In the record of the Minister of Health for the last five years on the subject of housing, I think we have perhaps one of our strongest cases against him. We hear nothing about steel houses to-day. That lamentable experiment came to an unfortunate end for the Minister of Health. We have not heard to-day one single word about the right hon. Gentleman's administration of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act nor have we heard to-day a real defence of his administration of the two Housing Acts which are now on the Statute Book. The right hon. Gentleman told us that on this side of the House we were not fertile in criticism and that much of our criticism consisted of repeating old arguments. We shall go on repeating the old criticisms, because it is essential that we should seize every opportunity for putting these criticisms until they have percolated into the minds of hon. Members opposite. There is no need for us to try and discover new arguments, because our arguments are overpowering and the Minister of Health has never answered them. The right hon. Gentleman speaks of our using these arguments for political purposes. I have been giving a little attention recently to party leaflets. Here is a Conservative leaflet:
        "Mere and more Homes."
        I think it was published before they reduced the subsidy, and it includes a passage which I had not intended to read but for that remark of the Minister. It tells how many houses were built in 1924, in 1925, and in 1926, and then it goes on:
        "Unless the Socialists stir up trouble in the building trade, and so hold up housing, the number of houses built in the 12 months to 30th September, 1927, should be over 200,000."
        If that is not a really bad piece of political propaganda on behalf of the Conservative party, and most unfair to this party, I do not know what is, because, as a matter of fact, we more than reached that figure. We did not stir up trouble in the building trade; it was the Labour Government of 1924 who made that output possible by the agreement which they reached with the building trade. Another leaflet puts the Conservative party's policy in phrases of two or three words, and in regard to housing we have this:
        "Rural Housing Improvement.
        Vigorous Housing Policy."

        1575
        I want to bring that to the test of actual achievement and accomplishment. Up and down the country, hon. Members are now claiming, and the hoardings bear witness to it, that the right hon. Gentleman and his Department have been responsible for the building of 800,000 houses during the time this Government have been in office. We have now entered upon a period of self-congratulation on the part of the Government. The Prime Minister himself has been patting the Minister of Health on the back for this large output of houses. Let us look at what these 800,000 houses are, because this bubble is going to be pricked before the General Election. The right hon. Gentleman says that we must include all houses; that it is true that on the Devonshire House site flats have been put up for American millionaires, but never mind, let them be counted in the 800,000; every new house relieves the congestion in the country, and there is an ultimate transfer which makes it much easier for the people at the bottom.
        That is not true, and never has been true since the War. Among those 800,000 houses there are included something like 300,000 which have been built by private enterprise without a penny of public assistance, and for which the Minister is in no way responsible at all. He will be claiming next the fine summer of last year as part of the Conservative achievements. That immediately brings down this wonderful total of 800,000 to 500,000. In no way can the Government claim credit for the 300,000; that is obvious. They can claim credit for the 500,000 which have been built with the aid of public assistance during their period of office, but an examination of that figure of 500,000 houses shows that roughly 250,000 have been built by private enterprise for sale, and that only 250,000 of that great total of 800,000 consist of houses which have been built to let to working people. That deflates the whole of this wonderful claim. It has been said time and again by the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary that the problem which is left to-day is the problem of providing houses to let at rents that working people can pay. That formula they borrowed from us; I hope they will make good use of it. That is the problem; but in four and a-half years only 250,000 of these houses have been built for that pur-
        1576
        pose, and, therefore, this enormous claim which is made proves on examination, like many other claims made by hon. Members opposite, to have little substance in it.
        It is important that we should consider in this Committee the history of house building during the last year or two, and the position in which we are to-day. It is undoubtedly true that from 1924 onwards there was a steady and substantial expansion of house-building. That was due to the increased incentive which we gave to local authorities to build houses, and was due also to the scheme for augmenting the personnel of the industry, which could not have been carried through by any other than a Labour Government. There has been, therefore, a very substantial and steadily increasing output of houses from 1924 onwards. The second period came when the right hon. Gentleman announced the prospective reduction of the subsidy. That led to a few months of spurt. According to the Minister's view, that spurt made such demands upon the industry that it has had to rest for two years since. There was a period of spurt, when the output was increased beyond what it would have been but for the fact that local authorities and private builders were engaged in getting their houses finished by the 30th September, before the new reduced housing subsidy began to operate.
        Immediately after the reduced subsidy began to operate, house-building fell off. The right hon. Gentleman's case is that that was due to reaction, that it would be all right in course of time. The song which the Minister has sung to-day is rather different from the song that he sang a year ago. House-building has failed to recover, and we attribute that almost entirely to the Government's misguided reduction of the subsidy. I do not mind how often it is repeated that the great slump in the building of working-class houses has been due to the reduction of the subsidy. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says that he knew I would say that. Of course I say it, because it is so true. The right hon. Gentleman told us his story again this afternoon of the relation between house-building prices and the subsidy, but I destroyed that in May of last year. I have hardly time to say it all over again,

        1577
        but I do not mind repeating some of it if it will in any way influence the minds of hon. Members opposite.
        The reason for the reduced subsidy, we were told officially, was because it was held by the Government that the subsidy was inflating prices. Then, when we come to read a little booklet of a colour that will be familiar to hon. Members below the Gangway, on "Three and a Half Years' Work" of this Government, I find in the section on housing a special section, as there would be, on private enterprise, which says:
        "Features of the Conservative period have been the number of houses built (a) by private enterprise with subsidy; (b) by private enterprise without subsidy. This return to private enterprise encouraged the Government to decide to reduce the heavy charge on the taxpayers for subsidies by about £25 a house from 1st October, 1927."
        I am driven to wonder whether that, perhaps, was not the real reason why the subsidy was reduced, and whether it was not the first step in the process of handing back house-building entirely, lock stock and barrel, to private enterprise and the jerry-builder. But then there is another reason, which is borne in on my mind by the Prime Minister's statement over the wireless the other night. He said that the Minister of Health had
        "produced the goods, and we have so overcome now the shortage of houses which was so great at the conclusion of the War that we feel that half our work is now done, and we are anxious and eager to get on with the next chapter, which is an attack in force upon the slums."
        Whether the reason which moved the Government to this policy was that they wished to bring down the price of houses, or whether it was, as this official publication tells us, a desire on the part of the Conservative Government to hand back the business to private enterprise, or whether it was that in the view of the Prime Minister half the problem had now-been solved, the fact remains the same, that house-building has been paralysed ever since the 1st October, 1927. The right hon. Gentleman has given us His argument about the effect of the subsidy on prices. There was a reduction of the subsidy by £25, and down came the prices by £112. It is very illogical for the right hon. Gentleman only to have reduced the subsidy by £25. He ought to have taken off the whole £75. That would have been the only proper and logical thing to do,
        1578
        because, although I do not suppose that prices would have come down in proportion, it might have reduced them by something like £300. Indeed, if the subsidy had been swept away altogether, I can see visions of happy builders begging applicants to accept houses for nothing.
        Prices have come down, not for one reason, but for at least a dozen reasons, which have operated throughout the length and breadth of Great Britain, as I explained to the Committee a year ago; and the fall which took place in Scotland was as great as in England and Wales, notwithstanding the fact that there had been no reduction of subsidy in Scotland. I do not want to go over the ground again, but there are a dozen different reasons why prices should have come down, and it is no use bringing in one other factor and trying to argue that that new factor was the sole cause of the fall in prices, particularly when it happens that that factor is not operating in Scotland, where, in 1927–28, the cost of house-building fell fully as much as it did in England and Wales.
        Whatever may be the truth about it, the right hon. Gentleman says that his policy has been justified. The Minister's business, however, is not to get down the price of houses and then build no houses; his primary business is to build houses. It is no satisfaction to people who are clamouring for houses to know that the right hon. Gentleman has succeeded in bringing the price down by £100, if there is not a house for the person who wants it. That is the real test. In May of last year, when we were discussing the Estimate, the Minister was whistling to keep his heart up. He was getting a little dubious about this protracted slump in the building of houses. He had said before that it was all right, that this reaction would soon be over, and that we should get building again. In the middle of May he tried to sing the same tune, and these were the words that he used then:
        Therefore, although we have undoubtedly seen a certain temporary slackening in the provision of new houses, I think we may confidently look forward to a considerable increase in the figures during the ensuing summer, and, while the local authorities have naturally been anxious to know whether they could rely upon a continuance of the present subsidies at their present rates, I have"—

        1579
        and then he went on to say that, while he was unable at the moment to give a final reply, he could say that the subsidy would at least be fixed until the 31st March, 1929. He said in the same speech:
        "I have never felt any anxiety whatever about this slump in house building which has taken place in the last few months."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1928; col. 879, Vol. 217.]
        5.0 p.m.
        Here he was a year ago trying to persuade his friends that, as a matter of fact, things would be all right. The position today is that all the arguments the right hon. Gentleman is using have changed. In December of last year, when we were discussing the reduction of the subsidy which is to take place on 1st October of this year, the Minister said:
        "I think I can pass from the question of output, having clearly shown that, while there has been undoubtedly a remarkable rise, followed by an unpleasant fall, it is only a temporary disturbance which will pass away."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th December, 1923; col. 2161, Vol. 223.]
        That was 15 months after the subsidy had been reduced. It was still a certain temporary slackening, but no progress has in fact been made. I took occasion during that Debate to read some words of warning which I had used in 1926, when we were first asked to commit ourselves to a reduction in the housing subsidy. I repeat them. This was when the proposal had been made public that the subsidy was to be reduced:
        "I have within the last few days received letters and reports from many parts of the country, and almost everywhere the same story is told by local authorities, by building experts, by mayors and town councillors, that the only effect of this proposal will be to reduce the building of working-class houses."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1926; col. 1494, Vol. 200.]
        I said that over two years ago, and it is borne out by the facts to-day, and it is that which we wish to bring home to the right hon. Gentleman. He explains it by the feeling of lassitude following six months of great effort. He cannot bring that forward seriously on 1st May, 1929. His next reason is that local authorities are waiting for prices to fall. That is absurd. The price of houses has not fallen very much in the last two or three months. Local authorities, in my experience, are only too anxious to build houses, and
        1580
        they have not been holding back since 1st October, 1927, when they had long lists of people asking for new houses, waiting for prices to drop still further. It is a poor excuse. When we come to the frosty weather, of course there has been frosty weather, but you can take the frosty weather and you can double the effect of it on house building, and it does not explain away the continuance of this slackening of house building.
        Let me quote the figures of houses which are in course of construction month by month. The right hon. Gentleman generally quotes figures of houses which have been approved. Large numbers are approved and never built. I am going to give what is the real test of house building, the number of houses actually in course of erection month by month. What is the position? During the months before the announcement was made of the reduction of the subsidy, when the local authorities were developing their activities, there were at any given moment being built by local authorities—I am taking their houses only—about 49,000 houses. At the end of October, 1926, local authorities, operating the Act of 1924, were building under that Act 49,279 houses. That was about the normal rate of building at that time for municipal houses under the 1924 Act. With the announcement of the reduced subsidy, to take effect at the end of September in the following year, house building of course speeded up, and then immediately fell off, and it has never recovered. At the end of March of this year, the latest figures available, local authorities in England and Wales had 27,089 Wheatley houses in course of erection as against 29,773 on the same day last year. It is even less than it was a year ago, and that is so with some of the other months. I find that in October, 1927, the very first month after the reduction of the subsidy, there were 30,714 Wheatley houses in course of erection by local authorities as against only 28,800 in October, 1928. To-day local authorities are still building at half the rate at which they were building before the subsidy was reduced in October, 1927.
        That is the real outstanding fact. In the 12 months prior to the reduction of the subsidy we built in England and Wales over 212,000. During the 12 months after the reduction of the sub-

        1581
        sidy we built only 101,000 houses. We were 110,000 houses short. Let us assume, if you like, that some of those 212,000 houses would have been built in a later period. They would not all have been, because we have a shortage which you cannot explain away except on the ground that the heart has been knocked out of the local authorities by this reduction of the public subsidy. That is the capital fact of the housing situation at present. The right hon. Gentleman says that last year we built, all told, 169,000 houses, many of them in Park Lane and near Hyde Park. But, anyhow, there were 169,000 houses, and that was a surplus of 69,000. A surplus of 69,000 houses is not good enough. There is no reason why any single operative in the building industry should be idle.
        The housing need is still sufficiently great to demand the employment of all the people within the industry, and the fact that we have got up to the 200,000 houses a year mark, which we always said could be done—and we were derided by hon. Members opposite when we made that proposal—and that last year we got down to 169,000 is not a surplus in my view of 69,000 but a shortage of 31,000. It is 31,000 houses fewer than could have been built. It is all very well for the Parliamentary Secretary to regard it as amusing that he and the Minister of Health between them have succeeded in depriving 150,000 families in England and Wales of new houses which might have been in existence to-day. By this reduction in the rate of building in the last 18 months, by not keeping up the speed which the industry was capable of keeping up, we are 150,000 houses poorer. That lies at the door of the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary. It may be the most screaming joke of their lives, but I think they will probably find that it has a more serious side, the results of which will become obvious within the next few weeks.
        Let me say a few words about the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, on which the Minister was so discreetly silent. This happens to be another of his great fiascoes. This was brought forward as a contribution to the solution of the great problem of the rural cottages. The Act was put on the Statute Book, but nothing happened. The right hon. Gentleman
        1582
        sent his circulars round to the local authorities in the county areas, doing his best to persuade them to work the Act, and the Conservative party was so public-spirited that it produced a three-fold leaflet, expensively produced, as their wares invariably are, called, "Our village homes and the way to better them. A simple guide for cottage owners and tenants to the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926." I do not know how many of these have been sent round the country, because the imprint does not give the numbers that were printed, but I have no doubt a very substantial number, and we ought to congratulate the Tory party on its public spirit in trying to enlighten the people in the rural areas on the benefits of this great piece of legislation. After these circulars to local authorities, after flooding the countryside with this three-fold leaflet, what is the effect of it? In May of last year the right hon. Gentleman had to admit that his Act had not been a success. He said:
        "I must admit that the progress of reconditioning old cottages in the Country under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act has been up to the present disappointingly slow."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1928; col. 880, Vol. 217.]
        After that, one wondered whether he was going to take steps to speed up the administration of the Act. I think the latest figures which have been given relate to 30th September, 1928, when as the result of two years' operation of the Act, as the result of circulating "Our village homes," as the result of circulars to local authorities, 343 houses had been reconditioned, and work was in progress on a larger number than that—on 518 houses. So that, if that work has been completed, something like 850 houses have been subsidised out of public funds among the hundreds of thousands of rural cottages which stand in need not merely of reconditioning but of replacement. One would not mind a single failure very much, seeing that the right hon. Gentleman has dropped this Act from his programme for the time being. One would not have minded if he had turned his attention to building new cottages in rural areas. The same story of reduced building for the country as a whole following upon the reduction of the subsidy applies in the rural areas, and I

        1583
        have no doubt that this Government will be known in the rural areas as the Government that damped down the building of new rural cottages. In 1926, there were 2,538 cottages built in agricultural parishes and getting the additional special subsidy that was provided for in the Labour Government's Act of 1924. That was the first occasion when any Government had gone out of its way to do something special for the agricultural cottager. Under that Act 2,538 houses were built in 1926, and in the following year, which included nine months of this period of spurt 6,373 houses were built. As in the towns, house-building has not recovered, and in 1928 only 2,113 were built as against 2,500 two years previously. Even on the showing of 1926, before we had got up to the rate of building which is possible now, there were 2,500, and last year just over 2,100, or 400 fewer new rural houses. All that the right hon. Gentleman has been able to do in just over two years under his wretched little reconditioning Act is to patch up 343 cottages. So that while his reconditioning scheme has failed, he has also failed to promote house-building in those rural areas where housing is so very badly needed.
        The right hon. Gentleman is now paying the penalty of the very short-sighted policy of reducing the subsidy. He is paying the penalty in reduced house building. No amount of wangling with figures can get away from the brutal truth that house-building now is down below the normal, and I call the normal the figures that should have been obtained had the housing scheme of 1924 continued fully in operation. We should now have been building houses at a rate of well over 200,000 per year. We have not done it. We are not doing it. That is the price, not the price that the Minister himself is paying, but which the country is paying for a miscroscopic saving on the subsidy for houses. It is not merely that we have got an indictment against the Minister of Health for having followed this foolhardy policy, but that, seeing the results of it, he persists in his folly and determines to reduce the subsidy still further on the 1st October of this year. If that new subsidy is allowed to come into effect, there will be a still further shrinkage in house-building. He has not learnt—he refuses
        1584
        to learn—and he has refused, as far as one can gather, to take any special steps to encourage or to goad local authorities into fulfilling their responsibilities. He has sat with folded arms and just permitted the operation of the subsidy to damp down house-building by local authorities and by private builders building under the Housing Acts. As I said at the beginning, it is an inglorious record, and it is an inglorious end to an inglorious record. I hope that the country will realise the truth about the 800,000 houses. I hope that the country will also realise that it is to-day short of a very large number of houses which might have been built. The right hon. Gentleman says that only 5,000 bricklayers were out of work at the end of March. Only 5,000! What does that mean in house-building? It means a very large amount of house-building. I have forgotten what the output would be, but the right hon. Gentleman's policy has, on the one hand, diminished house-building, and, on the other hand, has intensified the unemployment problem. It has created, whether it is large or small at this moment, unemployment in an industry which above all others needs to utilise the last man.
        I suppose that this will be my last word in this House. [Laughter.] I ask leave to withdraw the word "House" and to substitute the word "Parliament." I believe that I shall be in many other Parliaments. I could not have chosen a subject on which I should have more preferred to speak than this, and my very last words are that the Conservative party's recent policy of housing proves the insincerity of their claims to be a party that is concerned with the housing of the workers of the country. Whether that policy was designed with the object of reducing building or not, whether it was designed to hand over the whole problem again to the people who failed to solve it before the War, whether it is due to the mistaken idea of the Prime Minister that the job is nearly finished, we do know that the problem is as great to-day as it was eight years ago, that we have not yet really eaten into the great shortage, and that we are still left with a great housing problem. Eating into the housing shortage merely means making up the leeway. There is a bigger job

        1585
        than that. It is not merely a question of making up the leeway in numbers, but of making up the leeway in quality. As far as we are concerned, the policy of 1924—the building of 2,500,000 houses—still stands as our considered policy.
        Mr. MORRIS: I am not going to go over the whole field of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, nor am I going to follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. A. Greenwood), but there is one particular portion of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman to which I want to devote attention. It is that part of the speech which dealt with mental defectives and with the Board of Control. I was hoping to-day that when he came to deal with that question he would have given us some assurance that the Report of the Wood Committee would now be issued. That Report has been presented since 19th of January of this year. The Committee, first of all, presented it as one whole Report, and not, as it now appears, as two Reports. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman does himself justice in the attitude which he has taken up with regard to this Report, nor did he do himself justice this afternoon. The right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted the whole of this time to consider the Report, and he has taken up the attitude that he has not had sufficient opportunity to consider the position. As I have said, I do not think that such an attitude does him justice, because—and there can be no doubt about it—the right hon. Gentleman is one of the most competent Ministers sitting on that bench. One has great respect for his ability, and, when he comes down to this House and says that he has required all his time from the 19th January to the end of April to consider this Report, I again repeat that he is not doing himself justice. He must find a better reason than that. He complains to-day that there has been a good deal of misrepresentation.
        Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Not misrepresentation, but misapprehension.
        Mr. MORRIS: I accept the correction. If there has been a good deal of misapprehension with regard to the Report, there is no one to blame except himself. He is responsible for the whole of that misapprehension. He gave an answer to
        1586
        a question which I put to him some time ago in this House, and I may say that Question Time in this House does not enable one to cross-examine effectively, and the right hon. Gentleman is not an easy subject for cross-examination. When I asked him why the President of the Board of Education was able to deal with this portion of the Report in a much shorter time than he was able to deal with it, his answer was that there were two reports. That was a correct answer swearing by the book. The Report, in the first instance, was a complete report. The right hon. Gentleman referred it back to the Committee, and asked them to divide it, and the Committee, under protest and very reluctantly, agreed that the Report should be divided. Obviously, the Committee regarded that section of the Report which dealt with the adult problem as part of the same problem relating to the children. The right hon. Gentleman referred it back, and he has not told us the reason. It would be rather interesting to know what is the reason. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give some explanation as to why the Minister, notwithstanding the opinion of the commit tee, desired to have this Report sent back and subsequently presented as two separate reports. The right hon. Gentleman has repeatedly shelved the issue in this House. When the Report was sent to the President of the Board of Education he decided that the Report should be published, and he came to this decision as far back as last March. The right hon. Gentleman has gone to the end of April, and he still says that there has not been sufficient time to consider the position. Why should there be this distinction? I do not know whether the portion of the Report sent to the Minister of Health is longer than that which was sent to the President of the Board of Education, but I do not think there can be any special reason why it should not be published.
        The right hon. Gentleman has said that there was misapprehension. There was an amusing account of the mystery of the Report in the "Daily News" on the 27th April of this year. It was written by the representative of that newspaper. He went to search for the Report. He went to the Ministry of Health and asked the representative of the Ministry: "Who is responsible?"

        1587
        The reply was: "Oh, we know nothing about it. It would be a matter for the Board of Control. They are a separate establishment." The representative then went to the Board of Control. The Board of Control said, "We have nothing to do with it. It may be that the Board of Education know about it." The representative went to the Board of Education and asked whether they had heard anything about the Report. The Board of Education said: "We know nothing at all about this part of the Report." Having gone round to all these Departments and each one knowing nothing about the Report, the representative came back again to the Ministry of Health, who said, "Oh yes, but we are afraid we cannot add anything to what the Minister said in the House." Therefore, by this time they knew something about it.
        The question is very important as far as public authorities are concerned and very important in view of the Local Government Act which the right hon. Gentleman and his Government have passed this year. Why should the Local Authorities be debarred from a knowledge of this Report? What special reason can the Minister put forward? He has been invited time after time and almost week after week for the last few months to give some reason why the Report should not be presented. He has been pressed not only by Members of the Opposition parties above the gangway and below the gangway, but by hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House. There is one hon. Member now sitting on the Government Benches who has also pressed for the publication of the Report. Why is there no reason given for the non-publication of the Report? Very strong language is being used about the matter. It is not a question of misapprehension merely on the part of members of the public, or on the part of members of local authorities, but even on the part of members of the committee who presented the Report. I invite the attention of the right hon. Gentleman—no doubt he has already seen it—to a speech of Dr. Tredgold, a very eminent authority, which was reported in the "Times" on 26th April. Hon. Members on the Government side know far more about the position of Dr. Tredgold than
        1588
        I can profess to know. He was a member of the committee. Why is a member of the committee suffering from a misapprehension? What is his language about the right hon. Gentleman's conduct in regard to the Report? He says:
        "He regarded it as most unfortunate that, in the first place, the Government Departments concerned should have required the Report to be divided into two sections dealing with children and adults respectively, and that the part dealing with adults should not have been published. Considering the answers given in the House of Commons regarding this matter, they could not help feeling that some mysterious influences were at work in some place or other to delay, or even prevent, its publication. If this were so, it was a grave matter. Quite apart from the time and labour which had been devoted to the subject by the committee, as well as the not inconsiderable public expense which had been incurred, it seemed to him a most extraordinary thing that it should be possible to hide the carefully considered opinions and recommendations of an independent committee on such a subject from the country. He very much doubted whether the public authorities who were charged with the duty of providing for these defectives, whether Parliament, and whether the country would tolerate such an autocratic procedure"—
        —very strong language from an eminent member of the committee about the action of the right hon. Gentleman—
        "which was so totally at variance with our national ideals and reputation for integrity."
        If an eminent gentleman such as Dr. Tredgold, a member of the committee is suffering from this misapprehension, why does not the right hon. Gentleman explain how it is that the Report has not been published? Why should he appoint a committee of such distinction, why should he spend public money and why should the committee devote their time to investigations, and then when the information has been accumulated it is not to be placed at the disposal of the country? The right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon that the figures and the investigations of Dr. Lewis had been published. If so, why cannot the whole of the findings of the committee be published? What are the views of the "British Medical Journal?" That is not a partisan paper. It cannot be accused of any political opposition to the right hon. Gentleman or of any political bias. It says:
        "The portion of the Report which deals with adult defectives is still mysteriously

        1589
        withheld. Neither delay nor withholding is the fault of the joint committees themselves. In the public interest it is necessary to press for, even insist upon, the early publication of the missing Part 3."
        The only answer that the right hon. Gentleman gives is that there is misapprehension. Clearly, there is a mystery, and clearly no one is more mystified than the people primarily concerned in the investigation. Why will the right hon. Gentleman not tell us the real reason for the non-publication of the Report? It cannot be that he has been pressed for time from January down to the present day. I would ask him or the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us a great deal more about the Report than has been vouchsafed to the Committee and the country in the speech which the right hon. Gentleman has given to-day. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be in a position to say that the Report will be published and that he will take up the same attitude towards it that his colleague the President of the Board of Education took in regard to the other part of the Report.
        Dr. VERNON DAVIES: We have had a lucid and interesting address from the Minister of Health, and we have had an interesting speech from the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood), who led the House to believe that it was to be his swan song. If we have not the pleasure of welcoming the hon. Member to the next Parliament, we shall look back with great happiness to the speech which he has made to-day. He assured us that if he bad had the choice of the subject, nothing would have given him more pleasure than to have dealt with the housing record of the present Government. If we of the Conservative party had had any preference in regard to the way in which the subject should be handled by a Member of the Opposition, we should have chosen the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. We shall go to the country fortified by his speech, in which he showed what the Conservative Government have really done.
        In spite of all his dexterity, wit and happiness, there are certain fundamental facts which the hon. Member has not been able to upset. Some 800,000 houses have been built. It does not matter whether they are occupied or unoccupied; the fact remains that they have been built during the administration of the
        1590
        present Government. Another point to remember is that the price of houses has come down. The hon. Member seems to object that houses should have come down in price. He said, or he led us to imagine, that the very fact that houses are coming cheaper would be a sufficient reason for people not to build houses. Therefore, the hope and desire of the hon. Member are that the subsidy should be put on again, that the price of houses should be increased, and then the public will rush in and either buy or rent the houses. I do not think that the evidence of the past points to that. I have a dim recollection of a very important speech made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health before he took off the subsidy. If I remember rightly, he said that he had had a very careful analysis made of the cost of housing under the Wheatley Act and the Chamberlain Act, and the effect of the subsidy. He found that any increase or decrease of the subsidy had not been reflected in any shape or form in the rent, that the subsidy was going into the hands of the contractors and that it did not even go into the pockets of the bricklayers or other workpeople.
        Therefore, he said: "As an experiment, I will reduce the subsidy because the people who rent the houses are getting no benefit, the workpeople who build the houses are getting no benefit, and I will see what happens." When he made the first reduction of the subsidy, he found that the price of houses came down, as he had prophesied. When the next reduction of subsidy took place, the price still further came down. We can go to the country with every confidence and say that under the administration of my right hon. Friend the number of houses built is a record for this country or any country in the world, that it has not been approached by any other nation and that the houses are cheaper. Having built such a large number of houses, it stands to reason and common-sense that the congestion and pressure on other houses has been relieved, and that there cannot possibly be as much overcrowding as there was before the houses were built. Now, the path has been cleared for making even greater progress for building cheaper houses and for dealing with slum clearance. I thank the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne for the excellent ammunition that he has given us for our

        1591
        campaign during the next few weeks. I was rather amused at his attitude towards rural housing. In regard to ordinary houses in urban areas he advocates subsidies, but when he spoke of rural housing he objected, if I understood him correctly, to rural houses having a subsidy from public funds. I do not know why he should take that attitude, seeing that he is asking for an increased subsidy for the ordinary houses of the country.
        The speech of my right hon. Friend was divided into various parts. The part with which I wish to deal more particularly is that relating to health services. Probably owing to stress of time, the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to deal fully with this subject. I have heard all the speeches that have been delivered in connection with the Health Estimates during this Parliament, and while bearing in mind all that has been done during the past 4½ years I am appalled by the amount of work remaining to be done. We have made marked progress in housing, pensions and national health insurance, but there still remains a great deal to be done in connection with our health services. The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Morris) referred to the Report on mental deficiency, and the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the large number of mental defectives. It cannot be denied that there is a certain amount of apprehension or anxiety as to the non-publication of the adult part of the Report. It is only natural that when people begin to imagine certain things they put the worst construction upon certain facts. Although I am convinced that the Minister must have good reasons for his action with regard to the Report, I do hope that he will give the matter immediate attention and remove apprehension which I feel quite certain will prove to be unnecessary when the position has been made clear.
        The right hon. Gentleman referred to the large number of lunatics in the country and carefully and accurately stressed the point that in lunacy you have a curable disease; in mental defectiveness you have not. One important point to bear in mind is that there is a large number of people on the border line who, by proper treatment in mental hospitals or in suitable hospitals, could
        1592
        be prevented from going over the line or could be brought back to normal. That is one of the urgent and vital works in front of the Ministry of Health. The main essential is that you may have a class of patient who can be treated mentally without certification. For years in this country there has been a sort of feeling that any poor individual who suffers mentally is suffering from an affliction inherited from the parents or that the affliction is from God. If a patient suffers from the heart, chest or the lungs he is regarded as suffering from one of the ordinary afflictions of human life and there is no discredit attached to it. Why should people try to attach discredit to a poor person who happens to be suffering from mental illness, which may be temporary or permanent? Until the Ministry of Health take their courage in both hands and deal with the Report of the Royal Commission on Lunacy and bring in legislation to deal with it, we shall have this awful feeling amongst the people of this country towards people who are suffering from mental affliction. A great work lies before us in that respect.
        Another important question is that of small-pox. This country, the home of Jenner, the country which first discovered the principle of vaccination, the country which first dealt with small-pox, is held up to the ridicule and horror of the world. A neighbourly and friendly country, France, acting in a moment of panic or irresponsibility, issued a very drastic order against this country in regard to small-pox. At the other end of the world Brazil is taking the same action and objecting to the importation of people from Great Britain unless they have been vaccinated. I believe I read a publication of the International Labour Office or the Health Commission in which it was said that we were the worst vaccinated country in the world—the country of Jenner. The Minister has powers to enforce the administration of the law. The Rolleston Committee suggested various alterations in regard to vaccination, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take this matter in hand and see that we really do get efficient administration in order to get rid of the curse of small-pox.
        The Minister of Health also referred to the question of cancer and the Radium

        1593
        Fund. I understand that we shall probably have an opportunity of discussing this question on the Supplementary Vote for Radium, but I should like to draw the attention of the Committee and also of the country to the fact that although in radium we have a substance which has proved, and is proving, of enormous value in the treatment of certain forms of cancer, it must not be forgotten that we are dealing with an extremely dangerous clement which ought only to be handled by experts. In the hands of people who do not know how to use it, it is much more likely to do more harm than good. The essential thing, having obtained radium, is to see that it is used only by people who thoroughly understand it; by medical men who are thoroughly expert in its use. What I am afraid of in this country is not that we shall not get a sufficiency of radium, but that for some little time we shall not have a sufficient number of experts to deal with it.
        The right hon. Gentleman, as we all know, takes a great interest in the question of maternal health and maternal mortality, and we appreciate the fact that these committees have been set up. We have great hopes that they will lead to a diminution in the maternal death rate, but I am convinced that the secret of the matter is efficient midwives, properly trained, and, above all, that babies should be born in satisfactory surroundings. It is extremely difficult to say that there is no risk to a mother or baby born in a slum area, but there is a possibility that there is a certain amount, or there has been a certain amount, of carelessness, because, if I understood the Minister of Health, he said that the fact that he had made inquiries from medical men in the country as to the causes of death had already led to an improvement. That can only be the result of a little extra care taken by the doctor, or nurse, or the attendants, and a little more cleanliness. If this extra care and attention is going to add to the number of lives that are saved, that alone will more than justify the right hon. Gentleman for the work he has done.
        Very little was said by the right hon. Gentleman about tuberculosis. Unfortunately we have not had the Report for last year. As my right hon. Friend knows, this is a subject in which I take
        1594
        the greatest possible interest, and I should like to know whether there has been any improvement in the compulsory notification of phthisis? Are you getting better results? Is your dispensary system functioning properly? Are you co-operating with the medical men, with the sanatorium and with the hospitals? Are they all working like one efficient unit? Will the right hon. Gentleman take care to see that under the Local Government Act the tuberculosis service is worked as a complete unit? If it is necessary to have a full-time medical officer for health services, it is 10 times more important to have a full-time tuberculosis officer. The one essential thing in tuberculosis is early diagnosis, and that is a matter for the expert. You cannot expect the ordinary general medical practitioner, who has not the latest means at his disposal, such as X-rays, to diagnose the early case. I am pleased to know that there has been an increase in co-operation as between the general medical practitioner and the tuberculosis expert. It is no use getting the middle or the final cases; it is the early cases we want to get, and we cannot get them unless a full-time tuberculosis officer is appointed. Then there is the question of venereal disease, about which the right hon. Gentleman said very little. He referred to the diminution in the number of cases of ophthalmia neonatorum, but that is simply an example of the extra care that is being taken. He did not mention how many of the 5,000 were blind, but I can safely say that with ordinary care and attention there should not be a single case of ophthalmia neonatorum. It is easily Preventable by proper care and attention, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will exercise all the moral and administrative pressure he can in regard to this particular disease.
        My right hon. Friend can lock back on a very successful 4½ years' administration. The work of the Ministry of Health during that time has advanced by leaps and bounds. The health of the country has improved; the social services have advanced, and by now my right hon. Friend must be tired of the congratulations and good things which have been said about him and his administration. Not the least remarkable result is the great admiration and respect shown to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleague the

        1595
        Parliamentary Secretary by members of my own profession. Although the Minister is not a medical man, he has an uncanny knack of spotting a case, and I have no doubt that if he had been fortunate enough to have been a member of my profession he would have risen to great heights. Let me conclude with just a little criticism on the Vote itself. On page 15, under the heading "Medical Staff (including Government Lymph Establishment)," I find that there are 40 medical officers, and on referring to paragraph (c) I find that of these officers two are in receipt of pensions of £400 and £460 respectively per annum from Indian funds; one of a pension from Nigeria and Gold Coast funds to bring his total emoluments up to £1,305, and two of Army retired pay of £365 and £510 per annum respectively. I would ask whether there are no medical men in this country fit for these offices without taking retired officers from the Indian medical service? It is very essential, particularly in our national health insurance service, that a man who has a chance of working up from general practitioner to a higher administrative office should not be pushed on one side and the job given to another man from another service. There is probably good reason for these appointments. I do not know what the reason is, but I shall be glad to know it. In conclusion, let me as a medical man express my deep appreciation of what the right hon. Gentleman has done for the country and its health services and for the medical profession, and at the same time point out that so far only half the work has yet been done.
        Miss LAWRENCE: I do not propose to go into such details as have been covered by the hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies). The hon. Member took the speech of the Minister of Health point by point and then proceeded to elaborate it. He reminded me rather of the old-fashioned commentator of the inspired Book. He takes each sentence of the Minister of Health, develops it a little, adds to it and then there is the pious ejaculation: "In all his works, how wonderful!" I want to devote myself to the Minister and to a subject hardly dealt with in his speech and that is the question of the Poor Law. The right hon. Gentleman did not touch upon that
        1596
        matter because his administration of Poor Law relief has been the most remarkable thing in his career. It is marked by two things. He has arrogated to himself powers greater than those which any Minister has ever enjoyed before, powers which, I think, are wholly illegitimate. In the second place, he has reversed the policy not only of his immediate predecessor, but of a long line of predecessors, from 1920 downwards. I am not going to labour the point that the right hon. Gentleman is in possession of greater powers than any Minister has ever obtained. The House has over and over again debated Acts increasing his powers; the Guardians (Default) Act, the Auditors Act, the Emergency Provisions Act, and that amazing Clause in the Local Government Act which allows him to withhold the income paid in lieu of compensation for de-rating from any authority who may spend more than he thinks proper. These are enormous powers, and some of them are wholly illegitimate. It is wrong that there should be civil servants appointed by the Minister of Health, promoted by him, their salaries paid by him, for whom he is not answerable in Parliament—I mean the auditors and the appointed guardians. The auditor is supposed to be in a position of impartiality, but the Report of the inspectors does not pretend to keep up that disguise. The inspectors in their Report, and the Minister in his, treats them as servants of the Department. I have here an abstract from the Report, They are speaking of the difficulty they have in inducing boards of guardians to adopt a restrictive policy, and they say:
        "It is hoped to make considerable further progress by means of investigations and correspondence and conferences, reinforced, if necessary, by the Minister's power to withhold approval of relief, with a resulting disallowance and surcharge by the district auditor."
        There is no mystery about it. The auditor is treated in the Report as the executioner of the Minister of Health. Whether these powers are right or not, and whether Parliament approves of the policy or not, I say that in these Estimates we have civil servants appointed by the Minister, who are under the approval of the Minister, whose whole being depends on the Minister, and in regard to whom the right hon. Gentleman is not responsible to Parliament. That is

        1597
        a thing unheard of in England since 1660. It is repugnant to the whole principle of our Constitution.
        6.0 p.m.
        I pass from that to the question of out-relief. In 1921, unemployment first reached the figure of 1,000,000 and, roughly speaking, it has stopped about that figure ever since. The Government of the day considered the probable effect upon the country and upon the individual if such a great mass of persons were deprived of their ordinary means of subsistence. Either moved by pity for the unemployed or by fear, either moved by pity for the men who certainly were not guilty of the depression in trade, or else by the political consideration that a mass of hungry people might be very dangerous, the policy was adopted of suspending the Poor Law Relief Order of 1911. The Minister then in charge was undoubtedly an exceedingly intelligent man, and I believe him to have been a very humane man. That policy of suspending the Order of 1911 and allowing guardians at their own discretion to give out-relief worthy of the claim, became the policy of the country. The guardians were not all Labour guardians. There were most respectable guardians, in Manchester and in London, who felt, as the Government then felt, that the unemployed should be relieved. During all these years, though unemployment still stood at a high figure, we never had any complaint of acute physical distress on a large scale in the whole of England and Wales. It was only about 18 months ago that the distress in the depressed districts forced itself so much on the attention of the House and the country that we had Lord Mayors appealing for money, and we had the Heir to the Throne speaking natural, simple and manly language of disgust—and no man ever spoke more to the conscience of the people.
        Why was it that for all the years from 1920 to 1927 there was no complaint of actual physical privation affecting large masses of people? Why is it that last winter and last summer the cry of distress was so great that charitable people were asked to help? The distress and the suffering and the misery are entirely due to the policy of the Minister of Health. That is so serious a matter and so enormous an accusation to bring against anyone that I desire as quietly and as soberly
        1598
        as possible to state the facts and figures which are on record. The Minister of Health has said in this House that his policy is to return to the 1911 Order as quickly as possible. That Order provides that no out-relief shall be given to any male person except with the expressed approval of the Minister, or in a case where test work was provided under certain conditions. It was obviously nonsense to say that boards could give test work or any work to one million unemployed. I do not think that any hon. Member opposite who pours such contempt on the unemployment scheme put forward by us and supported by hon. Members of the Liberal party, would pretend that the board of guardians alone, out of the rates, can give test work or any other sort of work to so great a number of people. A return to the principle of the 1911 Order means, therefore, that male persons will not be relieved save in exceptional cases.
        The officials of the Minister set to work to put his decision into operation. They set to work immediately after the failure of the miners' lock-out. As the clerk of one board of guardians said to me: "The Minister's push began two years ago." Circumstances have altered since then. The enemy have been beaten. There was no danger of any response on the part of those who have been so cruelly reduced. When the general strike and the miners' lock-out were safely over, there began the putting into force of the policy of reducing. The Minister pointed with great pride to the reduction of pauperism in the year ended March, 1928. It was wholly due to out-relief reduction and not due, as the Minister seemed to think, to a reduction in the number of widows who depended on the Poor Law. The reduction in the number of widows in that year was only 2,000. In the case of the people ordinarily unemployed the figures fell from 545,685 persons, who were in receipt of relief, to 481,128, and the Minister has given figures to the House to show that in January 1929, the numbers were further reduced to 314,963. That is to say that, although unemployment was very much worse in January, 1929, than it had been before, though we were passing through a time of almost unexampled unemployment and there was very bitter weather, and though the hoardings were covered with appeals on behalf of the distressed miners and their families, the Minister and his officials

        1599
        went on with the good work and pushed off the relief list over 180,000 persons.
        That is what they have done in bulk, and that is what they are continuing to do. If one examines individual histories one finds that they have been most active in some of the places where the depression has been worst. Merthyr Tydvil had 22,000 in receipt of relief in 1925, but there are only 14,000 to-day. Bridgend and Cowbridge had 9,000 in receipt of relief in 1925 and has 4,000 now. Pontypridd had 30,000 in 1925 and has only 20,000 now. Man by man and family by family are being dealt with. The inspectors of the board are going down to the guardians and exhorting them. I have here the reports from Manchester, where there is a thoroughly good and respectable board of guardians. I have the lists of individual cases in which the inspectors have almost directed the guardians to cut down relief. What hypocrisy it is! If we come to this House and ask the Minister a question about relief which is inadequate, he gives a stock phrase reply that by Statute he is forbidden to interfere in any individual cases. But his officials who represent him go down to the boards of guardians, look through all the cases, and with all the machinery of the Department behind them exhort the guardians, in thousands of individual cases, to cut down the relief.
        It is not only that. What sort of relief do the recipients get? I have here a document which has had considerable publicity. It was, I believe, the origin of the Lord Mayor's Fund. It is a report of the investigation of Poor Law cases in the Bedwellty union. It is signed by the treasurer of the South Wales Miners' Federation, and is the report of an inquiry which he made, together with persons sent down by the Minister. I will give one or two cases taken from it. In the case of a husband and wife and four children the relief granted was 23s. 6d., and after rent was paid there was 14s. 6d. left, or an average of 2s. 5d. per person. Another case is that of a husband, wife and eight children under 14, the husband being an ex-service man. The relief granted was 35s., and the rent 9s., and the balance had to maintain 10 persons. In Bedwellty, where the Minister's appointed guardians are, the
        1600
        average net income per person was 2s. 3d. a week, including the Poor Law relief granted and any other income. That is the treatment that is being meted out to the poor.
        The Minister has stated in the House that single able-bodied young men should not have out-relief. Thanks to the pressure of the inspectors, backed by the obedient auditors, that decision has been put into force in many unions. Young men are left without work, without Poor Law relief, without anything to live upon except a share of the 2s. 9d. per head which is given to their family. No man with any human feelings would dare to stay at home and eat the babies' bread. So these young men break out and go travelling along the roads. Then officials of the Minister speak of the extraordinary flood of new vagrants, and young vagrants. To do the inspectors justice, they speak of these young men as in a very large percentage of cases genuinely searching for work. How has the Minister met this growth in vagrancy? He has tightened up the relief to casuals by exhorting the guardians to give a man two nights in a watch house, and a day's physical work for every day that he spends along the road. It is a cruel thing, and is hard on these young men. But that is not all. In these casual wards, as Members know, there are some of the most hardened rogues in the world. When you put a young man there you put him in close contact with some of the worst characters in the country. Nearly everything that was said in former times about the evils of mixed prisons is true of the casual wards to-day. These hardened old rogues look out for innocent young men to be their accomplices.
        What of the future? Nobody supposes that trade is going to revive by itself, so as to take in the unemployed suddenly. It will be a gradual process. If the Minister's policy goes on it means that the unemployed will be deprived of Poor Law relief altogether. If the Regulations of 1911 are put into force no male person will be relieved, save as an exception. Unemployment benefit was never intended for a man and his wife and children to live on; it is not supposed to be maintenance, but only assistance to carry people over a temporary period. Thousands of people have exhausted their unemployment benefit.

        1601
        They have exhausted everything else. They have exhausted their credit; they cannot pawn any more; they have exhausted the help of their friends. They will be left with the Poor Law as the only resource, and the Minister's declared policy is to go back fully, as he has gone back partially, to the Regulation of 1911, under which relief is forbidden to all male persons.
        Human misery, which it is almost impossible to contemplate, has resulted from that policy and that is what will continue to happen to the unemployed if, by any misfortune, the present Minister of Health and the present Government are allowed to remain in control. But if we come back we will end the misery, the hunger and the starvation. I know that to bring in a proper Unemployment Insurance Measure would take months, and to start everybody who is unemployed on schemes of work would also take months. We will do these things, but we will not only look to the curing of unemployment; we will deal with the people who are suffering from hunger and cold, from want of boots, from want of milk and want of clothes. These are things which a Labour Government can cure within three weeks of coming into office. They are things which we can cure without Acts of Parliament. They are things which can be cured by administration just as was done in 1920. We shall cure them by administration, just as the evils themselves have been caused by administration. There is no Act of Parliament needed to enable the Minister to reaffirm the Order of 1911 and no Act of Parliament will be necessary to revoke that Order again. These things, as I say, can be done in three weeks. [Interruption.] I am not saying to the Liberal Members that the unemployed can all be put on to useful work in three weeks. Who says that?
        Mr. PALING: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) laughs.
        Miss LAWRENCE: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich laughs and jeers, but, if I am right in my view, his place will know him no more. The Minister of Health will probably come back, but as to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich, I very much doubt if this House will see him again. To put the unem-
        1602
        ployed to work—that can be done. To pass a new Unemployment Insurance Act—that can be done. But these are things which any Parliamentarian knows must take some little time. I repeat, however, that to stop hunger is a thing which can be done in three weeks. It is a mere question of the Minister of Health issuing a new Circular to local authorities, and, under his existing powers, making funds available for the purpose just as Lord Melchett did in 1920. There is no mystery about it, and when we come into power we will end the hunger, the want of milk, the condition of "no boots for bairns." We will take it as our first and most sacred duty to see that the harmless and the innocent shall not suffer actual physical privation. If we were going to do no more than that, it would be well worth winning the Election and it would be well worth while for everybody with an ounce of humanity in their hearts to put every scrap of their courage, their strength and their intelligence, into bringing about that victory and sweeping the present Ministers away from the Departments of State.
        Captain FRASER: The hon. Lady the Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence) apparently feels so sincerely about these matters that one must sympathise with her plea for people who are in these difficulties, but I think that she misleads people a little—if she will allow me to say so—by suggesting that these things can be cured quite as easily as she has indicated. I think the present Minister of Health has done the first thing first, which was to set in order the finances of these local authorities. If instead of financial order, you have financial chaos and if debts accumulate until they cannot be paid, you cannot hope for normal relief, let alone abnormal relief. With all respect to the hon. Lady, I think it a little unkind to these in need, to suggest to them that by a wave of the wand you can in three weeks remove all their needs and difficulties, when her leaders must know perfectly well that such a policy is not one which they can put into a formal statement of their programme.
        Miss LAWRENCE: I did not say all their needs and difficulties. I said hunger and physical privation.
        Captain FRASER: I do not think that it is true to say that there is a large measure, or any measure at all of physical privation. There is need, as everybody knows, but I think the hon. Lady does less than justice to the people whom she tries so sincerely to represent, by exaggerating their case in this way.
        I wish to say something about the blind community which is one of the charges of the Ministry of Health. Before I ask the Minister if he can do something to help them, may I have the indulgence of the Committee while I explain the situation of the blind community, and show how we in this country look after them, because I do not think that there is enough general information on the subject. There are about 48,000 blind persons in this country of whom about 11,000 are under the age of 40 and the balance are over that age. One can analyse the figures in another way and say that there are about 10,000 blind persons employed and about 33,000, or the greater part of the balance, characterised as unemployable. It is curious that these two sets of figures should be so similar in their division. The number of blind persons has apparently increased, but that is not due to a real increase in blindness. Owing to various causes such as those mentioned by the Minister when he referred to the notification and early treatment of ophthalmia neonatorum and better methods of preventing blindness in factories, the amount of blindness has in fact decreased. But there has been an increase in the number of those who are registered. That is partly because the Ministry and the local authorities seek out hitherto unknown cases and get them on to the register in order that they may be cared for. It is also partly due, curiously enough, to the Act of Parliament passed in 1926 for the purpose of giving blind persons free wireless licences. That has led to an extraordinary increase in the number on the register and in London alone no fewer than 900 blind persons hitherto unknown or unregistered, have been discovered as an indirect result of that Act.
        There are three ways in which public funds are used in this country to help the blind. First there are the pensions given to them under the same conditions
        1604
        as the original old age pensions, but at the age of 50 instead of 70. In 1924, 11,000 persons were receiving those pensions, costing approximately £280,000. In the last year there were 17,000 persons receiving these pensions at a cost which would work out at about £450,000. Then, a considerable sum is spent by the Ministry in aiding local authorities and workshops for the blind, subsidising the employment of blind persons in factories and in their homes, and in various other ways contributing to the well-being of individual blind people. These grants in 1924 amounted to £95,000, and in the last year the expenditure had risen to £126,000. Thirdly, there is the expenditure of the local authorities themselves. Under the Blind Persons Act they are charged to carry out schemes for the well-being of the blind in their areas in a variety of ways which I have not time to mention. In 1924 the local authorities expended £102,000 on these services and judging by the rate of increase during the last two or three years, I calculate that in the year just ended they must have spent about £225,000. If these figures are correct, it will be found that in 1924 the amount spent on the blind from public funds was about £477,000, and in the last year there has been spent under the same headings no less than £801,000, or an increase of about 68 per cent.
        I suggest that that is real progress, and that we can congratulate my right hon. Friend upon having done his best to push forward these services, to see that more blind people were registered and consequently made eligible for these services and to increase the general provision made by the State and the municipalities for the welfare of the blind. I say unhesitatingly that in this country we have a more carefully worked out, more widespread systematic and generous method of helping the blind people than any other country in the world. Curiously enough, blind people were the first to be partially removed from the Poor Law. In 1920 it became possible for blind people to be assisted by local authorities instead of by the Poor Law. I hope that local authorities using the experience which they have gained in relieving the necessitous blind may, as quickly as possible, make use of the permissive powers given under the recent Act which would make it possible for them to look

        1605
        after, not only the blind people, but also their relations and, indeed, all poor persons, without resort to the Poor Law.
        As I have said, considerable progress has been made and this country cannot fairly be charged with being behindhand in the care of the blind, but I hope that the Minister will think that the time has come to go a little further. I would remind him that in recent years inquiry has been made by his advisory committee to find out the situation from every point of view as regards all the unemployable blind persons in the country. That inquiry must be nearing completion, and there should be available very soon, information which might make it possible for him to go forward and suggest further State assistance. It would be out of order for me to suggest any method which would require legislation, but I may be allowed to say that I feel that it is in the direction of pensions for a larger section of the blind community that the Minister's efforts should be directed. Some hon. Members above the Gangway are critical of any voluntary effort to help blind people, and since it happens to be the Ministry's policy, rigidly observed for 10 years, to encourage voluntary agencies, I may be in order in saying something upon that method which I believe I can justify. The feeling of hon. Members apparently is that the State or the municipality should do all that is required. Everyone will agree that in a matter like this the State and the municipality should do all that public opinion will permit them to do. That does not mean that there are not other needs which can be met by voluntary assistance.
        The triple partnership of the State, the municipality and the voluntary agency, brings to bear on the needs of our blind people a very powerful method of helping them in their distress and those who advocate a diminution of voluntary effort, and even its abandonment, are, though they may not know it, the worst friends of the blind. If they realised what a loss it would mean to the blind community to be without the assistance that is given voluntarily, if they realised the harm they did by frequent and repeated criticism of voluntary agencies, they would, I think, cease to do it, out of the kindness of their hearts. A mistaken idea, and perhaps the feelings of the blind people who are in distress and who turn to anyone
        1606
        who will offer them something, however impracticable it may be, make them go on repeating these statements, which I do not believe are in the best interests of our blind people. Fortunately you cannot by legislation change the hearts of men nor suppress generous impulses, and if you could, I wonder how many people there are who would really wish to do it. I think that we can genuinely and safety say that we have made enormous progress during the past five years—more than in any other five years in our history—and if the Minister will go a step further, or will leave behind him such arrangements as will make it possible for his successor to go a step further, then we may be satisfied that the period of the last five years, in the development of care for the blind, has been a useful one.
        Before I conclude, may I say one very brief word about cancer? What I believe we need in this country is a central institution where a sufficient number of cases can be gathered together, in order that the medical men concerned may get adequate statistics about experiments and the treatments which they give. An ordinary general hospital has the primary function of caring for the cases which come from its immediate neighbourhood, and the majority of them are not cancer cases. In any plans which the Minister is formulating to aid this work and cause progress to be made, and in any plans which he or his Department may have in mind for the use of radium, I hope he will consider the advisability of lending his powerful aid and that of his Department towards the establishment of some institution comparable to that in France, to that in Sweden, and to that in Berlin, in order that England may do a work similar in its value to that which has been done hitherto more especially on the Continent.
        Mr. LANSBURY: I would like to say one word about charity and the attitude of mind of myself and certain of my colleagues. Our contention is that private charity utterly fails to deal with the social evils of our time, and that even the question of dealing with blindness had to come at last, after very great opposition and after much agitation by Members on these benches, into this House and be legislated about.
        Captain FRASER: Not only on those benches.
        Mr. LANSBURY: The hon. and gallant Member for North St. Pancras (Captain Fraser) will allow me to say that the whole question of legislation for the blind started in the Trade Union Congress of this country, and for many years we appealed to this House to deal with that problem, but this House refused to do so until quite recently, and the condition of the blind was a disgrace to Christendom until we took legislative action here in this House of Commons. The fact that the hon. and gallant Member is now appealing for further State action in dealing with cancer and other diseases proves conclusively that in the end the only powerful society that can deal with social evils is society as a whole, and not the private charity of individuals. Further, we deny the right of any section of the community to patronise and give something to those who are in need. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] There is nobody in this House who would care to live on the charity of anybody else. I, myself, do not intend if I can help it, however long or short my life may be, to live on the charity of anybody. If I were sick, I should not care to receive attention from the rich and the well-to-do, and if I were a poor person who had worked all my life for my bread, and then, because of my inability to help make profits and dividends and rents for other people. I was helpless. I would demand from my fellow men and women the assistance I needed rather than receive it from the dividend and rent-takers.
        I want also to call attention to the speech of the hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies), who told us that we apparently were getting no further ahead. That is perfectly true. The right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary will probably tell us, when he comes to reply, that we have made the same speeches as before, and we can tell him beforehand that he will make the same speech as before. The fact is that it is quite impossible to rise in this House and speak on anything connected with local government, with the prevention of destitution, and with public health, without repeating the statements that have been made again and again and again for the last 25 years. There is a perfectly simple reason for that. Up to the present no House of Commons has tackled the causes of these things, and the reason
        1608
        people are sick and need help from the community, the reason people cannot get decent houses to live in, the reason people cannot get work, is not the fault of the individual at all, but the fault of the system under which we live. Poverty causes people to be sick; poverty murders the mothers at times of maternity; poverty causes consumption. If the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle) stood up and made the speech that he could make on this subject, he would be obliged to say that after the right hon. Gentleman and his Department and the local authorities have done everything possible for the phthisical cases, when they have dealt with them in sanatoria, they send them back to the same wretched slums and poverty-stricken conditions, again to fall victims to the disease. Why is it that men like myself never suffer from that disease? Why is it that my children have not suffered from it? It is because they have had enough food and have slept in rooms big enough to breathe in. The reason consumption increases and people suffer from these diseases is, I repeat, poverty, imposed upon them by social conditions.
        Dr. DAVIES: Not always.
        Mr. LANSBURY: I would like to offer this piece of advice to the hon. Member for Royton, that he should learn one thing, and that is to make his own speech and then to let other people make theirs. The doctors of this country, especially those who have had anything to do with the public health, know very well that the diseases dealt with through the public health authorities are attributable in the main to bad housing, low wages, unemployment, casual labour, and everything that goes to produce poverty, and, therefore, until you remove the causes of poverty, you will not get rid of the things that you are complaining about to-day. You may go on spending money, you may go on pouring out money on experts here and experts there, you may go on putting a patch on here and a patch on there, but the diseases will remain and will still cause these speeches and all this discussion as to how to deal with them. Everybody knows that the people who suffer most from these diseases are those whom I have just mentioned. I wanted to say that first of all. I know

        1609
        I must not pursue it and state what the remedies are, because they would need legislation, but now that this spirit of repression has taken hold of the Ministry of Health and the whole tendency of the Ministry is to depress the poor, it is just as well that those of us who believe that poverty is at the root of these things should tell the House of Commons that the time has come when we ought to tackle the problem of poverty and get rid of it and of the evils of which we are complaining.
        I want also to say a word about the mentally deficient. It amuses me very much to read the newspaper articles and to listen to experts in this House on the question of the mentally deficient; and I say here again that there is no medical officer of health and no doctor who attends Poor Law people who will not tell you, what is perfectly true, that the children who are mentally deficient are not all the children in one family, but that you will get perhaps one child in a family suffering in that way. I want to know where you will start to sterilise. I have never heard such utter rubbish and nonsense talked and written as I have heard and seen on this particular subject of the mentally deficient. I am not a medical man, and, thank God, I am not an expert either, but I know perfectly well that where I live most of the children who have to attend this kind of school come from the same kind of homes that the phthisical cases come from and the others who suffer from poverty disease. I believe that often it is the worry, the struggle to live, the being pressed down because they have not the means to get their daily bread, that creates in a woman, when she is carrying a baby, the sort of things that bring about mental deficiency in the child when it is born, and then the child is born into conditions that never give it a chance at all. I say that, before you start telling the multitudes you are going to pick out—you doctors—those whom you will sterilise, take good care that we do not sterilise the lot of you first!
        The doctors, with their usual "authoritarian" sort of speech, talk about ophthalmia neonatorum. The hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans and the hon. Member for Royton know as well as I do where you get those cases from. Out of the big houses, out of the places
        1610
        where the people have the means of employing nurses and doctors, and where the mother has all the pleasure of a comfortable bed and a nice, big, airy room? Of course not. You get them out of the slums, and you cannot get rid of that disease until you get rid of the conditions that drive people to live in the slums. Therefore, you come back, with that disease again, to the question of poverty. I know what I am talking about, because I have seen hundreds and hundreds of cases, and I know where they all come from. They come from the very poor.
        Captain FRASER: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me?
        Mr. LANSBURY: No, I cannot. I notice a good deal of hilarity and jocularity among Members when one is talking about these kind of people, but when they get face to face with them, they do not snigger at them in this fashion. I am saying that these cases of ophthalmia neonatorum come from poverty-stricken areas.
        Captain FRASER: The hon. Gentleman does not know what causes it, or he would not say that.
        Mr. LANSBURY: I am very sorry that the hon. Member for North St. Pancras interrupts me. It happens that I was one of those who helped very materially to get this disease notifiable, and I took a great deal of trouble to try and understand it.
        Captain FRASER: I apologise.
        Mr. LANSBURY: Thank you. I want to deal with the right hon. Gentleman's administration of the Poor Law. His well-fed, well-housed, well-clothed Department have brought the Poor Law of this country back to the most inhuman, most callous and most brutal position in which it has ever been in all the years that I have had anything to do with it. They have brought it into the position when they are breaking the law every day. Poor, honest, decent people, widows, orphans and aged people, are being driven down to the depths of destitution by the right hon. Gentleman and his chief, aided and abetted by the auditors and the Minister's inspectors. I am going to prove that. A law on the Statute Book says that boards of

        1611
        guardians should not take into account the first 7s. 6d. of friendly society benefit or of benefit derived under national health insurance in assessing a person's need. What have these people done? When I think of the cant and noxious humbug that is talked to ex-service men these days, I could vomit. You talk of your love for them and your respect for them, and yet you allow these Ministers to say to an ex-service man who gets 7s. 6d. under the Health Insurance Act, that it shall be taken into consideration. The law, however, says that it shall not be taken into account in assessing a man's need, but the Minister says to the boards of guardians: "If you do not take that into account when assessing the need, I shall surcharge you, bankrupt you, and put you out of public life for five years."
        The right hon. Gentleman has made new laws, and he is overriding the law through the power that the auditor has. I challenge him to deny what I am saying. An auditor told me that no one could do anything with him because he has the power. This House has given him the power of carrying out what he determines by saying that if we do not obey, we must be surcharged, bankrupted and driven out of public life. That is what the constitutionalists have done for the poor. I would not mind if it were not for the fact that it brings about what the hon. Member for North St. Pancras said did not exist. It brings a life of hardship and semi-destitution, and it is a crime which this House ought not to allow to go on.
        With regard to the unemployed, I have heard Members from Middlesbrough, Sheffield and the Midlands stand up and Bay that unemployment is a question that ought to be dealt with, not by the localities, for it is too big a problem, but by the nation. What have these two right hon. Gentlemen in their callous, brutal administration of the Poor Law done? This is what they have done. Young women who earn £2 a week are compelled to keep one other person out of that £2. I ask any hon. Member opposite if he would like a daughter 30 years of age, working nine hours a day to earn £2 a week, to have to keep another adult? That is not putting the burden of unemployment on the nation;
        1612
        it is putting on individuals the burden of the unemployment of their friends and relations.
        The right hon. Gentleman has also said that children shall keep able-bodied parents and the younger children. He says to his auditors, his inspectors and his officials that where there is a family income of so much, that must be used to keep the whole family. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to tell me under what law he is able to do that. The Statute says quite clearly that a grandfather shall keep, as far as he is able, a grandchild, or that if parents are unable to work, the children shall help to maintain them. That is quite right, but there is no law which says that a child going out to work shall be obliged to keep an able-bodied father and mother and children besides. The right hon. Gentleman will say that he has lowered the figures of Poplar, Durham and elsewhere, but he has lowered them at the cost of the necessities of life of the rest of the families. He is bringing down the standard of life of the whole of the people. He wants to get back to the good old days of no outdoor relief for able-bodied men. In those days it produced what was known during the War as a C.3 population. To-day we have that population rapidly growing up again. The figures of rejection for men who want to enlist prove that that is true.
        The right hon. Gentleman will say that the mortality figures have gone down—I heard his speech on the wireless—but he knows that those figures went down only in those districts where they were formerly high, where poor people lived, and where Labour came into the control of the local authorities. We in Poplar reduced the death rate among babies—and that is why I am proud of Poplarism—from 160 to 80. I charge the right hon. Gentleman and all his Department deliberately and without reservation with pursuing a policy towards West Ham and Poplar which will increase the death rate again; and every child that dies under those conditions will be foully murdered by the right hon. Gentleman and his friends. When the guardians were allowed to give out-relief, when they were allowed to take care of the women at times of childbirth, what happened? The London County Council officials came to examine the schools, and I recommend

        1613
        the right hon. Gentleman to read their Report. When we were taking care of the children, the Report said that the children of Poplar were the best fed best clothed and the most healthy in the whole of London. I am proud of Poplarism which produced those results. The right hon. Gentleman boasts about his care for public health, and he makes speeches where rich people meet together deploring the fact that mothers die at the time of childbirth, and all the time his policy-is to forbid boards of guardians doing what nobody else at present has the power to do, that is, to take care of those who are in so much need.
        7.0 p.m.
        I want to finish by reading a letter which came to me to-day, and which I hope every Member will hear, mark and inwardly digest, because it is typical of what is happening under the benign rule of the gentlemen whom the Minister has appointed to devastate the poor of West Ham. The letter reads:
        "I take the liberty to write to you to ask if you will be able to soften the hearts of the Department responsible for parish relief in West Ham. I am married, without a family, strong, active, willing to do anything of work and go to any part of the country for it. For eight months I have been out of employment. For two months my wife and I managed to live on our small savings. I then applied for relief. A 10s. food ticket was granted for seven weeks, but no rent. We were then seven weeks in arrears. Afterwards we received 10s. in food and 13s. in cash. That was granted for four weeks. On the expiration of the time, we were granted another four weeks which continued until the 19th, when I was told by Sir Alfred Woodgate's representative that he could not assist us further. I wrote to Sir Alfred Woodgate at Leytonstone appealing for assistance and begging for work, stating that I served my country faithfully for 30 years as a sergeant in the 19th Hussars, and fought in South Africa. Not receiving a reply, I saw the relieving officer on Saturday, and from him I received a 10s. voucher for food and was told we would have to go to the workhouse."
        That is what the right hon. Gentleman is compelling ordinary boards of guardians to do through the action of his auditors and inspectors. Sir Alfred Woodgate does it because that is what he is appointed to do.
        "To my mind, that is not a fit place for able-bodied, conscientious people. We have been married 30 years and will not be parted. Apparently, as we have not been able to pay our rent this will cause the bailiffs to take possession and force us into
        1614
        the street. Mr. Watts, the Relieving Officer, during my absence called and inspected my home."
        So he expects that his home will be taken and sold up.
        "Trusting that something will be done to rectify this terrible treatment, I am Yours,"
        and he signs his name. I read that letter, because I can multiply it by thousands and tens of thousands throughout the country. [Interruption.] I have read exactly what he wrote to me, and, even if he does have a small trumpery pension, which comes to him quarterly, everyone knows that that would be needed for the debts he would accumulate. Whether he has a pension or not, he is a man who is told by the guardians exactly what the Minister wants them to tell him, namely, that he is to go into the workhouse. The Minister's reason is to push the people off relief. The credit that the right hon. Gentleman can take for their 4½ years of administion or rather maladministration at the Ministry is that they have brought us back again to the penal conditions of the Poor Law, brought back that state of things which treats poverty as a crime. We have heard the right hon. Gentleman say very often of this or that man that he has been on relief for eight months or a year. That is not the point. If the man is unable to get work, if Society will not allow him to earn his bread, then he has a right to go to Society, and say, "Give me the means to maintain myself." When the right hon. Gentleman talks about his ridiculous scheme for training these men and says that Poplar is going to engage in it, I reply that we are only engaging in it because here again we have the iron heel of repression. The Poplar Board is only accepting this wretched scheme because they are told that they must not under any circumstances give relief to able-bodied married men with wives and children unless they make them drill part of the day, swim part of the day, add up figures part of the day, and do other tomfoolery of that kind.
        What the two right hon. Gentlemen can go to the country and boast of is that they have treated tens and hundreds of thousands of decent able-bodied men better men many of them than many of us, as if they were mere criminals and have treated their wives and children as

        1615
        if they were people of no account whatever. Instead of the right hon. Gentleman defending the health and standing up for the well-being of the people, he has done his utmost to grind down the face of the poor, to depress and repress the widow and the orphan. As for the able-bodied men and their wives and children, he has done his best to break their spirit and not to give them a scrap of that public assistance which they not only deserve but which is their right. When this House can vote, as it does yearly, tens of thousands of pounds in pensions to rich and well-to-do people, I say that we can afford, if we have only the will to do it, to give to all decent persons in need the things they need not in a grudging spirit but in full measure pressed down and running over.
        The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): It is now my duty to reply to some of the questions which have been put in the course of the Debate and to make some observations on the more important criticisms of these Estimates. There was one point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Royton (Dr. Davies) which I shall reply to privately, because I do not think it is a matter of general interest. It concerns the appointment of some of the medical men, particulars of whom appear on page 15 of the Estimates. In all those cases, I shall be able to satisfy him that these particular men have had special knowledge of particular sides of the Ministry's work. The first name, for instance, is that of a doctor of the Indian Medical Service with special knowledge of malaria and other kindred diseases and who is specially qualified for that particular matter. I shall endeavour to show the hon. Member the reasons why these appointments were made.
        The hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Captain Fraser) raised, as he So constantly does, the question of the welfare of the blind. Everybody shares with him the desire to assist in every possible way those so circumstanced. I will not deal with the question which he raised, which is really one of legislation, further to-night than by saying that it shall receive my right hon. Friend's consideration. I believe, however, that, in the administration of the fund during the
        1616
        last 4½ years, considerable progress has been made, at any rate in one or two directions which will commend themselves to all quarters of the House. There are 50,771 blind persons in this country, of whom unhappily 36,485 are unemployed. The most important development to a considerable extent which has taken place during the last few years has been the scheme for workshops for the blind. Nothing can help the blind people more than the particular schemes which have been put into operation by the Department during the last few years. It is interesting to see that the amount of money which the State has given to help the Wind people has considerably increased year by year. In 1923–4, the amount of the grants was £83,470; in 1927–28, the sum had increased to £120,550.
        A good many people would like more money to be spent, of course, but at any rate a considerably larger sum of money has been spent during those last four years. It is very interesting to observe that that money has been spent in a variety of ways. The largest part of it has been spent on workshops for the blind. Last year, of the £120,000 which was expended in grants, over £44,000 was spent on workshops for the blind. Another very valuable advance which has been made has been in the amount spent on book production. While in 1924–25 some £4,600 was spent on book production, in 1927–28 no less than £8,327 was spent in that direction. Therefore, apart from the question, which we are not able to discuss on this occasion, as to whether anything further should be done by legislation, the Committee will agree that endeavouring to get blind people into employment and spending the money for grants in this way is the most useful, most humane, and kindest way in which we can assist them at the present time. Whatever strictures hon. Gentlemen may care to pass on the Ministry in other directions, they must say that during the past four years there has been considerable progress in this matter, which is not a question of party politics but on which we have the support of the whole Committee.
        The major part of the criticisms to which I desire to address myself this afternoon is naturally the speech of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. A. Greenwood). It has been my constant duty in this Parliament, though a happy

        1617
        one, to reply on every occasion to the observations of the hon. Gentleman. I am perfectly familiar by this time with his views on the world in general and on the Ministry of Health in particular. It has been a great pleasure to me to know the progress which he has made in the criticisms which he has directed against the Department. Certainly no man has been entrusted with more difficult and disagreeable jobs in opposition than has the hon. Member. He is put up on every occasion to criticise the work of the Ministry of Health, though I know that in his heart he would like to commend it. He has been deputed to move the rejection of all the beneficent Bills we have brought in. When he goes to face the electorate, he will be able to tell them that he moved the rejection of the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act. He will be able to commend himself by saying that he was the man who moved the rejection of the Housing Acts. His constituency will look on him with considerable confidence. Now he has taken on a bigger job than previously. I sup-pose it is the culminating effort of his career as far as this Parliament is concerned. No one would desire to cut him off entirely from Parliamentary work, and no doubt facilities may be made available for him in another place. He actually said this afternoon that the strongest indictment against the Ministry of Health was in relation to its housing record. He appeared to base this statement upon two leaflets which he has kindly handed to me. He complains of two paragraphs in a leaflet, which is really a very admirable one, entitled "More and More Homes." The first part of this leaflet, which is a very accurate one, as we should expect, issued as it is by the Conservative party, states the number of houses that have been built, and then there is the paragraph, to which he took exception, which said:
        "Unless Socialists stir up trouble in the building trade and so hold up housing, the number of houses built in the 12 months to 30th September, 1927, should be over 200,000."
        The first point to which he took exception was the indication that the Socialists might stir up trouble in the building trade. Of course, I cannot pat myself in the place of the writer, but I should rather think that he had in mind the statement of a respected and honoured
        1618
        Member of the Socialist party who, when he spoke in this House of the efforts which he had made in connection with housing, said:
        "I have had no help from organised labour in this matter from start to finish. The organised Labour party in the House has never given me any help."
        That was said by Dr. Addison, and very likely the writer of the leaflet was thinking of that particular matter. The complaint was made that, in spite of promises, the number of houses built in the 12 months which would end 30th September, 1927, would be only 200,000. We have fulfilled the promise in that particular connection, because we built over 273,000 houses in that period, so I do not think the hon. Member has much to complain about. Then he made another curious attack upon a poster which I hope everyone will read every day and ponder over during the next few weeks, and that is the one which asserts that, thanks to the help of the Conservative party, 800,000 houses have been built during the past four and a-half years. Though I do not think anyone would credit it, the particular complaint of the hon. Gentleman was that from that 800,000 houses—which, I may say, is a world's record—we ought to deduct 300,000 built by private enterprise without subsidy. Why is such a suggestion made? If I may be permitted to say so, I should say that one of the greatest achievements which my right hon. Friend has accomplished during his present administration as Minister of Health, and his previous administration, was the restoration of private enterprise in connection with the building trade.
        Mr. MONTAGUE: Due to the building trade unions.
        Sir K. WOOD: When I recollect that for the four years ended in 1922 the average number of houses built in this country without assistance was only 7,500 per year, and when we look round to-day and see that private enterprise has averaged over 60,000 subsidy houses a year during the last five years, and that the number of houses provided without a subsidy by private enterprise during the same period has averaged about 65,000, I think my right hon. Friend is entitled, as are the Conservative party, to say that the great

        1619
        record they have achieved includes the fact that they have helped very considerably to restore the private builder back to his own work again. Another argument of the hon. Gentleman was that not only must we eliminate from that figure of 800,000, which upsets him so much every morning, the 300,000 houses built by unsubsidised private enterprise, but eliminate also the 300,000 odd built by private enterprise under the Chamberlain Act. His reason for that—and it shows a very interesting mentality—was that all those houses are only houses for sale. If that is to be the argument adopted, let us apply it to the time when the Labour Government were on these benches and were responsible for housing. In that period, the Labour Government built, I think, some 125,000 houses, but, if we take away the houses built by private enterprise and the houses built under the Chamberlain Act, the sole achievement of the Labour Government, according to the doctrine of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, was an output of 537 houses. I think we are certainly entitled to include in the figures the number of houses built under what we call the Chamberlain Act. It is quite true that there are a very large number of people who desire houses to let, and I will say a word about that in a moment, but, undoubtedly, anybody who is associated with building society work must know full well that many desire to purchase houses, and that one of the best methods of doing so for a man with a limited income is to pay so much a week. I can well understand hon. Gentlemen opposite objecting to this proposal—
        Mr. MONTAGUE: You do not understand the point.
        Sir K. WOOD: —because it was the late Socialist Minister of Health who said that his party were determined to see that the owning of houses by private individuals was put absolutely out of court. That, I think, was their particular policy. Then I am told that my right hon. Friend has failed in his policy, because there has not been a sufficient number of houses to let. We are told that if the Socialist party again have to administer the housing scheme—which Heaven forbid!—they will continue the Wheatley Act and increase the subsidy. If ever there was a failure from the point
        1620
        of view of erecting houses at a rent which tenants can afford to pay, it is the Wheatley Act. We heard a great deal from hon. Members this afternoon, and we also read in the newspapers, of what a fine thing the Wheatley Act is. They say the Wheatley Act brought about the provision of houses to let; and they stop there. They forget a matter which I shall never forget, the statements which were made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon (Mr. MacDonald) and by the right hon. Gentleman the Socialist Minister of Health that he was going not to have houses to let but houses to let for the lower paid workers of the country. He said at this Box that the reason he was asking for such a large sum of money from the State was to enable them to do it. What happened?
        Miss LAWRENCE: But you fixed the rents.
        Sir K. WOOD: Immediately that Act was brought in, with its increased subsidy—almost before it could be put into operation—the whole value of that subsidy had disappeared so far as the tenant was concerned. When the local authorities started to work what we call the Wheatley Act, the entire value of the increased subsidy had gone.
        Mr. MONTAGUE: To whom? Your pals.
        Sir K. WOOD: The local authority said, "Here we have the Chamberlain Act, and here we have the Wheatley Act. We are getting about double the amount under the Wheatley Act that we were getting from the Chamberlain Act, therefore, we will cross over to the Wheatley Act." Then the hon. Gentleman says what a success the Wheatley Act has been! It was one of the biggest failures from the point of view of producing houses to let at reasonable rents that has ever appeared on the Statute Book. Another thing that the hon. Gentleman said was that there were 12 reasons why, when the subsidy was cut down, the cost of houses increased. What an extraordinary statement! One of the most curious things about the cutting of the subsidy was that directly the announcement—even the announcement—of the first cut in the subsidy was made housing prices began to fall. There are two things perfectly certain so far as subsidies on houses are

        1621
        concerned. The first one is this: The higher the subsidy the higher the cost of the house. The Lloyd George-Addison house cost £1,000, and that was when the subsidy was highest.
        Mr. MONTAGUE: That was in 1921.
        Sir K. WOOD: And since the subsidy has been cut down the cost of housing has been lowest. It is perfectly ridiculous—
        Mr. MONTAGUE: It is.
        Sir K. WOOD: —for hon. Gentlemen to say that there are 12 reasons why the cost of housing has gone down. The fact remains—it is a very curious coincidence, at any rate—that directly you cut down the subsidy you found the cost of housing rapidly decreasing. In the last minute or two which is left to me, I do not hesitate to say that the best hope for houses at lower rents in this country is to decrease the cost of building. If you want to get houses at lower rents, if you want to give facilities for lower paid workers to rent houses, you have to get your cost of housing down, and I do not hesitate to say that it is far better for us to be building new houses at the rate of 165,000 a year at an average cost of some £350 each than to build double the number at £1,000 each. Much as I would like to deal further with this matter, I will conclude by saying that on every ground my right hon. Friend has been justified in his housing policy, and highest among his achievements is that not only has he obtained a very large number of houses, the building of which has been helped by his inspiration and his administration, but that he has brought the cost of housing down, and by that means has given the best promise of houses to the lower-paid workers.
        Mr. MONTAGUE: I always admire the smug satisfaction of the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Health when he is dealing with a question of housing for the poor, or anything else for the poor. It is a fact that the present Government have not put the Wheatley proposals into operation at all. He talks about the reduction of the subsidy and the number of houses being built, and infers that by reducing the subsidy you reduce the amount that goes into the pockets of profiteers in building materials. But he forgets the fact that part of the
        1622
        Labour plan for dealing with the housing problem involves the control of those profiteers and the prevention of the forcing up of the price of building materials by rings and combinations. I would remind the House that the Labour Government had an agreement with the whole of the building industry under which new entrants into that industry were increased from a ratio of 1 in 10 to a ratio of 3 in 10. That has been repudiated by the Government which succeeded the Labour Government, in spite of what has been persistently said upon the subject of repudiation, with the result that to-day there are approaching 250,000 building trade workers out of work. Those building trade workers came into the industry upon the guarantee of a British Government that there would be a housing plan extending over a period of 15 years. In spite of the demand for houses to-day—and it is idle to pretend that there is any approach to a solution of the housing problem—we have over 200,000 building trade workers walking the streets unemployed. They were brought into the industry on this new ratio and have been let down by the Tory Government.
        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.
        PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (CO-ORDINATION OF PASSENGER TRAFFIC) BILL [By Order].
  As amended, considered.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (CO-ORDINATION OF PASSENGER TRAFFIC) BILL [By Order].

    CLAUSE 2.—(Interpretation.)
    Mr. GILLETT: I beg to move, in page 3, line 31, after the word "interest," to insert the words
    "(not exceeding five per cent. per annum, or one per cent. in excess of the average bank rate during the preceding year, whichever is the lower)."
    The Bill which we have before us is one of the most unusual Measures which has ever been presented to the House of Commons dealing with the transfer of a public undertaking owned by one of the greatest municipalities in the kingdom into the hands of a private combine. It is not as if we were favoured in this

    1623
    Bill with the terms on which such a transfer is going to take place. I know the Bill is optional in certain respects and the London County Council may do this or that, but when you come to the details we have no information as to the exact terms upon which this undertaking may be amalgamated with the combine for a certain number of years. The Amendment I have moved is an attempt to try and remove part of that difficulty and to get something definitely laid down in the Measure which is now before the House.
    I would remind the House that the Clause we are dealing with is more or less a statement of the terms used in the Bill giving their meanings with the idea of making the Bill more intelligible. In the first place we have an explanation of the expression "ranking capital" of the various concerns who are going to enter into the combine. This capital may include not only the present capital but also the reserves which have been capitalised and of course may include new issues. I am bound to draw the attention of the House to this side of the capital issue because the amount of interest which is payable upon that capital has a distinct relation to the question of what is the capital. There is one aspect of the question which no doubt will come up later, and that is as to how far the London County Council itself could be made liable especially in regard to new issues. That is a very important point in regard to the security of the new capital, and the rate of interest that could be paid upon it.
    The answer which may be given to the Amendment I have moved is that this Measure provides that in the agreement the rate of interest has to be approved by the Ministry of Transport. That involves great confidence in every Minister who is going to occupy the position of the present Minister. Personally I think this is too important a matter to be left either to the present Minister of Transport or to any Minister who may succeed him, because I do not think the Minister should have the responsibility of deciding this very important question. My Amendment proposes that the interest shall not exceed 6 per cent. or 1 per cent. in excess of the average bank rate during the preceding year, whichever is the lower.
    1624
    I should like to draw the attention of the House to the return which is being received on some of the capital which might be included. The Underground Common Fund last year paid 5 per cent. or 5½ per cent., but in the previous year it was lower than that. The London General Omnibus Company paid 6 per cent. in 1924, 1925 and 1926; in 1927, 7 per cent.; and in 1928, 8 per cent. The dividend paid by the Underground Electric Railway in 1926 was 1½ per cent., and in 1927 5 per cent., and there was an interim dividend in 1928. The House will see from these figures that the suggestion made in my Amendment is very close upon the average figure of the dividend recently received, and I think that fact ought to be borne in mind.
    We do not know how much of the reserves of these companies is going to be capitalised, or how much is going to be issued in the form of bonus shares. The rate of interest that is now being proposed may involve the shareholders actually receiving a far larger rate than they are receiving to-day. The London General Omnibus Company has a capital of £2,700,000 and a reserve fund of £2,900,000, but we know nothing about what is going to happen in this case. If the shareholders in the London General Omnibus Company were given full interest on what they hold now and whatever dividend they will receive now which in 1928 was 8 per cent., the interest would be equivalent to 16 per cent. Even under my scheme they would be in a much more satisfactory position than they are at present. All this seems to show how unsatisfactory the Measure is which is now before us. The House is now being asked to give its assent to terms which we have not the slightest opportunity of knowing. I am not sure that the London County Council have before them the actual conditions on which they are going to make this transfer. When you consider the possibilities as we have seen them in the case of electrical companies which were dealt with in a recent Measure, it will be seen that it is quite possible that a number of the reserves may be capitalised and in that ease there was a fixed rate of interest. Of course that was less objectionable than the proposals under the Electricity Supply Act of 1925, where a limit upon the returns was definitely stated in the Bill.

    1625
    There is also another point upon which the rate paid upon the capital is of great importance. It is provided in this Bill that if the fares are altered and the City Corporation or any local authority in the area affected want to object to such alteration in the fares, they can make a protest to the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Transport can then consider whether the increase in fares is justified or not. The Bill says:
    "Provided that in arriving at his decision the Minister shall be bound by the principles mentioned in the Section of this Act of which the marginal note is the principles to govern management of associated undertakings."
    When we turn to Clause 7, paragraph (c), we find that one of the things which has to be borne in mind is that the Minister is bound to recognise a reasonable return upon the capital. In other words, the condition is that supposing we fix 5 per cent. as a return in the agreement, then the Minister, in considering whether the new fares are suitable or not, has to ask himself, "Will the return pay an interest of 5 per cent. on the capital," and if the fares are not high enough to pay this return the Minister has no power whatever to refuse to agree to the interest. The City Corporation or any other body may make an agreement, but the Minister cannot say: "I think these are excessively high fares; and I think it would be fairer if the owners of the capital took a smaller interest." Nothing of the kind. The Minister can only say: "Will these fares ensure a 5 per cent. interest on the capital?" I think it is exceedingly important that some limit should be placed on this figure, and I think 5 per cent. should be the limit which the shareholders can receive. The proposal that the fares may be raised to ensure that 5 per cent. will be paid to the shareholders is more valuable than is the case with any of the stocks which these companies hold at the present time. A company may be getting 7 or 8 per cent. upon Omnibus Company stock, but under this Bill you are practically bound to pay the interest officially fixed in the agreement. If that interest has been fixed I do not see that there is any power to alter it except by an alteration in the agreement with which the shareholders would have to agree. The whole wealth of Greater London is put behind these agreements. My Amendment seems to be
    1626
    absolutely fair and just, and I beg the House, before this Bill passes from our control, to see that this important item is secure so that the interest of the citizens of London may be secured.
    Mr. THURTLE: I beg to second the Amendment.
    It seems to me that the Amendment is rather a test of the good faith of those who are promoting this legislation. If they are really concerned with traffic co-ordination from the point of view of giving better facilities and better services to the citizens of London, and not from the point of view of extracting a high return on their capital, I think they cannot offer any reasonable objection to this limitation of dividend. As the Mover of the Amendment has pointed out, the holders of the ordinary stock in these companies are, in effect, through this monopoly, going to have a gilt-edged security, and a 5 per cent. return on a gilt-edged security is not at all unreasonable. If in any given year the earnings tend to drop to the point at which it may appear doubtful whether the profits earned will be sufficient to pay 5 per cent., it will be quite possible for this monopoly so to increase its fares as to ensure that the earnings are ample to pay interest at 5 per cent., and, indeed, if necessary, to build up reserves in the shape of an equalisation of dividend fund which will ensure for all time a return of 5 per cent.
    It seems to me that, considering the great area for which the combine has to cater, only one conceivable element of risk is involved. There is no risk, I take it, that, so long as the population of London remains at round about its present figure, the demand for traffic facilities will decrease. As a matter of fact, the statistics have shown that the public are travelling more and more and in greater numbers throughout London, so that, if we may assume that the population is going to remain even stationary, without increasing, there is ample security behind the present arrangements for the earning of this dividend of 5 per cent. The one possible element of doubt is as to whether the population of London may not decrease, so that there will not be a sufficient number of people using these traffic facilities to enable the necessary profits to be earned to pay 5 per

    1627
    cent. That is the only kind of risk that enters into the transaction at all, and I think we know enough about London and its possible development and probable permanence as a great centre to feel that there is not the least likelihood of any-marked decrease in its population. What can the promoters of this legislation want more than an absolutely safe and secure 5 per cent.—a 5 per cent. as safe and secure as if it were invested in the very best Government stock? If they are not satisfied with that, if they are really out for more, and want to extract from a complaisant and obliging Minister of Transport 6, 7 or 8 per cent.—
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): The decision of the Minister of Transport is subject to the control of both Houses of Parliament.
    Mr. THURTLE: The difficulty is that a complaisant and obliging Minister of Transport may have complaisant and obliging supporters behind him.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Does the hon. Gentleman object to the democratic principle on which this House is elected?
    Mr. THURTLE: I certainly do not object to that, but I realise that the vicissitudes of political fortunes sometimes place in a majority in this House a party who are very regardless of the rights and needs of the common people, and I think that that is the situation at the present time. I was saying that, if the promoters are so rapacious as to want 6, 7, 8 or 9 per cent. on the ordinary stock of this undertaking, we are justified in saying that it is sheer nonsense and humbug for them to pretend that their reason for promoting this scheme is that they want to prevent waste, to promote efficiency, and to improve the services to the people of London, and that the real reason for this scheme is to extract extortionate and unreasonable profits from the people of London. Therefore, as I said at the beginning, this Amendment is a test of their good faith and sincerity, and nothing would surprise and please me more than to find that the promoters of this legislation, as a proof of their good faith, were prepared to accept this Amendment, as I hope they will be.
    Sir HENRY JACKSON: I hope the House will reject this Amendment. This matter was most carefully considered by
    1628
    the Traffic Advisory Committee when they were compiling their Blue Report, and this is their very clear opinion:
    "It is not possible to define precisely what is a reasonable return upon capital, as this will vary from time to time with the price of money in the market. The return must, however, be such as will enable additional ordinary capital to be raised at above par."
    I may say that that was signed by the three representatives of organised Labour. This Amendment practically proposes that 5 per cent. should be the limit of interest on the ordinary stock of this concern, but a fixed rate of interest is ineffective, as it entirely ignores the current price of money. The great problem of all transport authorities, whether they be municipal or private, is the continual raising of capital for development and extension, and the price at which that capital can be raised must clearly turn upon the current market value of money. It is quite clear that, if the return is such as to fall below the estimated amount, we get depreciation and a discount, and the result is that, when you try to raise capital on the next occasion at the same low rate of interest, you fail.
    What, after all, is the real test of this problem? The real test is not that of theories on one side of the House or the other; it is the test of what can be done to-day. It is probably common knowledge to most Members of the House that from 1924 to 1929 the Underground group of companies have been raising money for the extension of their facilities—chiefly, of course, the Morden Tube extension; and I can assure the House that, even with the powerful backing of the Trade Facilities Act behind them, they have never once been able to raise money at less than 5 per cent.; indeed, on all occasions, the rate at which they have been able to raise it has been over 5 per cent. I say, therefore, without hesitation, that, if the House were to insert this Amendment in the Bill, it would mean that the Underground group, if they went into the City of London, would not be able to obtain money for the financing of the tubes which are so necessary. As I ventured to say on the Second Reading, in reply to an interjection, if any hon. Member cares to look at the last issue of the "Economist" for 1928 he will there find a list of first-class securities of the same type as this security, and he will find

    1629
    that in all cases during the year 1928 their capital was raised at not less than 5 per cent., the rate being anything between 5 and 7½ per cent.
    Mr. THURTLE: Does not the hon. Member think that the security offered by the great City of London, the centre of the Empire, is infinitely better than that which would be offered by the other municipalities to which he is referring?
    Sir H. JACKSON: I can only reply again that, when the underground group went to the City of London with the backing of the Government behind them under the Trade Facilities Act, they could not raise money at 5 per cent.
    Mr. KELLY: This is a monopoly.
    Sir H. JACKSON: I am stating what is a financial fact, irrespective of monopolies or anything else, and it cannot be gainsaid. Hon. Members opposite are proposing, in case they return to office, great schemes of transport development, and I say without hesitation, that they will have to face the same financial difficulties as the Traffic Combine or the London County Council. I would ask anyone who may follow me how he would propose to raise money in the City of London at less than 5 per cent. I sincerely hope that the House will not place such an embargo on this great scheme. It will simply mean putting the scheme into chains for years, and defeating all its objects in regard to the improvement of travelling facilities which London needs so much.
    Mr. HARRIS: The hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson) entirely ignores the fact that this is a very exceptional Bill. I do not suppose that any analogy could be found in the whole of our legislation for merging in private companies, which are built up in very complicated and involved ways, the assets and undertakings run by a public authority. The hon. Member assumes to himself the rôle of a prophet, and says that, if this limitation is to be imposed, the whole scheme is foredoomed to failure. He seems to forget that the London County Council has been in this business for many years, and has had to raise money in connection with it, and I have not the slightest doubt that, if we went into the market with our credit, which we understand is bad
    1630
    —it is always being said by hon. Members opposite that we have a bad asset—we should not have the slightest difficulty in raising money at 5 per cent. The hon. Member forgets that it is for his side to prove their case. They have to convince the people of London and this House that London is going to gain by this proposal. If he is not prepared to show that the new undertaking, which will have the assets of the London County Council Tramways thrown in, will not be in as good a position as the London County Council, the whole of his case falls to the ground, and the sooner we break up this Bill the better for London and the better for the County Councils undertakings.
    Of course, however, we have another concern. We realise that this company, in which we are going to merge the London County Council undertaking, is out to make the concern a financial success. I do not question that. Nothing with which Lord Ashfield is associated is likely to be other than a financial success. It may be at the expense of the travelling public; it may be at the expense of limitation of services; but no one questions the financial ability of the people who run the Underground undertakings. We have to be sure that success will not be achieved at the expense of the travelling public, because cheap transport is the very life-blood of a town of the size of London. That being so, we ought to be quite sure that the interest offered is not more than the interest paid by the London County Council. I do not myself, nor, I suppose, does, the Mover of the Amendment; attach an excessive amount of importance to the actual figure of 5 per cent., but I do say we are justified in asking that, if this scheme is to go through, no higher rate should be given to the investors in this new stock than that which is actually paid at the present time by the London County Council when it requires to raise loans in order to carry on its undertakings.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. KELLY: I really cannot understand the reason of the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson) for opposing this Amendment. He justifies his attitude by the position in which the Underground group found themselves when they were raising money for the Morden tube extension.

    1631
    It was much more difficult then to raise money at a reasonable figure. Also at that time Lord Ashfield had not secured the monopoly which he had set out for. I heard him say across his own table, before he set out for extending the Morden tube, that he was determined that if they were going to engage upon this method of transport for London, they should be rid of competition. He was then under the disadvantage that he had not a monopoly. He will have a monopoly on this occasion. I think the profession to give us a better system of traffic might well be met by giving it to us and, at the same time, being prepared to accept that reasonable return of 5 per cent., or 1 per cent. in excess of the average bank rate, whichever is lower. Surely that is an adequate and reasonable return and those who are asking for more are certainly asking for too much.
    Sir WALTER GREAVES-LORD: I rise to congratulate the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) upon the independence he has shown to the leader of his party. His leader has claimed that, by the co-ordination of London traffic, it will be possible to get three great tube schemes through to help in the fulfilment of his electioneering pledge with regard to the unemployed. The hon. Member, carrying out the policy which he and those of his party who are in the London County Council and in the House have consistently carried out, of trying to prevent this Measure from getting through, is now trying at any rate to impede the progress of this scheme for co-ordinating London traffic by trying to lay down conditions which would make it impossible for it to be financed in the ordinary way. I congratulate him upon his independence. I also think he would be better advised to tell his leader to cease claiming credit for a scheme which his own party continually oppose.
    Mr. GARDNER: I have listened with interest to the two speeches which have been delivered from the opposite benches. If anything has been said that is condemnatory of the success of this Measure, it has been said most effectively by the hon. Member for Central Wands-
    1632
    worth (Sir H. Jackson). He said distinctly that the company cannot raise money at 5 per cent.
    Sir H. JACKSON: Without a Government guarantee.
    Mr. GARDNER: That means that the stability of the underground group is not sufficiently high to give them money at this rate. The hon. Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord) said our leader referred to the development of the tubes, which is going to fulfil some of our ambitions arising out of the General Election. I was present at a function presided over by Lord Ashfield when the Morden tube was extended. I indulged in the luxury of a free luncheon. I then learned that Lord Ashfield was not prepared to go any further unless the Government was prepared to guarantee the money. The then Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Transport assured him that there was not much hope of the Government giving the money. Lord Ashfield had to look in another direction. He said, "What can we hitch our wagon to for the purpose of getting on with the job? We have tried over and over again to get the trams, but we have failed. We will tell the people of London they are going to own their trams and we will run them." It simply means that a private company cannot raise capital at 5 per cent. They want to run tubes which will be profitable. They say, "If you will give us your trams, we can get money at a cheaper rate." We are entitled to ask for a limitation of profits. I assume every Member received a circular to-day drawing attention to certain wonderful schemes whereby you might assist certain things if you were to invest money, and the limitation was to be 5 per cent. Why should Lord Ashfield not be in a position to get 5 per cent.? I can suggest one reason. If this scheme goes through, we are in this position, that if there is a deficit upon the combine undertaking it will be possible to levy a rate upon the London ratepayer.
    Sir H. JACKSON: That is not true.
    Mr. GARDNER: Tell me why it is not true.
    Sir H. JACKSON: I state it as a fact. It is not a matter of argument. It is a fact.
    Mr. GARDNER: You either take the profits or you take the losses. If profits are available, you get the advantage, but if there is a loss, who is going to meet it? There is nothing in the Bill to say the Combine will meet it. It will be shared generally. Therefore the county council, as a partner in the scheme, may bear the loss. In other words, a private company is going to have a right to levy a rate upon the ratepayers of London. Therefore, in going into the market to get money for this, they are in a position to say, "One of our partners is an unlimited source for getting money. It is a source which cannot be repudiated." If there is a need for new tubes, let us have new tubes on a public basis. What is the objection to limiting the dividend to 5 per cent.? Is that an unreasonable return? It is a return which the Gentlemen on the benches opposite offer to the public for Government stock. Is a monopoly in London not as good as Government stock? If a borough council wants to raise money, owing to the extraordinary conditions to-day, it has to go to the county council, and the county council has to go into the market. But even then it can get the money.
    You are going to hand over to this Combine all the resources of the county council tramway undertaking and their legal obligations as ratepayers. The least that those who support the Bill can do is to agree to the limitation of interest to 5 per cent. Are we to understand that Lord Ashfield and his colleagues are to pledge the credit of London under a common fund basis which is not defined? There is no agreement before Parliament. They do not know how it is going to be arranged. There is a formula like that in the De-rating Bill which none in the party opposite, with perhaps two exceptions, understood. Under this formula, what is going to happen? Are we going to permit the construction of three tubes, with all the authority of the county council tramways and the rates behind it, on the terms that if they are successful, the profits are to go to the Combine and any losses go to the ratepayers? The Amendment is a very simple and reasonable one and it is only fair in the interests of the general public.
    Mr. MARCH: I support the Amendment, especially after hearing the hon.
    1634
    Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson). He informed us that the matter was thoroughly considered by the Traffic Advisory Committee and, to give it a better fillip, he says this was signed by three representatives of the trade union. But he did not say under what pressure or under what conditions they signed it. I hardly credit that representative of trade unions would be prepared to hand the whole co-ordination of traffic over to a combine. I think their desire was that it should be under control, and they had an idea that it was going to be so, but the authorities that be at the London County Council have deemed otherwise, and they prefer to lease their undertaking to the combine. It seems to me that 5 per cent. would be a very reasonable amount for any of their money that has to be invested. In reading Clause 2, I find that all the expenses, and so forth, are to be paid out before they put anything into the Common Fund and, if there is anything to go into the Common Fund, I take it the dividend or interest will be paid over to the combine and, if that is not going to satisfy them, they have a right to appeal to the Minister of Transport with a view to increasing the fares. That is where I differ from the hon. Member who has just spoken as to the county council coming on to the ratepayers. They will come on the travellings passengers. They will be the people who will be asked to make some addition to find what dividend or interest is to be paid to the moneylenders.
    I am very much concerned, as are many people in the district I represent. They are having a good deal of difficulty, and they have to travel at a great deal of inconvenience, both on omnibuses and trams, to and from their work. Their wages are very small, and they do not want an increase of a penny, or even a halfpenny, on their fares. That may not seem much to some people, but to those who travel backward and forward it means probably 6d. or more per week. We are anxious that there should be some better understanding as to the amount of traffic that there should be on the roads and the convenience which is given to the travelling public, not only on the roads, but on the tubes as well. We should like to see an arrangement made providing for a limitation in this matter.

    1635
    There should also be a limit on the fares charged per mile in respect of the people travelling backwards and forwards. I want to see the people of London gain by this co-ordination, and not a certain few of them. I want to see better services given to them than they enjoy at present, and I want to see an opportunity provided for tubes being built and extended so as to relieve, the present state of congestion in the rush hours both in the morning and at night. If these things are going to be provided, we ought to be given an opportunity of reviewing them as they come along. After this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, practically the whole matter will be out of our hands. We ought to have some limiting Amendments introduced so that we may know where we are.
    Mr. W. THORNE: I rise to support the Amendment. The House ought clearly to understand that there is a difference of principle on this question. We on this side believe in collective ownership, and hon. Members on the other side believe in what is known as private enterprise. I take it for granted that the company in question think that it is very much better to promote a Bill at the dying end of this Parliament than it would be to delay it and bring it forward after the next General Election. I am convinced that if this Bill had been delayed until after the General Election there would be no possible chance of getting it through. It goes without saying that we shall come back with double the numbers we have now, and we shall then be in a position to form a Government, and there will be no possible chance of such a Bill as this going through at all.
    The hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson) mentioned the fact that three trade unionists signed this Report, but I would like to draw his attention to another matter. I think that I am justified in saying that when this Report was presented to a united meeting of the London Members of the Parliamentary Labour party and those who represent outside constituencies, although naturally we did not feel inclined to censure our colleagues who sat on that Committee, we talked to them rather sternly about signing the Report. They were not, in our opinion, signing the Report in accordance with
    1636
    the wishes of the present Members of the Parliamentary Labour party. As hon. Members know, I represent a very large constituency. I am not quite sure whether I am entitled to speak as a Member of Parliament only or also as a Member of the West Ham Corporation. I am the Member of Parliament for a Division in the West Ham Borough and I have also been a member of the West Ham Corporation since November, 1890, nearly 40 years ago. When these Bills were brought before the Legal and General Committee of which I happen to be a member, they were thoroughly considered, and the Legal and General Committeee reported to the borough council advising them to oppose the Bill.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): I must remind the hon. Member that he is speaking as a Member of this House, and therefore must keep to the Amendment now before the House and not discuss the question of the General Election or the principles of the Bill.
    Mr. THORNE: Naturally, the West Ham Borough Council are entitled to consider the Bill, and, as I am a member of the Council, to give me instructions. As I said, they decided to oppose the Bill. I am concerned about this matter, because running powers exist between the London County Council, the West Ham Corporation, and the East Ham Corporation. It is perfectly evident that if the Combine do not receive their 5 per cent. interest—and I am not sure whether powers are given in any Clause of the Bill to levy rates on the whole of the London ratepayers—they will be in a position to raise the fares, and this will amount to a direct charge upon the travelling public. There is a possibility of fares being increased, and the result will and must be that the travelling public in the borough of West Ham will be compelled to pay such extra fares. This would mean that there would be two different fares in West Ham and in East Ham where our trams run. The County Council would be able to charge one fare and we should charge another, and the travelling public who come up every morning and ride back every night would have an extra amount levied upon them. That would mean a very considerable sum. Most of the wage earners among the travelling public have not a great deal of money to throw away. If

    1637
    they were to be called upon to pay another sixpence a week—and in some cases there might be three or four people affected in one family—it would have a considerable effect upon them and reduce the purchasing power of their wages. Therefore, the people in West Ham are very much concerned about this matter.
    Colonel ASHLEY: May I draw the attention of the hon. Member to Clause 11 where there is adequate protection for fares?
    Mr. THORNE: We get all these protections in these Bills about fares, but they do not always operate. I shall support the Amendment in the Division Lobby.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: I think that it would be very useful if we could have the views of the Minister of Transport upon this Amendment. I admire the child-like faith of the Minister in democracy, but I would like to point out to him that it is quite possible after the next General Election that the party in office may not be representative of the majority of the votes of the country. When it comes to a question of technical and legal points in a Bill of this character, I am afraid that after the General Election much larger issues will be dominant and that these small things will be missed. I was not much taken by the argument about democracy, but I would like to point out to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson) that in his speech he rather proved too much. What he really has proved is that the transport system of London is going to be bled white by the money interests of the city. If that were the question under discussion, I do not think that I could find a stronger point. The point I want to put to the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth is this. No one can surely doubt that this Bill and its fellow Bill constitute a perfect and complete monopoly in the transportation facilities of London. Surely there is no one in this House connected with financial interests who would contend that a rate of interest which repays the capital in 20 years is not a fair interest to pay for money which is raised, not upon speculative ideas or possibilities, but upon certainties that are the result of monopoly.
    Surely, it is possible to-day for such a monopolistic concern to raise money at 5 per cent. quite easily. It is true that
    1638
    in going into the ordinary money market as the underground railways did for the Morden extension, even with the Government facilities behind them, it was a speculative venture, and they had to pay a speculative price for the money; but nothing has altered the fact that a return of 5 per cent. upon a definite security is one that is recognised as the outside limit in all financial transactions. We are proposing that that should operate and that there should be a limit of 5 per cent., not only upon the money which may be borrowed for tube extensions but also upon the ordinary capital of the combine as it stands at the present time. Mr. McKenna, in a speech to the shareholders of the Midland Bank, made a statement which is being utilised by the Liberal party as part of their election propaganda, that if the situation existed with regard to the 12 principal banks of this country that exists with regard to the Midland Bank, there must be well over £200,000,000 lying idle for want of appropriate opportunity for investment. If it be the case that there are these hundreds of millions of pounds lying idle, does anyone contend that for a gilt-edged security the possessors of those millions would not withdraw them from their account and invest them at 5 per cent.? Upon their bank account they are not getting 5 per cent.; at the outside they are geting only3½ per cent.; and yet we are told that for extensions of transit facilities, backed by a monopoly and with the power of controlling fares behind that monopoly, it is not possible to obtain money at the percentage we propose.
    The hon. Member for Central Wandsworth has proved that the idea of this Bill is simply to bleed the people of London who will be compelled to use the transport facilities which will be controlled by the Combine. It was stated by the hon. Member for Wandsworth, and if was said that certain Labour representatives had signed a report, that it was impossible to fix the rate of interest because of the differences in the rate of money. Are we not entitled to ask what it is that they propose, if they are not satisfied with 5 per cent.? How much do they want? If we are told that it is impossible to fix the rate of interest owing to the variations in the rate of money, how is it possible to fix a higher rate of interest, in view of the money variation? Is it not a fact that under the

    1639
    London Electricity Supply Act of 1925 there is a limit to the return upon capital, and that there is a similar provision in regard to the gas and water undertakings? If it is impossible to fix the rate of interest to-day, in consequence of the fluctuations of the money market, how was it possible to fix the return in those particular Acts of Parliament?
    The average return upon the ordinary stock of the constituent companies in the Combine, last year, was 5.69 per cent. That includes the return on the omnibuses and the tubes: a speculative investment. We are proposing simply to knock off the 69 per cent., supposing that total rate to be the normal return upon a speculative investment. Surely, that is not too much to ask to pay for security as against speculation. This type of Measure represents something that is not unlikely to be, in many ways, a feature of certain transitional periods in the future. I do not mean the particular Bill that we are now discussing, which is objectionable from start to finish from the point of view of the people of London; but a good many people will agree that there is the probability of an avenue in industry for public utility societies, the idea of public utility as a means of developing certain types of industrial enterprise. The idea of public utility is usually limited not to 5 per cent. but to 4 per cent. It is possible to obtain capital even at less than that amount. The London County Council can obtain capital at less than 5 per cent. They are paying considerably under 4 per cent. now upon the enterprises that they run.
    Mr. TASKER: The hon. Member is wrong in that statement. We cannot raise money at 5 per cent. to-day. He is referring to pre-War arrangements.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: It is all very well for the hon. and gallant Member to confuse pre-War and post-War. What has that to do with percentages?
    Mr. TASKER: The hon. Member does not seem to realise that before the War 24 per cent. Consols stood at over £100, whereas to-day they stand at a very low-figure.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: I know that money is dearer to-day, and I am not disputing that. I am stating as a fact that the
    1640
    London County Council upon the average has to pay 3.26 per cent., or it did pay that in 1926. I know that that calculation includes the pre-War arrangement, but that does not alter the principle of the thing. We are talking about percentages. Five per cent. is the capitalisation of 20 years now, just as it was in 1913. The limit of 5 per cent. is a very sound and profitable proposal to make when it is a question of public utility, public guarantee and public monopoly.
    Mr. BARNES: We are entitled before we go to a Division to ask for the views of the Minister of Transport. The Minister is now responsible for defining what is a reasonable return. The whole burden of our Amendment is that we consider 5 per cent. to be reasonable for this class of security. I would remind the House of the circumstances which have put these concerns in a favourable position which will enable them to raise capital on a 5 per cent. basis. Not many years ago, the combine and the tramway services in London were getting into financial difficulties, in consequence of undue competition. Parliament, realising that large capital investments, both in private undertakings and in municipal undertakings should not be imperilled, stepped in, and began the process of coordinating London traffic. They realised that the traffic undertakers themselves could not put their concerns into a strong financial position, and it was only when Parliament stepped in and gave to the traffic undertakers a favoured position on the London streets that their financial position immediately began to improve. Just prior to the introduction of the present Bills, Lord Ash-field, in presiding over one of the companies involved in this legislation, admitted that they could not go on to the money market and raise the necessary capital for the purpose of carrying out the desired extensions. Possibly, the hon. Member for Wandsworth when he opposes an Amendment of this description begins from that standpoint, prior to the introduction of the legislation which we are now passing.
    We as a party are opposed to the principle of this Bill, but we have to face the fact that the House to-night will probably agree to the Report stage. Assuming that it does, then the whole situation is altered. That is our con-

    1641
    tention. The difficulty of raising money on the money market will no longer prevail, and it will never occur again because by this legislation Parliament is conferring certain definite and permanent advantages on the shareholders of the companies in this combine. We are, therefore, I think, entitled to lay down a fixed rate of interest and prevent these shareholders getting an undue advantage over the travelling public of London. Private undertakings represent at the moment the larger part of the traffic Services of London, and the proportion of private services as compared with municipal undertakings will be increased in the future, the gap will be widened, because it will be those services for which the combine are responsible which will be largely increased under the facilities, privileges and advantages which are conferred by this legislation upon the combine.
    The Combine is being secured against any possible future loss. They can go on to the money market and raise money to any amount, and under this legislation they are secured against any loss. Before the War, and to-day, the railway companies carried out the equipment of our railway system under a 5 per cent. figure; and they represent the largest capital investment in the country. They have remained as a trustee security for many years at a figure of 5 per cent. Now we are creating a new type of traffic security quite equal to any post-War period in connection with railways, and I submit that it is a very serious departure to introduce legislation of this kind which leaves an unlimited figure as the return of interest on share capital. I think we are entitled to know whether the Minister of Transport considers 5 per cent. a reasonable return. In the past, when we have argued that an undue rate of interest represents a form of exploitation of the consumer, we have been met with the argument that the rate of interest must be high because of the risks involved in the investment of capital in industrial undertakings. There was a risk of losing the capital invested and therefore the rate of return must be high.
    We are moving away from that point of view. Hon. Members opposite, who believe in competition, are now rapidly abolishing competition in industrial
    1642
    organisations. I do not think the general public realises the extent to which the investment of capital has moved away from any form of risk under a policy of concentration, co-ordination and confederation; the risk of failure is now spread over and safeguarded in so many directions that in most of these large investments failure is almost impossible. Parliament is now being asked to remove the possibility of any failure in regard to investments in the traffic system of London, and when we are proposing to double the rate of interest which prevailed under the competitive system in pre-War days we are told that 5 per cent. is insufficient. That obviously means that they will not be content with 5 per cent.; that they are out for a larger rate of interest.
    Colonel ASHLEY indicated dissent.
    Mr. BARNES: The Minister of Trans port shakes his head. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what it does mean? Will he tell us whether he means 4 per cent.? We have invited him to give the view of the Department and he declined, and when we draw the obvious conclusion that if they are not prepared to accept 5 per cent. it means that they are out for more he shakes his head. There can be only one reason for refusing 5 per cent., and that is that they want to keep open the door so that they can pay 7 per cent. and 8 per cent. and 9 per cent. What guarantee have we that some future Parliament and future Minister of Transport will not justify an increase in the rate of interest. We ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us his reasons for refusing to accept the Amendment and whether he contemplates a higher rate of interest.
    Colonel ASHLEY: The hon. Member has asked me to do something which it would be most improper for me to do. He has asked me to state whether I think 3 per cent., 4 per cent., 5 per cent., 6 per cent., or per cent., or whatever the rate per cent. might be, would be the right one. The Committee which considered this Bill upstairs came to the conclusion that the very difficult and onerous duty should be put on the Minister of Transport of deciding what capital should rank and what is a reasonable rate of interest upon that capital. Therefore, it would be obviously most improper for the Minister of

    1643
    Transport to prejudge his decision as to what he might do in the event of any single agreement coming before him.
    Mr. GARDNER: He has to give a decision.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Yes, after due consideration of all the circumstances of the case. He then makes his award, and that award is subject to the confirmation of Parliament. I submit that the proposal of the Committee is very sound and businesslike.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I think the Minister of Transport has given us very strong support for the Amendment. I do not know whether he is very sanguine that he is going to continue to occupy the position he at present holds, but, if he is, it is obvious that he does not like the awkward duty of having to fix the rate of interest. Why not get rid of it? Let us get him out of the difficulty. But there is something beyond that. The Committee says that the Minister of Transport is to do this or that in the future; but that does not mean that the Minister of Transport of the day is not to have any policy at all. After all, the right hon. Gentleman is Minister of Transport, and this is a very important private Bill dealing with the biggest traffic problem of the day. The House is entitled to know exactly what the Minister's views are. Does he consider that this point ought to be left to the haphazard decision of the Minister of the day, or is he prepared to say that London transport exists primarily for the convenience of the people of London? Our demand is an extremely modest demand. It is to fix a limit and to say that beyond that financial interests shall not go. The Minister's statement that any Minister of Transport in deciding this matter will have a delicate duty to perform is not enough. He ought to suggest what are the kind of considerations that are to be before the Minister. Are they to be considerations as to the remuneration of particular capitalist interests, or considerations as to the general convenience of London? What we want is the best and cheapest service that we can get for London.
    Mr. T. SHAW: I did not intend to take part in the discussion, and I now do so because I was very disappointed with the statement of the Minister. We
    1644
    might have had some expression of opinion as to what was considered to be reasonable. With what are we dealing? We have a breakdown of private enterprise in the traffic of London. We have the fact openly admitted that the boasted competition, which is supposed to give us the best results, has broken down. It is a confession of the absolute failure of private enterprise to deal with what ought to be one of the easiest things in the world to deal with. In effect private enterprise comes along and says to Parliament, "Get us out of our difficulty. We have absolutely failed to deal with the traffic. We cannot deal with it unless you come to our assistance, but for Heaven's sake don't take our profits." Parliament in its wisdom or otherwise will determine to help this crippled private enterprise out of its difficulties, and will determine, on Socialist lines, to deal with the London traffic problem. But it parts with the Socialist when it says that the private individual must have the profit and that the enterprise shall not be run for the benefit of the whole community. That is the difference between us.
    The Minister and the House have accepted the Socialist view that centralisation, co-ordination and scientific management are infinitely better than competition. What divides us is the question as to who shall take advantage of the Socialist methods of conducting the industry. But, assuming that we have to agree to the resources of the Government being put at the disposal of a crippled private enterprise, have we not the right to say that the public body that makes it possible for private enterprise to live by taking away the very competition which has been supposed to be its life-blood, shall at any rate use its powers to protect the public against that private enterprise using the powers that are conferred on it, in order to get an undue return at the expense of the public? Parliament having made a gilt-edged security good as any national loan should have a guarantee that the profits shall not exceed a reasonable amount. Is 5 per cent. too little for a gilt-edged security. Has not the public the right to insist that Parliament, having made this gilt-edged security for private individuals, shall prevent private indi-

    1645
    viduals taking advantage of it? The Minister should state in advance what are his general ideas on the subject. The shareholders are guaranteed.
    Sir HENRY CAUTLEY indicated dissent.
    Mr. SHAW: The hon. and learned Baronet shakes his head. Is it not a fact that this Bill prevents competition, that it literally puts the whole of the transport system of London into a monopoly, and that we are literally making the money of these shareholders as secure as the Bank of England?
    Sir H. CAUTLEY: Where is the guarantee? There is no guarantee.
    Mr. SHAW: There is the guarantee that if one fare will not do, the company can charge a higher fare. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that no Minister in his party would prevent a fare being raised in order to yield a profit.
    Sir H. CAUTLEY: I was not speaking as a party man but as Chairman of the Committee which had to investigate this
    matter from a judicial point of view. There is no guarantee of any kind.
    Mr. SHAW: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that when this Bill is passed the traffic of London will be in the hands of a monopoly?
    Sir H. CAUTLEY: That was not the reason of my interruption. I merely questioned the right hon. Gentleman's statement as to a guarantee of dividends. There is no guarantee.
    Mr. SHAW: That is merely playing with words. The people of London must travel, and they must travel on this service. The service can charge what fares it likes in order to make a profit. What we ought to be doing is trying to get at the facts of the matter, as to what is fair between the monopoly and the public. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us his ideas as to what the limit should be?
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 72; Noes, 132.

    Division No. 287.]

    AYES.

    [8.57 p.m.

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

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

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

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

    Potts, John S.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Greenall, T.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton le-Spring)

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Riley, Ben

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Griffith, F. Kingsley

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

    Barnes, A.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Barr, J.

    Hardie, George D.

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Batey, Joseph

    Harris, Percy A.

    Shield, G. W.

    Bellamy, A.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Kelly, W. T.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Blindell, James

    Kennedy, T.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Bondfield, Margaret

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

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plaistow)

    Broad, F. A.

    Lawson, John James

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Lowth, T.

    Tomlinson, R. P.

    Buchanan, G.

    Lunn, William

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Clarke, A. B.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Cluse, W. S.

    March, S.

    Whiteley, W.

    Connolly, M.

    Maxton, James

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Montague, Frederick

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Murnin, H.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Dalton, Ruth (Bishop Auckland)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Day, Harry

    Owen, Major G.

    Dunnico, H.

    Palln, John Henry

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Gillett, George M.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Mr. Scurr and Mr. Gardner.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Brass, Captain W.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Christie, J. A.

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

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Atkinson, C.

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

    Cockerill, Brig,-General Sir George

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Burman, J. B.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

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

    Campbell, E. T.

    Cope, Major Sir William

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Cassels, J. D.

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

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

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Lougher, Sir Lewis

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    England, Colonel A.

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Sandon, Lord

    Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

    McLean, Major A.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Macquisten, F. A.

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

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

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

    Mitchell, Sir W. L. (Streatham)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Hamilton, Sir George

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

    Waddington, R.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

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

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

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

    Headlam. Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

    Penny, Frederick George

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Watts, Sir Thomas

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Phillipson, Mabel

    Wells, S. R.

    Hilton, Cecil

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

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

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Radford, E. A.

    Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Withers, John James

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Rentoul, Sir Gervals

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

    Wragg, Herbert

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Lamb, J. O.

    Ropner, Major L.

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Ross, R. D.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Salmon, Major I.

    Sir Hen Jackson and Sir Cyril

    Cobb

    CLAUSE 3.—(Agreements with regard to common management and common fund.)
    Mr. SCURR: I beg to move, in page 5, to leave out from the word "agreement" in line 12, to the end of line 26.
    Anyone who followed the Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill and the proceedings in Committee upstairs and who read the Report of the London Traffic Advisory Committee, known as the Blue Report, will know that one of the great things supposed to underlie these proposals is the fact of a common fund. I feel sure that the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson), who is exceedingly proud of that baby, the Blue Report, and on every possible occasion quotes from it, and who, during the last Amendment, used a phrase from it as an argument against that Amendment, will on this occasion vote with me on this Amendment, because throughout the Blue Report there is a reference to one common fund, into which all the receipts of all the participating undertakings could be paid after their expenses and prior charges had been deducted. Under the proposals which have been inserted in the Bill, largely as a result of the pressure of the Com-
    1648
    bine, this idea of one common fund has totally disappeared, and in place of it we have two common funds.
    When we, from this side, have put forward the proposition that Lord Ashfield and the Underground Combine were anxious to get a monopolistic control of the passenger traffic of London, we have been told that we were wrong, that the only object of these Bills was to carry out the exceedingly mild proposals of the London Traffic Committee and to bring about a co-ordination of London traffic which was essential if the Tubes which are so necessary for the future were to be built. But when we look at this Clause we find that the Combine have said, "We have a common fund of our own." What are the ramifications of that fund, what are the relations of the undertakings in that fund to one another, and how it is distributed, the public is not allowed to know. That is, in every sense of the term, the private preserve of the Combine, and I should say, from the figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) in the last Debate, that it is for that undertaking an exceedingly profitable thing and that the Combine are not anxious that there should be any interference with that common fund. Therefore, they propose that they should retain it and

    1649
    that only those amounts which are paid to the undertakings from that common fund should then be distributed to another common fund, into which the London County Council has to put all its surplus after the charges laid down in the Bill have been met.
    This is the most preposterous proposal which has been inserted in these preposterous Bills. It leaves the Underground Combine to do practically what it likes in regard to its own surplus, but says to the London County Council, the municipal authority that has had a successful undertaking, that has made it possible for cheap passenger traffic in the County of London, and even outside the county, the municipality that by reason of the application of the strict principles of municipal finance has paid off nearly half its capital by the operation of its sinking fund, "You are not to have any of these advantages; you have to pay over your surplus right away into this common fund, but the Combine, with many of its undertakings in a bad financial position and many of them not efficiently managed, is to retain its common fund, and only then is its balance to go into the common fund which is supposed to postulate a common management."
    There is not a common management provided for in this Bill. There is a management really by the Combine, with the acquiescence of two or three directors who may be appointed, by favour of the Combine, by the London County Council. This preposterous proposal was never contemplated in the Blue Report, and if the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth should refer to the fact that three representatives of the trade unions signed that Report, and should claim that therefore we should support this Bill, I claim that he, having himself signed the Blue Report, and having signed it for one common fund, should come into the Lobby with us in support of this Amendment. He cannot have sauce for the goose and not sauce for the gander, and I will leave it to the judgment of the House to decide which is which, though, so far as I can see, the London public are the goose in this matter, and they are being carved to make a very succulent repast for Lord Ashfield and his Combine.
    Mr. GILLETT: I beg to second the Amendment.
    1650
    This Clause is one of the most amazing proposals in the Bill. It is amazing that the London County Council should propose such a Clause; it is a reflection on their simplicity, and it would make one think they were utterly incapable of tackling a subject like this. Surely the members for the London County Council can scarcely realise the complexity of the traffic Combine. I remember, when I was a member of the Finance Committee of the London County Council, being told by one of the ablest officials of the council at that time that the finance of the Combine was so complicated that, after a most careful study of the figures that were presented, you could not really understand the position of the various concerns in it. Hon. Members to-day have not the advice of that very distinguished gentleman, and, therefore, they have seen their way to put their names to a Clause of this kind.
    The first thing we should like to know from them is, if these two pools are to be kept in being, what funds are going into the pool belonging to the Combine? It is easy enough to understand the takings of a concern going into a common pool, and it is moderately easy to imagine that the different concerns can follow the expenditure, but if you are going to have three or four concerns, first of all, pooling their own funds, and if you are only then going to pass on the balance, how is the London County Council going to check the sum of money that is going into the second pool, and what is the object; of having this second pool unless it is going in some way to benefit the Combine? Why is not one pool sufficient, if all things are to be shared alike? I could understand this proposal being in the Bill promoted by the Combine, but to find the London County Council accepting a proposal of this kind is utterly amazing, and I can only imagine that the members of that council are so infatuated with the idea of getting rid of their trams at any cost that they are prepared to accept any terms, however impossible it may be to follow the figures of these concerns.
    We shall have the opportunity later on of dealing with the question of those who are going to audit the accounts. As far as I can see, there is not an auditor to represent the interests of the London County Council. Anyone who has know-

    1651
    ledge of the manipulation of accounts, knows very well what can be done in the matter of accounts, and unless you have the closest connection with them you do not know where money goes, what depreciation has been written off, what sums have been put to reserve—
    Sir H. CAUTLEY: Is that the way banking business is conducted? It seems a very vague statement to make.
    Mr. GILLETT: The hon. Member may think it is very witty—
    Sir H. CAUTLEY: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should make such a statement.
    Mr. GILLETT: I do not suggest that the manipulation of accounts is wrong, but the hon. Member knows that you can set out accounts in different ways, and endless questions can arise as to how much has been put to reserve, how much to sinking fund, and how much is allowed for depreciation, and it is impossible to follow the accounts unless you are able to keep in close touch with them. This is one of the worst Clauses of the Bill, and I hope that the House will reject it.
    Sir CYRIL COBB: I hope that the House will not accept the Amendment. If this alternative provision to Clause 3 is cut out, we should make the Bill entirely unworkable. It is to be remembered that there is an existing combined undertaking at the moment, and that it has an existing common fund into which they pay large sums. It must be remembered, too, that the undertaking has obtained its money for extensions of the Tube and the Underground from the Treasury very largely under the Trade Facilities Act. I believe that it has obtained something like £12,000,000, and it is on the guarantee of that existing common fund that the Treasury have allowed it to have this money. Therefore we should make this scheme practically unworkable if we were to upset that existing arrangement. It has also to be remembered that, as far as new undertakings are brought into the Combine, they have not to pay any money into the existing common fund of the Underground companies. They are free from that, and to that extent it is essential that we should have the alternative
    1652
    method which is provided for in Clause 3, Subsections (1) and (2). Therefore, inasmuch as it is essential that these alternative methods should be retained, and as I see no possibility of working the scheme unless they are retained, I hope that the House will reject the Amendment.
    Mr. HARRIS: The hon. Member for West Fulham (Sir C. Cobb) is well versed in this subject, and I have no doubt that he has enlightened the House to some extent on the mysteries of these particular paragraphs and this very remarkable Clause. I do not suppose that in the whole history of Parliament we have had more curious and more complex financial operation than the House is now asked to approve. It is notorious that the finance of the Underground Electric, that is, the parent company, is very complex, involved and very difficult to follow. I had an opportunity of hearing the master mind endeavour to explain it, and even after his explanation I was to a certain extent left in doubt as to the financial position. I do not think that anybody would suggest that the wording of this Clause makes the position clearer. May I try and explain to a certain extent how the concern works? A number of companies are involved. First, of course, is the District Railway, the oldest company. It might be described as the parent company, although it is by no means the parent, for, although it is the oldest company, it is not the first to enter into the mysterious operations of this group of interests, because behind them were the Tubes, which were largely financed from America. It is more correct to say that, originally, a London finance group which started most of the Tubes got into difficulties, and American finance came in and saved the situation. American finance, having got its finger in the pie, proceeded to take over the District Railway. To be perfectly fair, I think that we owe a debt of obligation to the people who took over the District Railway, because they electrified it.
    I believe that the next operation was the founding of the Underground Electric, which owned interests in various concerns, but had nothing to do with actual operation. Then the London General Omnibus Company was bought over by the same group of financiers, and

    1653
    the same people who were running the Tubes and District Railway proceeded to run the London General Omnibus Company. The third operation was to buy out the various tramway companies on the outskirts of London. Then there were four groups, but that was not the end, for the London General Omnibus Company began to buy out interests in a number of small omnibus companies as well as interests in omnibus companies which they did not control, such, for instance, as Tillings, Limited. What the exact relation of Tillings, Limited, is to the London General Omnibus Company I do not know, but there is some interlocking and some inter-connection. We know that Tillings, Limited, are associated very intimately financially with the London General Omnibus Company. As far as I understand it, all these undertakings have their own boards of directors, and their own managers, but they have one thing in common: they own the same chairman, Lord Ashfield, who is chairman of most of the companies. The owning company is the top dog. They also have a board on which the various companies are represented.
    During the War it was found that the Underground Company was not paying, largely because of the fact that many of its men had gone overseas, and because of the shortage of coal and various other reasons. It was running at a loss, and so the Government in their wisdom in 1915 arranged for a pool. That is the origin of the pool which seems likely to drown London traffic in due course if this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. The pool was formed, not for permanent purposes or in order to establish a principle, but to meet War conditions, and the Underground associated companies were financed out of the pockets of the omnibus company. As a matter of fact, that was the beginning of the war with the London Tramways. It was the fact that the profits were pooled which enabled them to put up a very strong cutting competition with the trams. It is that pool which, as I understand it, the promoters of the other Bill wish to retain. I respectfully submit to the House that they cannot have it both ways. If they want to retain their own pool, then they cannot expect to come into the advantages of taking over the London County Council Tramways, because those tramways have a right to
    1654
    say that if they are going to come into the general machine, the whole of the profits, without any first consideration, should be shared alike by all the interests concerned, and the County Council should not be subject to the operation of any pool which was in operation before this agreement was made.
    I do not pretend to understand the working of these particular sections. They are very much bracketed. I do not know why the brackets are put in, except to make it difficult for the layman to understand. I know they were drafted by very ingenious and skilful draftsmen, but why it should be necessary, in order to secure the interests of the London County Council—in whose interest this Bill is supposed to Be drawn up—to bracket certain words, perhaps the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson) will make clear to the House. What I do respectfully suggest is that if Parliament is asked to intervene and to set up a new kind of organisation for London traffic, we should keep quite clear of complicated company Acts of this character. It is far too involved for the ordinary public to understand. It is essential that the general public should understand what is going on. Let me assume for a moment that fares do not go up and that everything is going on all right. The public naturally always wants to understand exactly what is going on. In the London County Council Tramways our finance is so simple that it can be posted up inside the ordinary tramcars, and the general public who may look at the figures can understand exactly what is going on. With these two Bills you have got to jump over one, and then you jump into the other, and it passes the wit of the ordinary ratepayer to understand the working of such complicated financial operations. I suggest that these two Clauses should be dropped, and perhaps in the intervening weeks we may be able to devise something much simpler and more effective.
    Sir H. CAUTLEY: As Chairman of the Committee, I do not propose to take any part in the Debate of a partisan character at all, and it is on questions of fact only that I rise now. In existing conditions the constituent members of the Combine have a common fund and common management. During the course of their existence they have in fact—not in terms—

    1655
    pledged their common fund to provide for losses such as have been mentioned by several hon. Members. The present Bill proposes to bring into this Combine a number of outside bodies, including local authorities who own tramways Although I agree with what has been said up to date, that it would have been better to have had only one common fund, such a position is quite impossible to attain by reason of the fact that the existing common fund of the existing Combine was pledged in this way. Therefore, you had to approach this subject, if the Bill was to go through at all, with the existing position fixed and the existing common fund charged, and the present Combine could only bargain and deal with the balances remaining after the charges of the present common fund were discharged.
    This Bill provides that any further body, local authority or private owner coming into the new Combine shall start with the common fund formed and the proceeds remaining from its own undertaking and the balances obtained from the existing Combine, after these charges on its common fund are provided for. That is a perfectly fair arrangement, and it will be seen that it is borne out by the last paragraph (b), where every constituent of the existing common fund has to hand over to the new common fund any balances that it receives out of the existing common fund at the present moment. Whether you approve it or not is a different matter, but, as far as the equity of it is concerned, it is absolutely fair, because everybody starts fair at the present moment with the common fund on equal terms.
    Mr. GARDNER: The last speech was most interesting. As the hon. Gentleman sat through the Committee upstairs and heard all the expert witnesses, I should have thought he would have been able to enlighten the House as to a proposal of this importance. As far as I am concerned, I am as far off it as ever, and I hope that the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson) will enlighten us on the subject. Under the Bill there will be a common management, competition is to be eliminated and the management may say that they will cut down the tramway service by one-half
    1656
    and the people of London will be compelled to use the underground railways. If these tubes are used and their profits are high, the money goes into the common fund, about which there is no common understanding. I want to know from the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth whether the Combine are going to be able, under the common fund arrangement, to share their profits out to the shareholders? Suppose half of the trams are cut off, as they may well be in certain areas, and the people are driven to the tubes. That was one of the pet schemes advanced when the London Traffic Act was before the House in 1924, namely, that it was a wasteful thing for people to ride in omnibuses half empty when there were half empty trains. In other words, people will be compelled to go into the tubes under this common fund arrangement, as I understand it, and it will enable the companies to be in a position still to distribute the proceeds of these underground operations to the advantage of the shareholders, even if it means a loss to the London County Council tramways. As I said, I thought the Chairman could have enlightened us after hearing all those experts, but I am going to press definitely that we should be told exactly what the position is.
    Sir H. JACKSON: I will do so.
    Mr. GARDNER: Before I close I would like to ask whether the Combine is going to reserve the right to keep the common pool for their own personal shareholders? If any tubes are developed by subsidiary companies and these bring increased earnings, are they going to the subsidiary companies only, although the capital for those companies will be raised upon the reserves of the London County Council undertakings and the county rate?
    Sir H. JACKSON: I will try to explain the common fund in its relation to this Amendment. As my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) has said, in 1915 these associated companies were allowed to enter into a combine. Each company has its individual receipts. From those individual receipts the ordinary working expenses are first taken, and then the prior charges, such as debenture stock charges. That policy is adopted by each one of the constituent members of the

    1657
    present combine. After those charges have been paid—overhead charges, working expenses and debenture charges—the balance is then put into the common fund. From that common fund the interest on ordinary stock in each of these individual components of the combine is paid. The rate at which that interest, is paid is a matter for common agreement. It varies from a fairly large percentage in the case of the omnibuses to a comparatively very modest percentage indeed on the tubes. That is the present common fund, and that is how it operates.
    I will now show what is going to happen under this Amendment, and why this Amendment should be rejected. That common fund will still remain as an entity. The balance which at the present time is paid into the common fund by these different component parts is—at least it has been for the last few years—in the neighbourhood of £1,000,000. That £1,000,000 is ultimately divided in agreed percentages among the ordinary stockholders of the various companies. But, as has already been pointed out, that common fund has certain very definite obligations upon it. Something like £19,000,000 has been raised on the security of that common fund. Of that £19,000,000 no less than £12,500,000 was raised as debenture stock and under Government guarantee in order to build the Morden tube. It is vitally important to keep faith with those who have lent their money on that security, and obviously it is quite proper that the existing common fund should remain as an entity. That entity should not get less unless something gravely disastrous occurs—which is not contemplated, and, certainly, after the speeches I have heard about monopoly, should not occur. That £1,000,000—or some figure of that kind—will be transferred from the present fund into the larger common fund of which the London County Council tramways or, indeed, any undertaking that comes into this organisation, will take a part.
    Therefore, I assure hon. Members opposite that there is no interference with the great scheme of the Blue Report. There is still a big common fund, of which the present common fund of the combine remains an entity, but in no way will it interfere with the benefits which any other component member of the larger common fund should have. My hon. Friend raised the question of the possi-
    1658
    bility of a tube being built by some subsidiary company. I do not know what he means by that, because I think it is admitted that any tube project for London must obviously be based upon this common fund and made by this common management, unless the common management is unwilling to undertake that responsibility, and if that should be the case, then, obviously, the Minister will be empowered under the Act to give the powers to somebody else. I hope that has made the position clear. To accept this Amendment would obviously be to destroy the common fund of the present Underground group, which be a grave breach of faith towards those people who have lent their money.
    Mr. GARDNER: Is the common fund to remain intact to guarantee the money to the persons who have advanced it, or is it to be merged into the other, and if so on what terms?
    Sir H. JACKSON: I am so sorry that I was not clear. What the present common fund of the combine will continue to do as an entity will be to guarantee the preferred charges on the debenture stock—the prior claims.
    Mr. THURTLE: I would like to know whether we are to understand from the explanation that the present constituent members of the combine will not pay into the combine common fund any more now than is necessary to meet those prior charges?
    Sir H. JACKSON: That is right.
    Mr. THURTLE: There will be nothing more paid in beyond that?
    Sir H. CAUTLEY: It will come out again.
    Mr. THURTLE: If that is the case, it seems to me that it is a distinction without a difference.
    Sir H. CAUTLEY: That is right.
    Mr. THURTLE: In effect, there is no separate common fund so far as the combine is concerned if they are merely reserving the entire surplus after meeting the management expenses, debenture charges and so forth to meet these other prior charges which are raised by means of arrangements with the Treasury. If they are merely arranging to reserve that surplus for that purpose and nothing

    1659
    more, I confess that I do not see that there is any particular point in making the distinction.
    Sir H. CAUTLEY: There is no difference unless some catastrophe arises where the fund does not provide for the existing charges, including the charges of the Treasury. If a catastrophe did arise,
    then the original common fund would come into operation. Otherwise, it would be just the same.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 143: Noes, 77.

    Division No. 288.]

    AYES.

    [9.43 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Price, Major C. W. M.

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

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Radford, E. A.

    Atkinson, C.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

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

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

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Hamilton, Sir George

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

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

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Bevan, S. J.

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Ropner, Major L.

    Blundell, F. N.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Ross, R. D.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

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

    Salmon, Major I.

    Bowater, Colonel Sir T. Vansittart

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Brass, Captain W.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Hilton, Cecil

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

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

    Sandon, Lord

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

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Shepperson, E. W.

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

    Hume, Sir G. H.

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

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Burman, J. B.

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Cassels, J. D.

    Lamb, J. O.

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Christie, J. A.

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Lougher, Sir Lewis

    Templeton, W. P.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Tinne, J. A.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Lumley, L. R.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Cope, Major Sir William

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Waddington, R.

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

    Macdonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    McLean, Major A.

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

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Warrender, Sir Victor

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

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel

    Watts, Sir Thomas

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Ellis, R. G.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Wells, S. R.

    England, Colonel A.

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Fielden, E. B.

    Mitchell, Sir W, Lane (Streatham)

    Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl

    Ford, Sir P. J.

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

    Withers, John James

    Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

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

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Wragg, Herbert

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Penny, Frederick George

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Gates, Percy

    Philipson, Mabel

    Sir Henry Jackson and Sir Cyril Cobb.

    NOES.

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

    Clarke, A. B.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

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

    Cluse, W. S.

    Griffith, F. Kingsley

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Connolly, M.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Hardie, George D.

    Barnes, A.

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Barr, J.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Batey, Joseph

    Dalton, Ruth (Bishop Auckland)

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Bellamy, A.

    Day, Harry

    Kelly, W. T.

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Dunnico, H.

    Kennedy, T.

    Blindell, James

    Fenby, T. D.

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

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Gillett, George M.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Broad, F. A.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Lawson, John James

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

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

    Lowth, T.

    Buchanan, G.

    Greenall, T.

    Lunn, William

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Potts, John S.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    March, S.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Maxton, James

    Riley, Ben

    Tomlinson, R. P.

    Montague, Frederick

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

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Murnin, H.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Naylor, T. E.

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Whiteley, W.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Shield, G. W.

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Owen, Major G.

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham

    Palin, John Henry

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Paling, W.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Strauss, E. A.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Sullivan, Joseph

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Mr. Gardner and Mr. Scurr.

    Mr. SCURR: I beg to move, in page 6, line 5, at the end, to insert the words:
    "Provided that under every such agreement the council shall receive out or the common fund (after payment of its prior charges) sufficient to enable the council to make the proper payments of capital without application to the Treasury for an extension of the periods of such repayments."
    I move this Amendment in order to secure that the Council shall receive out of the common fund sufficient to enable them to make the proper payment of capital without application to the Treasury for an extension of the period of repayments. It does not seem to me that under the Bill sufficient money will be provided to meet these charges. According to the revised estimates of the County Council which have recently been issued, the surplus of revenue after payment of interest will fall short of the sum necessary for these repayments by £30,626. In the year 1929–1930, it is estimated that there will be a surplus after payment of interest and other charges of £40,889. The Council may find as time goes on that by the operation of causes which we cannot foresee at the moment its rails may become obsolescent, that a newer form of traffic will have to take the place of the old system of fixed rails, and trolley vehicles may have to be put in their place. If, out of the common fund, the Council is not raising sufficient to pay the amount of the sinking fund, it will mean either that there will be, as I have said, a charge on the rates, or that the Treasury will have to give permission to postpone payment, and we shall then find the Council with an accumulated debt for the repayment of which it is liable, and with its asset obsolescent. On the present basis of repayment, the tramways will be practically free from debt in 20 years' time, and even if at the end of that period the tramway system were more or less obsolete, it would not matter, because the capital liability of the undertaking would
    1662
    have been got rid of. But if, as seems highly probable under this system, sufficient money does not come in to make provision for that repayment, it will involve a heavier charge on the ratepayers of London, and the object of this Amendment is to avoid that.
    Mr. NAYLOR: I bog to second the Amendment.
    Sir H. JACKSON: This Amendment postulates the impossible position that a municipal tramway undertaking shall receive both its capital charges—that is to say, its loan interest—and its payment for reduction of capital, as a preferred charge.
    Mr. BROAD: Why not?
    Sir H. JACKSON: I will tell the hon. Member why. The Amendment would set up a complete difference of policy as between the municipally-owned tramway and the company-owned tramway. In the case of a company-owned tramway, the ordinary stock must take its dividend after the preferred charges have been met, and this Amendment suggests that both the debt redemption and the loan charges should be preferred charges. As hon. Members will gather from the Amendments on the Paper, the opponents of this Bill are most anxious that, at any rate, company-owned tramways should not have that privilege. It is obvious that any undertaking coming into this scheme, whether it be municipal or whether it be company-owned, must at least come in on an equitable basis, and a distinction of this kind is quite impossible. The suggestion that municipal capital should be granted certain payments, whether it has earned them or not, is quite unworkable. A moment's consideration will show that this Amendment would be absolutely unjust, and that it is quite impossible to accept it.
    Mr. GILLETT: Surely we cannot be satisfied with the case that has been put

    1663
    forward by the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson). He has ignored the difference between municipal finance and company finance. Under this scheme, if the London County Council tramway service had been a private, concern, the millions of money which during past years have been devoted to the paying off of capital would probably have been put to reserve, and that reserve fund would by now have amounted to £17,000,000. In that case, I presume, the hon. Member would pay that £17,000,000 into the common pool, and interest would have to be paid upon it. All that I can gather from him now is that he is going to put in £8,000,000. If he is asking that the original capital of £17,000,000 shall rank for interest now, he would have an
    income which would allow him to go on paying off the claims which would have to be paid off by a municipality. From the explanation which the hon. Member has given, I do not see what would be the position of the London County Council with regard to the capital repayment which is imposed upon them by law, unless, of course, it be that they are going to get exemption from the Treasury, or permission to postpone payment. We have had no explanation at all of the position due to the great difference between municipal and private finance.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 78; Noes, 140.

    Division No. 289.]

    AYES.

    [10.0 p.m.

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

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamliton)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

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

    Greenall, T.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Potts, John S.

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

    Griffith, F. Kingsley

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Riley, Be

    Barnes, A.

    Hardie, George D.

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

    Barr, J.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Batey, Joseph

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Shield, G. W.

    Bellamy, A.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Kennedy, T.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

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

    Stephen, Campbell

    Broad, F. A.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Strauss, E. A.

    Bromley, J.

    Lawson, John James

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Lowth, T.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Buchanan, G.

    Lunn, William

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Clarke, A. B.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Viant, S. P.

    Cluse, W. S.

    March, S.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Connolly, M.

    Maxton, James

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Montague, Frederick

    Whiteley, W.

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Mosley, Sir Oswald

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Dalton, Hugh

    Murnin, H.

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh. Wrexham)

    Dalton, Ruth (Bishop Auckland)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Day, Harry

    Oliver, George Harold

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Dunnico, H.

    Owen, Major G.

    Fenby, T. D.

    Palin, John Henry

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Gillett, George M.

    Paling, W.

    Mr. Gardner and Mr. Scurr.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

    Cassels, J. D.

    Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

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

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Apsley, Lord

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Gates, Percy

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

    Christie, J. A.

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Clayton, G. C.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Grotrian, H. Brent

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

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

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

    Bevan, S. J.

    Cope, Major Sir William

    Hamilton, Sir George

    Blundell, F. N.

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

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

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Brass, Captain W.

    Ellis, R. G.

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

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    England, Colonel A.

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Fielden, E. B.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

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

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

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

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Hilton, Cecil

    Burman, J. B.

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

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

    Campbell, E. T.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Penny, Frederick George

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Templeton, W. P.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Philipson, Mabel

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Tinne, J. A.

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Radford, E. A.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Loder, J. de V.

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Waddington, H.

    Lougher, Sir Lewis

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

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Lucas Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

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

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Herman

    Ropner, Major L.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Watts, Sir Thomas

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    McLean, Major A.

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Wells, S. R.

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Sandon, Lord

    Winterton Rt. Hon. Earl

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Withers, John James

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

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

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Wragg, Herbert

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Sir Henry Jackson and Sir Cyril Cobb.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Mr. THURTLE: I beg to move, "That further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."
    I make this Motion in view of the continued absence of the Minister of Transport, and the studied discourtesy he is thus exhibiting to the House when an important traffic matter is under consideration.
    Mr. NAYLOR: I do not think a Motion of this kind should be allowed to be put without a further protest at the absence of the Minister. When we bad these Bills before us on the Second Reading, he was in his seat taking a paternal interest in the discussion. To-night, when we are endeavouring to improve the Bills by means of these important Amendments, he is no longer with us. It is not merely a slight upon the House, it is a slight upon the high office he holds that he is not here when important measures of this kind are before the House, interesting the whole of London without distinction of class whatever. I do not want to appear discourteous to him. I have always found him lenient and courteous to Members of the Opposition, but really the House is entitled to ask what keeps him away on such an important occasion. I do not know whether the representatives of the Government present can offer any explanation or apology for his absence. If they can, they will have respectful attention from us. What are we here for if it is not to bring our knowledge and intelligence to bear upon Bills of this description? [Interruption.]
    1666
    I hope that little conversation means that the Minister is on his way. If he is not, and my voice does not reach him, I hope a messenger may be sent in order that he may return before the Motion is put to the House. We are not moving it merely to cause another Division. We do net desire to waste time. We merely desire to have the best possible attention given to the Bills. We want the guidance of the Minister if we can have it. If his absence is an indication that he is incapable of giving us that guidance, we should feel bound to accept that excuse if it is given by his representatives. I see that both hon. Gentlemen are looking, one to the left and one to the right, in the hope that he may make an appearance. I feel strongly tempted to go on talking until he does appear, not because I want to detain the House but because I want to save his honour. When it becomes known in London that he was not present during the Debate, London will want to know why. Now that the right hon. Gentleman has returned, may I be permitted to thank the representatives of the Government for reminding him that an important Debate was proceeding and that it was necessary for him, in view of the criticism that was being made of his absence, to be here. The compliments I have just paid him in his absence might, I think, be repeated in his presence. I said he was always courteous to us and it is a great pity that we should be without his guidance. I sincerely regret if I have caused him any inconvenience by recalling him if not to sense of duty at least

    1667
    to the post of duty, and I have no doubt my hon. Friend will now withdraw his Motion.
    Mr. THURTLE: In view of the fact that our protest, made in due Parliamentary form, has had such a happy result, I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. THURTLE: I beg to move, in page 6, line 9, after the word "capital," to insert the words
    "and such formula or formulae or the amount so specified shall be so constituted that no capital of any associated undertaking shall be admissible as ranking capital for an amount in excess of a sum equivalent to the mean between the highest and lowest Stock Exchange quotation for such capital in the year nineteen hundred and twenty-six, and that no capital of any associated undertaking shall be admissible as ranking capital unless the undertaking shall have earned a return upon such capital over the five years next preceding the year nineteen hundred and twenty-seven."
    This is another attempt to safeguard London from the rapacity of the Traffic Combine. Having failed to do it by restricting the rate of dividend they could pay on their ordinary shares, we want to try to limit the amount to be brought in as ranking capital. It is quite in accordance with human nature that those who control the Combine should seek to squeeze just as much into this term "ranking capital" as they possibly can. We know that Lord Ashfield himself is human—I think I might say that in this matter he is all too human—because it is notorious that Lord Ashfield's capacious maw—I think that that is the term—has succeeded in extracting tremendous profits from all sorts of sources, and I am sure he is anxious to get just as much as he possibly can out of the people who have to use the London traffic facilities. We have a safeguard, or it is alleged that we have a safeguard, in the Minister of Transport. He is the man who is going to protect us from the Combine blunderers. He is the Horatius who is going to guard the bridge, and I say to him with great respect but with equal frankness that I do not exactly fancy him for the post.
    If we had an ideal Minister of Transport—and I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will not think that
    1668
    this applies entirely to him, for I am thinking of possible future Ministers of Transport—whose sole criterion was the public good, who would stand up firmly against any pressure from either the directors of the Combine or their shareholders, who would seek to protect at all costs the interests of the travelling public in London, I think that we should be prepared to allow him to undertake this very heavy responsibility of deciding what shall be the ranking capital. I do not think that we have such a Minister at the present time, and it is conceivable, for one never knows, that in the future we shall not have such a Minister, and so we want in the House of Commons now to make safeguards. We want to make this question of the amount of ranking capital foolproof if we can, and, we might also say that we want to make it knave proof. Of course, I do not apply that to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. The reason we are concerned about the amount of ranking capital is that it is obvious, there being no restriction on the dividends which are to be paid, what the amount of capital which is admitted to rank for dividend will govern the amount of profits necessary to be made by the Combine. It is perfectly obvious in that event that the amount of profit which has to be made by the Combine must necessarily and inevitably react upon the question of the fares charged and the facilities which are going to be provided for the people of London. There are certain uneconomic facilities which the travelling public in London will want—workmen's fares and the travelling on omnibuses and tramways at fares which are not really economic. If the Combine has to make a very much larger amount of profit than we think they ought to have, to make it will have a very serious reaction upon these questions. Therefore we want to have the amount cut down to the lowest possible figure.
    There are many companies coming into this combine which for many years have been earning no dividends, and not even any profits. A great deal of capital connected with those companies might, without any exaggeration of language, be described as dead capital. I will cite one or two cases in point. The London United Tramways Company, which is coming into the combine, has an ordinary capital of over £656,000, in 5s. shares. The

    1669
    middle price of 1926 is the price which we have selected as the equitable price at which this capital should rank in the new combine. According to the Stock Exchange Year Book for 1926 the price of these shares, in the supplementary list, was 2d.—the price of a cup of tea. In other words, the market value of these shares was only one-thirtieth of their nominal price. We want to safeguard the value at which such capital is to rank for dividend in the future. The company has nearly a million 5 per cent. cumulative preference shares of £l each, and the price of those shares in the official list in 1926 was 3s. To indicate how dead this capital was at that time, I would recall the fact that the last dividend paid on the ordinary share capital was one-half per cent. in the year 1914. The market value in this case, as compared with £962,000, was only £144,000. Here again, we want to know whether there is to be some safeguard to the public as to the price at which this capital is to rank for dividend in the new combine.
    Another company which is coming into the combine is the Metropolitan Electric Tramways Company, which has an ordinary capital of £474,000 in £l shares. The price in the Stock Exchange Supplementary List in 1926 was 3d., and the last dividend paid on these shares was 1 per cent. in 1915. I dare say that some people with inside knowledge have bought many of these shares at the price of 3d. and made a handsome profit since. There are 500,000 5 per cent. cumulative preference shares of £1 each, and their price in 1926 was 2s. 9d. I do not know when the last dividend was paid on these shares. Hon. Members may ask why we have selected the datum of 1926, and the middle price in that year as our criterion of value. In 1926, according to the best of our information, the first preliminary conference took place as to the possibility of carrying out such a scheme as this, and it was after that, as more and more people got in the know and got inside information, that these shares gradually began to creep up, with the result that their market value at the present time is probably a great deal more than it was in 1926. We say that it would be fair to take the period just after the negotiations had begun as the time when the real value of the shares, as determined by their intrinsic merits, ought to be assessed.
    1670
    I cite two other illustrations; the Metropolitan District Ordinary Stock, and the London Electric Railway Ordinary Stock. They are in a different category to the stocks I have already quoted, but in 1926 they stood at little more than 50 per cent. of their nominal value; one was 56½, and the other 57½. I submit that it is unreasonable the public should be asked to pay an indefinite percentage on the full nominal value of these stocks. We should either take the middle price in 1926, which we contend will be a fair price, or apply this test: that any single stock upon which no dividend has been paid in the last five years should be regarded as dead capital and should not rank for dividend. If no interest has been paid upon stock for five years it is of little real value in the market, and there is nothing unreasonable in asking that such stock should not rank for dividend. That is the point we wish to establish in this Amendment. It is another safeguard to prevent the public of London being plundered. If we could have got a definite limitation of dividend inserted in the Bill it would be unnecessary to press this particular Amendment, but having failed in that respect we feel that this safeguard should be introduced and for that reason, in the interests of the citizens of London, I hope the House will accept it.
    Mr. BARNES: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir C. COBB: I only want to say one word on this Amendment. It will be extremely bad for the London County Council undertaking if it is; carried. The result will be, as far as these financial arrangements are concerned, that we shall be considering the London County Council undertaking for the five years when they were in their worst position. It is rather remarkable that hon. Members opposite, who profess such a great interest in municipal undertakings, should take the line they are proposing to take to-night. In order to get a little of their own back on private companies they are doing everything they can to injure the London County Council tramway system. I should hardly expect it from hon. Members opposite.
    Mr. CRAWFURD: Might we have a word or two from the Minister of Transport on this very important point. The hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) in his very interesting speech pointed out that there are undertakings which have paid no return on their capital, and we are, therefore, surely entitled to ask from the Minister, in view of the magnitude of the change which is contemplated, the view of the Government on the point as to whether undertakings which have for years past resulted in a loss, which has meant a capital depreciation as measured by Stock Exchange quotations, are to rank at their full nominal value for payment of dividend out of profits which presumably will be made by other undertakings which have been run at greater profits for the last five, six or seven years.
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am always willing to accede to the requests of hon. Members opposite that I should express the views of the Government on such matters as this; but I must point out that this is a private Bill and that I am here holding only what I might call a watching brief in order to intervene if it be necessary.
    Mr. CRAWFURD: I do not want to interrupt, but is it not a fact that the machinery of the House has been suspended to-day in order that these Bills may pass?
    Colonel ASHLEY: And the House has expressed its willingness that the machinery of the House should be suspended. I should have thought that the principle of this Amendment had really been decided on the first Amendment, which was defeated by a majority of 60. I can only repeat what I have said, that the Committee upstairs which investigated this Bill recommended that the question of ranking capital should be left to the decision of the Minister of Transport of the day. It is not an easy duty to perform, but as it has been put upon him by a Committee, after very prolonged investigation, I personally, as Minister of Transport, am perfectly willing to take that responsibility, and I am sure that any subsequent Minister will follow my example. The House has absolute control over the decision of the Minister, because he is obliged, in Clause 5, Sub-section (6), of the Bill,
    1672
    to submit every agreement to the House, and the House, if it so wishes, or either House, can reject his decision. If it so rejects it a new agreement has to be entered into and has to be approved by the Minister of Transport. All I can say is that if the House desires to sustain the suggestion of the Committee, I shall be very pleased to undertake that duty.
    Mr. HARRIS: I do not think that the Minister's statement is satisfactory. We are being put off constantly by being assured that the House has absolute security, because these agreements are subject to the approval of the House. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there are many Acts of Parliament, such as Gas Acts, which make provision of that kind, that agreements are to be subject to the approval of the House. We know what happens. All Governments are very much alike. They have difficulty in getting through the public business with which they are mainly concerned, and when it comes to private business that is put down for eleven o'clock at night, and is put through anyhow, so that the ordinary Member of Parliament has very little chance to criticise it. This particular Clause is most important to the ratepayers of London. It is quite different from the first Clause. The Minister has been at a Cabinet meeting or sending telegrams to his electors, perhaps? At any rate he has not heard the Debate, and really he is not very interested, I imagine. If he had been present he would have remembered that the first Amendment dealt with the fixing of the rate of interest.
    This is quite another matter. This is a question of what capital shall rank as having first call on the pool. Everything depends on the particular shares which are held to be entitled to priority when it comes to making out the schedule. The finance of the Combine is extremely complicated. There are many different categories for shares—omnibus companies, tube companies, underground companies, new capital, obsolete capital, capital raised before the War, capital raised after the War, capital guaranteed by the State, capital not guaranteed by the State, debentures, preferences shares, ordinary shares and so forth. If everything is to be treated alike, we cannot be sure that some of this obsolete capital is not going to be brought into the category of

    1673
    having a right to call on the pool. When we come to pay out from the common fund all the money to which these various interests are entitled, there will be very little left for the London County Council and on behalf of the ratepayers of London we ought to be assured that their property is not going to be used to bolster up a lot of out-of-date financial organisations that are now of very little value in the share market.
    The Minister says that the Committee has entrusted him with the guardianship of the public interest in these matters. We have had two Ministers of Transport in recent years. Both are charming gentlemen personally, and I do not suppose any right hon. Gentleman wears a flower more artistically or becomingly than the present Minister. It is the symbol of a perfectly blameless life. I have no quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman's deportment, but I have a quarrel with his Department. I am sorry that his predecessor, the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Gosling), is not here. He is an equally lovable man, and we have a great respect and affection for him. But I am afraid that I would not trust the wellbeing of London in this matter to these two gentlemen, even if they occupied the office of Minister of Transport jointly. What security can they afford to the public interest against the skill, the ingenuity, the financial ability of Lord Ashfield and the financiers who operate with him? I frankly confess I should not like to be up against those financiers myself. I have been in their
    parlour once or twice and have been impressed by their capacity, and I fear the right hon. Gentleman would find himself a child in these matters when it came to deciding as against them as to what is live and what is dead capital. The House at this stage ought to go warily in this matter. This is not a Bill which gives details. It is an enabling Bill. It enables the London County Council and various financial interests to come to an agreement, and before parting with it we ought to be sure that the foundations of those agreements are firmly laid.
    Mr. GILLETT: The answer given by the hon. Member for Fulham (Sir C. Cobb) seemed exceedingly unconvincing. I understand that the hon. Member for Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson) is going to put the capital of the London County Council in the new Combine at a figure of about £8,000,000 at which it stands to-day. If it were to be done on the figure of 1926, that would have to be rather larger. Presumably the hon. Member for Fulham had in mind some idea of value, and £17,000,000 of public money has been sunk in the London County Council tramways. If it were valued the figure would certainly have to be more than £8,000,000. Therefore, the suggestion of the hon. Member that our proposal would be prejudicial to the London County Council is incorrect.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 79; Noes, 137.

    Division No. 290.]

    AYES.

    [10.41 p.m.

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

    Day, Harry

    Murnin, H.

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

    Dunnico, H.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Fenby, T. D.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Gillett, George M.

    Owen, Major G.

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Palin, John Henry

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Greenall, T.

    Paling, W.

    Barnes, A.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Barr, J.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Batey, Joseph

    Griffith, F. Kingsley

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Potts, John S.

    Bellamy, A.

    Hardie, George D.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Harris, Percy A.

    Riley, Ben

    Blindell, James

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

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

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Briant, Frank

    Kelly, W. T.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Broad, F. A.

    Kennedy, T.

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Bromley, J.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Shield, G. W.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Lawson, John James

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Clarke, A. B.

    Lowth, T.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistons)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lunn, William

    Strauss, E. A.

    Connolly, M.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    March, S.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Dalton, Hugh

    Montague, Frederick

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Dalton, Ruth (Bishop Auckland)

    Mosley, Sir Oswald

    Viant, S. P.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Whiteley, W.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Mr. Gardner and Mr. Scurr.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Gates, Percy

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Radford, E. A.

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

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

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

    Apsley, Lord

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lanc, Stretford)

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

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

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Hamilton, Sir George

    Salmon, Major I.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

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

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Bevan, S. J.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Blundell, F. N.

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

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Sandon, Lord

    Bowater, Colonel Sir T. Vansittart

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

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

    Brass, Captain W.

    Hilton, Cecil

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

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

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

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

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Burman, J. B.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Templeton, W. P.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Lelqh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Thomson, Sir Frederick

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Christie, J. A.

    Lougher, Sir Lewis

    Tinne, J. A.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Waddington, R.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

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

    Cope, Major Sir William

    McLean, Major A.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel

    Watts, Sir Thomas

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

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Wells, S. R.

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

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Ellis, R. G.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    England, Colonel A.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Withers, John James

    Fielden, E. B.

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

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Wragg, Herbert

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Penny, Frederick George

    Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Gadle, Lieut.-Col- Anthony

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Sir Henry Jackson and Sir Cyril

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Cobb

    Mr. BARNES: I beg to move, in page 6, line 25, at the end, to insert the words:
    "(4) Every such agreement, providing for the appointment of any board of directors, joint committee, advisory board, or other body, shall provide that the combined representatives of the Council and of local authorities parties to the agreement shall constitute a majority of the members of each such body."
    This Amendment is designed to bring the House back to the problem of public control. The, hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson) has been anxious to quote the Blue Report from time to time, and I would now ask him to consider that Report to which he has so far attached his faith. I notice that in the Blue Report, on page 1, the Committee, in dealing with the problem of the co-ordination of London traffic and
    1676
    the establishment of a common fund, emphasises that the scheme provides for the consolidation of the passenger transport services of London with such public control as is required to protect the interest of the community in the various matters that the Committee refer to. On page 8 of the Blue Report, under a paragraph headed "Public Control," the Committee states:
    "With the establishment of a common fund and common management, an effective public control body must be set up to ensure a programme of expansion and development, proper scales of fares, adequate services capable of meeting the needs of the public, and sound financial arrangements for raising additional capital."
    In all the proposals embodied in this report the necessity for public control is very strongly emphasised, but when

    1677
    we read the Private Bills that are now before the House, while they take full advantage of the general desire for co-ordination of the London traffic services, all the safeguards that were considered to be desirable are dropped, and we are left here with nothing but the complete management of the whole of the London traffic authority by the Combine. How subsidiary the public services are made to appear can be seen from the scheme of control. Out of 20 directors the London County Council—which is, of course, the largest municipal authority, and one to which it can legitimately be said that the whole of the 8,000,000 people who are compelled to use the London Traffic facilities look as the major municipal authority—are provided with only two effective representatives on this board of management and control. We contend that in view of the large public interest—because this subject must not be measured merely from the standpoint of the size of the London County Council traffic department, the amount of capital which they have invested and the number of passengers carried—they are entitled to a larger representation than two out of 20. In addition to the financial interests of the London County Council and the number of passengers carried by their services the London County Council is a public authority and have the public interest to safeguard in addition.
    Therefore, we claim that a representation of two is totally inadequate to voice the public interest in the problem of transport. I do not think that my figures can really be contested, but, if they can, I should like some hon. Member or the Minister, or anyone on the other side, to controvert them. I have here a document that was circulated at the conference of the local authorities representing the tramway undertakings outside the London County Council area, when the London County Council called this gathering of Metropolitan boroughs tgether to lay before them the scheme. In that scheme the London County Council representatives themselves admitted that the actual management would be under the control of the board of directors of the Underground Electric Railway Companies of London, to which the London County Council would appoint two representatives. That means, of course, that if authorities like West Ham, East Ham,
    1678
    Croydon, Ilford, Barking and other tramway authorities eventually come into the scheme, as far as I can see, there are no provisions for the number of municipal representatives being added to on this Control Board. Our contention, which is a very simple but very important one, is that the majority of the Board should be composed of municipal representatives.
    When Parliament was establishing the London Traffic Advisory Committee, from which all this development really comes, all parties joined together in Committee to emphasise that the control of policy should be vested in the hands of those who came from the publicly elected authorities. So insistent were we upon that principle that we defined the duties of the ordinary members of the Advisory Committee and we limited the powers of the additional representatives. Members may argue that the Advisory Committee is one body and the Board of Control is another body, and that is so, but by the passing of these private Bills the whole weight of responsibility and reaction upon public policy is shifted very largely from the Advisory Committee to those who manage these London traffic services, and who will undoubtedly have the London traffic services entirely, or almost entirely, in their own hands. Therefore, if this House is to be consistent, in view of the principle it laid down as regards the Advisory Committee, it ought to secure that the majority of the board of directors should be drawn from the municipal and public side, instead of there being only two out of twenty. This Amendment is designed to transform that minority into a majority.
    Mr. NAYLOR: I beg to second the Amendment.
    It may seem unreasonable to suggest that public representatives should form a majority of this Board, seeing that the majority of the capital is in the hands of private companies, but when this Transport Department was first set up and this Bill came before the representatives of that Transport Department, we endeavoured to persuade the Ministry so to constitute this Board that the public bodies had a decisive vote upon the Board. After all, who will be made responsible under these Bills to the people of London except the representatives of the London

    1679
    County Council and of the other local bodies on the outer fringe of London. While we cannot hope that the Minister will support this Amendment, the proposal in the Bill that the London County Council should be satisfied with two representatives among 18 other representatives is, to my mind, a travesty of legislation. We do not pretend that London is different from any other town in the kingdom; we do not suggest that private companies have no rights of management, but we do say that the interests of the public come before the interest of the companies, and we can only secure the interests of the public by providing that the Board of Management
    shall contain a majority of public representatives. In this county the London County Council is second only in importance to this Parliament, and it is a slight upon the London County Council to expect it to hand over this great tramway undertaking in return for only two representatives on the Board. The terms of this Amendment are perfectly reasonable, and if London is not to be neglected, hon. Members ought to vote for the Amendment.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 75; Noes, 132.

    Division No. 291.]

    AYES.

    [11.0 p.m.

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

    Fenby, T. D.

    Paling, W.

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

    Gillett, George M.

    Parkinson, John Allan (Wigan)

    Ammon, Charles George

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Greenall, T.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Potts, John S.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Barnes, A.

    Griffith, F. Kingsley

    Riley Ben

    Barr, J.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

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

    Batey, Joseph

    Hardie, George D.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Harris, Percy A.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Bellamy, A.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Shield, G. W.

    Blindell, James

    Kelly, W. T.

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Kennedy, T.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Briant, Frank

    Lawrence, Susan

    Strauss, E. A.

    Broad, F. A.

    Lawson, John James

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Bromley, J.

    Lowth, T.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Lunn, William

    Viant, S. P.

    Clarke, A. B.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Cluse, W. S.

    March, S.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Connolly, M.

    Montague, Frederick

    Whiteley, W.

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Mosley, Sir Oswald

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Dalton, Hugh

    Murnin, H.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Dalton, Ruth (Bishop Auckland)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Day, Harry

    Oliver, George Harold

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Dunnico, H.

    Palln, John Henry

    Mr. Gardner and Mr. Scurr.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Clayton, G. C.

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

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hamilton, Sir George

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

    Cockerill, Brig,-General Sir George

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Apsley, Lord

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

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

    Cope, Major Sir William

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

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Crookshank. Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Galnsbro)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

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

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

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Bevan, S. J.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Hilton, Cecil

    Blundell, F. N.

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

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

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Ellis, R. G.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    England, Colonel A.

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Brass, Captain W.

    Fielden, E. B.

    Lamb, J. O.

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Lougher, Sir Lewis

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Lumley, L. R.

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

    Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    McLean, Major A.

    Burman, J. B.

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Campbell, E. T.

    Gates, Percy

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Christie, J. A.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Tinne, J. A.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

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

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Waddington, R.

    Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

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

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

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

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Sandon, Lord

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Penny, Frederick George

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belf'st.)

    Watts, Sir Thomas

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Wells, S. R.

    Pilcher, G.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earr

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Storry- Deans, R.

    Withers, John James.

    Radford, E. A.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

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

    Templeton, W. P.

    Wragg, Herbert

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stratford)

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Thomson, Sir Frederick

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Salmon, Major I.

    Thomson, Ht. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Sir Henry Jackson and Sir Cyril Cobb.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Ordered, "That further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."—[Sir C. Cobb.]
    Bill as amended, to be further considered To-morrow, at half-past Seven of the clock.

  SUPPLY.
  Again considered in Committee.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.
    CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1929.
      CLASS V.

        MINISTRY OF HEALTH.
        Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question proposed on Consideration of Question,
        "That a sum, not exceeding £14,228,664, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Health, including Grants and other expenses in connection with Housing, Grants to Local Authorities, etc., in connection with Public Health Services, including a Grant-in-Aid, Grants-in-Aid in respect of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Health Insurance Acts, certain Expenses in connection with the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, and certain Special Services."
        Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £14,228,564, be granted for the said Service," put, and negatived.
        Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the parishes of Braunton and Heanton Punchardon, in the rural district of Barnstaple, in the county of Devon, which was presented on the 7th day of March, 1929, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the rural district of Warrington, in the county palatine of Lancaster, and for the amendment of the Warrington Electric Lighting Orders, 1898 and 1915, which was presented on the 26th clay of March, 1929, be approved."—[Colonel Ashley.]

  GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920.
  Resolved,
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the county borough of Southport, which was presented on the 25th March and published, be approved."—[Mr. H. Williams.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed.
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Barnard Castle Gas Company, which was presented on the 12th February and published, be approved, subject to the following amendment:
  Leave out paragraph 12, and insert—
  Priority of principal moneys secured by existing mortgages.
  12. The principal moneys secured by all mortgages granted by the company in pursuance of the powers of the Act of 1904 before the date of this Order and subsisting at that date shall, during the continuance of such mortgages, have priority over the principal moneys secured by any mortgages granted by virtue of this Order."
  Mr. KELLY: Is there to be any explanation why these people are still to have priority? I understand that, by the last Order, those who hold mortgages under the powers of the Act of 1904 were given priority over any monies which have been raised since, and that is being continued. Why are these people to have this preference?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): I do not think any preference is involved. The Amendment is proposed because the Board has been advised that the provisions of Clause 12 of the Order as they stand, considered in conjunction with Clause 10 and the repeal of Clause 51, are not quite clear. In other words, the object of the Amendment is to clarify what everyone believes to be the situation and make sure that the situation as people understand it shall in fact be the situation.

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION.
  Resolved,
  "That the Statement of the estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and of Travers' Foundation for the year 1929 be approved."—[Lieut.-Colonel Headlam.]

  FIRE BRIGADE PENSIONS BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered; read the Third time, and passed.

  BASTARDY (WITNESS PROCESS) BILL.
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee) considered; read the Third time, and passed.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  BASTARDY (WITNESS PROCESS) BILL.

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

  EMPLOYMENT (STATISTICS).
  EMPLOYMENT (STATISTICS).
  TERRITORIAL ARMY.
  TERRITORIAL ARMY.
  IMPERIAL AIRWAYS, LIMITED (SUBSIDIES).
  IMPERIAL AIRWAYS, LIMITED (SUBSIDIES).
  IMPERIAL AIRWAYS, LTD.
  IMPERIAL AIRWAYS, LTD.
  VACCINATION (SCHOOL CHILDREN).
  VACCINATION (SCHOOL CHILDREN).
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
POOR LAW.
  VAGRANCY (EXPENDITURE).
  VAGRANCY (EXPENDITURE).
  CASUALS.
  CASUALS.
  SUGAR DUTY.
  SUGAR DUTY.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LORD THANKERTON.
The Rt. Hon. William Watson, K.C., formerly Lord Advocate for Scotland, having been appointed a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, under the provisions of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, as amended by any subsequent enactment, with the dignity of a Baron for life, by the style and title of Baron Thankerton of Thankerton, in the County of Lanark—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
SALFORD CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
LLANFRECHFA UPPER AND LLANTARNAM WATER BOARD BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I presided over the Committee which considered this Bill, and I ought perhaps to have made a statement in giving the decision of the Committee. Perhaps your Lordships will pardon me if I intervene for one moment to make that statement now. When I explain the circumstances your Lordships will see the reason. The contested point of this Bill was the allowance of a new level crossing across a main road near Hayes in Middlesex, and your Lordships will understand that the Committee not unnaturally viewed that proposal with very considerable alarm and apprehension. The Middlesex County Council most properly opposed it strenuously, but the railway company made out such an overwhelming case that in the end the Committee felt bound to grant it. Your Lordships will be relieved to hear that the level crossing is merely a siding of the railway,
284
and will only be used for five minutes twice a day, in the morning and afternoon; but it was made clear to the Committee that there was no other practical method of access to these works, and it was stated by the representative of the Minister of Transport that in his view the actual obstruction to the highway would be less by allowing this siding than by the present road cartage of these goods. In the circumstances the Committee felt bound to allow the crossing. The reason I intervene is that we should desire it to be clearly understood and put upon record that in no sense must it be taken as a precedent for the establishment of new level crossings.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Earl has drawn attention to this point. If I may say so, it puts me under a further debt of obligation to him for the care that he gives to these matters.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

ROYAL VICTORIA AND OTHER DOCKS APPROACHES (IMPROVEMENT) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
WESTMINSTER CITY (MILLBANK) IMPROVEMENT BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (MIDDLES-BROUGH EXTENSION) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Amendments proposed by the Committee made.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (MERTHYR TYDFIL WATER CHARGES) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I beg to move that Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being suspended for the remainder of the Session. In moving the Motion I would like, in accordance with my promise, to indicate to your Lordships broadly speaking the business which remains to be transacted before the end of the Session. With regard to the Motion itself, it is not unusual when you are within a very few days of the end of the Session. Almost always within my experience it has been moved, whatever Government may be in power. As regards to-day's business, I should not desire that your Lordships should avail yourselves of the power of taking two stages in one day except in respect of the Age of Marriages Bill, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Buckmaster. Owing to its history and the necessary delay which intervened in the course of its proceedings, it does not seem unreasonable that the two remaining stages should be taken tonight, if your Lordships are willing. There are one or two Amendments on the Paper, but, as I shall be able to show your Lordships, they are not Amendments which change in any way the substance of the Bill. So far as the business of this evening is concerned that is all I have to say.
With regard to to-morrow, I am going to ask your Lordships to allow me to make a change in the Order Paper. Last week, in order to facilitate public business, I asked my noble and learned friend Lord Birkenhead to give up the
286
place which he had for this afternoon and to put down for to-morrow his Motion with respect to the Balfour Note. He was kind enough to do that, but it was understood between us that it could only be so arranged if he had the first place to-morrow. Since then a number of Bills have accumulated and, by the Orders of the House, have taken precedence of the Motion of my noble friend. All those Orders of the Day and Notices of Bills are, with the exception of one, in respect of Government Bills, and all of them, I think, are formal. There is only one. Bill, that standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, which deals with a matter requiring debate. But I think my noble friend Lord Cranbrook would agree that his Bill should come after the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead. If that is so, I think your Lordships would be very kind if you would allow me, by Motion tomorrow, to put this very important matter, the Motion of my noble friend Lord Birkenhead, in front of the other Orders of the Day so that it shall have first place. I shall put down a Motion for the beginning of business to-morrow to give his Motion precedence. If your Lordships are kind enough to assent to that Motion that will be the order of business to-morrow, and instead of my noble friend's Motion coming low down on the Paper it will come first, and the other Orders will follow as they stand already on the Order Paper of your Lordships' House.
I might run through the remaining business. There is the consideration of the Commons Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments to the Local Government (Scotland) Bill, and that will be taken to-morrow. There are the Agricultural Rates Bill, the Marriage Provisional Order Bill, the Chatham and Sheerness Stipendiary Magistrate Bill, the Pharmacy Bill and the Savings Banks Bill. There remains really no other Bill of importance that if likely to come before your Lordships this Session, excepting the Finance Bill. I hope the Finance Bill will be read a first time on Tuesday of next week, and if it suited the convenience of noble Lords who take an interest in the subject, I thought we might assign the discussion of the Second Reading of the Finance Bill to Wednesday of next week. That can only be done with the general assent of your Lordships because, if any

287
body put down a Motion, it would take precedence of the Bill on a Wednesday. I do not imagine that would happen, however. Therefore, unless information reaches me to the contrary, I propose to take the Second Reading of the Finance Bill on Wednesday next. I hope that will suit noble Lords opposite. There really remains nothing else, except that there are Commons Amendments on the Bridges Bill which have come back to us and upon the Pacific Cable Board Bill, and there may be a few other formal Bills or small Bills from the Commons of which I have not a list, but none, I hope, of any importance. I shall be very glad to answer any further questions that any noble Lord may desire to put to me.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being suspended for the remainder of the Session.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, by request of my noble Leader I am asked to say that we shall offer no opposition to the suspension of the Standing Order nor to the other course of business indicated by the noble Marquess.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: May I say that we on this Bench also assent?
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, perhaps you would permit me to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the action of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, in helping forward the Bill in which I have been so greatly interested. I am glad we can forget the difficulties that occurred in its earlier stages and it is hoped even at this late hour that it may be in time to be placed on the Statute Book. For the rest I may say that I never hear this Motion made from the Government Benches without recalling those pleasant days when the noble Marquess and myself sat together on the same Bench and found just cause for complaint in every Motion that proceeded from the Bench opposite. I think on more occasions than one, with my humble assistance we did our best to explain that a Motion of this kind was a denial of the liberties and privileges of this House. I do not desire to raise any more ancient confidences, but I hope the noble Marquess will not think I forget the occasions when they arose.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

THE OPTIONAL CLAUSE.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD had given Notice to move, That in the opinion of this House the time has arrived when His Majesty's Government should sign the Optional Clause. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name. I have to admit that this is not the first time that this matter has been brought before your Lordships, but I think there are reasons why it would be desirable to discuss it once again to-day. At the same time the fact that it has been discussed previously, and that I have had, with others, an opportunity of explaining the views which I hold, will, I hope, enable me to state my case more briefly than sometimes has happened. Indeed, I think for two reasons the general case for the signature of the so-called Optional Clause need not be repeated. One I have already given—namely, that the matter has been debated, and the reasons have been already stated. But perhaps an even stronger reason is that I do not think, on the general case, there is very much dispute, that is to say, on the general case of the desirability of the signature of the Optional Clause.
I may have misinterpreted the utterances of my noble friends on this point, but as I understand them they do not dispute that it would be a good thing if this clause could be signed generally. They do not deny that at some time or another it might be desirable, or would be desirable, for us to sign it. Their only doubt is as to the time. At least, that is what I understand the attitude they take up to be. Certainly I have before me an extract from what was said by my noble friend Lord Cushendun, who, I regret, is kept by his public duties at Geneva from being present at this debate. On March 5 last year, in reference to a proposal then before one of the Committees of the League of Nations which involved a recommendation that all nations should sign the Optional Clause, he said:—
"By accepting this draft—as, of course, we shall do—we are not making any practical proposal. What we are doing is to reiterate in strong terms the opinion that has been expressed before that as many States as possible should sign this Clause if they find it in their power to do so, for they will to that extent be contributing towards the security of the world."

289
That is the broad case for signing the Optional Clause, that it will be contributing towards maintaining the security of the world. And, after all, it is impossible to imagine a cause of greater moment and weight than that.
But my noble friends have always gone on to explain that, though generally speaking they think it would be desirable to sign the Optional Clause, yet there are some reasons why this country and this Government should not at present do so. I propose to touch briefly on some of those objections. One of the views put forward has been that this country has to consider the attitude of the Dominions in the matter. That has been put forward very often and in various forms. I find it was put forward in the 1927 Assembly by my right hon. friend the Foreign Secretary, who pointed out the peculiarity of our position, and said:—
"It is not easy for an Empire so constituted [as ours] always to accept the obligations that can be readily undertaken by a State homogeneous, compact, and speaking by the voice of a single Government."
I understand that to mean—I may have misinterpreted it—that at any rate the Government were in grave doubts as to what was, generally speaking, the attitude of the Dominions on this point. Your Lordships will perhaps permit me to say that I have never myself thought that a very desirable argument to use. I think that this country must take the responsibility of recommending whatever course it thinks right, and if it be that some of our Dominions disagree with that course the best thing is that they should state it openly, and that the world should know exactly who is for it and who is against it.
Whether that be the right view or not, however, I do not think it can now be maintained that the attitude of the Dominions constitutes any difficulty in this matter. As far as Canada is concerned the question is put beyond any possibility of doubt. The Prime Minister of Canada has made it abundantly clear that Canada desires to sign the Optional Clause immediately. In a debate which took place on February 19 of this year the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Mackenzie King, was challenged directly on the point by a Member of the House, Mr. Woodsworth, and, being challenged, he took the course, by leave, of interrupting the speaker in
290
order to state in very few words exactly what the attitude of the Canadian Government was. He said this:—
"My hon. friend will recall that during the last Imperial Conference a desire was expressed on the part of the Governments assembled there that no one part of the British Empire should formally accept the Optional Clause without giving to the other parts of the Empire an opportunity of discussing that particular subject. We have advised the other parts of the Empire that in our opinion Canada should sign the Optional Clause, and we are at present receiving communications from other parts of the Empire in reference thereto. We are carrying out our undertaking at the Conference not to sign formally until there has been an opportunity for discussion, but we have made known that it is our desire to sign the Optional Clause."
I should be grateful to the Government if they could a little expand the information which the Canadian Prime Minister has given in that passage; if they could tell us what was the communication in fact made to them by the Canadian Government and what reply they actually sent, and if they could tell us further what is the attitude of the other Dominions on the subject.
I find in an article in a Toronto newspaper, the Toronto Daily Star, which I believe is a paper that supports the present Canadian Government, this sentence:—
"The Premier has revealed the truth that Canada and all the other Dominions, with the exception of Australia, have been ready for years to sign the Optional Clause, which would bind them to abide by the results of the Court's adjudications in such cases."
I should be very glad to know whether that statement in the Canadian newspaper is a correct one, and if so whether, if His Majesty's Government were to express the opinion that the time has now arrived when they could safely sign the Optional Clause, there is any reasonable doubt that the Australian Government would concur in that opinion. I think, therefore, we may put aside as no longer existent any difficulty that may be caused by the fact of the existence of our Dominions and the right that they have to state their own views on foreign affairs.
The second argument that has been commonly used by those who are opposed to the signature is that the interests of our Empire are so enormous and so complex that it would be hazardous for us to agree to arbitrate on all or any of those interests. I have never been able

291
to see that in itself the fact that we have enormous interests is any reason whatever why we should not agree to accept the judicial settlement of disputes affecting those interests in any part of the world. It certainly would be an astonishing view if a private citizen of this country or a company with enormous interests were to say that because of those enormous interests they did not wish that the Courts of Law should have jurisdiction with respect to their affairs. On the contrary, it is the people and the companies which have the largest interests who are in an orderly government most anxious that any disputes affecting their affairs should be brought for decision to the Courts of Law. And obviously so. They are anxious for the security of their rights and their property, and they desire before all things that the guarantees for those rights, and chief among them the supremacy of the law, should be fostered and increased by every means in their power. Therefore, the mere fact that we have large interests would not seem to be a good reason for excluding the judicial settlement of international disputes affecting ourselves.
As far as I can see the argument must mean really one of three things. It is possible that it means (and there have been passages in some of my noble friend's speeches which seem to indicate that) that they have not a complete—how shall I put it?—a complete confidence would be perhaps putting it too high, but a complete and absolute trust in the competence, as I am sure they have in the impartiality, of the Hague Court. I think that that possibility if it ever existed has been very much modified by the speech which the present Prime Minister delivered last autumn in the Albert Hall. He spoke then really in the strongest possible language about the admirable work which that Court was doing. I will just read a sentence or two of what he said. He said:—
"There is a most important body affiliated to the League—the Permanent Court of International Justice. This Court has exceeded the hopes which were originally entertained about it. It is not quite seven years since its first meeting. It has in that time delivered seventeen awards and sixteen advisory opinions. Four of these awards related to cases in which we were a party. In three of the advisory opinions
292
we were directly concerned. It is impossible to do justice to the work that they have done in the short space of time at my disposal."
It is very difficult to believe that the Government, in face of that warm eulogy of the Court, can have any doubt about the competence or impartiality of this body to decide international disputes.
But it may be said, and this also has some support from passages in speeches delivered by my noble friend, that they do not think that in the present condition of International Law the law is sufficiently settled or certain or satisfactory for them to rely upon it. In that connection I remember that on a previous occasion the Venezuelan case was quoted and it was said how badly off we should have been if we had had the Optional Clause in force. Venezuela asked for arbitration, backed by the United States. We indeed did agree to arbitration, but only after security that certain rules should be applied which might, or might not, have been applied under the ordinary principles of International Law. My own opinion—though I do not pretend that my opinion is of any value—is that unquestionably those rules would have been applied in any case. But assuming they would not, and assuming that the Court gave a purely unjust and arbitrary decision, what would have happened? A certain portion of this territory, not itself of great value, would have been transferred from British dominion to Venezuelan dominion.
It may be—and this is the case that was put—that a few British settlers would have found their property subject to Venezuelan law instead of subject to British law. It may be that they would have suffered. What would have been the worst that could have happened? They would have had a case, a fairly strong case, if you like a sufficient case, for compensation to be paid by this country as the result of what, on the hypothesis I am discussing, would have been an unjust and improper and regrettable decision of the Court of Arbitration. That would have been a nuisance. It would have meant an expenditure of some thousands of pounds. But when you are dealing with this enormous question of the preservation of the peace of the world, or, to use the language of my noble friend Lord Cushendun, the main-

293
tenance of security of the world, the question of whether we may or may not in conceivable circumstances have been subject to the unjust payment of a few thousand pounds is a matter of relatively small importance.
There is a third hypothesis, of course, and this is the hypothesis freely attributed to us by foreign critics, that we know there are claims we make and positions which we maintain which are not justified by International Law and cannot be justified in any other way, and that because we are powerful and because most of those who are against us are weak we desire to have the right to enforce what we conceive to be, if not our rights, at any rate our claims in these cases. I cannot believe that any members of the present Government would hold such an opinion as that. It would expose them to very unjust reproaches if they did. A very interesting book has recently been published by a Spanish subject, Professor Salvador de Madariaga on "Disarmament." One of the theses of his book is that the nations, if they are to carry out the great experiment in favour of peace that is now progressing, must abandon this reliance on power and rely instead on the spirit of international co-operation, which he calls "world-community." I most heartily subscribe to that view, and I venture very earnestly to press upon my noble friends that you cannot treat this question merely as an isolated and abstract question. You cannot possibly say that, because there is some case in which you think that it would be convenient that the British Government should have the right to maintain claims which it could not maintain before a just and impartial tribunal, you are entitled to take this view and at the same time to hope really to establish a new system of international co-operation based on justice and on reason. It is for these reasons that I do not accept the doctrine that, because we have very large interests, this is any reason why we should not sign the Optional Clause.
In this connection we must have regard to what is unquestionably the current of international opinion. I ventured to put a question to my noble friends at the end of last year as to the number of countries that had signed and ratified this Clause, and they were good enough
294
to give me a reply. It appears that some seventeen countries have actually ratified this Clause. It is commonly thought that they are unimportant countries. I will read fifteen of the seventeen names in order to show your Lordships that this really is not a sound view: Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Norway, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Uruguay. It is, of course, notorious that a growing number of the other South American Republics are ready and willing to sign the Clause also. I must say that I think that this list of names is a formidable one. It shows that practically all the more important secondary countries, if I may use the words without offence to them, are in favour of signature, and that at least one first-class Power, Germany, has signed and ratified, while we know now that other first-class countries are inclining in that direction. The French Government have quite recently made a declaration, the formal terms of which I am not quite sure about, which appears to be a declaration that they are in favour of signing not only a clause binding them to refer legal disputes to the decision of the Court of Justice at The Hague but even a clause binding them to settle by conciliation and arbitration of one kind or another all disputes of every character.
Quite recently—and this seems to me to be very significant—the United States has signed a Treaty with some fifteen or twenty South American States accepting compulsory arbitration in precisely those cases which will be covered by the signature of the Optional Clause—the construction of treaties, the settlement of damages and so on; all being what are called legal claims—accepting that compulsory jurisdiction absolutely and, as far as the United States is concerned, without any reserve, and, if the Senate approves of the main Treaty, without any further reference to that body in regard to any particular arbitration. It is possible, of course, that the Senate will not accept that view and he would be a rash man who would prophesy on a subject of that kind, but the fact that the Administration of the United States should have signed that agreement seems to me,

295
taking the history of this question into consideration, an event of the utmost significance.
I have left to the last by far the most important and significant event of all in this connection, and that is the ratification and coming into force of the Pact of Paris, which is commonly called the Kellogg Pact. We are now bound by the terms of that solemn agreement. We are bound, therefore, not to seek a solution of any international dispute by other than pacific means, we are bound not to use war or the threat of war as an instrument for enforcing our national policy, and we are bound, therefore, as it seems to me, if we carry out, as I am sure we intend to carry out to the full, our obligations, to be ready in any case of an international dispute cither not to settle it at all—surely the very worst way of dealing with any international dispute—or to settle it by pacific means. I feel that this Treaty adds immensely to the practical arguments in favour of doing something to show that when we signed it we meant, as I am sure we did mean, what we said, and that we are anxious to make it effective in every respect that we can and to fill up by practical details what is wanting or may be thought to be wanting in the general terms of that instrument. There was a sentence in the inaugural address of President Hoover which seems to me to express very clearly this point of view. He said, speaking of this Pact:—
"Its full realisation implies a greater and greater perfection in the instrumentalities for the pacific settlement of controversies between the nations."
That seems to me to be a very strong reason why we should reconsider our attitude on this question and should be prepared to accept this stage forward in the pacific settlement of international disputes.
There is one other point to which the Government have attached importance and upon which I want to say a word, because I really think it is of a vital character. They have constantly said that those who hold the view that they are opposed to arbitration altogether mistake their attitude. They have said: "We are, as British Governments always have been, strongly in favour of arbitration, but we prefer that the arbitration should be the result of bilateral rather than multilateral agreements." Some-
296
times they say: "We prefer to leave it until the dispute has occurred before we make any agreement about arbitration." At other times they say: "We are content in certain cases to make bilateral agreements, binding ourselves to go to arbitration." Such agreements have been made. I do very respectfully ask the Government carefully to reconsider this attitude of preferring bilateral agreements to multilateral agreements. It seems to me to be at the basis of a good deal of such differences of opinion as some of us feel with regard to this part of the policy of His Majesty's Government. It is not only that a multilateral agreement is an infinitely more businesslike and rapid way of achieving our end than the multiplication of bilateral agreements. That is obvious and true, but it is not the most important point. The most important point is the recognition that no countries stand alone in this matter, that it is to the interest of all countries to see that international disputes are settled by pacific means.
As the Covenant itself says, disputes are a matter of concern to all nations, and therefore the preference for settling these matters between the two disputants and nobody else, keeping outside as it were all the rest of the world, is really, if I may respectfully say so, in the very teeth of one of those fundamental principles upon which the new order of things, it is hoped, will rest. We have to get away from the conception that a dispute between two countries is a matter of concern between the two countries alone. It is the concern of the whole world, because peace is one entity, and if it be broken anywhere it is broken everywhere, and the extent of that breakage may pass any computation. I beg very respectfully to press this view. I have read with some anxiety statements from Ministerial sources that the value of the Assemblies and Councils of the League is chiefly that it brings nations together and enables them to interchange ideas. That is one of the objects and advantages, no doubt, but the principal advantage, and the principal object, and the principal thing we have tried to establish by this new experiment, is the conception of what Professor de Madariaga calls world-community—the interdependence of Nations. No one has expressed it, in some connections, more strongly than the present Prime Minister, and the prefer-

297
ence for the bilateral agreemeent—the idea that it is quite right for us to settle with particular countries in particular ways, but that other countries have nothing to do with it, that idea which lies at the bottom of the bilateral agreement—is really a disastrous preference.
I have referred to Professor de Madariaga's book more than once in this connection, and I cannot resist reading a sentence from his book upon this very question of the refusal of some of the great Powers, including ourselves, to sign the Optional Clause. It is as follows:—
"This deplorable example coming from the top is one of the chief causes of stagnation in the evolution of international life towards higher ethical levels. It must be considered as one of the main obstacles on the path to disarmament."
It is for that reason that I venture very strongly to press upon the Government to reconsider their attitude and to agree to my Motion. It seems to me not only a question of the actual point involved, but a test of the direction in which our policy is to move, and whether we are going to accept fully the corporate idea of international life or whether we are going to drift back to that unhappy competitive idea which has brought so much misery upon the world.
Moved to resolve, That in the opinion of this House the time has arrived when His Majesty's Government should sign the Optional Clause.—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM): My Lords, I waited for a moment, because I had hoped that we might have heard either from the Socialist or from the Liberal Benches the views, if they have any fresh views, which they would desire to urge upon your Lordships with regard to this Motion. My noble and learned friend Lord Cecil, in moving his Motion, explained, as most of your Lordships are aware, that it is a matter which has been frequently debated in this House during recent years. He expressed regret, which I confess I fully share, at the fact that on this occasion we have not the advantage of the presence of my noble friend Lord Cushendun, who has answered for the Government on previous occasions. I observe that on the last occasion on which Lord Cushendun replied to a similar Motion, on November 15 last, he explained to your
298
Lordships that it was, I think he said, the eighth time on which he had had to make the same speech, and that he was sorely tempted to refer your Lordships to his previous answers. Taking, as I do, the responsibility of speaking for the Government on a matter which does not fall particularly within my own province, I should be very glad if I could take the line which Lord Cushendun then took, and ask you to look at those very carefully reasoned statements of the attitude of His Majesty's Government, upon which I certainly cannot improve.
So far as I was able to follow my noble and learned friend, he does not suggest that there has been any radical change in the situation since the debate in this House last November, and therefore in effect we are dealing with a situation which was then very fully explored on both sides. But your Lordships, I know, will all recognise the passionate sincerity with which my noble and learned friend urges this cause, and I should not like him to think that I treat his arguments, or the matters which he has brought to the attention of this House, with any degree of discourtesy or lack of consideration. Therefore, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to state in my own language some of the considerations which, in the view of the Government, render it impossible to accept this Motion. The point of the Motion is the statement that the time has arrived for signature of the Optional Clause by this country. The question therefore is not whether arbitration in itself is desirable; not indeed whether the International Court at The Hague may ultimately prove to be the best tribunal for all forms of arbitration; still less is it the question whether the Government of this country desires the peaceful settlement of disputes. The only question is whether, in the interests of this country and of the Empire, it is right that at this moment the Government should sign the Optional Clause.
Some people—not of course my noble and learned friend—approach this question as if the signing of the Clause would be for the first time the acceptance by His Majesty's Government of the view that arbitration is the proper means of dealing with the sort of question which is referred to in that Clause. My noble and learned friend knows, and most of

299
your Lordships know very well, that that is a complete misapprehension. You will remember that in the Covenant of the League of Nations itself, Article 13, to which the Government of this country is committed, says:—
"The Members of the League agree that whenever any dispute shall arise between them which they recognise to be suitable for submission to arbitration and which cannot be satisfactorily settled by diplomacy, they will submit the whole subject-matter to arbitration."
The Article goes on:—
"Disputes as to the interpretation of a treaty, as to any question of International Law, as to the existence of any fact which if established would constitute a breach of any international obligation, or as to the extent and nature of the reparation to be made for any such breach, are declared to be among those which are generally suitable for submission to arbitration."
Those matters are, as your Lordships will remember, precisely the matters which are the subject-matter of the Optional Clause. Therefore we are already committed to the view that we should submit to arbitration whatever matters are suitable for arbitration, and the matters referred to in the Optional Clause are among those which are generally so suitable. And the only question is whether we should take this further step first of all, that we should agree in advance, now, that any question of that character, even if in the particular circumstances it might be unsuitable for arbitration, should be so submitted, and that all these questions should necessarily be submitted to the International Court at The Hague.
I listened to my noble and learned friend's speech in order to ascertain whether he was suggesting that the signature of the Optional Clause should be accompanied by any reservations, and, if he did think that any reservations were necessary, what those reservations ought to be. It is quite obvious that before this House could commit itself to the view that the Government should sign an Optional Clause binding the country in advance to submit all questions falling within certain categories to the decision of the International Court, it is essential that it should make up its mind whether or not there should be any qualification or limitation in that submission. I do not want, and I do not think it is necessary, to enumerate many of the matters which would require considera-
300
tion in that relation. But let me mention just one. We and the Dominions alike are Members of the League of Nations. Is it desired that any question arising between this country and one of the Dominions, or any question arising between two of the Dominions, should be referred to the International Court at The Hague? Because I should respectfully have thought that it would be most unsuitable that questions of that kind should be referred to a foreign, rather than to a domestic, Court. I take that merely as an illustration, which I could multiply, but it is not necessary to do so, of the sort of point which has to be considered before you commit yourselves to a general submission of all questions of a particular character to arbitration. My noble friend said he did not think it mattered much whether or not the Dominions agreed with us in the acceptance of the Optional Clause.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: No, I did not say anything in the least like that. What I did say was that I thought it was right for us to express our opinion, not necessarily binding ourselves to what the Dominions might say, and certainly not hiding behind the Dominions, but taking full responsibility for our own decisions whatever they might be.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend's Motion is that the time has arrived when we should sign, and I understood him to say that he thinks that we ought to sign even if the Dominions did not agree in that view. If he does not think that, then obviously this House cannot commit itself to the view that we ought to sign the Optional Clause now unless and until it is able to assure itself—which it certainly is not at present—that the whole of the Dominions would take the same view. My noble friend read a passage in an answer given by the Canadian Prime Minister, I gather a month or two ago, in the Canadian Parliament, in which the Canadian Prime Minister expressed the view that Canada was generally speaking, I think—I have not the exact words—in favour of signing the Optional Clause. I do not think that the Canadian Prime Minister in the answer dealt with the point as to whether or not reservations would be necessary in such a signature.

301
My noble friend invited me to state what communications had passed between this country and Canada. Quite obviously, I could not answer that question without first obtaining the assent of the Canadian Government to the publication of any such communications, and without ascertaining from the Secretary of State for the Dominions whether there were any objections to the publication. I am not even in a position to state off-hand exactly what communications may have passed, but that the matter has been mentioned as between that Dominion and this country is, of course, the fact. That all the Dominions have expressed a desire to sign, which I understood was the suggestion of the Canadian papers, is, I know, not the fact.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: The statement that is made quite specifically, and the paper quotes the authority of the Prime Minister of Canada, is that all the Dominions except Australia have expressed the same view as the Canadian view—which is a good deal stronger than what my noble and learned friend has said—that they thought now, and have thought for some time past, that the British Empire ought to become parties to the Optional Clause.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Without much more careful reference I do not like to give a categorical answer, but to the best of my knowledge, without having had time to verify it, I believe that statement to be quite inaccurate. Let me remind your Lordships of what happened at the last Imperial Conference in 1926. The matter was then brought up for discussion, and a decision was reached which is embodied in the published Report of the Proceedings. It states that:—
"The feeling was that it was at present premature to accept the obligations under the Article in question. A general understanding was reached that none of the Governments represented at the Imperial Conference would take any action in the direction of the acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Permanent Court, without bringing up the matter for further discussion."
Quite obviously, in view of that Resolution, it would be quite impossible for His Majesty's Government now to sign the Optional Clause, when certainly there has not been any agreement reached with the Dominions that that should be done.
302
As your Lordships know, there are under consideration in this country proposals which came from the United States for an arbitration treaty with that great country. Those proposals are at this moment being considered and discussed with the Dominion Governments. One of the first duties of the Government after the Election will be to take up those negotiations in the light of the discussions which are taking place with the Dominions, and to bring them, as I hope, to a satisfactory conclusion. And I think I am not stating too highly the views of the Dominions, as of this Government, when I say that it is desirable that that matter should be prosecuted to a conclusion before any question such as that which is raised by my noble and learned friend is embarked upon. Further than that, of course, to-day we are meeting within four weeks and a day of a General Election. When the General Election has taken place the Government will come back reinforced by the verdict of the constituencies, and will be able then to deal with the matter with a confidence and sureness in the support of the constituencies which no Government could pretend to have in the dying days of an old Parliament.
I have indicated these points because all of them are points which are directly relevant to the only question which is raised by the Motion—namely, that the time has now arrived for our signature. It is not a question of whether or not we are in favour of arbitration, or whether or not we are in favour of the peaceful settlement of disputes. My noble and learned friend, in a very eloquent passage in which he concluded his observations, pointed out that all countries had an interest in the pacific settlement of disputes. No one has challenged it. This Government which was one of the signatories to the Kellogg Pact, has committed itself gladly and fully to that theory. By the signature of the Covenant of the League of Nations we have expressed it, and have given expression on behalf of this country to the view that the pacific settlement of disputes is a matter of common interest. What we are discussing is not whether disputes ought to be peaceably settled, but only whether we should agree in advance that in all cases falling within Article 36 we should refer those disputes to a particular form of

303
tribunal. That, of course, is an entirely different question from the question of whether or not the peaceful settlement of disputes is desired. It may well be desirable sooner or later for an agreement to be taken that all disputes of a particular kind shall be submitted to a particular tribunal. But one of the reasons why I am a little sorry for myself that these debates should take place too often—I make no complaint of course—is that it is necessary when such a matter is raised to indicate some of the factors which render caution necessary and delay, perhaps, expedient; and it is easy to misrepresent the statement of those factors as an expression either of distrust in the tribunal or dislike of arbitration, which I know that neither I nor any of my colleagues in the Government feel at all.
But these considerations, which are familiar to those who have studied the subject, need reiteration, I think, when a Motion of this kind is brought forward. Let me indicate one or two of them; more of them will be found in the speech of my noble friend on a previous occasion. First of all, I would remind your Lordships that International Law, as it is called, and Municipal Law are radically different. International Law really only means the customs accepted as binding by civilised nations. There is the very greatest uncertainty as to what falls within the scope of International Law. By signing in advance we might find that we had submitted to the Court questions which we did not regard as justiciable at all. Your Lordships will remember—my noble and learned friend is, I am sure, well aware—that it is one of the express terms of Article 36, the Clause which we are asked to sign, that the Court is in all cases to determine whether a particular dispute falls within the category mentioned in Article 36. So that we are binding ourselves, not to the settlement of any of those questions which we regard as falling within that category, but of all those questions which the Court decides as falling within that category, and there is very great uncertainty as to what those questions will be.
There is still greater uncertainty on a great many points as to what International Law really is. There are a great many subjects on which, international jurists are not agreed.
304
There are in regard to a great many of them two schools of thought which may be broadly described as the Anglo-American school and the Continental school. We have built up our theories of International Law largely by developing from concrete cases into more general principles. The Continent has, I think, proceeded rather upon the basis of starting with a general principle and then trying to fit concrete cases to it. I am not discussing which of those two methods is scientifically or juristically preferable; but the result is that there is a real difference on several points between the Continental rule of International Law and the Anglo-American rule of International Law, and if we submit to this Court all justiciable questions we are, in effect, abandoning the Anglo American rule and accepting the Continental rule. I say that because there are normally on this Court I think a maximum of sixteen Judges, and I think that eleven is a quorum, and there are as a rule two coming from England and America, one from each. There cannot be more than one from America and one from this country. The result is that in any dispute coming before it, the Court acting impartially and competently would be bound to apply the rule of law which was the one in which nine out of the eleven Judges had been brought up to believe, and the two English and American Judges would be bound to find themselves in a minority with the decision against them. It might be worth while, in the interests of a peaceful settlement, to agree in advance that all the points upon which the English and American jurists differ from the Continental jurists shall be treated as points in which the Continent is right and England and America are wrong. On the other hand, it is rather a serious step to ask this country to take.
Then let me give your Lordships another illustration. Even on questions which are without dispute justiciable, questions, let us say, like the interpretation of a treaty, there are no rules of procedure or of evidence to guide those whose duty it would be to advise the Government. That is a point which I think would appeal particularly to lawyers. In English law the interpretation of a treaty is determined by the language used in the treaty, read in the light of the circumstances known to both

305
parties at the time when the treaty was made, and such things as preliminary drafts and statements made in discussion throw no light and are not admissible in evidence to determine what the meaning of the treaty is. In some Continental countries drafts and preliminary statements in discussion may be looked at by the Court if the language of the treaty is ambiguous; in others, they may be looked at and control the interpretation even when there is no ambiguity.
If I might venture upon a personal reminiscence, I have myself argued a case before the International Court upon the interpretation of a clause in the Treaty of Lausanne in which my opponent was permitted to state, as throwing light on the interpretation of the Treaty, not merely what had been in previous drafts, but what some anonymous friends of his had told him was the reason why the draft had been changed from its preliminary to its final form. Luckily in that particular case I had witnesses there who had also been at Lausanne, and so I was able to state that an anonymous friend of mine had given me a reason for the change which was quite a different story. But your Lordships will see that the risk is a very real risk when we are committed in advance to the decision upon the meaning of a treaty being governed by such a consideration as that to which I have called attention.
My noble friend called your Lordships' attention to the case of the Venezuela arbitration, and said that that really was not an argument against him because in that ease the rule of law which we insisted should be applicable might have been held in any event to be the rule, and because, anyhow, it only concerned the interest of a few British settlers to whom we might have had to give a few thousand pounds. My noble friend has completely failed to appreciate the relevance of the illustration which was given by my noble friend Lord Cushendun about Venezuela. Lord Cushendun did not cite the case of Venezuela in order to prove that we were right or wrong in that particular case, or in order to prove that in that particular case the interests involved in insisting on one interpretation rather than another were or were not vital. The point we cited in the case of Venezuela was this. It was a case in which we did arrive at a pacific
306
settlement, but we insisted on inserting in the agreement of arbitration the rule of law which we thought right, that a fifty years' occupation should be regarded as giving a right. If we had bound ourselves in advance to submit the Venezuelan ease to arbitration we should have been bound to let that go without any such clause being inserted. Although I speak with diffidence if my noble and learned friend takes a different view, I think it is at any rate extremely doubtful whether by International Law we could have insisted upon that obviously equitable rule being included in the consideration. The decision might have been the other way.
Although it may be proved that in the Venezuelan case what we should have sacrificed would have only been, as my noble friend says, the interest of a few British settlers who had embarked their capital and livelihood in settling in British territory and had lived there for half a century—although that was all we should have sacrificed in that case, there may very well be cases in which the absence of what was obviously an equitable rule, which has not at present been incorporated in International Law, might involve a wrong decision against this country on a matter of vital importance, which public opinion in this country would not for a moment support. One has to remember in considering these matters that we cannot in this country implement an award without the sanction of Parliament. To agree in advance to accept all decisions of a tribunal on any matter which the tribunal might decide within Article 36 might be, in certain circumstances, to agree to something which we cannot perform.
My noble and learned friend quoted the illustration of the United States. Although it is a very relevant illustration, it is quite worth remembering that the proposed adherence of the United States to the Permanent Court is to be given on the express basis that the Court shall not even be asked for an advisory opinion in matters in which the United States conceives itself to be interested, without the prior assent of the United States. And your Lordships will remember that in the draft Arbitration Treaty which the United States has submitted for our consideration—and which is, I believe, the model that it has

307
actually signed with some European countries—all matters which affect the Monroe doctrine in which the vital interests of the United States are involved, are expressly excluded from arbitration; and, further, the Arbitration Treaty insists that the terms of submission in which specific cases are presented must first be approved by the Senate of the United States. It is no doubt for reasons such as these that the Coalition Government in 1920, on the unanimous opinion of the then Lord Chancellor and both Law Officers—both of them now most eminent Judges—refused at that time to accept the Optional Clause of compulsory arbitration. It is no doubt for considerations such as these that the Lord Chancellor in the Socialist Government, Lord Haldane, advised against the acceptance of the compulsory clause.
It is no doubt for reasons such as these that a very eminent jurist wrote some few years ago:—
"…if anything like a complete system for the judicial or quasi-judicial settlement of international disputes he aimed at, it will infallibly break down and throw the movement back for many years. Nothing did more harm to the cause of peace than the breakdown of the efforts after Waterloo in this direction."
The same eminent authority wrote a little later:—
"Almost everyone thinks that only the less important disputes can really be disposed of by a tribunal of arbitration, and that I am sure is true. In any dispute between two nations involving vital national interests neither of them would be ready to accept the decision of any external tribunal…I have a kind of feeling that it would be impossible to construct, even for this purpose, a tribunal that would command sufficient confidence to do useful work in vital international disputes."
Those words are the words of Lord Robert Cecil in the years 1917 and 1918. My noble friend may say that he has grown wiser, or the world has grown wiser—I care not which—in the last decade. Nobody will blame him for changing his opinion, but at any rate that was the view which he held not so very many years ago.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Hear, hear.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: One can hardly criticise very much other responsible statesmen who read those words and who are disposed to take the view
308
that the time has not yet come to commit ourselves in advance to an arbitration which Lord Cecil at that time thought would not command assent. Nobody can suggest that this country is a laggard in the matter of arbitration. We repeatedly arbitrated most important questions before the War. We have accepted and loyally carried out decisions which were unpalatable, some of which we even thought to be unjust. Nor have we been backward in upholding the authority of the International Court. We have ourselves appeared before it no fewer than nine times in the seven years during which that Court has been in existence—a record which is not equalled by any other country in the world. I have myself, for what it is worth, appeared five times before that Court, and I think I can claim to have argued there more often than any advocate of any other Bar. So that our contribution at any rate towards establishing the prestige and authority of that Court can hardly be challenged.
As time goes on the Court must gain in experience and in authority. Its rules and its procedure must become settled and known. International Law itself is in the steady process of amplification and codification, and we can well hope that the time will arrive when it will be possible for the British Empire to accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court, with or without reservations designed to protect the special position of the British Empire. But I submit to your Lordships that at the present moment, in the dying days of an old Parliament, in the teeth of the Resolution of the Imperial Conference, when the United States Arbitration Treaty is the most urgent problem of the times with which we have to deal, when the questions of what reservations are necessary have not been discussed or agreed with the Dominions, to suggest that the time has now come for us to sign the Clause may be the dream of an idealist, but it is hardly the act of a responsible statesman.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, the question before your Lordships is one of supreme importance, although by the discussions which have taken place earlier in this House and elsewhere, the issue is very considerably narrowed, and I cannot but think it is of advantage to have had the speech of

309
my noble friend Viscount Cecil and also the reply of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. In listening to them I was struck by the agreement on many points, and the division of opinion upon the one critical point now submitted by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil. The real question before your Lordships, as I understand it, is whether there has not now been sufficient delay in considering the signature of the Optional Clause and whether, in the words of my noble friend, the time has not arrived for giving effect to its provisions.
There can be no doubt that on general questions of arbitration the Government, speaking at one time through Lord Cushendun and at another through the Foreign Secretary, and to-day through the Lord Chancellor, has expressed its full adherence to the principles of arbitration. I think that nothing could have been more satisfactory in the way of general observations than those made by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in regard to arbitration. But the difficulty is that these general views scarcely help us to arrive at a decision. I am very anxious not to recapitulate arguments already advanced to your Lordships in previous debates as well as to-day. I find myself in general agreement with the observations made by my noble friend Viscount Cecil in a speech which seemed to me to be conceived with great moderation and yet to have been couched in forcible and eloquent language. We were anxious to understand what the precise difference of opinion would be and what arguments would be raised by the Government. I have listened with the greatest attention. I do not for a moment presume within the very few minutes I shall occupy the attention of your Lordships to answer every point that has been put forward by the Lord Chancellor. As I understood him he advanced certain special arguments upon which he relied. He said, in the first instance, that having regard to the number of debates which have already taken place in this House nothing of importance had occurred since then, that nothing had happened since November, 1928—the date of the last debate here—which would in any way affect the matter now under discussion. I confess I was astonished to hear that from my
310
noble and learned friend when we had had the signature of the Multilateral Pact initiated by the United States of America.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The signature of the Multilateral Pact had taken place months before November.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I understand from the noble and learned Lord's interposition that it is a mere question of date as to when the actual signature or ratification took place.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The document was signed in Paris some months before.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I do not wish to take up time, except to make this point which I am anxious to bring to your Lordships' attention, that there had been this signature or ratification of the American Treaty, the Multilateral Pact, and that that very much changed the situation. I think I am right in saying, although the exact number does not very much matter, that some sixty nations have already signed that Pact. The number has increased considerably certainly since November, 1928. I think I am justified in that observation though, of course, nothing like the importance could be attached to that Pact until it had been ratified by this country and until so many other nations had signed it.
I ask your Lordships to consider what is the situation. By that Treaty we have agreed with the other nations, with the United States of America in the first instance and with fifty-nine other nations, to renounce war as an instrument of policy. We have agreed further that all disputes are to be referred to arbitration. There is no question in the Pact of a reservation on matters affecting the honour of the country such as there has been in earlier agreements. We welcomed that Pact because it dropped all questions of that character which certainly had given rise to considerable doubt in the minds of many of us who have studied the problem. I do submit to your Lordships, now that sixty nations are agreed, with the United States of America as the initiator of that Multilateral Pact, that it can no longer be objected that the United States of America, not being a party to the

311
Covenant of the League of Nations, is not bound. The strongest argument that can be used in favour of my noble friend's Motion is the fact that we stand pledged to the renunciation of war as an instrument of policy and to the reference of all disputes to arbitration within the terms of that Pact.
Looking at the matter as I hope quite fairly, and striving so far as I can not to regard this question as a Party matter—it is very undesirable that it should be so regarded—the only question that I can find after listening to my noble and learned friend that really divides us, is as to the tribunal to which disputes are to be referred. He said, as I followed him, that we did not agree to refer them to this tribunal, that we did not know what the rules of evidence are, what the rules of procedure are, or what exactly are the points upon which everybody will be agreed in International Law. If we are to wait to settle every item of detail of that kind we shall never advance a single step. It is hopeless to expect that we can ever in advance agree on points of that character. Lawyers often disagree again and again in the Courts of our own country after centuries of procedure and judicial interpretation. How can we expect that a number of tuitions will agree on all these matters? I cannot really think that that is a serious argument.
My noble and learned friend then said that we could not do it without the Dominions. Surely he is forgetting altogether the Treaty of Locarno. That was arrived at without the Dominions being parties to it. There was a clause in that Treaty—I do not happen to have it before me, but your Lordships will recollect it—exempting them from its provisions. It did not bind them in any way. Yet we bound ourselves by the Treaty of Locarno in a far greater issue than a mere reference to arbitration. My noble and learned friend went on to say that we must not sign because questions between the Dominions ought not to be settled in this way. That hardly seems relevant to the matter we are discussing. Nobody has suggested that we should refer disputes between ourselves and our Dominions to this tribunal. Those would be matters dealt with by ourselves or referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council under provisions that
312
already exist. Certainly we are not suggesting that these matters should be referred to the tribunal, and if there was such a suggestion it is open to the Government to make an exception, because the Clause could be signed subject to reciprocity of the other nations or with such reservations as it may be thought necessary to insert. Really there is no difficulty of that kind.
I waited with great eagerness to understand what were the other grounds of objection. My noble and learned friend said many could be given, but the only one given was as to the Dominions, which does not really touch the question at present under discussion. There is only one other point I wish to refer to. It was said that the proposal was premature because at the Conference of 1926 there were discussions with regard to it and a Resolution was passed. But since 1926 we have had the Multilateral Agreement with America, and there has been time since then to consider with the Dominions whether they are ready to sign. I do not know whether any steps have been taken. We do not know whether any of the Dominions has objected—I should have thought not, but at any rate we have not yet been told—and, so far as I am aware, the Government, if they have consulted the Dominions, have not laid any answer before Parliament or given any information. The only observation I desire to make upon that point is that time after time, when we come to the actual criticial point, further reasons are given for delay. There is general agreement on principle, there is a general desire to sign treaties of arbitration, but it is said that it is better to deal only with bilateral treaties. I will not undertake to say that my figures are right for I have had no opportunity of checking them, but I have read that in order to do that we should require 1,542 agreements. That may be an exaggeration, but those figures were given. We should need all those agreements in order to bring ourselves within the League of Nations and into agreement with all the various countries that have made themselves party to it.
The important point is that a bilateral treaty has to be agreed with another country. It would be necessary for us to wait and settle with each country

313
what we are to do. If we have a multilateral pact, such as America introduced, we have a very practical and sensible way of dealing with matters, and the result is, not only that we get the signatures of all the others, but—what is far more important—that we get all the various parties bound to each other. We attain agreement between a number of nations that certain matters of a particular character shall be referred to the tribunal and that the nations agree to submit to its decisions. The last point made by my noble friend was that we could not be certain that Parliament would accept such a decision. I must not detain your Lordships, but I will say on that point that I cannot believe that the Government seriously think that, if there were an agreement to refer these matters to the arbitration of a tribunal such as the International Court, then, even though we were dissatisfied with the decision. Parliament would repudiate an agreement which had been entered into and which had led to that decision merely because they did not like the result.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, the noble Marquess has travelled over a large number of the matters which may be in dispute between the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, and the Lord Chancellor. I think it is necessary to come back to what one knows both from former discussions and from the debate this afternoon to be the real matters of difference. It is only when one appreciates what those matters are that one also realises the great importance of the points raised by the noble Viscount. If he goes to a, Division, we on this Bench shall most certainly support him. Whether he should do so or not is, of course, a question for him to decide. The noble Viscount says quite truly and without any exaggeration that we are discussing a matter which affects the whole question of world peace and security in the future. I think that he is right to put his case on those lines, and for two reasons. In making that statement he appreciates the value of the League of Nations. I think that world peace and security without the agency of the League of Nations would be impossible and, if I might refer incidentally to a statement made by the Lord Chancellor, I think that this makes the entire difference between the inter-
314
national issues of to-day and those that followed the Napoleonic Wars.
Before I say one or two words with reference to the noble Viscount's speech, let me deal with a question raised by the Lord Chancellor. The noble and learned Lord said quite frankly—I have always understood this to be the opinion of the present Government—that this country was not prepared to accept in advance an obligation to refer to the International Court all matters of legal dispute whatever they might be. There, of course, we come to the real issue. If that position is to be maintained, I think that, whether under the Kellogg Pact or under the terms of the Covenant itself, it is really hopeless to expect the creation of what has been called the peace spirit instead of maintaining the historical outlook upon war as the basis of international negotiation. That point, to my mind, goes to the very root of the matter. I hope shortly to deal with the objections which the Lord Chancellor has made, but I start from the point that in that case the real attitude of the Government is obviously opposed toto cœlo to the views expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil.
It is quite immaterial to that issue that many arbitration treaties have been entered into already. That, of course, is common ground, but it is not the question raised by this Resolution or by our position under the League of Nations. The question there is whether we will submit in advance justiciable disputes, such as those set out in Clause 36, to the decision of the International Court. The noble Marquess referred to the multilateral principle, and this consideration goes to the very root of that principle. It is the basis of the League of Nations and, from the time of Grotius, of the attitude of everyone who has been in favour of the principle that you should have, as between nations, some authority to which you may refer disputes in order to avoid war—an authority of the same character as you have in Municipal Law in the ease of disputes between citizens. It would be quite hopeless to have a procedure in Municipal Law by which you left it open whether the disputants were to go before the Courts of the country or were to proceed to fight the matter out one with another.

315
The multilateral principle is not only important but essential, for it is the same principle applied in international disputes as we apply in our national disputes. It is the principle of equality between the disputants and, if you have that equality, the only matter to be decided is whether the case of one or the other should be supported on the foundation of justice. Directly you get away from that and allow any other principle to supervene, it appears to me that you absolutely nullify the whole principle of a Court deciding justiciable disputes. The whole principle of the League of Nations, to my mind, is that such disputes should be and can be decided without resort to force and war. I understand the Lord Chancellor to say that that is not the opinion of the Government under existing conditions. Of course if that is so, the matter ends. There is no further common ground of argument. The common ground of argument would be whether conditions are such that, although perhaps at the moment you might not succeed in obtaining the promise of a reference of all justiciable disputes, the principle is right. I understand the Lord Chancellor to say that the principle is not right. Let me deal with the further arguments which he adduced in the course of his speech. I do not think the argument as regards the use of the words "the time has arrived" is of much value. I understand that the noble Viscount raised this discussion in order that the principle might be discussed, and although I agree with him that the time has arrived, and is indeed long overdue, at the same time it is no answer to the principle which he advocated to base the opposition merely on a term of that kind.
The second argument of the Lord Chancellor I find it very difficult to follow. He referred to Article 13 of the Covenant on the ground that at the present time these question could be referred to an impartial body—namely, arbitrators. Surely the noble and learned Lord does not forget this, that so far as Article 13 is concerned, there is no ultimate decision, unless you get the Council unanimous. On the contrary, after a period of time it is open to either party to have recourse to war. Also, whether matters are to be brought within Article 13 at all depends upon the view of the particular disputant, whoever he may be.
316
There is no obligation whatever to bring any matter under Article 13 to final determination, and whether you appeal to Article 13 or not depends upon the view of the disputant whether it is a suitable matter to bring forward under the terms of that Article. Therefore on both grounds I think the reference to that Article is quite ineffective. As the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has said, there are a large number of justiciable disputes which are not such as should be referred to arbitration or to any other tribunal, but are matters which the countries concerned ought to insist upon deciding in their own way, without reference to a third-party tribunal. I admit that I have difficulty in appreciating what the effect of Article 13 is, except to leave matters as they are and to leave particular countries to decide whether or not they will go to arbitration and have no final determination when they go there.
The next point which the Lord Chancellor raised was this. He said, how can we adopt the Optional Clause without considering the question of reservations? Of course not. The question we are putting, and the question involved in the noble Viscount's speech, is this: Is it not time to consider the whole question, reservations and all? I know when I was at Geneva in 1924 that it was an essential provision of the Protocol that the Optional Clause should be adopted as an obligation, and there was no difficulty whatever in foreshadowing what the reservations would be which we should consider essential at that time. There was no opposition, and the view then put forward was generally accepted, but to say that because you have to make reservations you postpone any consideration of them in order that you may not give a decision upon the major point, whether you are going to adopt the Optional Clause or not, seems to me to be an impossible position for any great country to assume, especially a country like ours, who ought to be in the van in such matters.
I am sorry to say that I differ very much in regard to what the Lord Chancellor said with regard to the relations between ourselves and our Dominions. I would like to say a word or two on the history of that, in addition to what was said by the noble Viscount. All the

317
Dominions and India were represented at Geneva in 1924, and they were not only represented but the British Delegates were constantly in communication with the Delegates from the Dominions, who on matters of difficulty referred questions to the home Government. The result was that they were unanimously in favour of the adoption of the Optional Clause, and if I may for one moment refer to a note which I have of the Resolution that they supported at Geneva, and which was carried unanimously, it was in these words. They said that the signature of the Clause was "in the interests of the progress of international justice and consistent with the expectations of the opinion of the world." That does not show an unwillingness to adopt the Optional Clause. The matter does not end there, because subsequent to that we have not only had the Imperial Conference but we have had statements made again and again from some of the most important Dominions, that they think it important that the Optional Clause should be signed, and they are in favour of signing it.
Before we had the honour of the assistance of the present Lord Chancellor I have several times asked that Papers should be laid showing the relations on this matter between the Dominions and the Government here. Whatever the reasons may be, it has always been said there were good reasons why they should not be produced, and now if I might I should like to carry a little further what was said by Lord Cecil. Ho made a reference to a well known passage published on February 26 of this year. He quoted from a Toronto newspaper, and I should like to add this one other passage:—
"The mystery that long surrounded Canada's failure to declare openly her readiness to have international disputes of a legal character settled by the Permanent International Court of Justice, has been cleared away by Premier King's statement in regard to the matter."
Then follows the statement which the noble Viscount has already read. I do not know whether he quoted the passage which mentions the exception of Australia, but I think it can be said without any fear of contradiction that our Dominions, with the exception of Australia, are not in opposition to the signing of the Optional Clause.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: On what authority does the noble Lord say that?
LORD PARMOOR: I am giving it on the authority of this statement of Mr. King, the Prime Minister of Canada, the same authority as was quoted by the noble Viscount. I do not want at this stage to go through all the historical authorities, and I am afraid a great number of them are now accumulating. But, as far as we have evidence, there is no disinclination, and no disinclination has ever been shown, in any of the Dominions to accept the Optional Clause, except in the case of Australia. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack knows that originally it was intended that in the Statute of the International Court it should be obligatory there and then on all countries to accept the International Court as the authority to decide in matters of justiciable disputes. That was altered because Great Britain and France objected to it; but that was the original principle. Since that time a very large number of countries have assented, and a great many more are prepared to assent and ratify if Great Britain would. I recollect that at Geneva in 1924, when M. Briand signed a document including the Optional Clause, he stated that it was one of the proudest moments in his life; and the only reason why that ratification has not been proceeded with is that Great Britain up to this point has refused to accept and adopt the Optional Clause.
I do not believe that there is any mystery about these matters. No doubt at the Imperial Conference in 1926 it was said to be premature. But a great deal has passed since then, and I venture to say that if at the present time Great Britain expressed its desire to sign the Optional Clause and approached our Dominions from that standpoint there would be no difficulty on their part, or at any rate only difficulties of a very modified kind. This Government have always proposed to give to the units of our Empire the maximum of sovereign independence. I believe, and have always believed, that that is quite right; but I doubt whether it is consistent with the continued unity of diplomatic outlook. I certainly wish to think it would be, but, of course, these independent units will exercise their own power and their own rights in international as in national affairs. But on this particular point that

319
we are dealing with to-night I do not think there is any difference of opinion between the Dominions and ourselves. On the contrary I believe that we should support one another in the main—I do not want to go too far—in the direction that the noble Viscount has pointed out.
The next point which the noble Lord on the Woolsack made is, of course, an important one—I think it was dealt with by the noble and learned Marquess—and that is the question of International Law. It is perfectly true that International Law has not the same precision in rules and procedure as Municipal Law, and one of the great objects of founding an International Court is that by experience you might get the same advantage internationally as we have in case law in our own country. If you are going to take that attitude, and say we will make no advance because there may be differences in the construction of International Law and our own law then nothing can be done. And I believe that the attitude that nothing can be done is almost wholly inconsistent with a considerable majority of cultivated opinion in this country. Then the Lord Chancellor objects that the question whether a matter is a justiciable matter to be brought before the International Court has to be decided by the Court itself. How else could it be decided? If you are going to leave that to the decision of each particular country you have no procedure which ensures the obligatory settlement of these various justiciable disputes, and you defeat the whole object for which the Court was constituted.
There is one matter to which the Lord Chancellor referred which has been referred to on another occasion. It is said that if you adopt an obligation of this kind you cannot be sure that when the particular occasion arises you will have the sanction of Parliament. That is a most dangerous doctrine. If you were to follow that every single international obligation might be subjected to the same form of repudiation. I do not believe myself for a moment that Parliament would not sanction international obligations of this kind when they have to be imposed in a particular case. There is no justification for it in our history. There is no justification for it in our absolute adherence to all the international obligations which from time to time we have undertaken. If the noble
320
and learned Lord on the Woolsack is right, if he says as a principle that we cannot accept any international obligation because we cannot tell whether a subsequent Parliament will sanction it or not, I say that is a most fatal statement to make as regards the position of this country in giving its power and authority to the stability, peace and security of the world.
I think the differences between the Lord Chancellor and the noble Viscount are not mere matters of words; they go to the whole root of the matter, and those who are interested in international affairs cannot shut their eyes to that fact. Are we going to have compulsory reference of future disputes or not? At the present moment we are only speaking of justiciable disputes, but I assume that, if we cannot allow that principle as regards justiciable disputes, we cannot allow it as regards other disputes of a political and far-reaching character. That is absolutely inconsistent with the Kellogg Pact. No Government ought to have assented to the Kellogg Pact who held that view at all. The Kellogg Pact means nothing, gives no security and no peace, unless you enter into obligations to preserve peace with other countries and to protect other countries in regard to the peace which under the Kellogg Pact they have a right to expect.
There is one word in conclusion I should like to say as regards President Hoover's statement. I think I followed the passage which was referred to by the noble Viscount. I believe that President Hoover will be a great factor in bringing about peace and security in the world's history. When he made his first address after his election as President he made two statements, the first in favour of the reference of justiciable disputes to the International Court. He wants to help in the direction advocated by the noble Viscount opposite. Secondly, he went into a further matter with which we are not immediately concerned—that as regards all other differences of every kind which are not justiciable there should be what he called instrumentality for pacific settlement without resort to what Kant called the barbarous arbitrament of war. I sincerely hope that the noble Viscount will press his Motion, and we on this Bench will most certainly support him.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I regret the speech to which we have just listened. I regret it very much because it was evidently designed to demonstrate to your Lordships, which is less important because your Lordships are in a position to judge, and to the world outside that there is a great difference of opinion between sections of your Lordships' House about this subject.
LORD PARMOOR: I think so.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I deny it, and I think the noble and learned Lord does nothing but a disservice to his country—
LORD PARMOOR: No. Let me say that to be accurate and truthful in this matter is not a disservice. If I think that there is a root difference in principle between two statements not only am I entitled but I am bound to state it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My objection to the noble and learned Lord is not that he said what he ought not to say but that his judgment has erred. There is no such difference as he thinks.
LORD PARMOOR: That is another matter.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But it is the important matter. The noble and learned Lord, inspired, perhaps, by a certain element of Party feeling, was rather glad to emphasise that there was a difference of opinion.
LORD PARMOOR: Certainly not.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: In fact, it does not exist. There is no question at all—I believe I may speak for every member of your Lordships' House—as to the necessity for the gradual development of the principle of arbitration. There is nothing which has been said to-day in your Lordships' House regarding the Kellogg Pact and the obligation which has been thrown upon us and the necessity for finding an alternative to war to which the Government do not assent. Of course, the Government assent to it. We have bound ourselves over and over again in the most solemn way in that direction and, indeed, no rational being can believe that war is the proper way of settling disputes. The contrary is obvious, that right does not necessarily lie with the strongest
322
and that, therefore, the mere question of fighting it out is the most illogical and unsatisfactory way of settling a dispute that can possibly be conceived. There is no question of difference of opinion about that matter. Further than that, there has been a considerable development of opinion lately as to the actual form which these alternatives to war should take, a development upon which the Government congratulate themselves quite as much as any other member of your Lordships' House.
The point that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack impressed upon your Lordships is this—are we now to pledge ourselves to sign at this moment the Optional Clause? That is the issue. The noble and learned Marquess just now rather belittled the position in which we stand in respect of our Dominions. He said: "At Locarno you entered into obligations. You found it very easy to do so, even without the prior consent of your Dominions. Why should you not do it in this case?" Because we promised not to. There has been a definite and specific promise in the contrary direction. I really do not think that the noble and learned Marquess, for whose opinion I have a very great respect, had in his mind the terms of the Resolution at which the Imperial Conference arrived. A general understanding was reached that none of the Governments represented at the Imperial Conference would take any action in the direction of the acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Permanent Court without bringing up the matter for further discussion. It is a continuing obligation. I apologise to the noble Marquess if I misunderstood him. That is an obligation which, of course, we have no desire to escape. But that does not mean that the matter has not been under discussion between us and the Dominions between then and now and that nothing has passed. Many things have passed between us which, of course, we are not in a position to reveal. But do not let the noble and learned Marquess or your Lordships fall into the mistake of thinking that we are doing nothing in the matter between the last Imperial Conference and the next.
As has been said in this debate, there have been expressions of opinion by the Dominions themselves. All we can say

323
is that the statement that the Dominions are at the present moment agreed to sign the Optional Clause without any conditions whatever is not the fact and is not true. I am not for a moment controverting what was said by the Prime Minister of Canada. He said that Canada takes a very favourable view of the Optional Clause. Even if he had not said so I should have known that to be the case; but the fact that he said so is quite conclusive. When he spoke of other Dominions he spoke, of course, in general terms, that in principle they were in favour of the Optional Clause. That is a statement which is subject to great limitations upon the very various matters which have been laid before your Lordships by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, in the speech he made just now.
May I say that I thought there was a certain levity, not in the manner but in the substance of the speech of the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down. He seemed to think that it did not very much matter what are the precise terms of the Resolution which we pass as long as it is generally agreed to; that was all that was necessary. That is very likely true when you are dealing with a matter of internal interest; but in recording the view of your Lordships, of this great Assembly, upon a most difficult, delicate and intricate subject of foreign external policy, the terms of the Resolution you pass require to be most accurately stated. The noble and learned Lord thought that it did not matter whether or not we said that the time had arrived for signing the Optional Clause. Supposing the time has not quite arrived. Supposing the time will arrive shortly, but has not quite arrived, then it would be madness or most unwise to sign such a statement. I do not say that the time will arrive quite shortly, but I think it is most essential that we should not commit ourselves to a phrase which would lead to every conceivable kind of misunderstanding. The same is true with regard to reservations. The noble and learned Marquess said: "Well, what do reservations matter? Of course, you can put in reservations."
THE MARQUESS OF READING: The noble Marquess will forgive me, but I never said that it did not matter. All I said was that it was open under the Optional Clause to make reservations.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes, but there is no mention of reservations in the Motion before your Lordships. That is the point. The gloss, if I may respectfully use the word, which the noble and learned Marquess puts upon the Resolution really alters its meaning very largely. And it was exactly the same with the noble and learned Lord, the Leader of the Opposition. He did not think that the absence of any reference to reservations was of much importance.
LORD PARMOOR: I think the same as the noble and learned Marquess. When you debate the Optional Clause you include reservations. What I said was that it was no argument against the principle to say you had not considered the reservations.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: How accurate these noble and learned Lords are! If it had been a layman one would have understood it, but one lawyer after another gets up on the opposite side of the House and says, in effect: "It does not very much matter what the words are—it comes to very much the same thing." That is not the way to treat a great international issue. That is, if I may venture to say so, a most reckless way of dealing with it. I observe that the noble and learned Lord, the Leader of the Opposition, made a great point of the Kellogg Pact in this connection, as he was quite entitled to do, but are not the authors of the Kellogg Pact in favour of reservations? My noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has already shown that their Arbitration Treaty has two most important reservations in it—two vital reservations. Therefore to treat reservations as a subsidiary matter and as one of really no great importance is most unwise. I protest against the treatment of this great international issue as if the actual form of the words was not of much importance, and I protest against the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord opposite that on the main principle there is any difference between the various sections of opinion in your Lordships' House. That is not so. We are quite as anxious as noble Lords to substitute arbitration for war, but we do not agree that the particular words in which your Lordships' House makes that statement is a matter of indifference. I think it is one of vital importance.

325
I would most respectfully urge noble Lords sitting in different parts of the House not to be precipitate in this matter. After all, may we not all congratulate ourselves most heartily on the wonderful success of the League of Nations itself, and of this particular topic before the League of Nations, having regard to the very few years which have elapsed since its introduction? Surely this country should proceed in this matter with adequate deliberation. The declarations of the present Government and the Kellogg Pact itself are testimonies to the great progress which has been made on this question. Surely in determining on the details we ought to proceed with the greatest deliberation. What are noble Lords afraid of? Why should you not be deliberate in bringing this very difficult issue to a conclusion? Is there a lurking fear that interest in the subject will evaporate and that the time will come when people will not care about putting arbitration in the place of war? I have much more faith than they have. I am quite certain that this determination to substitute arbitration for war has come to stay. It is a permanent change in international public opinion. Noble Lords have nothing to be afraid of. The only thing is not to lose your head, and to remember that after all we are trustees for a great country, that there are certain things which must be provided for, and that we cannot ignore all the details.
Let noble Lords have confidence in this great change in public opinion, and in the ultimate triumph of the reign of law over the reign of force. Why regret that a few months or even years may elapse before you can actually draw up the instruments under which it should be done? I should be ashamed to be in such a hurry as that. I earnestly hope your Lordships will consider deeply the responsibility which rests upon you. We have to consider the deepest interests of our country. We have a very grave responsibility and we ask your Lordships not to force the Government to say to-night that now is the moment to sign the Optional Clause, but to leave the development of this question to go on as it has already proceeded, permitting us a free hand to make what arrangements we believe to be in the best interest of the country, knowing that on the main principle we are all agreed.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I trust I shall not incur the reproach of desiring to exaggerate the differences of opinion which may exist amongst us in this matter. On the other hand, everyone of us has his own responsibility, and if they think that the time has arrived at which we should sign the Optional Clause I do not think noble Lords are discharging their duty to the public and to themselves if they are not prepared to say so. The speech to which we have just listened was refreshingly different from the tone and general purport of the speech which we had from the Woolsack.
I listened very carefully to the speech from the Woolsack. I could not conceive any circumstances under which the author of that speech would be content to sign the Optional Clause. The reasons against it were all reasons which at any rate would last for a very large number of years. We were to wait until International Law was settled, till we knew exactly what, laws of evidence were to be applied, that those laws of evidence should be satisfactory to our British view even if they were not satisfactory to the Continental view, that we should under no circumstances be prepared to submit grave and serious questions to such a tribunal. I may have misunderstood the noble and learned Lord, but certainly that was the impression produced upon me by his speech. I do not say that he ever said in so many words "We never will sign the Optional Clause," but I do say that the whole of his reasoning led to the conclusion that there was no prospect of our being able to do so for very many years to come. The speech to which we have just listened was of course entirely different. I quite admit that that speech holds out great hope that at some not too distant future we may be able to sign it.
The main part of the objection raised was to the actual terms of the Resolution. I hope I shall not be regarded as impertinent if I say: "Well, if that is so, why not put down an Amendment to the Resolution?" If its terms require to be a little reconsidered, if they go rather too far, it is very easy to amend them. Are they really an expression of the opinion of this House that the time has arrived when our Government should sign the Optional Clause? If the Gov-

327
ernment are going to get up and say: "We quite agree; that is our view; we think the time has arrived; but there are difficulties, the Dominions are not ready to do it, we want a little further time, and we are prepared to-morrow to send off a circular to the Dominions recommending the signature of the Optional Clause"—then I should think it very unreasonable to press such a Motion as this, and I should certainly withdraw directly if the Government told me they were themselves in favour of the immediate signature of the Optional Clause. When I say "immediate" I mean signature with all reasonable despatch. I quite agree that they ought to be allowed time to make the necessary inquiries and the necessary provision in order to enable them to do so. But if they say they are not in favour of it, if they say they do not think the time is ripe, that they think there are grave objections and grave dangers and they give no indication of when they think the time will arrive, then it seems to me that those of us who think the time has now arrived when in principle the Government should sign the Optional Clause are entitled and indeed bound to say so and, if necessary, to vote to that effect.
I do not want to detain your Lordships, but I want to say a few words about the speech of my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. He said a lot about the Dominions. I have dealt with that. He said that there were all sorts of possible dangers, that conceivably something might happen, that some decision which we should regret might be arrived at. But he gave us no facts. He did not point out a single case in which we had ever suffered from arbitration in general. Indeed he took credit for the fact that we had taken nine cases to this Court or had been concerned in nine cases in this Court. He did not say any serious damage had accrued to the British Empire because of the decisions. He gave one instance about Lausanne. That was decided no doubt according to Continental rules of evidence which would shock a lawyer trained in our traditions, but he did not say any evil had resulted from that. He did not say the Court was misled or took into consideration evidence that was quite improper or not worth considering. Not
328
at all. He said no harm accrued. It may be a thing we did not much like, but it was not a serious matter which should prevent our taking this step forward. He even went so far in his search for reasons as to do me the honour of quoting something I said eleven or twelve years ago. I have unfortunately a bad memory for my own speeches and I do not remember exactly when I made those observations.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I thought I said it was ten years ago. The noble Viscount will find the quotation in the papers of Colonel House, in a letter written, I think, in June, 1918.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: June, 1918! Before the League of Nations had come into existence, when the matter was still under discussion about a Court of International Justice. I will make him a present—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think the noble Viscount noticed the quotation. The quotation was dealing with the question of what tribunal should be set up and what confidence it could have.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Certainly. I will make the noble and learned Lord a present of that and I will make him a present of another quotation if he really cares to study my past utterances. It is from a speech I made, a public speech, worse even than a private letter to Colonel House, in which I said quite definitely in 1918 that I did not believe it was possible to constitute an impartial international court. I said so and I thought so then. I have been proved to be entirely wrong, but that is not the first time it has happened to me and I think it may even have happened occasionally to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. The truth is we now have a Court, and that makes the whole difference.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear hear.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: We have a Court which has been proved impartial and has acquired an immense reputation amongst the nations of the world. I wish to concentrate the propositions I desire to put before your Lordships into three. The first proposition is the one laid down by Lord Cushendun at Geneva. It is the recommendation that

329
as many nations as possible should sign this Optional Clause—that was more than a year ago mind you—because it would contribute to international security. That was the view of the Government more than a year ago. That is the first proposition. The second proposition is that if we signed it it would undoubtedly enable and encourage a great many other nations to sign it. The third proposition is that it is far more important to contribute to international security than to be afraid of what I trust my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will not think me impertinent if I call the somewhat trivial objections which he raised to the course which I recommend.
My noble friend who leads the House urged us not to be too precipitate. I fully recognise the force and the weight and the wisdom of that warning. But are we too precipitate? What are we asking the Government to do? Merely to imitate what seventeen other nations have done—more than seventeen. Twenty-four nations have already done it and seventeen have ratified. We are asking them to do what Germany and a number of other European nations have already done. We are asking them to take a course which I am convinced will be followed by all the more important nations of the world. Too precipitate! Have we not had time enough to consider it? What are we waiting for? What is the danger of being "precipitate"
in this case? What is it we are afraid of? I confess I do not understand. I should agree that precipitation and hurry is dangerous in international as in national affairs, but I have always felt, and I still feel, that in this matter there is a time limit. We have to erect really satisfactory and formidable barriers against war before the realities of war have been forgotten. I am convinced that can only be done by creating in the international mind such a sense of security as will induce the acceptance of a real reduction and limitation of armaments, and I believe the acceptance of a system of arbitration, of compulsory arbitration, is a great element in the creation of that security in the international mind. I am anxious that we should set about this duty before it is too late. I do not doubt, and I have never doubted, the reality and genuineness of the desire for peace of the present advisers of His Majesty, but that is not the point. We differ, it may be, only as to when these steps should be taken. It may be so, but the difference to my mind is an important one. I think that time is in this case of the essence of the whole of our policy. It is for that reason that with the greatest regret I feel bound to press my Motion to a Division.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 26.

CONTENTS

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Cecil of Chelwood, V. [Teller.]

Davidson of Lambeth, L.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Reading, M.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Arnold, L.

Parmoor, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Sandhurst, L.

De La Warr, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Stanmore, L.

Lytton, E.

Buckmaster, L. [Teller.]

Thomson, L.

Clwyd, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Hailsham, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Stradbroke, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Faringdon, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

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

Churchill, V.

Hampton, L.

Jellicoe, E.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Peel, V.

Latymer, L.

Morton, E.

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Onslow, E.

Carnock, L.

St. Levan, L.

Plymouth, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Templemore, L.

Stanhope, E.

Danesfort, L.

Wharton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

AGE OF MARRIAGE BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Avoidance of marriages where either party is under sixteen.
1.—(1) A marriage between persons either of whom is under the age of sixteen shall be void:
Provided that it shall be a sufficient defence to any charge under section 5 (1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, or for an indecent assault, if it shall be made to appear to the court or jury before whom the charge shall be brought that the person so charged had before the commission of the alleged offence, gone through a form of marriage with the girl and had at that time and at the time of the alleged offence, reasonable cause to believe that the girl was above the age of sixteen years.
(2) Nothing in this Act shall affect any marriage solemnized or contracted before the passing of this Act, and any such marriage shall be or become valid in any case where if this Act had not been passed it would be or become valid.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved, in subsection (1), after "provided that," to insert: "in any proceedings against a person charged under subsection (1) of section five of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, or charged with indecent assault, it shall be a sufficient defence to prove that at the time when the offence is alleged to have been committed he had reasonable cause to believe that the girl in respect of whom it is alleged to have been committed was his wife."
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, this Amendment is merely to carry out an object that was explained by the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill last night. He was good enough to say that he assented to the course which the Government proposed that the Amendments made by the Select Committee should be inserted in the Bill and that it should then be the duty of the Government to redraft them in the form which, in our judgment, they ought to assume. This Amendment deals with the case where the man has reasonable cause at the time of his connection with the girl to believe that she is over sixteen. This was fully explained to your Lordships yesterday. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, leave out from ("that") to the end of line 17, and insert the said new words.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, the noble Marquess is quite right. This Amendment expresses in more precise and exact language the Amendment recommended by the Select Committee. I should not have risen except to call the attention of the noble Marquess to the fact that he made a slight slip in speaking of a person who had had connection with a girl. He should have referred to a person who had married a girl supposing her to be over sixteen.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is so. I made a mistake. I beg the noble and learned Lord's pardon.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to add to the clause "or (b) in Scotland any right or capacity of legitimation per subsequens matrimonium." The noble Marquess said: My Lords, the next Amendment was not referred to last night. It has to do with a difficulty which surrounds the law of Scotland in this matter. Your Lordships will remember that, in order to meet considerable feeling which existed in this House, emphasis was laid upon the fact that a child born of a marriage which will be void under this Bill would be primâ facie illegitimate, but that subsequent marriage, under the Act passed two years ago, would make it legitimate. That would be the case so far as the English law is concerned but, as the law stands, it would not be so in Scotland. In that country a child is made legitimate by subsequent marriage only where the parties were free to make the marriage at the time when the child was born. The intention in the Scottish law, of course, is to cover the case of one of the parties being already married. In that case subsequent legitimation is not possible under the law of Scotland. The accident of that form of the law reacts upon this Bill because, these persons being under age, they are not free to marry, and therefore even subsequent marriage would not, under the law of Scotland, make the child legitimate unless we make some change. This very small Amendment is designed solely to that end, so that in the particular case where a marriage takes place which is void under this Act and where a child is born from the marriage and is primâ

333
facie illegitimate, the subsequent marriage of the parties when they can marry will make the child legitimate.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 22, at end insert ("or (b) in Scotland any right or capacity of legitimation per subsequens matrimonium").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, the noble Marquess has explained very clearly and quite adequately the reason for this Amendment. It is due to a trivial difference in the law of legitimation here and in Scotland. This Amendment removes any difficulty at all. I hope your Lordships will accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2:
Application of section 3 of the Bastardy Laws Amendment Act, 1872.
2. Where the parties to a marriage which is void under this Act have lived together and afterwards separated, the female party may, at any time within twelve months after their separation, apply in respect of any child born of their intercourse for a summons under section three of the Bastardy Laws Amendment Act, 1872, without proof that the male party has paid money for its maintenance.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to omit Clause 2 and insert:—
" 2. A single woman who has been delivered of a child may, upon proof that
334
before the birth she was a party to what but for the passing of this Act would have been a valid marriage and that the other party thereto had access to her within twelve months before the birth of the child, make at any time an application under section three of the Bastardy Laws Amendment Act, 1872, for a summons to be served on that party, notwithstanding that he may not within the twelve months next after the birth of the child have paid money for its maintenance."
The noble Marquess said: This is merely to redraft the Amendment inserted last night with reference to bastardy.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 1, line 23, leave out Clause 2 and insert the said new clause.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at twenty-minutes before seven o'clock.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Reported, without amendment.
METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL.
The King's consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.
PACIFIC CABLE BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.

GORDON PEERAGE.
Committee for Privileges met: Claim considered: Resolution agreed to by the Committee: Report thereof to be made to the House.