Sitting of 20 February 1930

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with).
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Barry and Scarborough) Bill.
Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    TRANSFER OF WORKERS.
    Mr. LONGDENasked the Minister of Labour whether, seeing that free travelling warrants are issued to boys under the age of 18 on being transferred from distressed areas to industrial and domestic employment, whereas girls receive free railway vouchers from the Lord Mayor's Fund on being transferred to industrial employment, but not when they are going to domestic service, she will consider placing the girls on the same footing as the boys; and whether she has received representations from the Birmingham Juvenile Welfare Subcommittee asking her to end this anomaly?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): Representations on this point have been made by the Birmingham Juvenile Welfare Sub-Committee. I have given careful consideration to the matter, but I see no reason for transferring to public funds the responsibility for the cost of travelling expenses which
    1548
    by long-standing custom has been paid or advanced by the employer. The experience of my Department is that there is no difficulty about the railway fare of any woman or girl travelling to a distance to take up resident domestic service.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Labour if she is receiving assistance from both organisations of employers and trades unions in her efforts to widen and increase the usefulness of the transfer of labour scheme?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The industrial transference scheme has been carried out by the ordinary placing machinery of the Employment Exchanges, with which committees representative of employers and workpeople are associated, and it has not been found necessary to make any general approach in the matter to employers' organisations or trade unions.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Lady having sympathetic help from associations both of employers and employed in this matter?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I have no complaint to make about the general attitude of the organisations.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Are they enthusiastic about it?

    BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
    Dr. MORRIS-JONESasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons in the county of Denbigh, in the Colwyn Bay Urban District, who were refused unemployment benefit on the grounds of not genuinely seeking work for the six months ending 31st December, 1929?
    Miss BONDFIELD: During the period 9th July, 1929, to 13th January, 1930, 24 applications for benefit made at the Colwyn Bay Employment Exchange were disallowed by insurance officers on the ground "not genuinely seeking work," and 14 cases were recommended for disallowance on the same ground by courts of referees on review after payment of 78 days' benefit.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour the total number of persons

    1549
    refused benefit for any reason during the four months ended 10th January, 1930, and the same figures for the same period 12 months before?
    Miss BONDFIELD: During the four months ended 13th January, 1930, 169,399 applications for benefit made at Employment Exchanges in Great Britain were disallowed by insurance officers, and 16,468 cases were recommended for disallowance by courts of referees on review after payment of 78 days' benefit. The corresponding figures for the four months ended 14th January, 1929, were 231,090 disallowances by insurance officers and 26,807 by courts of referees.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Minister of Labour the number of claims for unemployment benefit which have been refused on the ground that the claimant does not satisfy the statutory condition, unable to obtain suitable employment, for each month since September, 1929, to the end of January, 1930, and the corresponding figures for the previous years?
    Miss BONDFIELD: As the reply includes a number of figures I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:
    Disallowances of claims to benefit by Insurance Officers on the ground "Not unable to obtain suitable employment" in Great Britain.

    Period.

    Four weeks, 10th September, 1928, to 8th October, 1928

    2,876

    Five weeks, 9th October, 1928, to 12th November, 1928

    3,533

    Four weeks, 13th November, 1928, to 10th December, 1928

    2,845

    Five weeks, 11th December, 1928, to 14th January, 1929

    2,856

    Five weeks, 10th September, 1929, to 14th October, 1929

    3,139

    Four weeks, 15th October, 1929, to 11th November, 1929

    3,122

    Four weeks, 12th November, 1929, to 9th December, 1929

    3,205

    Five weeks, 10th December, 1929, to 13th January, 1930

    3,643

    Note.—In a number of cases the decisions were reversed on appeal to Courts of Referees.

    TRAINEES.
    Mr. SHAKESPEAREasked the Minister of Labour the number of trainees now in training for settlement on the land or for industrial occupations in Great Britain?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Men are trained by the Ministry of Labour for industrial occupations in Great Britain at transfer instructional centres and Government training centres, 1,047 men were in training at transfer instructional centres on 11th February, and 2,967 men at Government training centres on 14th February. At overseas training centres men are trained for settlement on the land in the Dominions. At these centres 996 men were in training on 19th February.
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Will the right hon. Lady read the eloquent speeches of the First Commissioner of Works, and she will see what we were led to expect in this direction?

    BUILDING TRADE.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour the total number of building trade workers now out of work and the same figures a year ago?
    Miss BONDFIELD: At 27th January, 1930, the number of insured persons, aged 16 to 64, classified as belonging to the building industry, recorded as unemployed in Great Britain was 149,403 as compared with 159,219 at 21st January, 1929.
    Mr. McSHANE: Will the right hon. Lady consider the advisability of sending out a circular to local authorities in view of the continuing housing shortage, asking them to do all in their power to absorb these unemployed building trade workers?
    Miss BONDFIELD: That question should be addressed to the Minister of Health.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Cannot the right hon. Lady ask her colleague to get on with the Slum Clearance Bill at once?

    INSURANCE ACT (INSTRUCTIONS).
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour what instructions are being issued to the various officials of her Department as to the new procedure to be followed under the new Unemployment Insurance Act; what steps are being taken to let applicants for benefit know their rights and when to make a claim under the new Act; and on what date any new procedure will begin to operate?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Instructions detailing the changes made by the new Act and

    1551
    the procedure to be adopted to bring them into operation are now being issued to the local officers of the Department. All applicants who are signing the register and whose claims were disallowed under the old provisions will be personally informed of the changes made by the new Act, and will be given an opportunity to make a new claim. Posters will also be exhibited calling attention to the revised conditions. The Act will come generally into force on 13th March. I had hoped to bring certain of the provisions into operation by 1st February or shortly afterwards, in accordance with the discretionary power given by Section 19. I regret, however, that this is not possible owing to the delay in passing the Act, which did not become law until 6th February.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: While thanking the right hon. Lady for her answer, may I ask her if, in addition, she will see that all necessary new Regulations are posted prominently in the Exchanges?
    Miss BONDFIELD: That is the intention.
    Mr. HARRIS: Will the right hon. Lady send copies of the instructions to Members of the House, so that they can become familiar with them?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I am afraid that hon. Members would find them pages and pages of very dull matter.
    Mr. HARRIS: We should like to have that dull matter.
    Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: Will the right hon. Lady put copies in the Library?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I will do that.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: If we make application to the right hon. Lady, cannot we have them?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The simplest plan would be to put them in the Library, where anybody can see them.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: If hon. Members would find it difficult to understand them, how can other people be expected to understand them?

    EXCHANGES.
    Mr. KELLYasked the Minister of Labour whether her attention has been
    1552
    directed to the queues at the Rochdale Exchange; and whether action will be taken to prevent the hardship and suffering consequent on the long periods of standing in the street during the recent bad weather?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The accommodation provided at the Rochdale Employment Exchange is normally adequate, but I am aware that, owing to the sudden closing down of certain mills of which the Exchange authorities had no warning, there was considerable congestion at the Exchange at the end of January. The position has since been eased by the institution of mill schemes, which will reduce the numbers of persons requiring to attend at the Exchange, and I am considering what other remedial action is necessary.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Minister of Labour the number of signing-on days for males and females, respectively, at the following Exchanges: Aspull, Bolton, Blackrod, Hindley, Horwich, Leigh, Westhoughton and Wigan; and if there is a variation in the number will she state the reason why?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I am having inquiries made and will communicate with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. HACKINGasked the Minister of Labour what steps she is taking to provide adequate facilities at the Adlington (Lancashire) Employment Exchange to deal with the increase in unemployment consequent upon the closing of a large cotton mill in that township?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I have communicated with the right hon. Gentleman explaining in detail the steps which have been taken to improve the arrangements at Adlington Employment Exchange?
    Mr. HACKING: Is the right hon. Lady aware that there is still dissatisfaction in Adlington, and will she look into the matter again?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Yes, certainly.

    WESTHOUGHTON.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Minister of Labour the total number of male and female claims, respectively, allowed and disallowed through the Westhoughton Employment Exchange during each of the five years ended December, 1929; and

    1553
    whether the percentage allowed and disallowed compares favourably or otherwise with the whole of the country for the same periods?
    Miss BONOFIELD: Comparable statistics of the number of claims made at particular Exchanges which were disallowed,

    —

    19th April, 1928, to 10th December, 1928.

    11th December, 1928, to 9th December, 1929.

    Males.

    Females.

    Total.

    Males.

    Females.

    Total.

    Westhoughton Employment Exchange:

    Total fresh and renewal claims made.

    4,273

    1,753

    6,026

    6,143

    3,694

    9,837

    Claims disallowed by Insurance Officers.

    132

    65

    197

    177

    174

    351

    Great Britain:

    Total fresh and renewal claims made

    4,954,242

    1,495,092

    6,449,334

    7,430,441

    2,102,943

    9,533,384

    Claims disallowed by Insurance Officers.

    289,356

    124,969

    414,325

    414,716

    239,775

    654,491

    COURT OF REFEREES, GLASGOW (CONSTITUTION).
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Minister of Labour if she is aware that an applicant for benefit who had appealed to the court of referees in Glasgow, on refusing to have her case heard by a, court that was not fully constituted on 27th January, had her ease deferred till 30th January, and had again to refuse that day to have her case decided by a court that was not fully constituted; and whether she will take steps to secure that when an applicant has once intimated refusal to be judged by an incomplete court on the next occasion that applicant is asked to appear a fully constituted court shall be present to deal with the claim?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Every effort is made to secure a full court on every occasion, but if a member who has been summoned does not give notice that he is unable to attend, or gives short notice, it is not always possible to obtain a substitute in time.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Will the right hon. Lady make inquiries of the Glasgow Court of Referees and suggest that an applicant should not have to attend twice?
    are available only in respect of the period since 19th April, 1928.
    I will, if I may, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving such information as is available.
    Following is the statement:
    Miss BONDFIELD: As a matter of fact, I am following up that suggestion.
    Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Is the right hon. Lady aware that in certain districts they find a difficulty in getting some of the workers' representatives to attend, in case they have to give a decision against the workers?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I wish that were true.
    Dr. DAVIES: It is true.

    STATISTICS.
    Sir A. POWNALLasked the Minister of Labour in what industries and in what districts the increase in the unemployment figures as compared with this time last year occurs?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the Ministry of Labour Gazette for February, which contains a detailed comparison of the percentages unemployed at 27th January, 1930, and a year previously in each of 100 industry groups. The principal industries in which there were increases are cotton, wool and the distributive trades. The Divisions showing increases were the North Western and to a lesser extent the London and South Eastern.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is it correct to say that there has been no increase of unemployment in safeguarded industries?

    INSURANCE FUND.
    Sir A. POWNALLasked the Minister of Labour how long it will take before the limit to the borrowing powers of the Unemployment Insurance Fund is reached if the unemployment figure exceeds the present total by 100,000?
    Miss BONDFIELD: If the live register were 100,000 higher than it is at present and remained at that figure, it is estimated that the limit of borrowing powers would be reached towards the end of April. I should mention that, apart from other uncertain factors, this estimate is based on the assumption that only a small part of the additional benefit would be "transitional benefit," the cost of which is reimbursed to the Fund by the Exchequer, and would not therefore add to the total of the debt.
    Sir A. POWNALL: Can the right hon. Lady say whether this takes into account the changes that will come into effect on 13th March?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Yes.

    EMPLOYMENT (INSURABILITY).
    Mr. EGANasked the Minister of Labour if she is aware that persons receiving employment from local authorities, by arrangement with a Poor Law authority, are being ruled out as employed persons within the meaning of the Insurance Act; and if she will state, in view of Section 47, Sub-section (1), paragraph (b), Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927, on what grounds this ruling is made?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Section 47 (1) (b) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, as amended by the Fourth Schedule to the Act of 1927, only relates to work provided by a local authority where a contribution towards the employed person's remuneration is made by a Poor Law authority. Moreover, it does not affect the position of any persons who have previously been in receipt of unemployment benefit and are employed in full-time work provided by the authority. If my hon. Friend cares to let
    1556
    me have details of any cases in which he is interested I will have inquiries made into the question of insurability.

    MUSICIANS.
    Mr. REMERasked the Minister of Labour if she is aware of the dissatisfaction felt by musicians at the present state of the law as to unemployment insurance; and if she can arrange for an amendment of the law so that their total annual earnings should be the basis of eligibility for unemployment pay instead of, as at present, at the rate of £250 per annum?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I am afraid that I cannot hold out any hope of introducing legislation on this subject at present.

    CHOICE OF CAREER (PAMPHLETS).
    Mr. T. SMITHasked the Minister of Labour what steps she is taking to make information available with regard to the professions and occupations suitable for boys and girls leaving the public secondary schools?
    Miss BONDFIELD: As the answer is rather long I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT; but may I say that I hope my hon. Friend and other hon. Members will take the opportunity of reading the pamphlets which are referred to in the reply.
    Following is the answer:
    The Ministry of Labour in collaboration with the Incorporated Associations of Headmasters and Headmistresses of Public Secondary Schools is issuing a series of pamphlets under the title of the "Choice of Career Series." A list of the pamphlets already issued and in preparation is printed below. In addition to the pamphlets on this list a number of others are in contemplation.
    The pamphlets are placed on sale by His Majesty's Stationery Office at a price not exceeding 2d. each. Copies of the pamphlets as they are issued are sent to all local committees for juvenile employment and to headmasters and headmistresses of recognised public secondary schools, University Appointments Boards., etc.
    List of Pamphlets.
    *Navigating Officers in the Merchant Navy.
    *Commercial Appointments.
    *Appointments to the Civil and Local Government Services and under Statutory Bodies.
    *In preparation.

    CLERICAL WORKERS (ALIENS).
    Mr. ROMERILasked the Minister of Labour (1) how many aliens were given permission to land in this country during the year 1929 for the purpose of taking up clerical employment; and what was the number for each month of that year;
    (2) what opportunity is given to British subjects to obtain positions in respect of which requests are received for the importation of alien clerical workers and for the renewal of permits of alien clerical workers already in this country?
    Miss BONDFIELD: With the hon. Member's permission, I will answer these questions together, and as the reply is necessarily somewhat long I will circulate it, if I may, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    The number of aliens admitted to this country in 1929 for clerical occupations of all kinds, including those who were initially admitted as students, visitors, etc., and who were subsequently permitted to accept such employment, was 1,439. The figures for each month of 1929 were as follow:

    January

    …

    …

    …

    133

    February

    …

    …

    …

    106

    March

    …

    …

    …

    126

    April

    …

    …

    …

    128

    May

    …

    …

    …

    146

    June

    …

    …

    …

    108

    July

    …

    …

    …

    123

    August

    …

    …

    …

    121

    September

    …

    …

    …

    104

    October

    …

    …

    …

    149

    November

    …

    …

    …

    115

    December

    …

    …

    …

    80

    Of the total of 1,439, 963 were young persons occupying supernumerary posts for limited periods in order to obtain British experience and some knowledge of the English language or were aliens granted permission to work in this country under arrangements for the exchange of young British and foreign student employés. The great majority of the remainder were foreign correspondents or were men admitted to take up work in the British branches of foreign companies and corporations.
    In all cases where an employer wishes to obtain the services of an alien on a normal paid basis he has to satisfy my Department that he has taken all possible steps to find suitable labour from amongst permanent residents in the country. In suitable cases he is required to notify the vacancy to the local Employment Exchange or to get in touch with the local Chamber of Commerce. In addition the employer is required to give a guarantee that no labour will be displaced by the engagement of the alien in question.

    COST-OF-LIVING (INDEX FIGURE).
    Mr. BROOKEasked the Minister of Labour how the cost-of-living index figure issued by her Department is arrived at; and whether she is satisfied that it provides a correct indication of the facts?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I am sending my hon. Friend an extract from the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" for February, 1921, containing a detailed account of the method of compilation of the cost-of-living index figure. As stated in that article, the object of the figure is to provide a measure of "the average increase in the cost of maintaining unchanged the pre-War standard of living of the working classes." I know of no reason for thinking that on this basis the figures do not provide a correct indication of the facts.
    Mr. BROOKE: Have any representations been made to the right hon. Lady by organised bodies as to the methods of ascertainment of this figure, and have any deputations been received?
    Miss BONDFIELD: No, they have not made any representations.

    SAFEGUARDING AND IMPORT DUTIES.

      SILK INDUSTRY.
      Mr. REMERasked the Minister of Labour how many people were unemployed in the silk and artificial silk industries on the 1st December, 1929, and how many on the 1st February, 1930, respectively?
      Miss BONDFIELD: The number of insured persons, aged 16 to 64, classified as belonging to the silk and artificial silk industry group, recorded as unemployed in Great Britain at 27th January, 1930, was 14,055, as compared with 8,730 at 25th November, 1929.
      Mr. REMER: In view of the uncertainty in these industries, will the right hon. Lady pass these figures on to the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
      Mr. C. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Labour if there are any signs of improvement in the numbers employed in the artificial silk trade; and if employment is increasing or decreasing in this trade?
      Miss BONDFIELD: Until last autumn there had been, for some years, a steady increase in the number of persons employed in the silk and artificial silk industry group, but during the past three months there has been a heavy increase in the numbers of insured persons in the industry recorded as unemployed. At 27th January, 1930, the percentage rate of unemployment was 19.1 as compared with 9.4 at 21st October, 1929. I am unable to say how far this increase in unemployment is likely to be temporary.
      Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Lady say why this trade, which was so prosperous 12 months ago, is now getting worse, and is she taking any steps to remedy it; further, has she any idea that the Chancellor's not very wise statements—[Interruption.]
      Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: Will the right hon. Lady send a copy of her reply to the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
      Miss BONDFIELD: Hon. Members might do that themselves.
      Mr. REMER: Is the right hon. Lady aware that at this time last year there
      1560
      was no unemployment worth talking about in Macclesfield, and will she take steps to see by what means this matter can be remedied?
      Miss BONDFIELD: These unemployment figures are being watched with the greatest anxiety and attention by my Department.
      Mr. WILLIAMS: What, is the right hon. Lady doing?
      Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Does not the right hon. Lady realise that it is well known in the textile industry that this temporary depression in the artificial silk industry has been caused by the uncertainty of the position?
      Miss BONDFIELD: That is entirely a matter of opinion.

      MOTOR INDUSTRY.
      Mr. REMERasked the Minister of Labour how many people were unemployed in the motor car industry on the 1st December, 1929, and how many on the 1st February, 1930, respectively?
      Miss BONDFIELD: The number of insured persons, aged 16 to 64, classified as belonging to the motor vehicle, cycle and aircraft industry, recorded as unemployed in Great Britain at 27th January, 1930, was 18,721 as compared with 17,661 at 25th November, 1929.
      Mr. STEPHEN: Will the right hon. Lady pass those figures also on to the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
      Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Has there not always been an increase in previous years, and is not this year the first to show a decrease?
      Mr. GEORGE OLIVERasked the Minister of Labour if she can state how the hourly rates of wages paid in the motor car section of the engineering trade, now covered by the so-called McKenna Duties, compare with the hourly rates paid in other sections of the engineering trade not so protected by an import duty?
      Miss BONDFIELD: The hourly district time rates of wages recognised by the employers' and workers' organisations in the engineering industry do not differentiate between the motor car section and other sections of the industry. I am not in possession of any recent statistics

      1561
      showing the rates actually paid by employers in each of the different sections of this industry, but particulars of the average earnings, in the week ended 27th October, 1928, of workpeople in various branches of the industry, including the motor vehicle and cycle section, were given on page 401 of the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" for November last, a copy of which I am sending to my hon. Friend.
      Mr. OLIVER: If there had been an increase in the hourly rate of pay applying to the motor section of the industry, would there be some record of it in the Department; and, in the absence of such record, am I to take it that there is no difference at all in the rate paid in the motor section as compared with other sections of the industry?
      Miss BONDFIELD: Normally speaking, we are notified of any changes in the hourly rates of wages.
      Mr. OLIVER: Shall I be right in assuming that, despite the high duty on motor cars, the workpeople have no advantage from Protection?
      Miss BONDFIELD: I should like notice of that question.
      Sir G. HAMILTON: Do not these workpeople at any rate get a regular job at good wages, whereas in the silk trade they are losing their work?
      Mr. REMER: Is it not a fact that the wages in the motor industry have been advanced as the result of the McKenna Duties? Is the right hon. Lady aware that in one factory in Birmingham as much as £13 a week is earned?

      LACE TRADE.
      Mr. G. OLIVERasked the Minister of Labour whether the wages now paid in the lace industry show any increase over the rates operating in 1924; and the amount of such increase, if any, that may have taken place?
      Miss BONDFIELD: No increase in the general level of rates of wages in the lace industry has been reported to the Department since 1924.
      Mr. OLIVER: Does not the right hon. Lady think that these figures show conclusively that there is no advantage in
      1562
      Safeguarding from the operatives' point of view?
      Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Is it not a fact that the lace industry was on short time five and a-half hours at the time the duty was imposed, and this was reduced to only one and a-half hours until the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his disastrous statement?

      ECONOMIC ADVISORY COUNCIL.
      Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that one of the functions of the Economic Advisory Council is the consideration of tariff policy, he proposes to refer to it the question of the maintenance of the Safeguarding and McKenna Duties?
      The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The answer is in the negative.
      Mr. CHURCHILL: Is this not one of those questions which would gain especially from having an opinion expressed upon it by a highly competent body without party or doctrinal bias?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that such a body has been consulted.
      Captain CROOKSHANK: What is the use of these terms of reference to the Council if, when an opportunity like this arises, it is not taken advantage of?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: In relation to the very important supplementary answer given by the Prime Minister, may I ask what is this impartial body, without party or doctrinal bias, which has been consulted in regard to the question of the removal of these duties?
      The PRIME MINISTER: It is the same sort of body which the right horn. Gentleman the Member for Epping consulted when he put them on.
      Mr. CHURCHILL: Does the Prime Minister mean by that that he has consulted his Civil Service advisers and no one else? If not, what else does he mean? If the right hon. Gentleman, by his important supplementary answer, did not mean what I have said, will he kindly tell us what he did mean?
      The PRIME MINISTER: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that a responsible Government consults its

      1563
      Civil Service advisers and others, and that advice in the ordinary way and following the usual practice of Governments has been taken.
      Mr. CHURCHILL: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what is the purpose of appointing this special body, the Economic Advisory Council, to give advice on these different controversial questions? Does it mean a new departure or some new foundation on which the Government proposes to act?
      The PRIME MINISTER: It means that the consultations have been hitherto more in the nature of ad hoc consultations than a general survey of the whole situation for the purpose of providing the Government with advice upon the larger issues. The Advisory Council has been appointed, not for that purpose alone, but for other points which may arise, and which I hope will be considered in an impartial and somewhat politically detached way.
      Mr. CHURCHILL—
      Mr. BECKETT: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask whether it is in order for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) to put so many more supplementary questions than other hon. Members?
      Mr. SPEAKER: I have always insisted that I must be the judge of that.
      Mr. CHURCHILL: I have no intention of abusing the Rules of the House, but I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will take an early opportunity of stating to the House the kind of question that he is going to, put before this tribunal, and which I think might be made the subject of a public announcement in order that we may all gain from the work of the tribunal?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I do not rule out this question, because it is a kind of question that can be sent to the Advisory Council. The advice we have taken on this question has been the ordinary advice that all Governments have taken on these questions.
      Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND—
      Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot allow this question to develop into a debate.

    WASHINGTON HOURS CONVEN- TION.
    Miss LEEasked the Minister of Labour when she proposes to introduce legislation dealing with the Washington Hours Convention?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Prune Minister's reply to a similar question on 3rd February.

    INTERNATIONAL LABOUR STANDARDS.
    Mr. ALLENasked the Minister of Labour whether she will make a statement as to the steps which have been taken by the present Government to secure the establishment and enforcement of international labour standards, particularly in regard to wages?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply on this subject given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on the 21st January, and to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery) on the 6th February. Since these replies were given the Governing Body of the International Labour Office has decided to place on the agenda of the International Labour Conference in June next the question of an international arrangement in respect of the regulation of hours in coal mining, and further progress has been made in respect of the inquiry into conditions in the textile trades. It is the policy of the Government to promote effective action by the International Labour Organisation in the establishment of international standards of working conditions.
    Mr. ALLEN: Would it not be most effective and practicable to impose an embargo on goods produced under sweated conditions abroad?
    Miss BONDFIELD: That is not a matter for my Department.

    CINEMATOGRAPH OPERATORS (WAGES).
    Mr. LANGasked the Minister of Labour if she has any information with regard to the hours of labour and the wages of operators in cinema theatres in London and the provinces?
    Miss BONDFIELD: With my hon. Friend's permission I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a tabular statement

    MINIMUM KATES OF WAGES for Cinema Operators, as agreed upon between branches of the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association and the Electrical Trades Union.

    District.

    Class of Worker.

    Minimum Weekly Rates of Wages.

    Hours of Labour in a full week.

    s.

    d.

    London*

    Chief Operator

    97

    0

    48

    Second Operator

    54

    0

    Yorkshire, West Riding.

    Class A Halls:

    Chief Operator

    90

    0

    Less 15 per cent.

    —

    Second Operator

    60

    0

    Class B Halls:

    Operator

    60s. to 80s. according to seating capacity.

    s.

    d.

    Manchester†

    Operator (1st Grade Halls)

    90

    0

    Less 10 per cent.

    48

    Operator (2nd Grade Halls)

    70

    0

    Glasgow and West of Scotland.

    Class A H alls:

    Chief Operator

    85

    0

    48

    Second Operator

    67

    6

    Class B Halls:

    Chief Operator

    67

    6

    Second Operator

    57

    6

    Class C Halls:

    Chief Operator

    57

    6

    * In London the trade union party to the agreement was the National Association of Theatrical Employés.

    † In Manchester the agreement wag not signed by an employers' association but by individual employers.

    COAL INDUSTRY.

      MINERS' NYSTAGMUS (STATISTICS).
      Mr. TINKERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state, for the year 1928, the number of cases in the mining industry which have been certified as suffering from miners' nystagmus and who have been paid compensation; and the total number of old and new cases at present receiving compensation because of this disease?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes): The Returns for 1928 show that the total number of cases in the mining industry in which compensation was paid for this disease was 9,818. These were made up of 7,264 old cases and 2,554 new cases. I regret that no later figures are available.
      Mr. TINKER: Do the cases for 1928 show any excess over those for 1927?
      Mr. CLYNES: I could not make a comparison without notice.
      summarising such information as is available.
      Following is the statement:

      WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
      Mr. TINKERasked the Home Secretary what was the average cost per person employed in the mining industry paid in compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act during the year 1928; and will he state the average cost per person covering all the industries which make returns to him?
      Mr. CLYNES: I would refer my hon. Friend to the particulars given on page 7 of the Workmen's Compensation Statistics for 1928. The figures are, for the mining industry, £3 4s. 1d., and for the whole of the industries covered, 17s. 4d.

      ANTHRACOSIS.
      Mr. HOPKINasked the Home Secretary if he is now ready to appoint a departmental committee to inquire into the causes and medical history of anthracosis as it is found in the anthracite district of South Wales, with

      1567
      the view of placing it upon the schedule of diseases under the Workmen's Compensation Act?
      Mr. CLYNES: I have still no evidence before me to show that the condition of the lungs described as anthracosis is a cause of disablement. The Medical Research Council, however, are setting up, at my request, an expert Committee to institute and coordinate research into pulmonary disease from silica and other dusts, and with the concurrence of the Mines Department I propose to bring the question of the effects of coal dust under the consideration of this Committee.

    SILK INDUSTRY.
    Mr. KELLYasked the Home Secretary whether the reports from his inspectors show an increase in the injuries to men and women engaged in the artificial silk industry during the last six months?
    Mr. CLYNES: I am glad to state that as regards cases of inflammation of the eyes among workers employed in the spinning rooms, which has been the special trouble in this industry, the reports received show that on the whole there has been a marked improvement. This is no doubt due to the steps taken to secure efficient ventilation which it is agreed is the remedy for the mischief.

    FACTORY INSPECTORATE.
    Mrs. HAMILTONasked the Home Secretary when he proposes to publish the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Factory Inspectorate; and whether action on its findings is being taken by his Department?
    Mr. CLYNES: I hope to be able to issue the Report and to announce the decisions taken by the Government on the Committee's recommendations very shortly.

    CROSS-CHANNEL EXCURSION TRAFFIC.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the abuse of weekend tickets for the Continent by which anyone can enter this country without a
    1568
    passport; and whether he is taking any steps to prevent this abuse of a privilege?
    Mr. CLYNES: I have seen a recent article in the Press in which it is alleged that there is abuse of the special arrangements whereby passports may be dispensed with in connection with cross-channel excursion traffic. The arrangements are under close and continual supervision, and I am satisfied that the utmost vigilance is exercised by experienced officers at the ports to secure that the facilities granted to excursionists are not abused.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how it is possible if a person who takes a return ticket and gets rid of it to someone who goes to Paris to check the person who comes back with the original ticket which has been issued?
    Mr. CLYNES: I can only say that I personally have watched and inspected the process of the incoming excursionists, and I am satisfied that every precaution is taken to see that the law is complied with.

    FACTORIES BILL.
    Major NATHANasked the Home Secretary when he anticipates introducing the projected Factories Bill?
    Mr. CLYNES: I regret that in the present state of public business I am unable to say when this Bill can be introduced.
    Major NATHAN: With a view to shortening and facilitating discussion when the Government proposals are ready, will the Home Secretary take into consideration the desirability of introducing a consolidation Measure in the usual way?
    Mr. CLYNES: It will be very largely a consolidating Measure.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is, the right hon. Gentleman aware that consolidation Measures are of no value to the workers at all?
    Mr. CLYNES: The Measure will be in the direction of simplifying the law.

    ENTERTAINMENT HALLS (SAFETY REGULATIONS).
    Mr. EDEasked the Home Secretary if he has made recent inquiries into the vigilance with which local authorities discharge their duties in supervising the requirements designed to promote public safety in buildings used as cinemas, theatres, and for similar purposes; and if he will issue a circular calling their attention to their duties in this respect?
    Mr. CLYNES: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The responsibility for enforcing the Safety Regulations and generally for ensuring the public safety at places of entertainment rests with the local authorities and I have no reason to believe that local authorities generally are not fully aware of their responsibility. If my hon. Friend has the Paisley disaster in mind, I would refer him to the last paragraph of the reply which I gave on the 23rd January to my hon. Friend the Member for Western Renfrew. I will send him a copy.
    Mr. EDE: Has the Home Secretary in his Department any information as to the number of authorities who have full time inspectors discharging these duties?
    Mr. CLYNES: I shall be glad to have notice of that question.

    MUNICIPAL SAVINGS BANKS.
    Mr. SINKINSONasked the Prime Minister if he will consider legislation conferring powers on municipal corporations enabling them to establish municipal savings banks similar to the Birmingham Corporation Bank now in operation; and, if so, can he indicate how soon?
    Mr. THOMAS LEWISasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received a copy of a resolution passed by the Association of Municipal Corporations, that His Majesty's Government be urged to promote legislation authorising the establishment of savings' banks by municipal authorities; and whether he will consider the desirability of providing facilities for the passage of the necessary legislation to give effect to the resolution?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): I have received the resolution referred to and similar resolutions from various
    1570
    municipal authorities. In the present state of Parliamentary business there is no possibility of general legislation.

    INTERNATIONAL BANK.
    Mr. MORLEYasked the Prime Minister if he will afford an opportunity to the House of Commons to discuss the convention respecting the Bank for International Settlements?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The convention in regard to the Bank for International Settlements is included among the agreements' reached at The Hague Conference which have been presented to Parliament (Cmd. 3484). The pressure upon Parliamentary time for urgent business is so great that I am not in a position to encourage the discussion asked for, unless one of the ordinary opportunities is taken.

    FIGHTING SERVICES (MEAT AND WHEAT SUPPLIES).
    Mr. HACKINGasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the Government's requests to chambers of commerce, trade associations and local authorities, as expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Health, to buy British goods, Cabinet instructions will be given to the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Secretary of State for War, and the Secretary of State for Air to purchase British meat and wheat for the future requirements of the Navy, Army, and Air Force?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Regarding the use of flour, I would refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture on the 10th instant. As regards meat, I am unable to add to previous statements which have been made on this subject.
    Mr. HACKING: Is it not desirable that the Government should make an exception to their usual rule and carry out in practice what they preach?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that our usual rule is a very sound one.
    Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Are we to understand that it is the desire of the two right hon. Gentlemen who are

    1571
    mentioned in the question that British foodstuffs should foe excluded from the diet of these Services?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, that is a profound mistake.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Can the Prime Minister say whether there is any difference in policy in this respect between the present Government and the last Government which gave similar advice?

    ECONOMIC ADVISORY COUNCIL.
    Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Prime Minister whether the Economic Advisory Council has met; and, if so, whether it intends from time to time to make any announcement regarding the subjects it has under consideration?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Economic Advisory Council has met. Its proceedings are private, and its conclusions will be treated as confidential, except in such circumstances as the Government may decide otherwise.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think, in view of the questions which have been put to him already to-day, that this is a very suitable matter on which to have a Debate in this House as soon as possible?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The opportunity will very soon arise, and we shall welcome the Debate.

    AGRICULTURE (IMPORTED PRODUCE).
    Mr. WESTWOODasked the Prime Minister if he will have a White Paper prepared giving the clauses of treaties that stand in the way of dealing with the dumping of bounty-provided wheat, oats and barley into this country?
    Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have been asked to reply to this question. I would refer to the answers which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade gave to a question by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Beaumont) on 5th February, and to that by the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan) on 28th January, of which I am sending him copies.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: Can we have an assurance that none of these treaties have been negotiated by the present Government?
    Mr. GILLETT: My impression certainly is that none of them have.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether there is anything in these treaties to prevent countervailing duties being imposed tomorrow, with the sanction of Parliament?
    Mr. GILLETT: Yes, Sir, I understand that there is.

    BRITISH MUSEUM (BOMB).
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Home Secretary if he is now in a position to make a further statement regarding the case in which a man was convicted of placing a bomb in the British Museum; and whether anyone of Indian nationality was involved in the case?
    Mr. CLYNES: The case was fully reported in the public Press. It was a mischievous hoax, and no person of Indian origin was involved.

    METROPOLITAN POLICE (COM- PLAINTS).
    Mr. BECKETTasked the Home Secretary how many complaints were made in 1928 and 1929 of offensive behaviour or victimisation against officers attached to the Vine Street and Bow Street divisions?
    Mr. CLYNES: The figures for the years 1928 and 1929 were respectively, for C Division, 28 and 28; and for E Division, 13 and 16.
    Mr. BECKETT: In view of the considerable number of complaints—and very few people take the trouble to make a complaint—is the right hon. Gentleman quite satisfied that the conduct of these two divisions is all that it should be?
    Mr. CLYNES: In view of the population in the divisions, and the number of men concerned, the number of complaints is not considerable.
    Earl WINTERTON: Is it the fact that frequently members of the public are very offensive to the police?
    Mr. CLYNES: Yes, that is so.
    Mr. BECKETT: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House at the first opportunity.
    Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Could the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these complaints were substantiated? Were they all substantiated?
    Mr. CLYNES: Without notice I could not say.
    Mr. BECKETTasked the Home Secretary what action, if any, has been taken in respect of complaints received during 1928 or 1929 of officers attached to the Bow Street or Vine Street divisions soliciting or accepting bribes?
    Mr. CLYNES: In the divisions referred to, in 1928, one officer was dismissed, two required to resign, and one transferred, and in 1929, four officers were dismissed, as a result of complaints of soliciting or accepting bribes.
    Mr. BECKETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these two divisions are becoming a by-word for this kind of thing, and cannot he have an inquiry into the whole matter?
    Mr. CLYNES: I am not aware of any such impression, except in the mind of the hon. Member.
    Dr. V. DAVIES: Had any bribes been offered to these officers by motorists?

    GAMING PROSECUTIONS ("HOUSE").
    Mr. EDEasked the Home Secretary how many prosecutions in the Metropolitan police district took place in the last year for which statistics are available of persons playing the game of house on racecourses, at fairs, and elsewhere?
    Mr. CLYNES: This game is far leas common than it was for a time shortly after the War. To collect the information asked for would involve an expenditure of time and labour which I am afraid could hardly be justified, but if my hon. Friend will communicate to me what he has in mind I will see whether any information can be obtained for him.
    Mr. EDE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider discontinuing prosecutions
    1574
    in the case of this particular game, which soldiers during the War were informed by the Army authorities was not gambling at all?
    Sir G. HAMILTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain what this game is?
    Mr. CLYNES: I speak as one less wise than some in these matters, but I have done my best to understand it.

    PRISONS (DISPOSAL).
    Mr. R. S. YOUNGasked the Home Secretary (1) the area occupied by Holloway Prison, its capacity for accommodating prisoners, and its average prison population for the last five years; and if it is one of His Majesty's prisons under consideration to be closed;
    (2) the area occupied by Pentonville Prison; its capacity for accommodating prisoners; its average prison population during the last five years; if it is one of His Majesty's prisons likely to be closed; and, if so, whether he will give preference to the housing authorities concerned for the purchase of the site, etc., for working-class housing?
    Mr. CLYNES: Holloway and Pentonville Prisons occupy 12¼ acres and 10 acres respectively. Holloway has accommodation for 91V, and over the last five years has had a daily average population of 304. Pentonville has accommodation for 1,160, and over the last five years has had a daily average population of 666. I do not think it will be practicable to close Holloway Prison, but I should be prepared to examine the possibility of disposing of Pentonville should a housing authority wish to acquire the site. In considering such an offer, I should certainly bear in mind the suggestion made by my hon. Friend, but, as I informed him last week, the cost of providing another prison would first have to be considered.
    Mr. YOUNG: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet been approached by any housing authority?
    Mr. CLYNES: Not definitely for the purpose of acquiring the site.
    Mr. HARRIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman offer this site to the London County Council, who want sites in the North of London for housing purposes?
    Mr. CLYNES: It is on offer to anybody who may require it.

    EDUCATION.

      CORPORAL PUNISHMENT.
      Mr. FREEMANasked the President of the Board of Education whether he will appoint a Departmental Committee to inquire into the question of corporal punishment in schools?
      The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Sir Charles Trevelyan): I am not satisfied that there is any need at the present time for a general inquiry into this question.
      Mr. FREEMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that children are the only members of the community who are denied a fair and impartial inquiry before punishment for an alleged crime takes place, and is he prepared to accord them that facility?
      Sir C. TREVELYAN: That seems to be a debatable question.

      EXPENDITURE, SOMERSET.
      Mr. GOULDasked the President of the Board of Education whether he can give an estimate of the proposed expenditure as put forward by the Somerset County Education Committee under their recent proposals; what amount is needed for council schools; and what amount for other schools?
      Sir C. TREVELYAN: The Somerset Local Education Authority propose to spend a capital sum of about £213,000 during the three years 1930–33 on sites and buildings for public elementary schools provided by them. Expenditure on other schools does not fall on the Authority, but they estimate that an expenditure of some £135,000 on these schools may be needed in order to carry out the scheme of re-organisation which has been prepared by the Authority.

      STAFFING.
      Mr. C. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Education what is the estimated number of additional men and women teachers required under the schemes already submitted by the educational authorities?
      Sir C. TREVELYAN: Of the programmes so far received, 104 contain particulars of the additional teachers expected to be required during the programme period. They indicate a need for 988 additional teachers in 1930–31,
      1576
      rising to 3,990 in 1931–32 and to 5,735 in 1932–33. The programmes do not usually give numbers of men and women separately, nor do they usually indicate how far the need for additional staff is due to normal expansion or is consequent upon the proposed raising of the school age.
      Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the supply of teachers is ahead of the building supply in regard to the new Bill? Which is the further forward?
      Sir C. TREVELYAN: It is impossible, in this connection, to put the two side by side.

      CHILDREN (CONVEYANCE).
      Mr. MORLEYasked the President of the Board of Education in view of the fact that many local authorities will be obliged to supply facilities for conveyance to children in the new schemes of re-organisation, if he will consider making increased grants to local education authorities for that purpose?
      Sir C. TREVELYAN: Increased expenditure on this service will rank for grant in the usual way; but I am not at present satisfied that the percentage rate of grant in respect of this expenditure should be increased.

      CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE.
      Mr. MORLEYasked the President of the Board of Education if he will favourably consider the formation of a national advisory council, consisting of representatives of the National Union of Teachers and the local education authorities, to act in an advisory and consultative capacity to the Board of Education?
      Sir C. TREVELYAN: The Board are already assisted by a statutory Consultative Committee consisting of members qualified to represent teachers and local education authorities, as well as other bodies interested in education, and I am not prepared at present to set up a separate advisory council such as is suggested.

      MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCES.
      Major NATHANasked the President of the Board of Education the aggregate sum by which he estimates local rates will be increased by reason of the proposed maintenance grants under the projected Education Bill?
      Sir C. TREVELYAN: The proportion of the expenditure on the proposed maintenance allowances to be met from the rates is estimated at £1,200,000 for the first full year. For a fuller statement I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the financial memorandum attached to the Bill.
      Miss LEEasked the President of the Board of Education if he will state the assumed means test which, if removed, would add, approximately, £2,000,000 to the cost of the proposed children's allowances for the first school year on the raising of the school age?
      Sir C. TREVELYAN: The estimated cost of the proposed maintenance allowances, given in the financial memorandum to the Education (School Attendance) Bill, was based not on any particular means test, but on various calculations as to the number of children likely to qualify for maintenance allowances under any reasonably elastic system. As explained in the memorandum, the cost is not yet susceptible of close estimation.
      Miss LEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman supply the figures of the respective authorities on which this calculation is based?
      Sir C. TREVELYAN: No, I cannot do that. They are necessarily uncertain estimates.
      Miss LEE: How could a definite figure of approximately £2,000,000 be arrived at if the Estimates are uncertain, and will the right hon. Gentleman consider letting us know the basis of his calculations?
      Sir C. TREVELYAN: It is an estimate on approximate and not definite figures.
      Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Will not the right hon. Baronet reconsider his previous answer? Surely it is important for the whole House to know on what basis these figures are arrived at before the Debate takes places. Surely there ought to be nothing secret about the method of calculation.
      Sir C. TREVELYAN: When the system of maintenance allowances has been settled, it will be possible to make a closer estimate.
      Mr. BROWN: If the basis of calculation has not been settled, what is the use of the figure of £2,000,000?
      Sir C. TREVELYAN: It is a general estimate. It cannot be an exact calculation. It is calculated on what the allowances would be under any reasonably elastic system.
      Mr. STEPHEN: Will the right hon. Baronet give us the estimated figures under the reasonably elastic system and tell us what the reasonably elastic system is?
      Sir C. TREVELYAN: The figures are what the hon. Member gets by looking at the Bill.
      Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is now in a position to make a further statement concerning the means test relating to the maintenance allowances for children in connection with the Government's proposals to raise the school-leaving age?
      Sir C. TREVELYAN: No, Sir; I am not yet able to make any further statement.
      Sir K. WOOD: Is there any change in the Government's plans in this connection, or are they still determined to go on with this means test?
      Sir C. TREVELYAN: The right hon. Gentleman asks me that every week. I shall be very glad to give him private information when there is going to be any change so that he need not ask me again.

      SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE.
      Dr. DAVIESasked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that many families are in receipt of Poor Law relief; and that a maintenance grant of 5s. weekly for children at school between the ages of 14 and 15 years will necessitate an increased cost for Poor Law relief due to the postponement for one year of such children entering remunerative employment; and what the extra cost to the local authorities will amount to and if it will be met by an increased contribution from the State?
      Sir C. TREVELYAN: I do not agree that the raising of the school-leaving age will lead to an increased expenditure on Poor Law relief.
      Dr. DAVIES: Is the right hon. Baronet aware that the officials of the Boards of Guardians do not agree with him?
      Sir C. TREVELYAN: I cannot help that.

      VOLUNTARY DAY CONTINUATION SCHOOLS.
      Mr. HARRISasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has considered the possible effects of the raising of the school-leaving age to 15 upon the work of the existing voluntary day continuation schools; and will he state what action it is proposed to take to preserve and develop the work now being undertaken by a number of local education authorities in voluntary day continuation schools subsequent to the Education (School Attendance) Bill becoming law?
      Sir C. TREVELYAN: Yes, Sir; this point has been considered. I certainly hope that, when the leaving age is raised, there will still be scope for useful work in voluntary day continuation schools, and that the local education authorities concerned will bear this in mind in making their arrangements.

      LOCAL AUTHORITIES' PROGRAMMES.
      Dr. DAVIESasked the President of the Board of Education how many local education authorities have submitted schemes to him in preparation for the compulsory raising of the school age in 1931; the total cost of such schemes locally and nationally, detailing such costs as far as may be practicable, as in Table I, page 5, of List 43, issued by the Board of Education in October, 1929; and will he state the number of local education authorities who have not submitted such schemes?
      Sir C. TREVELYAN: 168 local education authorities have already submitted programmes. The preliminary estimates so far receivpd provide for an expenditure of some £21,000,000 on elementary education as a whole in the year 1931–32, but, for the reasons explained in Circular 1404, it is not practicable to say how much of this sum is to be attributed to the raising of the school age, 149 authorities have not yet submitted programmes.
      Captain CROOKSHANK: Is it true that the Government intend to drop the Bill until the autumn?
      Sir C. TREVELYAN: The Government certainly do not intend to drop the Bill.

      SENIOR SCHOLARS (INSTRUCTION).
      Dr. DAVIESasked the President of the Board of Education, if it is his intention that the last school year for children shall be devoted to the practical rather than the academic requirements of the children; and, if so, will the decision as to the best type of education suitable for the locality be left to the local education authorities?
      Sir C. TREVELYAN: Perhaps I may refer the hon. Member to Circular 1404, of which I am sending him a copy. Generally speaking, the type of instruction to be provided will be left to the discretion of the local education authorities.

      SECONDARY SCHOOLS (FREE PLACES).
      Mr. EDEasked the President of the Board of Education how many secondary schools there are on the grant list which are exempt from the ordinary requirement of 25 per cent. free places; how many pupils there are in such schools; and how many free places?
      Sir C. TREVELYAN: On 1st October, 1929, there were 155 fee-charging schools on the grant list which were not required to offer 25 per cent. of free places. The number of pupils in these schools was 54,128, of whom 9,539 were holding free places.
      Mr. EDE: Is my right hon. Friend considering requiring these schools to have at least 25 per cent. of free places?
      Sir C. TREVELYAN: I have no intention at present.

      MILK SUPPLIES.
      Mr. HURDasked the President of the Board of Education what local authorities in England have co-operated with local purveyors of milk in supplying schools with milk at low cost, and with what resulting benefit to the children?
      Sir C. TREVELYAN: I am aware that schemes of this kind have been established in a considerable number of areas, but my information does not enable me to give a list of authorities. There is no doubt as to the physical benefit to the children which results.
      Mr. HARRIS: Will the right hon. Baronet through the Department collect the information, because this is a very interesting and important experiment?
      Sir C. TREVELYAN: I will consider it, but I am not sure that it is worth the trouble.
      Mr. HURD: Does not experience show that owing to the improved health of the children under a milk diet their better attendance taken as a whole is about equivalent to the extra year of school age which the Government now proposes to make compulsory?

    ENGLAND AND WALES (SCOTTISH RESIDENTS).
    Mr. VAUGHANasked the Minister of Health whether he can give the number of Scotch-born people resident in England and Wales; and, if so, will he provide the information?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): At the Census of 1921, there were enumerated in England and Wales 333,517 persons (162,164 males and 171,353 females) who were returned as having been born in Scotland.
    Mr. VAUGHAN: Since the number is nearly twice as many as the English and Welsh people resident in Scotland, is the right hon. Gentleman considering recommending the surplus to return home?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: If my hon. Friend regards his Scottish colleagues as aliens, that is a matter which must be dealt with by the Home Secretary.

    PUBLIC HEALTH.

      MENTAL INSTITUTIONS.
      Mr. FREEMANasked the Minister of Health the number of married men and women in mental homes, institutions, or under private control; and the number under control for a period of five years or over?
      Mr. GREENWOOD: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given yesterday to a similar question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton, West (Mr. Sorensen).
      Mr. SORENSENasked the Minister of Health the number of local authorities who have complained of unnecessary and prolonged delay in the sanctioning of plans for new buildings submitted to the Board of Control?
      Mr. GREENWOOD: Representations by local authorities that matters should be promptly dealt with are frequently made to the Board of Control and other Departments concerned in local government, but I have no precise figure of the number of representations to the Board of Control of the character indicated in the question. I am satisfied that such delay as may have occurred in the past has been partly attributable to the inadequate number of the professional staff concerned. This staff has recently been strengthened, and my hon. Friend is aware that the Mental Treatment Bill contains proposals for the reorganisation of the Board one of the objects of which is to facilitate its operations.
      Mr. SORENSEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that more than one public authority of this description has complained several times to the Board of Control of undue delay, and that, as a result, many patients in mental hospitals are actually sleeping on the floor?
      Mr. GREENWOOD: I cannot be responsible for complaints which were made in the past. My reply is that under the Mental Treatment Bill we shall get a re-organisation whereby delays will be avoided.

    RHEUMATIC DISEASES.
    Mr. T. LEWISasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that diseases classified as rheumatic are responsible for the loss of over 3,000,000 weeks of work per annum by insured workers, necessitating the payment of nearly £2,000,000 in benefit, he will consider the desirability of inaugurating a board qualified to undertake research work as supplementary to, but in conjunction with, the new British Red Cross Society clinic against rheumatism?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I shall watch with interest the experiment about to be made by the British Red Cross Society in the treatment of rheumatism at their new clinic, but I do not think it necessary or desirable, at this stage, to set up any special body to co-operate with the society. The general question of research in relation to rheumatic diseases is constantly under the consideration of the Medical Research Council, who will, no doubt, take steps to acquaint themselves with the results of the work at the new clinic.
    Mr. LEWIS: Is it not a fact that working men's organisations for many years have requested the Ministry to set up a research department for dealing with rheumatic diseases?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: As I understand it, what the approved societies are anxious for is an experiment of this kind.
    Mr. LEWIS: Is it not a fact that those bodies definitely ask the present Government to do it?
    Commander BELLAIRS: Have any proposals been brought before the League of Nations for a combined effort on the part of the different nations?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I am afraid I shall require to have notice of that question.

    CANCER.
    Mr. R. S. YOUNGasked the Minister of Health whether, in judging the value of any apparently successful treatment of cancer submitted to him, originating outside the recognised medical profession, his Department is governed by the reports of its scientific composition or by results achieved in its application to specific cases?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: My Department is guided by all relevant information available, including both points mentioned in the question.
    Mr. YOUNG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in 1923 Mr. Evans was requested by his Department to submit the names of 20 patients whom he claimed to have cured, that Mr. Evans supplied 30 names, and not one of those people has been communicated with by the Department at all?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I was not there in 1923.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry into those facts?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I shall be very glad to do so.

    LUNACY ACTS.
    Viscount ELMLEYasked the Minister of Health when the memorandum now in preparation explaining the effect of the Local Government Act, 1929, upon the provisions of the Lunacy Acts will be published?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I will arrange for the memorandum to be issued as long as possible in advance of the appointed day on which the relevant parts of the Local Government Act, 1929, come into operation.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  Mr. SORENSENasked the Minister of Health whether doctors are allowed to prescribe medicine for panel patients regardless of cost?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: Insurance doctors are not only entitled but required by their terms of service to order on the proper form any drugs or prescribed appliances which are reasonably necessary for the adequate treatment of their patients.
  Mr. SORENSEN: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any complaints of this medicine being denied by the doctors, and will he take action if I bring such instances to his notice?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: If my hon. Friend will give me particulars of any cases, I will certainly inquire into them.
  Dr. DAVIES: Is it not a fact that they are not allowed to prescribe medicine for panel patients regardless of cost?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: The law requires them to prescribe what is reasonable for their cases.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
  Dr. MORRIS-JONESasked the Minister of Health the total number of persons in England and Wales who will be disqualified from serving on public bodies owing to the provisions of the Local Government Act of 1929; the categories, with the percentage, in respect of which disqualification will take place; and the number of resignations that have already been tendered?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I regret that the information asked for is not available.
  Dr. MORRIS-JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of bringing in some amending Bill in view of the very great loss to the public service owing to the disqualifications which the Act entails to a large body of public men?
  Mr. McSHANE: Is it not true that already, before this Bill has been passed, a very large number of people are prevented from serving on these bodies on exactly similar terms as medical men?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I am afraid that I cannot answer that question. On the point raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite, I am afraid that I cannot undertake responsibility for any further legislation.

  HOUSING (RENTS).
  Mr. SHAKESPEAREasked the Minister of Health whether, in connection with the proposed legislation on slum clearance, he proposes to establish local rent-courts to fix rents of decontrolled houses?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a previous similar question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane), of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in my constituency, when slum property becomes decontrolled, as much as 10s. a week is charged for two rooms; and will he not take some powers to stop this shameless profiteering in raising rents?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: The real answer to that question is, that one must destroy the slum. If a slum is a slum, it ought not to be inhabited.
  Sir K. WOOD: Was the right hon. Gentleman always of that opinion?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: Yes.
  Miss RATHBONE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that a serious obstacle in the way of destroying the slum is the fact that there are not houses into which to put the slum tenant, because when the houses which are controlled become vacant they are immediately decontrolled and the rent is put up; and is not that a reason for the rent control of houses after they have become vacant?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: The object of the Bill which is shortly to come before this House is to provide the necessary new alternative accommodation.
  Mr. SULLIVAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no such thing as a decontrolled house?

  POOR LAW (TEST WORK).
  Mr. SHAKESPEAREasked the Minister of Health whether he is yet in a position to announce his decision on the conditions of test work; and when the reports of his inspector will be published?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, I would refer to what I stated in the House on the 30th January in answer to questions on this subject.

  RATING (SPORTING RIGHTS).
  Mr. W. B. TAYLORasked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the financial loss to local rating authorities by the failure to collect the rates on sporting rights in rural districts since the passing of the Derating Act; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this leakage?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I can only refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to a question on the same subject by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) on the 23rd of last month.
  Mr. TAYLOR: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman will take steps to look into this matter? It is a very serious loss.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: No. The real point is that where the sporting rights are separately assessed now the problem does not arise. As regards the other problems the matter is now before the Courts and really I cannot make any statement at all.

  BUDGET (DATE).
  Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN(by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to state the date on which he proposes to introduce the Budget?
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: It is rather unusual to state the date of the introduction of the Budget so far ahead, but, if

  1587
  I can retain the secrets of the Budget, I have no objection to doing so. Easter falls rather inconveniently for the Budget this year—just in the middle of the month—and, if the Budget were introduced after Easter, it would be the end of the month before that could be done, and, if it is introduced before, it gives very little time between the close of the financial year and its introduction. That puts inconvenience upon me. However, I have been thinking the matter over, and I have come to the conclusion to introduce it before Easter, and the date which I have fixed is Monday, the 14th April. That will give us, I think, before we rise for Easter sufficient time to get the necessary Financial Resolutions.
  Mr. BALDWIN: The right hon. Gentleman has been so courteous in giving me an answer to a question which he described as rather unusual that I am emboldened to ask him another question, and that is whether he adheres to his resolution to make no statement as to his intention with regard to the Safeguarding and the McKenna Duties until the 14th April?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: That question would have been very unusual a few months ago. I certainly must adhere to the statement that I can make no disclosure as to Budget intentions before the Budget is introduced.
  Mr. BALDWIN: I quite agree that a few months ago it would have been unnecessary because the state of unemployment did not make that statement necessary. In the circumstances, I beg to give notice that I shall ask for an opportunity of raising this question at an early date.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. S. BALDWIN: May I ask the Prime Minister what the business will be next week?
The PRIME MINISTER: Monday: Committee of Supply, Supplementary Estimates in the following order: Royal Parks, Colonial Office, Colonial and Middle Eastern Services, Inland Revenue, Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, Dominion Services, and the Mines Department.
1588
Tuesday: Coal Mines Bill, Committee; and the Report stage of the Road Traffic (Money) Resolution.
Wednesday and Thursday: Coal Mines Bill, Committee.
On any day, should time permit, other Orders may be taken.
Ordered,
"That the Proceedings on the Instruction to the Committee on the Road Traffic Bill [Lords] and in Committee on Road Traffic [Money] have precedence this day of the Business of Supply.—[The Prime Minister.]

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.
Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Mr. Cecil Wilson to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Mental Treatment Bill [Lords]); Sir Samuel Roberts to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Canal Boats Bill); and Sir Hugh O'Neill to act as Chairman of Standing Committee C (in respect of the Road Traffic Bill [Lords]).
Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COM- MITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Captain E. N. Bennett and Lieut.-Colonel Windsor-Clive; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Alfred Law and Lady Cynthia Mosley.
  Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee: That they had added the following Twenty Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Mental Treatment Bill [Lords]): Sir George Berry, Mr. Compton, Mr. Cove, Dr. Vernon Davies, Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle, Mr. Gould, Mr. Greenwood, Mr. David Grenfell, Captain Gunston, Dr. Hastings, Miss Lawrence, Sir Boyd Merriman, Dr. Morris-Jones, Sir Douglas Newton, Mr. Richard Russell, Mr. Sorensen, Miss Wilkinson, Sir John Withers, Mr. Womersley, and Sir Kingsley Wood.

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Mr. Grundy, Mr. Lawrie, Mr. Sanders, and Mr. D. G. Somerville; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Batey, Captain E. N. Bennett, Mr. Simmons, and Mr. Annesley Somerville.

  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C: Captain Eden, Lord Fermoy, Captain Gunston, and Sir Cooper Rawson; and had appointed in substitution: Captain Austin Hudson, Sir James Reynolds, Mr. Turton, and Sir Kenyon Vaughan-Morgan.
  Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had added the following Thirty Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Road Traffic Bill [Lords]): the Lord Advocate, Colonel Ashley, Mr. Beckett, Sir William Brass, Mr. Brooke, Mr. Ernest Brown, Lord Erskine, Major Glyn, the Marquess of Hartington, Major Harvey, Major Hills, Colonel Howard-Bury, Sir Joseph Lamb, Mr. Lawrie, Mr. Leach, Mr. Llewellyn-Jones, Mr. Millar, Mr. Herbert Morrison, Mr. George Oliver, Sir Gervais Rentoul, Major Salmon, Dr. Salter, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Short, Mr. R. W. Smith, the Solicitor-General,. Mr. Strauss, Mr. Watkins, Mr. James C. Welsh, and Lieut.-Colonel Windsor-Clive.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [Lords].
The following Notice of Motion stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. HERBERT MORRISON:
"That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to consolidate the Road Traffic Bill [Lords] and the Omnibuses Bill."
Colonel ASHLEY: Before the Minister of Transport moves the Motion which stands in his name, I want to raise a point of Order. The Title of the Omnibuses Bill makes provision for enabling local authorities to provide and run omnibuses within and without their districts. The Title of the Road Traffic Bill, with which the Omnibuses Bill is to be consolidated, runs as follows:
"An Act to make provision for the regulation of traffic on roads and of motor vehicles and otherwise with respect to roads and vehicles thereon, to make provision for the protection of third parties against risks arising out of the use of motor vehicles and in connection with such protection to amend the Assurance Companies Act, 1909, and for other purposes connected with the matters aforesaid."
If the Omnibuses Bill is to be incorporated with the Road Traffic Bill, obviously, the Title of the Road Traffic Bill will have to be amended, because the Title of the Road Traffic Bill contains no reference to any extended powers of municipalities to run omnibuses. In this connection I think it is germane to the question to note that when the Road Traffic Bill was introduced into another place the Title of that Bill contained very definite provisions to enable the Omnibuses Bill, or something like it, to be incorporated, because in the Title as it then existed there was a significant sentence. The Title was the same as in the present Road Traffic Bill, with this addition:
"To amend the law with respect to the powers of local authorities to provide public service vehicles."
That Title was amended in another place, and the provision to which the latter part of the Title referred was struck out of the Bill. When the Bill came to this House the Title was as it now stands in the Road Traffic Bill. I want your ruling, Mr. Speaker, as to whether it is within the power of this House to amend the Title of a Bill coming from another place, and, if so, how are we to consolidate the Omnibuses
1620
Bill with this Bill without first of all the Title being put right? If it is not competent for this House to amend the Title of a Bill coming from another place, how will it be possible for the Committee upstairs to deal with these two Bills if we pass the Motion which stands in the name of the Minister of Transport, because if this House cannot amend the Title of the Bill and the Omnibuses Bill and the Road Traffic Bill are consolidated, obviously the Title of the Road Traffic Bill will have to be altered in Committee upstairs.
Mr. R. RICHARDSON Mr. R. RICHARDSON rose—
Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has not finished putting his point of Order.
Colonel ASHLEY: If it is not competent for this House to amend the Title of a Bill coming from another place, surely it is not competent for a Standing Committee of this House to do so. Therefore, I want your Ruling as to whether the Title is in order, and if it is not in order whether it is in order for the Government to seek to incorporate these two Bills. In my submission, the Committee upstairs would have no power to amend the Title of the Road Traffic Bill, being a Government Bill, with which the other Bill is proposed to be incorporated.
Mr. RICHARDSON: My point of Order is this. Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman entitled to tell the House, Mr. Speaker, what it is your business to do?
Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman was only asking for my Ruling. In regard to the point of Order which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has raised, his premises seem to be wrong. I see no reason why this House should not alter the Title of a Bill, whether it comes from another place or wherever it comes from, provided it needs alteration. The Instruction which is on the Order Paper in the name of the Minister of Transport appears to me to be quite clear. It is an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to consolidate the Road Traffic Bill and the Omnibuses Bill. That is a form of Instruction which is a common practice in this House, and it is covered by Standing Order, that the Committee is

1621
to have power to deal with an Instruction sent to it from this House. Having considered these two Bills and having consolidated them, if they find that when they are consolidated they are outside the Title of the Road Traffic Bill, they have power to amend the Title so as to include what they have incorporated in the Bill.
Colonel ASHLEY: Then the power does not rest wholly in the House as a whole, but the Committee upstairs can do it.
Mr. SPEAKER: The Committee upstairs will have the same power as a Committee of the Whole House, having considered the Bills, to amend the Title.
Earl WINTERTON: On a point of Order. Is it not a fact that there has been no precedent where a Committee upstairs has altered the Title of a Bill, but in all cases when the Title has been altered it has been altered in Committee of the Whole House?
Mr. SPEAKER: I have not had an opportunity at short notice of looking up the precedents, but I fancy there have been plenty of precedents.
Colonel ASHLEY: Perhaps I may be allowed at some future time to raise the question and to ask for your Ruling.
The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I beg to move,
"That it be an Instruction to the Committe on the Bill that they have power to consolidate the Road Traffic Bill [Lords] and the Omnibuses Bill."
The Motion is short and simple. The Committee is to have power to amalgamate the two Bills. The merits of both Bills have been disposed of so far as Second Beading is concerned, and the issue now before the House is a very simple and very narrow one, namely, whether the Committee upstairs shall have the power to consolidate the two Bills. Therefore, I will not say anything about the merits of the Bills. The Bills have a relationship. It is perfectly clear that if local authorities are to have certain extended powers in running omnibuses that that has some relationship to Part IV of the Road Traffic Bill, which sets up machinery for the licensing of public service vehicles. It would be unfortunate if the House were to pass the
1622
two Bills separately, without a proper relation one to the other. In order to make a good workmanlike Measure of both Bills it is desirable that they should be consolidated and brought into proper relationship one to the other. The House has affirmed, on Second Reading, the principle of both Bills, and the question which we have now to decide is the bringing of the two Bills, which have relationship to each other, into one Measure, and their consolidation in proper form.
4.0 p.m.
Colonel ASHLEY: My admiration for the Parliamentary tact of the hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport increases every day. Yesterday he made not only an interesting speech, but a speech of considerable length, and in introducing the Road Traffic Bill he spoke for no less than an hour and 20 minutes. Knowing the weakness of his case to-day, he thinks that silence is golden, that brevity is the soul of wit and, having opened the case in the manner the junior did in the trial of Pickwick, we know about as much of the reason for this Motion as we did when he got up. You, Mr. Speaker, in your Ruling just now, have enlightened me as to why this Motion is necessary. I thought in my ignorance of Procedure, though I have been in the House a good many years, that the hon. Gentleman and the Government were prevented from enlarging the Title of this Bill when it came down from another place. I thought that they were prevented from doing what was the obvious thing, namely, to move in Committee that Part V of the original Bill be re-inserted, and thereby vindicate the rights of the Commons against the hereditary aristocrats in another place. I think that would be the natural and proper way to do it, especially in a Government that is supposed to stand up for the rights of the people. The hon. Gentleman did not do what was the obvious thing, apparently, but took another path, and he now asks this House to adopt what is to me, at any rate, a very novel procedure. I do not say that it has never been done before, though I do not remember that a private Member's Bill has been in Committee incorporated with a Government Bill. Probably it has been done before, and must be within the Rules of Order or you, Mr. Speaker, would not have permitted the Notice to appear

1623
on the Order Paper. Now we know why the hon. Gentleman has taken this procedure, and not the obvious and simple one. He is afraid of his own followers. That is quite plain to us.
Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Including yourself last night.
Colonel ASHLEY: The hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) who moved the Omnibuses Bill—a most pernicious Bill, I might say—was on the London County Council a humble and devoted follower of the hon. Member the Minister of Transport when they both eat on the London County Council, and some other hon. Members who supported that Bill were also intimately connected—and honourably connected, I am sure—with the Labour party. Therefore, the Minister of Transport was not able, from reasons of expediency, to take the obvious course, but had to allow the Omnibuses Bill to get a Second Beading, though in his heart of hearts he agrees with me that it is a most pernicious Measure.
Mr. HERBERT MORRISON Mr. HERBERT MORRISON indicated dissent.
Colonel ASHLEY: At any rate, he will agree with me that it is pernicious as far as machinery is concerned, as far as the control of Parliament and the Minister is concerned, although I am not attempting to suggest that the hon. Member does not adhere to the principle he has laid down definitely that those municipalities should not have to come to Parliament every time they want to extend their transport powers.
Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot discuss the merits of the Omnibuses Bill, which has already been decided by the House.
Earl WINTERTON: May I raise a point of Order? The Minister in his statement made a rather obscure reference to the relationship between the one Bill and the other. I was going to ask you at the time, out of regard for the Rules of the House, whether or not it is in order to refer to this relationship, and, if it were in order, then to ask the Minister what the relationship was. While, of course, my right hon. and gallant Friend is not entitled now to discuss the merits of either of the Bills, I
1624
would submit that he is entitled to ask the Minister in moving this Motion, the object of which is to instruct the Committee upstairs to incorporate the two Bills, in what relationship the two Bills can be combined, and in order to prove that the two Bills are not in relationship, I suggest, with great respect, that my right hon. and gallant Friend is entitled to refer to certain features of the two Bills which conflict one with the other.
Colonel ASHLEY: Before you answer, as this is an unusual Motion, and we wish to do exactly what you, Mr. Speaker, rule, am I entitled to ask the hon. Member, as I think I am, why he has taken this procedure instead of the other procedure of enlarging the Title of the Bill in order to reinsert Part V of the original Bill?
Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see that there is any particular reason why the hon. Gentleman should not be asked why he has done this, but it does not seem to me to be a matter for debate. This is, obviously, an Instruction, and it is clear that the only question which can be discussed is the reason for instructing the Committee. Really, that is the only point at issue.
Colonel ASHLEY: Then I want very definitely to ask the Minister this question. We have in this Instruction, I submit to you and the House, an unusual procedure. We have a public Bill fathered by the Government, on which the Government Whips are put, and we are to be asked in Committee upstairs to take up a Private Member's derelict Bill and incorporate it with a public Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why derelict?"] Because it would never have gone any further unless the Government had taken it up. Anyhow, I submit that this is an unusual procedure, and I would ask the House not to agree with it, because there was an obvious line of procedure open to the hon. Member. He could perfectly well have moved that the Title of this Bill, which came from another place, should be enlarged. He could then have moved in Committee to insert Part V of the original Bill which would have given us much more opportunity of discussing the merits of the case than does this cumbersome procedure Therefore, I object to this Instruction on the ground

1625
—and I think it is a sound ground—that for reasons into which I am not allowed to enter now, the hon. Gentleman has taken an unusual and a cumbersome course, instead of the obvious and usual course of enlarging the Title of the Bill and restoring in Committee upstairs certain Clauses which were eliminated in another place.
Major SALMON: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if it is his intention to go any further in Committee in connection with the Omnibuses Bill than the communication which he received from the Royal Commission in answer to the inquiry that he made. The whole point hangs upon that. If the Minister is prepared to say that he does not wish any greater power than was in Part V of his original Bill, then, speaking for myself, I shall most heartily support him, and support him on these grounds. I hope I shall be in order in just mentioning this point. Previously when we have had Bills before the House on the question of giving powers for running omnibuses, the licensing authority in those cases has been the local authority. In this case, under the new traffic scheme, you are going to add commissioners—
Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise on the Motion now before the House.
Major SALMON: The only point I am desirous of making, without, of course, going outside your Ruling, is to ascertain from the Minister whether the effect of this Motion that is before the House at the moment alters in any way the matter which was raised in the letter from the Chairman of the Royal Commission dealing with Part V of the Traffic Bill. If the hon. Gentleman can answer that question, it will solve the matter, or, at any rate, make it much easier for the whole position to be understood.
Colonel HOWARD-BURY: I, too, desire to object to this Instruction. There are, I think, two very definite reasons why we ought to move its rejection. The first is that the two Bills are quite separate Bills; they do not deal at all with the same point. The one is called a Road Traffic Bill, but, in fact, deals with motor services and rules and regulations for roads all over the country. The other Bill is an Omnibuses Bill, and cuts right across this Bill. It gives powers to local
1626
authorities to run omnibuses in their area wherever they like. The other Bill controls authorities and controls the running of omnibuses throughout the country. There is this very great difference in the two Bills, and the other House, when they discussed the original Bill, said that it should be divided into two parts, because one part was not suitable—
Mr. SPEAKER: Again, this does not appear to me to be in order on this Instruction.
Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Cannot I raise the objections that there are to this Instruction? I was simply giving one of the two reasons why the two Bills should be separated. In the other House it was stated that Part V, as it was then, which is, roughly, the Omnibuses Bill, was not suitable for the Road Traffic Bill, and ought to be taken as a separate Bill. Yet here we are asked to bring the two Bills into one again. May I not argue on these lines?
Mr. SPEAKER: So long as the hon. and gallant Member does not go into the merits of either Bill.
Colonel HOWARD-BURY: I want, if I may, to differentiate the two. The Noble Lords told us that the Bills ought to be treated separately. The hon. Gentleman pretended in his speech that here were two Bills which were passed equally easily by the House, and therefore ought to be incorporated, but he omitted to say that there was one Bill which we all wanted and there was this other Bill which is highly contentious, and which we considered, from our point of view, ought to be quite separate. Another reason why I object to it, is that we have already got a very long Bill of 106 Clauses and four Schedules, and there will be all sorts of confusion arising with regard to this Bill. It contains many contentious points, but I should be out of order if I went into details. You are adding now a far more contentious Bill. If the Minister of Transport wants to get his first Bill through why add to the difficulties? He must be a glutton for work; and we shall keep him very busy if he is going to incorporate the Omnibuses Bill in this Measure. He is going to set up a great deal of trouble for himself in Committee. We are all anxious

1627
to get the good Bill, but if you add a bad Bill to a good Bill it is like trying to make an omelette with one good and one bad egg. No one is going to eat it. That is what the right hon. Gentleman is doing. He is adding a bad Bill to a good Bill and making the mixture very unpalatable. For these two reasons, first, that the two Bills should be considered separately—the House of Lords thought they should be kept—
Mr. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. and gallant Member that, while it is a narrow point he cannot go into the merits of the two Bills.
Colonel HOWARD-BURY: I hope the House will vote against the incorporation of the Omnibuses Bill and the Road Traffic Bill.
Mr. ATKINSON: The House is being asked to consolidate two entirely inconsistent pieces of legislation. The principle of the Road Traffic Bill is that all road traffic coming under the description of public service vehicles shall be under the control of traffic commissioners. That is the definite principle which this House approved on Second Reading. The principle of the Omnibuses Bill is something quite different, and I submit that I am entitled to point out the difference. The principle approved in the Omnibuses Bill was that local authorities should run omnibuses in any part of the country without any regard to their own requirements and free from any control of traffic commissioners. How can the Committee be instructed to consolidate two entirely different principles. It is like trying to mix oil and water. You are to reconcile a principle which says that public vehicles can be run in any part of the country by any municipality free from any control of the commissioners with—
Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. and learned Member reads the Motion on the Paper, he will see that it is not an order to the Committee, but only an Instruction that they shall have power. It means that the Committee may consider the question when we have given them an Instruction that they have such power.
Mr. ATKINSON: Are we going to give the Committee authority to do something which is inconsistent? It means that one
1628
principle will have to give way to the other, one principle will have to be sacrificed for the other. If this House has come to inconsistent decisions, it is for this House to settle which is to be the dominating principle. That question should not be referred to the Committee. These two Bills contain two entirely in-consistent principles. One, that traffic is to be subject to the Traffic Commissioners, and the other than a certain class of traffic is to be entirely free from their control. I object to asking the Committee to reconcile two principles which are absolutely inconsistent. The House itself should determine which of these two should govern.
Earl WINTERTON: I congratulate the Minister of Transport on his ingenuity in so framing this Motion as to make it practically impossible for the House to discuss it. It shows high Parliamentary finesse, upon which I heartily congratulate him. Apparently, he will go a great deal further than some of his colleagues. I am estopped from discussing the merits of the proposal by the Rules of the House, and after what has occurred, I think a future Conservative Government—[An HON. MEMBER: "When?"]—will have to consider some alteration of the Rules of the House. I did not say a future Socialist Government because there will be no future Socialist Government. The right hon. Gentleman in his statement did another cute thing—I hope he will not mind my using that word, it is not intended to be in any way discourteous. He just kept within the Rules of Order, only just, but be had one foot outside when he spoke about the present Bill, which has passed its Second Reading in this House, being without relationship to the rest of the Bill unless you incorporate something in it, but he was prevented by the Rules of the House from giving any explanation. Very wisely he did not do so. But that is a very strong argument against this Instruction. The right hon. Gentleman is not able by the Rules of the House to explain his reasons for it. Surely that is an obvious reason for rejecting the Instruction.
The House is asked to pass something which the Minister of Transport is not allowed to explain. He knew that he had to do something in the matter, because it would never do for him to just get up

1629
and propose the Motion without giving some reasons. The House would not regard such action as being at all courteous and, therefore, he makes this vague reference to other matters without any explanation at all. There is another point which should be emphasised. I am estopped from discussing the merits of the Omnibuses Bill or Part V of the original Bill, which was cut out in another place. Why could he not take the simple course of giving an Instruction to the Committee to restore the original Part V of the Bill? I am not discussing it. Everybody knows why he has not done so. It is because of the domestic pressure which has been brought to bear upon him by his own supporters. I fear that there has been a very sad declension in the Parliamentary position of the Minister of Labour. Two days ago he came forward as a most admirable exponent of the Road Traffic Bill. Now he comes forward in much more of a party guise and attempts, under this very narrow procedure, to do something which he knows many hon. Members on this side no not approve and which hon. Members below the Gangway on the Liberal Benches do not approve. One Measure was passed after very acute opposition, the other Bill was passed with every sign of consent, almost nemine dissentiente; at any rate, with the general consent of the House.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that it will take a very long time to get the Road Traffic Bill through Committee if it is examined Clause by Clause with that care which should be given to an important Measure of this kind with over 100 Clauses. If the Committee is to give proper consideration to a Bill of that character it will take two or three Parliamentary months, and in a Session when Parliamentary time is much curtailed. It is quite obvious, therefore, that the Bill can only go through if there is a general desire not only on the part of the majority but of all Members to accelerate discussion without neglecting the obvious duty of the Committee to examine carefully so complicated a Measure relating to very technical matters. Every hon. Member knows that if the Committee upstairs generally is in favour of a Measure it goes through much more quickly than if you have a division of opinion among Members. By giving this Instruction to the Committee, the right
1630
hon. Gentleman is jeopardising the passage of his Bill. That must be obvious to anyone. It is not necessary to convince the Minister of Transport on that point. On the one hand, you have a Bill which was passed with general consent and, on the other hand, a Bill which was very fiercely opposed. In the case of the one Bill there was a possibility of coming to terms, but by his action the right hon. Gentleman is really jeopardising the passage of the Road Traffic Bill. As an old Member of this House I confess that if I was a junior Member of a Government and they attempted to do this kind of thing I should consider that they were making a great mistake by asking a Committee upstairs to incorporate a public and a Private Member's Bill in one Measure.
I should not object so much if the Government had told us at once that they intended to take up the Private Member's Bill. They did not do so, and from the point of view of political purity I am strongly opposed to this course. The Bill will leave the Floor of the House and we shall have no control over it. We have to be very careful in these days of the growing power of Departments. I have been long enough in this House to realise how soon precedents grow. The Government of the day do a thing which they find they can do, but which hitherto has not been done under the Rules of the House, and the next Government comes along and finds that they can improve upon that precedent. In this way the power which this House exercises is gradually lost. Therefore, I submit that on its merits the proposal is wrong, that from a constitutional point of view it is wrong, and that the Minister is doing a foolish thing from a tactical point of view, because by his action he is jeopardising the good spirit, the unanimity, which prevailed at the time of the Second Reading of the more important of the Bills; and he is doing it for a reason which is perfectly understandable but is very regrettable, namely, to yield to the pressure put upon him by some of his less instructed back bench supporters.
Sir HILTON YOUNG: This is one of those discussions in which one gradually begins to see a very important issue affecting the procedure of the House emerging from what at first sight appears to be only a question of expediency upon

1631
a particular Measure. Let me define briefly what appears to me to be the very important issue which, has been raised by the Minister. As you, Mr. Speaker, have said, there is nothing out of order in this Motion; but nevertheless there remains the question whether, though in order, it may not be a precedent which is dangerous in its present stage and will be still more dangerous if it is extended. As has been so well pointed out by the Noble Lord, any precedent adopted contrary to the general spirit of the House by one Government is always liable to be extended by a succeeding Government. The point which occurs to me is this: Humble students of our procedure from the point of view of basic common sense have always been accustomed to think that many of the more intricate and elaborate rules of our procedure, which so often really work for the saving of time, are based upon one broad and wide principle, which is the identity of a Bill. A Bill once it is introduced must in general preserve its identity during its passage through the House.
Mr. LEACH: On a point of Order. Is it in order on this Motion to raise a discussion on the whole elements of Parliamentary procedure?
Mr. SPEAKER: It is certainly not in order to discuss the whole elements of Parliamentary procedure, but it is in order to discuss Parliamentary procedure as it affects and is relevant to this particular Motion.
Sir H. YOUNG: It is very far from my intention to range as far as the hon. Member suggests. I wish to confine myself to the application of this particular Motion. The identity of a Bill is one of the principles upon which our Rules of Procedure are devised. In general, broadly speaking, a Bill once introduced preserves its character. The rule to which reference has been made already, that a Bill is not to have its title changed except under those conditions which you, Mr. Speaker, have just ruled to be in order, is designed for the same purpose of maintaining the general identity of a Bill. It is my contention that the Motion now before the House is a very dangerous widening or abrogation of the spirit of that general rule of procedure, that a Bill should maintain its identity. The
1632
practical uses of the rule must be well known to everyone who makes it his habit to work at the daily duties of the House. It is in order that the House shall not be taken by surprise in working out a Bill. It is, I imagine, in order that the procedure on Second Reading shall lead up logically to the proceedings in Committee, and that those in Committee shall be limited by the proceedings on the Second Beading, so that each stage of a Bill, including the Third Reading, shall continue with due relation to the stages which have gone before or that come after.
The point to be brought out in such a connection is this: If there is any wide extension of the practice, such as this Motion suggests, of the sudden—I stress the word "sudden"—blending of Bills, the sudden consolidation of Bills, we lose the whole of that practical advantage which is given in the principle of the identity of a Bill. Where shall we be if at any time it becomes the practice for a Government to move to throw Bills together which no one had expected to come together? One can often test an instruction by considering what would happen if it was carried to extremes.
Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The hon. Member has said that he did not expect this combining of the two Bills. On the Second Reading of the Omnibuses Bill, and on the Second Reading of the Road Traffic Bill I clearly indicated the intention of the Government to proceed on that basis when the Second Reading was carried.
Sir H. YOUNG: I am afraid that even on the question of fact that notice is inadequate. But the question goes deeper than that. It is a question whether the character of the Bills suggests any similarity. That can at once be decided on the merits of the Bills. I was about to say that the absurd extreme would be to take the case of a Government coming down with half a dozen principal Measures and proposing to throw them altogether into one Bill. That would show what complete confusion the procedure of the House would be landed into. Owing to the special circumstances of this Motion in relation to what has gone on in another place, there is the suggestion also of a dangerous extension of another possibility, and that is the splitting up of Bills once they

1633
have been introduced. My suggestion to the House is this, and I think it is a very practical one to all who care about the regularity of procedure: That we should look more than once with the greatest care upon a Motion such as this which would have the effect of sacrificing the identity of a Bill and which would extend the possibility of throwing Bills unexpectedly together or of splitting them apart. If one follows far down that path one reduces the procedure of the House to complete confusion.
Captain BOURNE: Although there are precedents for combining Bills by means of an Instruction, it must be a very long time ago, if any precedent can be found, since an instruction was moved to combine a Government Bill which has received the universal assent of the House, with a Bill, introduced by a private Member, to which violent objection has been taken in some quarters of the House. It is very undesirable that the Government should by Instruction revert to an old practice against which objection has often been taken, in order to make a Measure which is generally desirable to carry a Measure which is disliked by large sections of the House. Such action is not likely to facilitate the passage of the Government Measure. The two Bills to some extent stand on an entirely different plane. When the Minister introduces a Bill he has behind him the advantage of the advice of his Department, and he produces as Measure which is logically thought out and carefully drafted. Even then the Measure requires amendment. A private Member has not those advantages, and it is very difficult indeed for him to produce a Bill which on its Second Reading is in anything like a sufficiently perfect state for the Statute Book. Should a private Member be fortunate enough to obtain a Second Reading of his Bill, it is nearly always necessary for the Government to take a hand with the Bill if it is to be seen through.
If the Minister really desires the Omnibuses Bill to get on the Statute Book this year, the proper course would be to do what has been so often done by Governments in the past, namely, to let the Bill go forward under the procedure for private Members' Bills, and if sufficient time is not found in the ordinary way to secure its passage
1634
through the House, the Government can give facilities for its later stages. There are plenty of precedents for such a course. It is a thing which all Governments have done, and I have never heard objections raised. But I do feel that it is a dangerous precedent to give instructions to a Committee to join a Bill which is universally agreed to but which from its nature is long and complicated and is bound to occupy a great deal of Committee time, to a Bill which is hotly contested and will have to be drastically amended if it is to fit into the Government Bill.
Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I cordially agree with the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) that this instruction is very unusual. Though it may reflect very great credit on the Minister for his cleverness, I do not think he deserves as much credit for ingenuity in getting the friendly feeling of the House. Nearly everyone has talked so far of the point of view of the House of Commons itself. It is possible that I have seen as much of Committee work upstairs as most Members present. I do not claim to have any expert knowledge of that work, but I do claim to have followed it for many years, and I say that instructions of this kind, which are vague in a sense, and yet are apt upstairs to be held as practically compulsory—
Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being present—
Mr. WILLIAMS: When interrupted I was referring to the position of a Bill in Standing Committee. You, Mr. Speaker, stated just now that the Instruction is not mandatory, but that it gives power to do a certain thing. What are we asking the Committee upstairs to do? We are asking it to bring about a marriage between two utterly incompatible parties. There are several Standing Committees. Some deal with Private Members' Bills. Others deal with Government Bills, but, under this Motion, it is proposed to ask a Committee to consider, possibly at great length, the advisability or otherwise of bringing together these two Bills one of which is a Private Member's Bill and the other a Government Bill. One of the effects of that procedure will be to discourage

1635
members of Committees in their work, because Members as a rule have reasons for joining one or other of the two kinds of Committees I have mentioned. Some Members are interested in Private Member's Bills and other Members are deeply interested in Government Bills; and if we suddenly force on to one Standing Committee a Measure of this kind, I think we shall be setting a very bad Parliamentary precedent. If it is desired to get legislation through Parliament with that kindliness and good feeling which we all desire to see, it is necessary to consult the general wishes and the convenience of Members of the House and of the Committees. As I listened carefully to the Minister and did not chatter during his speech I hope he will hear my views as far as this Instruction is concerned. Why cannot he say quite definitely what the Committee are to do? Why cannot he have the courage to say to the Committee either that they are or they are not to take this course. Why should he lay the burden on the Committee?
I think it very unfair to lay such a burden on the Chairman of the Committee and it is still more unfair to lay such a burden on any representatives of the Government who attend the Committee upstairs and -who may have to persuade that Committee. These are some of the reasons why I ask the Government to say definitely if they want these two Bills amalgamated or not. May I also emphasise the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne). He drew attention to the fact that here, for the first time as far as we know, we are being asked to pass an Instruction for the amalgamation of two Bills which are utterly different in character. It would not be in order on this occasion to go into the merits of the provisions in these two Bills, but if one did so, it would be impossible for any reasonable person to vote for this Motion after comparing the two Measures to which it refers. I have no doubt that that is the reason why the Motion has been drawn up in this form, but it is an additional argument against passing the Motion in this form. If these Bills are so divergent that it is not humanly possible to consider them together, or as one Measure, that is an excellent reason for not passing the Instruction.
1636
We have heard in this discussion various points in connection with the power of this House to order the consolidation of Bills. It is quite clear that the Government procedure in this matter will definitely endanger the lives of two Bills and that is a point of vital importance to us as Members of Parliament in giving our decision. I do not care at all what happens to the Omnibuses Bill but a great many hon. Members are concerned as to the Road Traffic Bill. If we do anything foolish in connection with the Motion now before us, if we allow a Measure which is comparatively popular and which is generally well thought of, to be complicated by the addition of highly controversial proposals brought in by means of an Instruction, in this underhand way, we shall be setting a bad precedent. For that reason and also because I object to the responsibility being placed on the shoulders of the Committee upstairs so that if the proposal does not work they may get the blame, I protest strongly against passing a Motion of this kind which is contrary to the best interests of the House.
Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: It is quite true that the terms of this Instruction only give power to the Committee to consider the amalgamation of these two Bills, but that is of course the only way in which the Motion could be drawn and for all practical purposes the Committee will be bound under the Instruction to take into consideration the terms of the Omnibuses Bill. In the interests of the Road Traffic Bill and in the interests of Parliamentary procedure. I protest strongly against having the Omnibuses Bill tacked on to the Road Traffic Bill. The two Bills are entirely different in character. Broadly speaking, the Road Traffic Bill deals with matters of administration—with the creation of a code for all persons using the roads --and it gives no special authority to any particular person. It is a Measure which everyone is anxious to see passed into law, though some of us may differ as to the terms and limitations to be applied in its administration. But the other Bill gives special powers to local authorities, which have nothing whatever to do with the administration of the roads and have no connection with the roads at all except in so far as we authorise them to run omnibuses along the roads. If we tack

1637
a Measure of that kind on to the Road Traffic Bill, it will have the effect of clogging and making more difficult the work of any body which hereafter has to investigate the powers of municipal authorities.
The Omnibuses Bill raises a totally different system of considerations from the other Bill, and one of the main considerations which the Committee will have to consider under this proposal is how the vexed question of competition is to be dealt with—under what conditions municipal authorities are to be given powers to run omnibuses and how competition is to be controlled. I am only taking that as an example of the many difficult issues which will be raised by this procedure. Not one single question which arises on the Omnibuses Bill has any reference to the Road Traffic Bill. I ask the Attorney-General to say, as a matter of practical procedure, how he can justify tacking on to the Road Traffic Bill a Bill which grants fresh powers to a number of local authorities in the country. How can he support attaching a Measure of that kind on to a purely administrative Bill designed to regulate the conditions of road traffic? Those who at any time are called upon to consider the powers of municipal authorities will then have to look through a Measure of 100 Clauses, containing a code of law for the administration of traffic on the roads and they will find tucked away at the end of that Measure this provision giving local authorities the power to run omnibuses outside their districts. As I say, it will make the work of any persons who have to investigate those matters hereafter very difficult, and for those reasons, quite apart from what has been said on the question of setting a bad precedent for future Parliamentary procedure, I say that the House ought not to adopt the Motion.
Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I can only speak again by leave of the House but as a number of points have been raised it is probably the wish of hon. Members that I should say something upon them. One of the charms of the House of Commons is that each day provides its new surprise, and certainly to-day has brought me an extraordinary surprise. I had the impression—evidently wrongly—that this was a
1638
perfectly innocent, obvious and businesslike Motion which would immediately commend itself to the House. But I find Member after Member rising in his place and, as best he can, discussing the merits of this Motion and giving me, I will not say a great deal of trouble, but a great deal to think about. I am bound to say that it is a great surprise to me because I thought this Motion would have been agreed to without discussion. There have been other surprises. I have been told by the late Minister of Transport that I am a very clever tactician and I am much obliged for the compliment. I have been told by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) that I am an abominable tactician.
Earl WINTERTON: Not at all. What I said was—and I had no intention of being sarcastic—that I genuinely admired the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity.
5.0 p.m.
Mr. MORRISON: Then I was told, I think it was by the Noble Lord, that I was bringing a lot of trouble on myself and I was also told by an hon. Member opposite that I was putting all my troubles on the shoulders of the Committee. I am perfectly willing to try to please hon. Members opposite but they set me a very difficult task and I can only do my best. The business before the House is of the most simple, straightforward, honest, clear and obvious character. The House of Commons has given a Second Reading to two Bills and has therefore said that, as far as the general principle of those Bills is concerned, it is willing that they should both become law. It does not matter that one is a Government Bill and the other a Private Member's Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, yes!"] They are both public Bills, and far be it from me to say that a Private Member's Bill is necessarily a bad Bill or that a Government Bill is necessarily a good Bill. These, as I say, are both public Bills. It is the intention of the House that they should be considered on their merits, which merits I have all along been very careful, and am careful now, not to discuss.
One of the hon. Members opposite supported the Omnibuses Bill, and there is considerable support among them and their friends for it, but I will not discuss that now. The fact remains that the

1639
principles of the two Bills have been approved, and, so far as the House knows, it is quite competent and not to be precluded from expectation that both these Bills should go to Committee, come back to the House on Report, and pass on Third Reading. The only question now before the House is whether it is better that these Bills, which both deal with road transport—that is their relationship—should be dealt with in an unbusinesslike way, separately, or whether the Committee should endeavour to consolidate them. In the latter case, on Report hon. Members will be free to move that any part should go out or to take any other step which they may think it right to take
There has been a complaint that I might have taken another course, which may be true. It is not for me to presume upon any rulings of Mr. Speaker. It is said I might have gone to the Committee, put certain Clauses in, amended the Title, and come back here. It may be so, but supposing I had done that, I should have been condemned for going to the Committee and bringing in Clauses which the House had given me no authority to bring in. I have done the democratic thing, fully consulted the Opposition, and given them every opportunity to complain, have told the House honestly what I was proposing to do, but they now tell me that I should not have told them, that I should have done it first and told the House afterwards.
I have been consideration itself in this matter. I told the House on the Omnibuses Bill what I should do, and I told the House on the Road Traffic Bill what I was going to do. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman was doubtful and asked me for further details, which I gave him at once, and I have told the House again to-day. Really, one cannot do more. There was, however, one note in this Debate which I regret very much, and I cannot believe that it will be persisted in. It came from the Noble Lord opposite, and from an hon. Member behind him, and was almost a threat of wilful obstruction in Committee.
Earl WINTERTON: The hon. Gentleman has—[Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite are slow in learning how foolish they are in interrupting Members
1640
of the Opposition. Let me answer the point. I made no such threat. It would be an extremely wrong thing for anybody speaking from this or any other bench to make such a threat. What I said was that one of these Bills was a very complicated Bill of over 100 Clauses, and I said that a Bill of that nature would take at least two months to get through Committee if it was to be given proper attention, and that it was only human nature that if you had general assent, that Bill would get through more quickly than if there was a division of opinion about it. If the hon. Gentleman reads into that a threat of obstruction, I can only say that he is reading into what I said something that I never intended for a moment.
Mr. C. WILLIAMS: As the hon. Member also referred, I suppose, to what I was saying—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh no!"]—I say quite frankly that what I said was that he was making what is a non-controversial Bill into a controversial Bill, and that anything of that kind never makes legislation quicker and easier. All of us, particularly on this side, want to do everything in our power to make legislation easy when it is good legislation.
Mr. MORRISON: It is highly probable that I did also refer to the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), because my recollection is that he succeeded in Baying himself what everybody else had already said. However, I am delighted that I was in error, that there is to be no obstruction in Committee, and that we are to have the assistance of the official Opposition in passing the Road Traffic Bill as such rapidly into law. I expect criticism on the Omnibuses Bill, and I will face that when it comes. All I say is that it would be unfortunate if, because we are going to consider that as part of the Measure, we are going to have a needless length of time devoted to the Road Traffic Bill, as to which I am pleased to know there is a wide measure of agreement. I shall have to face the disagreements between myself and the Opposition, but I should be sorry if it were felt that we were going to delay passing the Road Traffic Bill, because that is a very useful Measure.
Earl WINTERTON: That is not what I meant.
Mr. MORRISON: I am obliged, and am glad to have the assurance that there will be no obstruction in Committee so far as the Road Traffic Bill is concerned. I think that is all that I need say. I am sorry there has been any difficulty about the matter, because I always like to get things through the House by consent as far as I can. It is true that I spoke but briefly at the beginning of to-day's Debate, but I spoke on one day for an hour and ten minutes and on another day for nearly three quarters of an hour, and I thought it was high time that I began to behave myself. Therefore, I spoke shortly to-day, and that was the sole reason. That is the whole position. There is nothing terribly wicked about it, and despite our disagreements on the merits of one of the Bills, disagreements which I hope we shall be able to compose, I hope the House will see that what I ask is not unreasonable in the circumstances and will agree to the Motion.
Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: When the hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport protested his innocence of any objections on this side to his Motion, I rather felt inclined to join in the congratulations which were offered by my right hon. and gallant Friend the late Minister of Transport to the hon. Gentleman on his ingenious and very slim move in bringing forward this Instruction. The hon. Gentleman moved it in such a short speech that we do not know where we are at all. The Instruction asks that the Omnibuses Bill shall be incorporated with the other Bill, but how is it to be incorporated? The hon. Gentleman has not told us whether we are to take the whole Bill and incorporate it in the other Bill, or whether he has some particular Clauses in his mind to incorporate or not. I may be ignorant, but I do not think we are justified in passing this Instruction unless we have some explanation as to how the Minister proposes that the Omnibuses Bill should be incorporated.
At least two of my hon. and learned Friends on this side have pointed out that you cannot get any good relationship between the two Bills, and that their relationships are very bad at the best. If the hon. Gentleman is in favour of uniting in marriage, as one of my hon. and learned Friends says, that fine looking young man, the Transport Bill, with the ugly Omnibuses lady brought in, he will
1642
find that pair in the divorce court directly they get in Committee. They are based on two entirely different principles, and I do not believe in uniting people who are absolutely unfit for each other, in incompatibility of temper and everything else. It is an entirely wrong thing to do, and the Minister ought to withdraw this Motion unless he is satisfied that when he does unite these two, they will fit together. I do not see that my right hon. and gallant Friend was at all wrong in pointing out that, whereas we all want to help the Transport Bill, the incompatibility of temper of the other makes it impossible to unite the two. They are not fit to be united, and the hon. Member must confess that he will have very much more trouble in endeavouring to unite them.
Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I want to commiserate with the hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport in having brought forward this Motion and in not having found a single Member on his own side to support him, in the course of a Debate lasting an hour and a-half. [An HON. MEMBER: "We shall support him in the Lobby!"] I quite realise that hon. Members sitting behind him do not bother to think, but just vote where they are told. I see the Attorney-General sitting on the Front Bench opposite, but even he has not stood up to support his hon. Friend. We have got two Bills of completely different natures, and I think we might have had the opinion of the learned Attorney-General in regard to this Instruction. In his opening speech, the Minister said the two Bills have each had their Second Reading and that they are very much like each other, but I would point out that the one has had the weight of the Government behind it and the weight of the whole House, but that the other Bill was put through on a Friday, on a private Member's Motion, and after a long Debate. You cannot combine these two Bills and say they are the same thing.
I am not making a threat—there will be nothing of that sort—but the overloading of the Transport Bill with this contentious Measure is bound to make things more difficult. I will not put it higher than that. The actual Clauses of the Omnibuses Bill will take two or three weeks to get through Committee, and, therefore, the whole thing is bound to

1643
take longer. We never know when this Government will go. It may be in a fortnight or in a month, and, if they are not careful, they may lose the whole of their Traffic Bill, which we want to see passed. Therefore, I hope the hon. Gentleman will reconsider the matter and withdraw his Motion. It is not wanted by his own side, because not a single Member on that side has supported him, and not a single Liberal Member either has spoken about it, whereas from these benches there have been a dozen speeches.
Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: They have all been the same speech though.
Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I hope, therefore, the Minister of Transport will withdraw his Motion.
Question put,
"That it be an Instruction 10 the Committee on the Bill that they have power to consolidate the Road Traffic Bill [Lords] and the Omnibuses Bill."
The House divided: Ayes, 245; Noes, 147.

Division No. 172.]

AYES.

[5.15 p.m.

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

Foot, Isaac

Lowth, Thomas

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

Freeman, Peter

Lunn, William

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

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

Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hlilsbro')

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

McElwee, A.

Alpass, J. H.

Gibbins, Joseph

McEntee, V. L.

Angell, Norman

Gill, T. H.

McKinlay, A.

Arnott, John

Gillett, George M.

MacLaren, Andrew

Aske, Sir Robert

Glassey, A. E.

Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

Attlee, Clement Richard

Gossling, A. G.

Macpherson, Rt. Han. James I.

Ayles, Walter

Gould, F.

McShane, John James

Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

Gray, Milner

Mansfield, W.

Batey, Joseph

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

March, S.

Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Marcus, M.

Bellamy, Albert

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

Markham, S. F.

Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

Groves, Thomas E.

Marley, J.

Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Marshall, Fred

Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)

Mathers, George

Benson, G.

Harbord, A.

Matters, L. W.

Bentham, Dr. Ethel

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Melville, Sir James

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Haycock, A. W.

Messer, Fred

Birkett, W. Norman

Hayday, Arthur

Mills, J. E.

Blindell, James

Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

Milner, J.

Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

Montague, Frederick

Bowen, J. W.

Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Hoffman, P. C.

Morley, Ralph

Brockway, A. Fenner

Hopkin, Daniel

Morrison, Herbert (Hackney. South)

Bromfield, William

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

Brooke, W.

Horrabin, J. F.

Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)

Brothers, M.

Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)

Hunter, Dr. Joseph

Muff, G.

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

Muggeridge, H. T.

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Isaacs, George

Nathan, Major H. L.

Buchanan, G.

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Naylor, T. E.

Burgess, F. G.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

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

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

Johnston, Thomas

Noel Baker, P. J.

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)

Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

Oldfield, J. R

Caine, Derwent Hall.

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

Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

Cameron, A. G.

Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

Cape, Thomas

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Palin, John Henry

Charleton, H. C.

Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

Palmer, E. T.

Chater, Daniel

Kelly, W. T.

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Kennedy, Thomas

Perry, S. F.

Cove, William G.

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

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Daggar, George

Kinley, J.

Phillips, Dr. Marion

Dallas, George

Lang, Gordon

Picton-Turbervill, Edith

Dalton, Hugh

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Price, M. P.

Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

Lathan, G.

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Law, A. (Rosendale)

Rathbone, Eleanor

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Lawrence, Susan

Raynes, W. R.

Devlin, Joseph

Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Dickson, T.

Lawson, John James

Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

Dudgeon, Major C R.

Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

Ritson, J.

Duncan, Charles

Leach, W.

Romeril, H. G.

Ede, James Chuter

Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Edmunds, J. E.

Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

Rowson, Guy

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

Lindley, Fred W.

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Egan, W. H.

Lloyd, C. Ellis

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

Elmley, Viscount

Longbottom, A. W.

Sanders, W. S.

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Longden, F.

Sandham, E.

Sawyer, G. F.

Sorensen, R.

Wellock, Wilfred

Scrymgeour, E.

Stamford, Thomas W.

Welsh, James (Paisley)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Stephen, Campbell

West, F. R.

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Westwood, Joseph

Sherwood, G. H.

Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

White, H. G.

Shield, George William

Strauss, G. R.

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Sullivan, J.

Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

Shillaker, J. F.

Sutton, J. E.

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Shinwell, E.

Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanetly)

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Simmons, C. J.

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

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)

Thurtle, Ernest

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Sinkinson, George

Tillett, Ben

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Sitch, Charles H.

Tout, W. J.

Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)

Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Wise, E. F.

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Turner, B.

Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Vaughan, D. J.

Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

Viant, S. P.

Smith, W. A. (Norwich)

Wallhead, Richard C.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Watkins, F. C.

Mr. J. H. Hayes and Mr. W. Paling.

Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

Frece, Sir Walter da

Peake, Capt. Osbert

Albery, Irving James

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)

Galbraith, J. F. W.

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

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

Ganzoni, Sir John

Pownall, Sir Assheton

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

Gault, Lieut.-col. Andrew Hamilton

Preston, Sir Walter Rueben

Atkinson, C.

Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

Purbrick, R.

Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Ramsbotham, H.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Held, David D. (County Down)

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Gritten, W. G. Howard

Remer, John R.

Beaumont, M. W.

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Reynolds, Col. Sir James

Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

Hanbury, C.

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

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Boothby, R. J. G.

Hartington, Marquess of

Ross, Major Ronald D.

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

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

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Haslam, Henry C.

Salmon, Major I.

Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

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

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Bracken, B.

Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Brass, Captain Sir William

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

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

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

Savery, S. S.

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

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

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

Buchan, John

Hurd, Percy A.

Smithers, Waldron

Buckingham, Sir H.

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Bullock, Captain Malcolm

Iveagh, Countess of

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Burton, Colonel H. W.

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Carver, Major W. H.

Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Kindersley, Major G. M.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)

King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.

Tinne, J. A.

Chapman, Sir S.

Knox, Sir Alfred

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Christie, J. A.

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Todd, Capt. A. J.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)

Train, J.

Colman, N. C. D.

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

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Colville, Major D. J.

Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

Turton, Robert Hugh

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

Llewellin, Major J. J.

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

Wayland, Sir William A.

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Long, Major Eric

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

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

Macquisten, F. A.

Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

Duckworth, G. A. V.

Margesson, Captain H. D.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

Mond, Hon. Henry

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Eden, Captain Anthony

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

Withers, Sir John James

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

Elliot, Major Walter E.

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

Womersley, W. J.

Everard, W. Lindsay

Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Muirhead, A. J.

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Ferguson, Sir John

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

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

Fermoy, Lord

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

Fielden, E. B.

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Fison, F. G. Clavering

O'Neill, Sir H.

Sir F. C. Thomson and Captain E. Wallace.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered,
"That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to-consolidate the Road Traffic Bill [Lords] and the Omnibuses Bill."

ROAD TRAFFIC [MONEY].
Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the regulation of traffic on roads, and of motor vehicles and otherwise with respect to roads and vehicles thereon, to make provision for the protection of third parties against risks arising out of the use of motor vehicles, and in connection with such protection to amend the Assurance Companies Act, 1909, and for other purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment in every year out of moneys provided by Parliament of such sums as the Minister may, with the consent of the Treasury, direct in respect of the salaries, remuneration, establishment charges, and other expenses of the traffic commissioners, certifying officers, public service vehicle examiners, and any other officers or servants appointed by the Minister for the purpose of Part IV of the said Act, including any expenses incurred in connection with the employment of police officers as public service vehicle examiners; and

(b) the payment into the Exchequer of all fines imposed by courts of summary jurisdiction in respect of offences under the said Act, or the regulations made under the said Act, and of all sums received by the councils of counties and county boroughs by way of fees for licences under Part I of the said Act; and

(c) any sums so paid into the Exchequer to be charged on and issued out of the Consolidated Fund as if they had been paid into the Exchequer under the Roads Act, 1920."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: This Motion is, I hope, of a non-contentious character as compared with the Instruction which the House has so kindly passed. I am sorry that, in view of the nature of the problem, it is not possible to he as precise as I should like to be as to the exact services and liabilities which are intended to be covered by the Money Resolution: It is intended to cover the whole cost of the organisation of the Traffic Commissioners and their staff, as, for example, the certifying officers and public service vehicle examiners, and the office establishment charges set up under the Act. The whole of that expenditure will, in reality, fall upon the Road Fund, but under Clause
1648
84 of the Bill the expenses are paid in the first instance out of money provided by Parliament, and they appear in the Vote of the Ministry of Transport, while under Clause 100 the expenditure is subsequently recovered from the Road Fund. As, however, the expenditure has to be made in the first place out of money provided by Parliament, the Financial Resolution is needed in order that the Committee may deal with the Bill. Parliamentary control of the expenditure involved is thereby secured.
In the same way, it is provided in Clause 101 that the fines and fees under the Act shall be paid in the first place into the Exchequer, and subsequently, by the application of Section 2 of the Roads Act, 1920, they will be paid from the Exchequer into the Road Fund. In view of the fact that fines and fees pass through the Exchequer to the Road Fund, however, reference has to be made to them in this Resolution. In the White Paper, the estimate of the total gross cost of Traffic Commissioners and their staff is put at £165,000 a year, but the White Paper points out that against this expenditure must be set the receipts from fees for the grant of licences, certificates of fitness, etc., and also that there will be a substantial saving to the local authorities in respect of the staffs at present engaged in the work of licensing the public service vehicles. I am sorry that it is not possible to give any estimate of the receipts from fees, etc., as the fees for public service vehicles' licences, certificates of fitness, and drivers' and conductors' licences have not been fixed. They will have to be fixed under the Bill, but there is no intention on my part to fix any of those charges higher than will be necessary to recover the expenditure involved in administering the new machinery. I cannot be sure that the receipts will meet the costs of that administration, but we have no intention of making a profit out of this new venture.
We have at present no information as to the size of the staffs of local authorities engaged in licensing public service vehicles, so here again, I am sorry that it is not possible to give an estimate of the savings to them, but the staffs must be considerable when one remembers that there are about 1,300 licensing

1649
authorities. I have now given the Committee the information which I think I ought to give. This Money Resolution covers not only the Traffic Commissioners themselves in their 12 areas, but the certifying officers, examining officers, and the ordinary staff for the clerical work of the new administration; and I hope the Committee will be so good as to give me the authority for which I ask.
Colonel ASHLEY: I congratulate the Minister both upon the brevity of his remarks and the tactful way in which he has spoken for six or seven minutes and said nothing; but this is not a subject which ought to go through without discussion. An expenditure of no less than £165,000 of public money is involved. It is true that some of that expenditure will be saved in other directions, and that the gross additional expenditure of the nation will not amount to £165,000; but in this time of financial stress, when the trade of the country is bad and is worsening, when the figures of unemployment are increasing and when fresh taxation is promised us by a paternal Socialist Government, it is the duty of all hon. Members to scrutinise most carefully any extra expenditure which will be cast either upon the Road Fund—which comes out of the pockets of motorists—or upon the rates and taxes generally. I do not know whether I may take it from the cheers of hon. Members opposite that they agree with me, or whether they are cheering me on to continue my speech; but I am not raising this question from a party point of view, and I ask the House, seriously, to make certain that every possible economy is secured and that not an extra penny of public expenditure is imposed unless it is absolutely necessary.
What is the position at present with regard to the licensing of public service vehicles? The Minister has decided at long last, and after a considerable amount of discussion and uncertainty—which I can quite understand—that on the whole it will be better to sweep away altogether the jurisdiction of local authorities in the matter of licensing public service vehicles and to substitute a system of commissioners who will be semi-independent of the Government of the day and will decide each case on its merits without that local bias which local authorities inevitably have. When I was
1650
considering this question at the time of the preparation of my draft Road Traffic Bill, I rather shirked the issue, because the Bill was not going to be introduced at once; and, when the draft was sent out for discussion, I put out feelers in order to ascertain what were the views of local authorities, motoring organisations, and other people responsible, and to find out what they really wanted. Though there are about 1,300 local authorities who have the power to supervise and license public service vehicles, such as omnibuses and chars-a-banc, yet there are great tracts of the country which are absolutely under no such supervision at all, where people may run public service vehicles at any fares they like and in any condition they like, and where from time to time terrible accidents, involving loss of life and injury to limb, occur, simply because the local authorities in those areas have no power to control those who are running these vehicles.
When I sent out my draft Bill, I proposed that the system of local licensing should remain, but that the number of authorities should be reduced from 1,300 to about 350. Those 350 were to cover the whole of the country, instead of only from a half to two-thirds of the country being covered, as at present. I was not quite sure how the local authorities would take such a proposal, because there were some very considerable authorities among those who were not to have these powers. I left the counties and county boroughs, the urban areas of over 20,000 population and certain urban areas which already had powers as licensing authorities in possession of their powers; but the powers of a large number of urban areas were swept away altogether. Naturally, that is not very popular in a locality, however much the reform may make for efficiency, because local sentiment, always very strong, insists that whatever is done in Puddleton-in-the-Mud must be done better than it would be in Whitehall. I dare say that hon. Members, in speeches in their constituencies, have often played on that string and got cheers by denouncing the bureaucrats of Whitehall.
The scheme was circulated, and I am bound to say that the protests were not of a very serious character, and I think that, if I had had the pleasure and the

1651
honour of introducing the Bill which the present Minister has introduced, I should have come down on the same side as he has done. Whether that is so or not is immaterial, for I repeat what I said on the Second Reading, that I am in entire agreement with the proposal to sweep away, once and for all, all vestige of the system of licensing these public service vehicles through the local authorities in favour of this semi-independent body, with a paid chairman and with a staff, this impartial body which shall decide between Jones and Tompkins and shall also decide between Jones and Tompkins and the municipality of any county or any borough. I think that will be for the advantage of the country. I must say a word on the composition of these boards, and especially on the selection of the chairmen, because on that will depend to a great extent whether they are an improvement on the existing position of affairs or whether they are not. I do not suggest that it will be an easy task for the Minister to choose these commissioners. The choosing of the two commissioners on each board who will be in addition to the chairman will be fairly easy. The hon. Gentleman has adopted the ingenious method of having panels, from which he will choose the commissioners, one panel to be nominated by the counties and another by the urban areas in the districts.
I ought to have mentioned that England is to be divided into 10 areas and Scotland into two areas. I noticed at Question Time the other day that an hon. Member from Scotland was very much hurt to think that Scotland was divided into two areas only, appearing to regard that as a slight on the people north of the Tweed. But, after all, north of Stirling the amount of motor traffic is not so very large, and the towns are not so numerous that one board of three people will not suffice to deal with that area. The chairman in each of the 12 areas into which Great Britain is divided is to be chosen directly by the Minister, and the Minister, in consultation with the Treasury, is to fix his salary. I should like to know what salary is to be paid to these chairmen because on the tact and business qualities of the chairman will depend very largely the success of the experiment. I
1652
beg of the Minister whoever he may choose as chairman, not to choose a lawyer.
Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: Come over here! [Interruption.]
Colonel ASHLEY: We cannot get on without them. Irishmen could not get on without them, because the only recreation of Irishmen, now that the British have left Ireland and they cannot harry them, is to go to law with their neighbours. But, in all seriousness, I do not think a lawyer is the sort of man to choose for chairman, because a lawyer is apt to take a legal view of these matters, to take a sort of pedantic view. We want for that position a broad-minded business man with a great deal of common sense, because he will have to decide where omnibuses shall run and how they shall run. I am sure we shall find that municipal and private enterprise will be ready to join together in order to expedite these matters. It would be an unwise thing to economise too much in regard to the salary to be paid to the chairman, because he will have to be a whole-time officer, and a good salary will have to be paid in order to get a capable and responsible man to take up the office. As to the other two commissioners, they are not of so much importance, but they will have the power of holding inquiries, and consequently they must be men of experience and impartiality. The Minister of Transport proposes to establish two panels from which to choose his commissioners. One of those panels will be nominated by the county boroughs, and the other will consist of representatives chosen from the county councils and district councils, so that all interests will be properly looked after.
When I say that there should be great economy in regard to the administration of this Measure, I mean economy in regard to the office staff, and the Minister of Transport should see that no undue expansion of the staff takes place. I know from experience how these things grow. A county council may start some small side issue involving the appointment of a new committee or some other new activity may be suggested. At first, one officer and a clerk may be appointed, but afterwards these things begin to grow, and perhaps in six months one clerk is not considered sufficient and two are appointed. Perhaps

1653
12 months after that, instead of these officers using public service vehicles, they find that they must have a motor car, and so the expenditure goes up. I want the hon. Member to keep his eye on these new officers, because I am sure, from my own experience, if he does not do that the cost will spring up by leaps and bounds. The estimate for the administration of this Measure is £165,000 gross, and that is not a small matter. It is quite true that there will be savings on the gross expenditure. There will be a saving of the money which has already been spent by the present licensing authorities, and that will amount to a substantial sum, probably £50,000. I am rather afraid that the total extra cost of the new innovation in regard to licences will not be less than £100,000. On this point, I am afraid the figures given by the Minister are rather sketchy.
I should also like to know what sort of salaries are to be paid to the certifying officers and to the public service vehicle examining officers and the office staff generally. I suppose these latter officers will come under Civil Service conditions according to their grade, but I should like to know what the extra cost is likely to be. I understand that these certifying officers are not going to be full-time officers, but that they will be officers who will be paid for each vehicle which they inspect. I think the public service vehicle examining officers should be full-time officers, because it is necessary for them to be on duty day and night to see that vehicles are in proper working order.
Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I am not certain whether the certifying officer will be a full-time officer or not, but I think he will be. The examining officers will pay occasional visitations, but it all depends how the Bill looks after it has been handled by Parliament.
Colonel ASHLEY: I take a different view. I think that the certifying officer should be a part-time officer and that the examining officers should certainly be full-time officers. All the certifying officer has to do is to certify that the vehicle he examines is fit for the road. The public service vehicle examining officers have to make a periodical examination of public service vehicles and see that the specifications sent out by the
1654
Minister of Transport have been adhered to. They have to decide whether a vehicle is of a type that can be approved by the Minister of Transport. The examining officer should not only have power to visit garages and places where the vehicles are kept in order to examine them, but he should also have power to stop an omnibus in the street and examine it to see whether it is in proper order, whether the brakes and the tyres are in a safe condition, and generally to look after the safety of the passengers. Therefore, I would like to know whether the examining officers are to be part-time or whole-time officers.
What is intended with regard to the fees that should be paid to the certifying officer, and what will be the salary to be paid to the examining officer? The safety of the public largely depends on the activities of these two classes of officers. It is no good the Minister of Transport making ideal regulations for safety and giving orders unless he is backed up by these officers. I should like to be told that these officers will be properly remunerated and looked after, and that provision will be made for making proper reports to the Ministry, because I assume that they will be servants of the Ministry. I do not know whether the hopes of the Minister will be realised financially, and it must not be forgotten that the Road Fund is not a bottomless purse. I would like to know if the Minister is quite satisfied that he has enough money in the till to meet all these new commitments.
We have seen articles in the public Press followed by the word "communicated," and we know that the Minister of Transport, in collaboration with the Lord Privy Seal, is asking local authorities to push on with various schemes to provide more employment. All those schemes must prove to be a great strain on the resources of the Road Fund. I should like the Minister to inform the Committee if he is quite satisfied that there is enough money in the Road Fund to meet all the liabilities which are likely to arise under this Resolution. I support the principle of the Traffic Commissioners, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the course he has taken in regard to them. I hope he will keep an eye on the expenditure which will be incurred under this Resolution.
6.0 p.m.
Colonel HOWARD-BURY: I want to ask the Minister only one or two questions with regard to this Resolution. In a very few words he gave us the gist, and most plausibly put the whole ease, but I do not think that we ought to allow an expenditure of £165,000, small though it may appear in a Budget of £800,000,000, to go through without a certain amount of scrutiny. How often are not these Estimates that we get exceeded? It is very seldom. When a new service or a new office is started, we are told that it will cost £165,000, but before the end of the year we are faced with further Supplementary Estimates for £10,000, £15,000, £20,000 or £30,000. Here we are setting up a completely new organisation, and the Minister has been able to tell us very little indeed about what the receipts are likely to be. He has been asked what, for instance, he is going to get from the granting of licences or the issuing of certificates, and he told us that that had not yet been decided. How has he been able to anticipate exactly what the expenditure will be? He tells us that he hopes that a certain amount of money will be obtained, which will cover the extra expenditure, but, surely, his Ministry have already made up their minds roughly as to what amounts are going to be charged as fees for the examination of vehicles or for licences to drive from one area to another. Could he not give us a more definite reply to this question?
Then I do not like to see that there is to be what the Minister calls a small increase in the headquarter staff of the Ministry of Transport. Headquarter offices here in London, no matter what they are, are all on the increase to-day, and one would wish to see at the present time, when money is difficult to obtain anywhere, not an increase, but a decrease in these staffs, and I think that Parliament will have to watch very carefully the numbers of the headquarter staff of the Ministry of Transport to see that they are not unduly increased. Again, we are told that the money from the fines is to help to pay these extra expenses. I understand that it is to be paid into the Treasury, and that eventually it will go to the Road Fund. I can fully comprehend why there are such high penalties in the Bill—none
1656
lower than £20. The Minister of Transport, no doubt, intends to reimburse himself out of the unfortunate motorist who is to be run in. The speed traps have been done away with, and we might say that now it is a trap laid by the spider to catch the fly. Instead of the small penalties that used to be inflicted for exceeding the speed limit, we are now to have penalties of not less than £20 in order to enable the Minister to start his new establishment.
I fully agree with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Ashley) that the full-time salaried officer who is to be appointed by the Minister should not be a lawyer, but that he should be a man of common sense. [Laughter.] I do not mean that in any derogatory sense; I mean that he should be a man with broad-minded views, and not one to take a narrow legal view—he should be a man, shall we say, accustomed to the world. I think that such a man would make a far better chairman than a mere legal officer. With regard to the public service vehicle examiners and certifying officers, I hope that they will be highly qualified technical engineers. They are going to have a very difficult job, and on their examination will depend the lives of a great many people, so that they should be highly paid and efficient men. That is going to add considerably to the cost of carrying out the provisions of the Bill.
Not only is a full-time salaried officer to be appointed, but the travelling expenses of the other two commissioners are to be paid, and office staffs will be needed for these commissioners. There are to be 12 of these new office staffs throughout the country. I quite agree that the staffs at present employed by the local authorities are to be done away with, but I hope that the Minister will watch carefully the growth of these office staffs to see that they do not become excessive. We are told in the Resolution that payment is to be made to traffic commissioners and other officers and servants of such salaries, remuneration and allowances as the Minister may determine. The Minister, of course, has very great powers, and this is just one little item in the great bureaucratic regime that is being set up—
Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: With the consent of the Treasury.
Colonel HOWARD-BURY: With the consent of the Treasury. I am glad to hear that the Treasury, and, therefore, the House of Commons, is to be able to look into this matter very fully. I hope that the Minister will look carefully into this matter of the increase of staffs, which are constantly growing, and will be very careful to see that too large staffs do not grow up in all these different offices throughout the country, and, more especially and above all, here in Whitehall.
Major SALMON: I am rather pleased to have an opportunity of saying a few words with regard to the new functions and duties that are going to be placed upon the area commissioners. As a member of the Royal Commission on Transport, who have recommended many of the proposals in the Bill, I was rather pleased, as I am sure my colleagues were, to hear from all quarters of the House expressions of general satisfaction with these recommendations. One of the points that caused the Commission a great deal of thought was the question of dealing with co-ordination of traffic. I take second place to none in desiring to see administration run in the most economical manner that is possible, but I venture to say that the sum of money which we are asked to vote to-day is infinitesimal compared with the good that these commissioners can do. The setting up of the commissioners in the way that is proposed, and the resulting co-ordination, will be, I am quite sure, the means of accelerating traffic, which will be of enormous benefit to industry throughout the country. That is the object of setting up these area commissioners and doing away with the 1,300 existing licensing authorities, or even with 360 of them, as proposed in the original draft Bill.
The number of authorities at present is so large, and the difficulty of really controlling and co-ordinating traffic is so great, that it was felt that it would be much better to divide England into 10 parts and Scotland into two, so that it would be possible to take a bigger and broader outlook on traffic problems. I believe that the scheme which is before the House will prove to he of immense value to the country as a whole. With regard to the special duties of the commissioners, the Royal Commission recommended that the commissioners should be
1658
within their respective areas the sole authority for licensing public service vehicles constructed or adapted to carry a certain number of passengers, and that, in coming to a decision upon any applications, the commissioners should act judicially and shall have regard to the following considerations: the traffic needs of the whole area, the provision of adequate and efficient services throughout the area, the elimination of unnecessary services, the provision, where possible, of services on routes which themselves are unremunerative.
It is very important to bear in mind the new functions which these commissioners will have. They are going to take a much bigger and broader view of the whole traffic problem than the existing licensing authorities have taken in the past. Earlier this afternoon there was a discussion on the question of permitting local authorities which wanted to scrap tramcars in favour of omnibuses to go to the commissioners, in the same way that private owners could, for permission to run omnibuses. It is interesting to note the large number of local authorities who have scrapped their tramcars and at the present time are running trackless trolley vehicles—places like Chesterfield, Darlington, Doncaster, Wolverhampton, Ipswich, St. Helens, West Hartlepool and others. The idea of the future will be that any local authority that has had permission to run omnibuses, or trackless trolley vehicles, or tramcars, should have the right to go before the area commissioners. There was a time when I strongly objected to the idea of these local authorities having the right to apply to their own licensing authorities for permission to run omnibuses, because they were not, or might not be, as impartial as these area commissioners will be, and I think that from every point of view the setting up of area commissioners will be a great improvement on the existing system. I had hoped that we should hear from the Minister something in regard to London and the home counties. I would remind the Minister of the following observation which was made by the Royal Commission:
"We do not wish it to be understood, however, that we are satisfied with the present condition of affairs in London. The London Traffic Act does not appear to have fulfilled altogether the intention of its authors. The division of authority between the Home Office, which is responsible for

1659
the police, who are the licensing authority, and the Ministry of Transport, which is charged with the duty of regulating and coordinating traffic, and is advised by the London Traffic Advisory Committee set up by the Act, introduces a needless and troublesome complication. We cannot help thinking that some such plan as we have suggested for the rest of the country should, mutatis mutandis, be applied to London."
If it is good enough for the whole country to have a unified system of area commissioners, the same principle should apply to London, and I feel sure that the Minister will give careful consideration to the recommendation which the Royal Commission made in that respect. Remarks have been made this afternoon on the fact that a new authority is being set up, but I believe that, although that is bound to cost a certain amount of money, when that is balanced against the expenditure which is taking place to-day under 1,300 authorities, and of which we have no actual knowledge, a considerable saving will be shown when the expenditure is concentrated under 12 authorities. I hope that the Committee will pass this Resolution, so that the Bill may be considered in Committee upstairs, and so that we may have at no distant time a Bill that will really bring our traffic problem more up to date. I have much pleasure in supporting the Resolution.
Mr. SANDERS: I should not have intervened but for the speech of the right hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Ashley). Before proceeding to make my comments, I should like to say that, as an old friend of the Minister of Transport, I am getting a little anxious about his future, because there constantly comes to my mind an old saying that we used to repeat very often from our platforms: "Beware when all men speak good of thee." This remark, made by an older man to a younger and promising leader of my party, will not, I think, be taken by my hon. Friend as being unduly out of place.
The point that I rose to make is this: I have always been anxious, as many of my friends have been, to break down the barrier that has always existed in this country between what may be called the working member of a profession and the mere academic member of a profession. One of the reasons why there is a drifting
1660
away from mechanical occupations into occupations where the pen is more used than other kinds of tools is that there is always a feeling that, if you once become a mechanic, you remain a mechanic and are barred from the higher sections of the particular occupation.
I want to ask the Minister not to take the view that the examining technical officers are to be highly technically trained skilled men in the sense of academic training. I want him to give at least encouragement to the working engineer by letting it be known that the man he wants for this job is not the man who can draft an interesting and convincing report, but the man who knows most about the machinery connected with transport from the practical point of view. As I know the engineering trade, not by personally working but by being acquainted with a large number of working men engineers, I am certain that from that type of man he could get the very best form of public servant, who will do, not for an excessively high salary but for a good wage, equally good if not better work than a man who has received most of his technical knowledge in the engineering college and not in the actual workshop. It is simply because I want to emphasise that aspect of the possibility of employment for the mechanic rather than for the professional engineer that I have intervened.
Mr. REMER: The hon. Member told the Minister to beware when all men spoke well of him. From the 11 years that I have been in the House of Commons, I take the same attitude towards Bills, and when I hear words of praise about a Bill my natural instinct is to express doubt as to what is in it. When I heard the present Minister and the late Minister, both on the Second Reading and on this Motion, saying that they were in favour of these Traffic Commissioners, I could not help thinking that there was a great point that must be raised in Committee which should be materially altered. I think my right hon. and gallant Friend gave the best argument against these Traffic Commissioners in the question he asked about a little Department growing into a large one. Unless we scrutinise these expenditures carefully, there is the greatest tendency for this very small amount of £160,000 to rise to a very much larger figure. I have seen many cases in which we have

1661
passed a very harmless Bill which was only going to cost a few pounds, and from those small beginnings we have seen a huge bureaucratic Department rise up. The Minister made one observation against which I must enter a protest. He told us that it was going to impose no cost on the Exchequer because of the large amount of fees that would be recovered from the Road Fund. It is a growing practice for Ministers to tell the House that, because they get the money from the Road Fund, that in itself is not an expenditure.
Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: Perhaps I can save the hon. Member time. I assure him I would not be guilty of such infamous doctrine as to say anything of the kind. Certainly, it is my duty to tell the Committee where I shall get the money from, but the liability to be exceedingly careful with any money, wherever it comes from, remains upon me, and I said nothing indicating the contrary.
Mr. REMER: I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. I will put it in a different way. There is a growing tendency to hide the expenditure from the ordinary purview of the House into the Road Fund, the Unemployment Insurance Fund, Widows' and Old Age Pensions and a number of others, and the House has not the power of scrutinising these expenditures as it ought to be done. I have received a large number of protests and, while I am prepared to admit that the 13,000 local authorities who are licensing authorities are too many, it is wrong that they should be divided in this way and that a number of bureaucratic officials should dictate to them exactly what the traffic is going to be in their areas. It is necessary that there should be expenditure to provide for the safety and examination of vehicles, but I do not think this should be dealt with nationally. I believe the local influence should remain and, for that reason, I think this expenditure is very largely out of place and should not be tolerated. Reference has been made to the specification of vehicles. There is a very great danger, because some years ago the Ministry of Transport wanted to put forward a scheme under which all vehicles should be standardised to a specification which was to be the same all over the country.
The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: We cannot discuss the specification of vehicles on this Money Resolution.
Mr. REMER: That is the very point, because by a side wind we may give this vague objectionable power to these commissioners, not by an Act of Parliament, but by a Financial Resolution. By giving these people their salaries we may be getting a very dangerous point into the Act. The Minister said one thing that I did not understand. He mentioned fines. Will he explain what they are? Are we to understand that fines paid by motorists are to go into the Road Fund, or is this some other kind of fines? If the procedure is that fines on motorists are to go into the Road Fund and to be used for this purpose, that is a very complete alteration of anything that has happened before, when fines have been paid at police courts. I believe this Resolution wants to be examined in the greatest detail. In these days £160,000 is regarded as a small sum compared with the large amounts that are voted almost daily, but we should view even the smallest sums with the closest scrutiny, and this £160,000 means that either this year or next year the Minister will be coming forward with a large Estimate. I hope the Committee will scrutinise the Vote with the greatest care in order to see that the power of the House of Commons is kept over the public purse.
Dr. VERNON DAVIES: The interesting Financial Memorandum that the Minister has presented says:
"It is difficult to frame any close estimate of the expenditure which will be incurred in respect of the Traffic Commissioners and their staffs, but it is estimated that the gross expenditure should not exceed £165,000 a year."
It would be very interesting to know upon what basis the Minister has formed this estimate. Is it simply a rough guess—a toss up? "We might as well say £165,000 as £500,000. One may be as near as the other." Another Minister to-day gave an estimate that was pure guesswork. I wonder if the Minister of Transport has had a more or less lucky guess as to what this amount will be. The House of Commons seems to be taken less and less into the confidence of the Government when dealing with financial matters. They seem to think that all they have to do is to put some sum on paper and say, "We think it may be this; we cannot guess very closely," and

1663
they expect the House of Commons to swallow that and pass it. That is very-wrong. It is not treating the House of Commons as a financial safeguard with sufficient respect. Ministers and their Departments should pay very much closer attention to these financial propositions, and, when they ask the taxpayer to provide them with money, they should be able to budget very much more closely than they do. In the next paragraph of the Memorandum there is a saving Clause:
"As against this expenditure may be set the receipts from such fees for the grant of licenses and the issue of certificates of fitness as may be prescribed by the Minister."
I am not quite sure about these certificates of fitness. As I understand the Memorandum, they refer absolutely to the condition of the vehicle.
Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: At the moment, we are not dealing with certificates of fitness, but with certifying officers. I should not be in order in dealing with that matter now. It must be dealt with in Committee on the Bill.
Dr. DAVIES: I understood that we were discussing the Money Resolution of the Road Traffic Bill, and we have a Memorandum here in regard to the expenditure which is likely to be incurred. In the last paragraph of this Memorandum the Minister has a set-off against this expenditure. I submit with all respect that this is a very vital part in the finance of the Bill. Although he guesses that £165,000 will be required for additional expenditure, he sets a credit against that of
"receipts from such fees for the grant of licences and the issue of certificates of fitness."
I maintain, with all respect, that I am entitled to ask to what these certificates of fitness refer?
Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I thought that he was raising the general conditions of issuing certificates of fitness. If it is purely a question of fees, that is another matter. The Act provides for the appointment of certifying officers to certify that a vehicle is fit to be a public service vehicle on the road, and that when certified to that effect the certifying becomes a main charge.
Dr. DAVIES: That is what I understood from the Memorandum. The Minister may be able to estimate with a certain amount of success the number of certificates which may be granted and the fees which may be charged. I would like to ask him a question—I do not know whether it is in order or not—with regard to the applications for licences. Are fees to be charged for these licences? I understand from the Financial Memorandum that this is so. But on the application for a licence which is to be made by declaration in the prescribed form
"as to whether or not he is suffering from any such diseases or physical disability"—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that the hon. Member is going too far afield.
Dr. DAVIES: The question I wanted to ask is, would the applicant for a licence have to pay any fee for the licence, and if it proved, in answer to the questions on the declaratory form, that he had to be medically examined, and the fee had to be paid for examination, would the fee be paid by the applicant or by the licensing office? The question might easily arise that when a man was given this declaratory form to sign as to whether he had this, that or the other disease, he might say, "I do not know," and they might say, "Very well, in that case we shall require you to be medically examined."
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that we cannot go into details. We are discussing a Money Resolution to provide payments in respect of certain officers, and the hon. Member must keep to that subject.
Dr. DAVIES: I do not wish to controvert your Ruling, Mr. Dunnico, for a moment. I am simply asking for information as to whether any fees are likely to be included which may be obtained from a medical examination of applicants for licences. The Minister does not at present seem inclined to answer the question. Perhaps he has not considered that point. [Interruption.] An hon. Member says that it can be done by negotiation. He is more optimistic than I am. I would point out that these guesses on the part of the Minister might be very wide of the mark. These certificates of fitness for which a fee is to be charged an to show that a public licensed

1665
vehicle is fit for travel. How often is a vehicle going to be examined? This is a very vital point. If it is examined only once a year, the fees for certificates will not be so many. If an examination took place every week, you might get a very satisfactory revenue from the examination of these licensed vehicles. There is one thing which every motorist knows, and that is that you can only trust a car or a private vehicle from day to day. It should be examined every day before being taken out. A licensed vehicle may be examined to-day and be in perfect order, but after a run of 50, 100 or 200 miles something may go wrong with the brakes. The vehicle should be examined again to-morrow. To ensure that public vehicles are in thoroughly good order they should be examined before every trip.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot go into details of that kind. He must keep solely to the Money Resolution, which is to provide money for a particular purpose.
Captain CROOKSHANK: Surely on that point it is open to my hon. Friend to try to establish that there are certain duties being cast upon the Minister in this Bill which are not covered by the Money Resolution. That is what I understand he is trying to put before the Committee.
Dr. DAVIES: I was pointing out that it is estimated that the sum should not exceed £165,000 a year, and I desired to know whether the Minister has any justification for such an estimate. He might just as well say that it is estimated that the gross expenditure should not exceed X pounds. It would be just as true. I think that the Committee are entitled to information as to the basis upon which he has formed this estimate, so that we may be able to discuss the matter and, if necessary, criticise him as to whether he is allowing sufficient money for this purpose. We must not forget that in this Money Resolution we are dealing with the money of the taxpayers. On every hand we hear of the increasing cost of services and higher taxation, and we are sent here to see that the business of this country is carried on with a due regard to economy. Personally, I have no confidence at all
1666
in the economy of the present Government, and as a member of the Opposition I think that it is doubly my duty to see that no Minister comes to this House with an unsatisfactory estimate and without any details to enable us to form a conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman should not be allowed to get away with this £165,000 simply because he says that it is difficult to frame any close estimate of the expenditure. That is not treating the House of Commons with respect and this country with fairness and justice. Perhaps the Minister will not mind, after the many encomiums he has had from all parts of the House on the ability which he showed in presenting this Bill, if I make a remark in the other direction and say that much as he deserves praise for the way in which he introduced the Bill, he deserves censure and condemnation for the loose manner in which he has prepared this Money Resolution.
Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: I would like to ask the Minister a few questions. I notice that in the Memorandum relating to the Money Resolution the amount of expenditure is not to exceed £165,000. I would like to know whether that £165,000 is the net amount or the gross amount?
Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The gross amount.
Sir W. BRASS: We see a little later on that the receipts from fees for the grant of licences and the issue of certificates of fitness are going to the Road Fund. We also see that considerable saving will accrue to the local authorities. Can the Minister of Transport give us any idea as to how much will be saved to the local authorities, and whether the amount which will be saved to the local authorities is to be deducted from the £165,000 or not? Can he give an estimate as to the amount of money which he will receive for the granting of licences? Do I understand that the granting of licences will be at a nominal fee of, say, five shillings or will it be the full amount which the licensee will have to pay for his licence? There is the question of the certificate of fitness. I suppose that a fee will be charged for that certificate. Has the hon. Gentleman yet fixed in his mind what fee is to be charged for that certificate?

1667
On the question of the inspectors, or the certifying officers as they are called, I imagine that the amount of money which will be expended on fees to these gentlemen will depend very largely upon the amount of work which they have to do. What are these officers expected to do? When they are certifying these vehicles are they, for instance, going to look into the question as to whether the steering-gear of the vehicles is in order? I understand that the motor omnibuses in London—I think that the Minister will probably bear me out in this—have the steering-arm clear of paint, so that any-body can see whether the steering-arm has any fracture in it. I have been wondering whether, after the certifying officers start work, all public vehicles which carry passengers about the country must have the steering-arms clear of paint so that these officers may be able to see whether there are any cracks in them.
There is the question of brakes. It is a very important question, indeed, and I do not think that anybody can stress that point too much. It affects the safety of the public probably more than anything else. I know that they are very strict about the brakes in London in regard to the certifying of taxi-cabs before they are allowed to go on to the road. I think that it is most important that these certifying officers should go into all these questions. I would like the Minister to tell me a little later on whether such are the things into which the certifying officers are to inquire. How often are the certifying officers to inspect these vehicles? This will also make a great difference as to the amount of money which will have to be expended in paying these gentlemen for their services. I see in the Bill that these certificates of fitness are to last for five years. That does not mean, I imagine, that the officers will only visit these vehicles at the end of five-year periods. I imagine that they will inspect these vehicles more often than that. I think that we should know from the Minister how often these inspectors are going to see the vehicles. From whom is the Minister going to draw these inspectors? Must these inspectors go through any sort of examination, or is it intended to go to the Institute of Automobile Engineers in order to find
1668
these inspectors, or does the Minister expect to find them locally? What fees are they to receive?
It is very important, if you are to have a proper inspection of a vehicle, that you should have men who really are fully qualified for the particular job. It is important that these officers should really be qualified mechanical engineers; otherwise we may merely have a large number of inspectors going round the country looking for defects in various vehicles, and not really being capable of saying whether there is any really permanent defect or not. I notice that Clause 65, Sub-section (5), provides that:
"Where the Minister is satisfied in respect of one vehicle of a particular type that the prescribed conditions as to fitness are fulfilled"—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow a general discussion upon details of this kind. This is a Money Resolution to pay the salaries of certifying officers, etc., and it is not in order to go into the details of their duties. The Committee has to decide upon the broad, general principle as to whether the money shall be provided or not for these officers.
Earl WINTERTON: On that point, Mr. Deputy-Chairman. When we are discussing a Financial Resolution dealing with the payment to be made to a certain body of officials, are we not entitled, within limits, to inquire the nature of the duties, otherwise, it is impossible for the Committee to decide whether the salaries should be voted. Whilst I respectfully agree with you that it is not competent to go broadly into the whole of the duties, I submit that it is competent for an hon. Member to inquire, generally, as to what are the duties of these officials.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Member has given my ruling precisely.
Sir W. BRASS: That is precisely what I was trying to do.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member must obey the Chair. I tried to explain that within reasonable limits it is proper to discuss the duties of these officers who are to be appointed, but it is impossible to go into the details of those duties, especially the type of vehicle they are going to examine.
Sir W. BRASS: I was reading the Subsection for a specific purpose. It was this. I wanted to know the sort of man to be appointed in order to get some idea of the salaries it was expected to pay, and I was reading the Clause because it says that when a vehicle as a type vehicle has been approved then other vehicles of the same type will be approved. What I really wanted to know was whether these inspectors are to be such competent and capable persons, drawing such big salaries, that they will be able to lay down specifications which will have to be adhered to in the production of certain kinds of vehicles. That is the point, and maybe, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, you did not realise it at first. I am sorry that I was out of order. Have these inspectors, as part of their duties, to lay down specifications as to the sort of vehicles which will be allowed under this Bill? If that is so the amount of salaries you will have to pay will be considerably higher than if they were just ordinary inspectors going round to see whether brakes and such things were in order. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give me an answer.
Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: A day or two ago when I asked the Minister of Transport whether he thought the Chairman of these commissioners should possess local knowledge, he, quite rightly I think, said that it was essential. Then I asked him a supplementary question as to whether it was proposed to ear-mark these full-time appointments as civil servants, and he said that that point had not been decided. It seems to me that this is a most suitable opportunity for raising the question. While it would be very nice to have the chairman and these commissioners all civil servants, administering each area according to a set of rules, I doubt whether it would suit the country as a whole. The duties of the chairman are not hard and fast. He must be a man of tact, capable of dealing with people and of acting impartially. He will have to decide on the omnibuses which shall be run. A mere civil servant appointed from London would not be a suitable appointment as chairman of these areas. I gather from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that this matter has not been decided and I hope he will see that these appointments are not confined to the Civil Service but that other
1670
people will have full consideration. These Traffic commissioners ought not to become part of our bureaucratic system. That is not the kind of control which this country desires.
Captain CROOKSHANK: May I congratulate the Minister of Transport on having taken this Money Resolution at a reasonable hour; an almost unique experience so far as Bills are concerned this Session. There are one or two points on which I want a word of explanation. When Bills come from another place a number of paragraphs are underlined showing that they raise a question of Privilege. The Financial Memorandum says that only Part IV of the Bill makes any direct charge on public funds but, on the other hand, there are underlined passages in other parts of the Bill which make it a little difficult for those who want to follow the financial implications of the Measure. The Memorandum refers only to Part IV as containing the financial provisions, but other parts of the Bill have been underlined by another place. We have underlined passages in Clauses 51, 53 and 54. Part I of the Bill, it is said, does not raise any financial question at all, but Sub-section (1) of Clause 4 deals with the question of the licensing of drivers. That means that a licensing fee, presumably, is going to be collected. Indeed, the Clause says so; and I presume that the receipts from such licenses will be set-off against the £165,000 expenditure mentioned in the Financial Resolution. I am not quite certain whether it covers the fees referred to in Clause 4. Clauses 100, 101 and 102, are practically all underlined. Sub-section (1) of Clause 100 refers to:
"Such part of the expenses incurred by and in connection with the Roads Department of the Ministry of Transport."
In my submission this Clause ought to have been covered by the Financial Memorandum and possibly should come under the Financial Resolution, because the Financial Resolution—and this is my difficulty—definitely refers to the salaries and remuneration of these officers to be appointed by the Minister. I am wondering whether there is not an error here, and that the Minister will find that there are other parts of the Bill where some kind of expenditure is involved. The words of Clause 100 seem definitely to deal with that point:

1671
"Such part of the expenses incurred by and in connection with the Roads Department of the Ministry of Transport, including the salaries of the staff of that Department."
That refers to payments out of the Road Fund, a fund with which this House has had a great deal to do. It is not a matter which we should leave entirely out of our control. The Financial Resolution also refers to the employment of police officers as public service vehicle examiners; and it seems to me that this is a matter which requires some explanation. Does it mean that an extra duty is going to be put on the police without any special remuneration, or is the right hon. Gentleman going to pay the police as a result of this Bill? Are they to be specially selected for this purpose, or are they to do it as one of the many duties cast upon them. If he is to add to the salaries of certain police officers and pay them out of the proceeds of the licensing fees he is going to make a privileged class, but, on the other hand, if they are merely to do this kind of duty and no other police work it would be much better to transfer them from the police force and make them the officers of the Department altogether. The Financial Memorandum also refers to the three traffic commissioners to be appointed in each area. It is rather misleading when it says:
"There will be three traffic commissioners in each area one of whom will be a full-time salaried officer appointed by the Minister and will act as chairman."
When I first read it I took it that only one of the three was to be a paid official, but on going into the Bill I gather that they are all to be paid, and that this is put in to show that the chairman is to be appointed by the Minister. Again, I am not quite sure that the Financial Resolution is sufficiently widely drawn. Provided that they do their duty they will have to come under some superannuation scheme and possibly retired pay. I should like the Minister to tell me whether this form of words would in actual practice cover superannuation and retired pay; whether it is intended that they should be civil servants in that sense. If so, I really cannot see why they should be and I am doubtful whether the words:
"salaries, remuneration, establishment charges or other expenses"
1672
in the Financial Resolution do cover superannuation and retired pay. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to explain it. Obviously, it will make a great difference to the class and capacity of the officers appointed for these services if they are to be put on a basis of superannuation and retired pay, and are merely to be used for a comparatively short period of years at a very high salary annually, or if they are to be like the rest of the Civil Service and eligible for retired pay and paid at a considerably less annual salary in view of this provision for the future.
7.0 p.m.
There is another point upon which I think we ought to have a, little more explanation before we pass this Resolution, which involves a considerable sum of money. As the hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies) pointed out, this is sheer guesswork, and the Minister will be the first to admit it. We cannot foresee even the gross expenditure, but the Minister might tell us what sort of fees he has in view. In the last paragraph of this Memorandum:
"As against this expenditure may be set the receipts from such fees for the grant of licences and the issue of certificates of fitness. … These fees will be paid into the Road Fund."
It is very important to know what kind of fees are being thought of. Does the Minister mean 5s. or thereabouts, or, when it comes to licensing public vehicles, is it to be a matter of £5 or £10? When one sees some of the enormous juggernauts which desecrate the country roads, one feels like making it a fess of £100, and then they would be getting off lightly! The higher the fees the less that £165,000 will be a burden on the ratepayers. There is nothing, so far as I have been able to master the Bill, to indicate what these fees are to be. We ought to know, not only in the interests of the taxpayers who are most concerned in regard to this Resolution, but in the interests of the traders who use these heavy vehicles. I hope before we leave these points the Minister will clear them up, and let us know whether what he really has in mind is something quite small but sufficient to give him a measure of control over the nature of these vehicles, their safety appliances, and so forth, and whether he really means to try to get

1673
some money out of them commensurate with the kind of damage that they do to the roads. Of course, they do get a certain amount through the ordinary licence which corresponds to the damage done, but if you are going to give to any kind of vehicle the imprimatur of the Ministry that would be worth something to the vehicle.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is quite obvious that we cannot go on discussing matters like this, or we shall find ourselves discussing the kind of roads along which vehicles are to travel. I must ask the hon. and gallant Member to keep within reasonable limits or I shall have to be much more rigid in my Ruling.
Captain CROOKSHANK: I am very sorry. I had no intention of going outside your Ruling. I was trying to point out to the Minister that it would be of value, in judging the finances of the Measure which has passed its Second Reading, to know what kind of fees he has in mind—whether he means a sum like 5s., or £5 or £20. These are the only points which I wish to make. It is important as a set off to the gross expenditure of £165,000. Without going into further details, I want to ask him these three questions: Firstly, is he quite satisfied that by putting in the limiting words in paragraph (a) of the Money Resolution, he is really covering every conceivable expenditure which might arise from the Bill, because nothing would be more unfortunate than for him to have to come back and have the Bill recommitted? He will have quite enough of discussion as it is without that. Secondly, can he tell us what sort of fees he had in mind which are going to be brought into the account as against this expenditure of £165,000? Thirdly, what kind of officers has he in mind when dealing with the Traffic Commissioners? Has he in mind asking persons to serve for a comparatively short period, at comparatively high salaries, or does he intend to set up, as it were, a definite branch of the Civil Service carrying with it superannuation and retired pay? If the Minister will answer those questions satisfactorily, I think I shall see my way to support it.
Mr. TURTON: I am rather incredulous about the need for this large amount of £165,000, which I understand will all go
1674
into increases in the staff of officials. There are 12 traffic areas and that is allowing over £13,000 for each area. The Minister mentioned a small increase in the staff of Whitehall. What does he mean by a small increase? If he can give us some figure showing what will be the increase in the headquarters staff at Whitehall, it will give us a better idea of what is to be the expense to the country. I think it is deplorable that we should not know more about the Traffic Commissioners than has been vouchsafed by the Minister. He has not yet told us whether the Chairman is to be an official appointed by the Ministry or a local man. It is of immense importance to us because of the difference in the salary. You will get a local man at a much lower salary than an official who has been promoted from Whitehall. Will the Minister also tell us what will be the salary granted to the other two commissioners? Will he attempt to get men to undertake this work voluntarily for a year? I believe he would find as many public-spirited men to take up voluntary work as you get at present on the county councils, and he could thus make a great saving in this direction. Lastly, what is the saving he expects will accrue to local authorities in respect of traffic staff at present engaged? That is a most material part of the Financial Resolution. It may be that the saving to local authorities will be able to set off the cost of the new increase in the official stuff. If that is so, he will, at any rate, win my approval and the approval of my constituents in Yorkshire, but, if he is setting out to increase this staff of officials, we must make a protest. I represent an agricultural constituency which is suffering from grave depression. We cannot stand a large horde of traffic officials being put upon us by the Ministry of Transport. I wish to make a most definite protest against anything of that kind.
Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: There has been a very considerable and somewhat detailed discussion as to the provisions in this Financial Resolution, and I should imagine that every conceivable point has by now been raised in connection with the matter. I am very much obliged to the Committee for the friendly way in which they have received this request, and I hope very much, after the explanations which I will now give,

1675
the Committee will give us the Committee stage of the Resolution.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the New Forest (Colonel Ashley) quite rightly points out that £165,000 is a very considerable sum, but he supports Part IV of the Bill. I can see that it does not of necessity frighten him as long as he is satisfied that whatever money is spent will be spent with care and with reasonable restraint. Certainly, I agree that the Committee is perfectly entitled to examine a proposal for the expenditure of £165,000, but it should take into account that this does replace local expenditure to some extent and will reflect a saving to the ratepayers, and that there will be a certain income from licensing and so on. But what is more important is to take into account the large measure of co-ordination of traffic which will be secured and the amount of elimination of waste which will be effected. I am perfectly certain, as the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow (Major Salmon) said, that the money will come back many times, but that does not eliminate the point that it is exceedingly desirable that the money should be spent with care. I can assure the House that there is no intention of spending money for the sake of spending and that every penny will be watched and no appointments will be made until they are established to be necessary. Certainly, we shall be careful in the first stages, so that we may get a machine which is efficient for its purpose, but which is not needlessly expensive and not wasteful.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman asked me what figure I had in mind as to the salary of the chairman of the commissioners. Frankly, I have not yet reached that stage. It would be profoundly unwise for me to mention a figure at this moment or even to come to a tentative conclusion. We have to get the Money Resolution through before the Clauses can be dealt with, and therefore we must put before the House the nearest estimate that we can get, but in fact we do not know of a certainty what duties will be imposed on the commissioners or what their responsibilities will be, and, until we are certain about that, it would be premature even to mention in the
1676
House the salaries which are to be paid. I entirely agree with the late Minister that salaries should be adequate to command the right type of service. There is no point in paying salaries which will bring us third-rate or fourth-rate men, because we must have efficiency and fairness in this service, and the people who are concerned must be entirely above any temptation which could arise in the granting or refusal of licences. I should like to say how much we all appreciate the great services which the local authorities have rendered in licensing in the past. Although we are going to form a new organisation, that does not prevent us realising the great work which the local authorities have done.
With regard to the office staffs, I will keep in mind the right hon. Gentleman's warning against needless expansion in the first stage, and he may rest assured that I shall require to be satisfied that appointments are necessary, and I think he will agree that the Department itself is reasonably strict with itself as to expenditure. I undertake also, as Minister, to restrict myself and to be firm in supervising all matters in which we are concerned. I should not like to accept the figure of £100,000 as the net increased expenditure to the nation. I think that figure might be excessive, but even if there happens to be a net increase, that net increase will, I think, come back through the economies in transport that will be effected.
A question was raised by the right hon. Gentleman as to whether the certifying and examining officers will be officers of the commissioners or of the Minister. The appointments will be controlled by the Ministry, but it is not yet certain whether these officers will work under the immediate jurisdiction of the commissioners or of the Ministry. It is obvious that they must be in close contact with the commissioners, because their duties will interlock to a great extent. That is a matter of detail which will require to be settled, and it would be premature to settle it at this stage before we know what the duties of the commissioners are going to be so far as the Statute is concerned. The hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury) asked how I estimated the expenditure. In these matters we must do our best, and we cannot do more. We

1677
were bound to submit a Financial Resolution, but we are not yet clear as to the exact position. We admit that it is to some extent guess work. We have taken the 12 areas, and we know that there will be a full time commissioner, with other commissioners, that there must be one or more certifying officers and examining officers, and members of the clerical staff for the commissioners. Adding the whole together, we have arrived at the rough figure of £165,000. That is not entirely a blind figure, but I would not say that it is a scientific figure. At a later stage, when we know how we stand with the legislation, we may be able to get a nearer figure.
Viscount WOLMER: Will the Minister tell us why he is not clear as to the precise function of the commissioners.
Mr. MORRISONThat is very easy to answer, because the Bill has not yet been passed.
Viscount WOLMER: The Financial Resolution is based on the Bill as it is drafted and presented. Surely, the hon. Member must give us a precise estimate in that respect.
Mr. MORRISON: It is impossible to give a precise estimate, because the Bill is not passed and at this stage we cannot work out a complete administrative scheme. We cannot get the precise figures unless we work out a complete administrative scheme. The House would censure me if I set the officers of my Department, who are busily engaged and wanted for other work, to work out a big administrative scheme which, when the Bill has gone through Committee, may be knocked to pieces by the Amendment of the Bill in Committee. The Noble Lord as a believer in businesslike administration in State Departments would not forgive me if I did any such thing. With regard to the headquarters staff, I do not think there will be much increase. There must be a certain technical staff to deal with the proposals which are made as to type vehicles, but the main increase of staff will be in the areas of the 12 commissioners, and the staff who are associated with the commissioners, including the certifying officers and the examining officers.
Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether he will have to set up a completely new branch in the Ministry of Transport to carry out the new duties imposed by the Road Traffic Bill?
Mr. MORRISON: That is not yet decided but I should not think so. I would not, however, like to commit myself finally. I am inclined to think that the appropriate existing Department suitably adjusted which deals with that work will be able to continue to deal with it at the Ministry of Transport. In regard to the point which was put to me as to fines being paid into the Road Fund, that has been the case since 1920. All the fines imposed have been paid into the Road Fund. Previously, they were paid into the Police Fund, which went to the relief of the local ratepayers. It was alleged—I will not say that it was true—in certain motoring quarters that when a local authority was getting short of cash and in danger of having to go to the bank for an overdraft, they organised police traps in order to bring in more revenue. That was the reason why the payment of the fines was transferred to the Road Fund.
Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Has not the Ministry of Transport increased their fines in order to pay for this supplementary expenditure?
Mr. MORRISON: We have had no such evil thought in our minds. Certainly that is an idea but I do not propose to consider it as it is contrary to the well-established morality of the Ministry of Transport, a fact to which the right hon. Gentleman the late Minister of Transport can testify. In regard to the technical officers, two points were raised. Again, it must depend upon the duties of the officers what salaries we shall pay. In so far as certifying officers must perform very responsible technical duties, they must be technically qualified for the work in order that they may do it full well. In these matters there is no point in having half-qualified people, because you may waste your money, and, further, we might easily get into the Law Courts if one of these certifying officers were to make too many mistakes. In connection with the examining officers it may well be that intelligent skilled engineers who have had experience in the motoring world and can write a report of reasonable clarity

1679
that can be understood, might be considered for these positions. Both these points will be borne in mind when we get to that stage.
I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow for the support that he gives as a member of the Royal Commission. I agree with him that the money will come back. He wanted to know why London and the Home Counties are not in this scheme. The reason is that the state of the law in London and the Home Counties, but more particularly the Metropolitan police district, is somewhat complicated and very different from the rest of the country, and we had not the time to clear the matter up at this stage. I agree with the Royal Commission, and I see no reason in principle, subject to the exceptional character of the London area, why this scheme should not be applied to the London area. Hon. Members will be aware that the problem of London traffic is now under consideration. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for North Battersea (Mr. Sanders) that he need not fear that I shall be harmed by the praises that I get from the other side. Before we get through we shall, no doubt, get the reverse of praise, and one's soul will be saved. It would, however, be a pity in this House if, when we agree with each other, we cannot say so.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) was apprehensive as to the creation of a huge bureaucratic department. I can assure him that we shall only make appointments in so far as they are necessary for the services to be discharged. The hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass) asked how much would be saved to the local authorities. There are no figures on record as to how much the local authorities spend on the licensing service, because it is interlocked with other services of the local authorities, and I am afraid that the figures vary to some extent. The licence fee for vehicles will follow the ordinary course. I cannot give a definite standard. The type vehicle will be dealt with in the main at the head office of the Ministry of Transport.
The hon. and gallant Member for Hexham (Colonel Brown) asked me whether the posts of the chairmen of
1680
commissioners were to be earmarked for civil servants. I have already said that the question of these appointments has not yet been decided. At this stage we have not yet decided the matter, but I am clear that we must seek fair-minded men with administrative capacity. I would not say that a lawyer is disqualified. This is an administrative rather than a quibbling legal job, if my legal friends will forgive my using that phrase, but a lawyer is not disqualified. What we want is a man with a fair mind, with business ability and with administrative capacity. I am quite clear that no political influence must be allowed to enter into any of these appointments in the slightest degree.
A point was raised about police officers. That will depend entirely upon the arrangements we are able to make with the police authorities. Some police authorities, as licensing authorities, are already carrying out these duties. There may be some arrangements that we should like to make with the police authorities, and our contract would then be with the police authorities and not with the individual police officer. A point was made as to superannuation. That has not yet been settled, but it will be given consideration. I have no bias as to whether the Chairman of the Commissioners should come from the locality itself or be appointed on a national basis. What we want is to get the best men for the appointments. I am sorry that I have not been able to give a complete balance sheet with regard to he £165,000, but it is impossible to do so at the moment. It is as near a round figure as we can get. Whatever the figure may be, the House may be assured that I will watch the expenditure on this matter with the greatest care, and I am certain that the Treasury, in due course, will watch me as well.
Earl WINTERTON: No one would deny that the hon. Gentleman has given us all the information at his disposal, but I hope he will not mind my saying that the information at his disposal is of a somewhat scanty character. It is true that this large Bill had to be prepared in his Department and that his Department is busily engaged with unemployment schemes, etc., and has been hard pressed, but he must remember that this Bill has been prepared for some time past. The information that has been

1681
given to us respecting the commissioners still remains in rather a vague state. I do not suggest that we are going to set up an instrument of bureaucratic tyranny or oppression, but it would have been desirable before we pass the Financial Resolution that we should be told rather more, at any rate, about the chairmen of the commissioners, and the commissioners. It is important to know whether these men are going to be civil servants or not. Personally, I hope that they will not. I do not think that it is work that would be as well done by civil servants as it would by other men who are experienced in these matters. It is a pity that the Minister has not been able to tell us whether they will be civil servants or not.
The Minister referred to the question of pensions. I should like to refer to a point which I raised on the Second Reading with regard to provision in the Bill as to the removal of a commissioner from office for inability or misbehaviour. If these are to be pensioned officials, obviously the terms of their appointment are important. If they are to be removed for disability or misbehaviour they lose their pensions. What I want to impress on the Minister is the need for considering whether it will not be possible at some future date to include the Metropolitan Police area within the Bill.
Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: There has been a difficulty in getting the legislation into shape. The whole question of London traffic is under consideration, and I do not want to pre-judge what I shall do on the larger question.
Earl WINTERTON: That is an entirely reasonable answer. We do want to draw a clear line of demarcation between police and transport. That is apparent from the recent report of the Inspector of Constabulary. I hope that the Minister will give his attention to the matter. My right hon. Friend the former Minister of Transport is in favour of what I have just said. The Minister has been rather vague about the duties of these commissioners, and I hope that in agreeing to the Resolution without further discussion we are not giving him too free a hand.
Resolution to be reported upon Tuesday next, 25th February.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. DUNNICO in the Chair.]
  CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1929.

  SUPPLY.
    CLASS I.

      GOVERNMENT HOSPITALITY.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £9,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for a Grant-in-Aid of the Government Hospitality Fund."
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): This is a Supplementary Estimate which, I think, will not give rise to any controversial issue. The two items which have-resulted in our having to ask for this additional sum of £9,000 are set out in the White Paper on page 4. One of the items is the expenses of the Dominion delegates to the Expert Committee on the Operation of Dominion Legislation, and the Sub-Conference on Merchant Shipping Legislation which met in London last autumn. The other item represents expenses in connection with the Naval Conference which is now sitting in London. These two items taken together are anticipated to account for something in the neighbourhood of £10,500, and of that sum £1,500 can be met out of the original Vote. Assuming that this Supplementary Estimate be granted, there will remain a small balance to meet any further unexpected contingency before the end of the year. If any hon. Member wishes to put questions to me, I shall be prepared to satisfy his curiosity as far as is compatible with the limitations always recognised in a Vote of this kind. In this hospitality we are, of course, the hosts, and on a host there are certain limitations imposed which prevent that meticulous examination which might be given to some other matters. Within those limits I shall be happy to supply the information for which anyone asks.
      Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: I rather think that the Financial Secretary's airy manner indicates a new frame of mind on the part of the

      1683
      Treasury in dealing with things in this large way. No doubt everything that the Financial Secretary has said is perfectly in order, but I do not think that his manner is indicative of the Treasury's frame of mind. It was not in my time. Then we had to submit to the scrutiny of every farthing. Curiously enough, last night I looked at the original Estimate which I brought before the Committee on 19th February, 1929. At that time we increased the hospitality grant. I would draw the Committee's attention to the fact that this is a grant-in-aid, and that there is a good deal of money to be spent apart from this sum.
      Mr. BUCHANAN: Hear, hear!
      Mr. SAMUEL: There is no reason why there should not be. When we go abroad other countries show us hospitality, and there is every reason why we should show hospitality to them. At the same time we must have proper Treasury accounts. In 1923 the Estimate was £12,000. I pushed it up to £15,000, because we had to spend £17,319. As the Financial Secretary will remember, I had in hand £4,788 unspent, which I was able to use in order to make up the difference between £15,000 and £17,319. The Treasury is not obliged to surrender anything that it does not spend; it puts any unspent balance into its pocket and carries it forward. When I see a jump, first from £12,000 to £15,000, and now from £15,000 to £24,000, I say that here is almost an alteration in policy.
      Although we do not intend to divide on this Vote, I think we should have some explanation as to how this jump from £12,000 in 1928 to £24,000 to-day has been brought about. When the Financial Secretary says that he has had to entertain those connected with the Expert Committee on the Operation of Dominion Legislation, the Sub-Conference on Merchant Shipping Legislation and the Naval Conference, it is all very well and quite true, but year by year the amount of entertaining done by the Government does balance itself off. There is not much difference year by year in the amount of hospitality that we have to show. I rather suspect that when the Treasury asks for £24,000, it is putting a little aside, to use a colloquialism—is hoping that it will not spend it all, but will be
      1684
      able to put some of it into a long stocking to be held over for a contingency. Here we have what may again turn out to be over-estimating.
      There is one other thing with regard to the hospitality fund. There used to be someone who overlooked the expenditure on hospitality—a housekeeper. What arrangements have been made now? Have there been any improvements in the methods by which the housekeeping expenditure is overlooked by the person responsible? It is necessary that there should be same supervision of the expenditure of money on entertaining. We have had to look very closely into one matter dating from a year ago. I hope, therefore, that there will be greater supervision over this fund than there has been in the past. I have not made any hostile comment on the Vote, and I and my friends do not propose to divide against it, but we are entitled to an explanation of the few points that I have put.
      Commander SOUTHBY: The Financial Secretary gave an invitation to the Committee to ask questions, and there are one or two that I want to put. At the outset let me say that I have no desire to oppose this Vote. Indeed, if the Financial Secretary thought that he needed more money and it was reasonable that the money should be provided, I should support his demand. But I think the Committee would like to know in detail how this money is being spent. We have an item here for the London Naval Conference, which is an epoch-making Conference. I am sure the whole Committee would wish our traditional British hospitality as hosts to be properly shown. But we have to cut our coat according to our cloth. I would like to know how much of this £9,000 is actually being spent in connection with the Naval Conference. I would like to know if this sum includes the hotel expenses of delegates. I notice that the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary shakes his head. I would ask him further if it includes the provision of transport, such as motor cars for the delegates, because that, presumably, would amount to a considerable sum. I would also like to know if there has been any question of alterations at St. James' Palace involving an expenditure of money in order to make it suitable for the sittings of the Conference and

      1685
      whether any provision has been made for the refreshment of the delegates during the sessions of the Conference. It such provision has been made, we should like to know whether the delegates are provided with refreshments free, whether the catering is done by contract and whether it has proved entirely satisfactory.
      I do not think we would like that our friends from abroad should go away with any feeling that adequate provision had not been made for their creature comforts during the sittings of the Conference at St. James' Palace. I am sure that the Committee would also be interested to know whether, if there is a refreshment buffet at the Palace, it has been thought necessary in deference to the views of the American delegates that it should be entirely dry, or whether our visitors from other countries are able to obtain alcoholic drinks if they so desire. It seems rather hard to deprive the representatives of other nations of anything of this kind for which they wish, simply in order to make a gesture to the United States and I am sure that the United States would be the last nation to wish that we should do so. Finally, may I ask the hon. Gentleman if the Government are contemplating any mass entertainment of the delegates as a whole, either when the Conference finishes or at some period during its sessions. It seems to me that it would only be fitting that the British Empire should give some such entertainment to all the delegates and I am sure that the Committee would support any Vote for that purpose.
      Captain CAZALET: In response to the invitation of the Financial Secretary I wish to raise some points on this Vote. The hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Commander Southby) has mentioned the question of the provision of refreshments at St. James' Palace. Is there any truth in the story that a buffet was started at the Palace for the benefit of the delegates and that because we desired to show courtesy to our American visitors it was decided that it should be a dry buffet, with the result that it was so unattractive that it failed and the caterer refused to carry it on at a loss. As a teetotaller myself I think it highly creditable that we should wish to pay a tribute to the characteristics of our
      1686
      American friends, but if it involves a considerable loss to the caterer I think we ought to have exercised a little more-care combined with consideration. It may be that the circumstances are not as I have stated, but that is the story which is being circulated, and it would be a good thing to inform this Committee of whether it is true or not.
      I cannot quite understand what this Fund is. I take it that there are other governmental hospitality funds. One is constantly noticing in the papers, and I, for one, am very glad to see it, that one or other of the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite has been entertaining on behalf of the Government, various distinguished representatives of other countries. That is quite fitting and proper, but I should like to know whether the cost of those entertainments is included in this Estimate or whether this Estimate is something separate from and in addition to other hospitality funds which various Departments have at their disposal. Within reasonable limits, I agree that we must not survey and criticise this Vote with the minute attention that we would give-to other Votes.
      Mr. BUCHANAN: Why not?
      Captain CAZALET: We have no objection to money being legitimately spent on the entertainment of distinguished foreigners or representatives from the Dominions or Colonies coming to this country, if we are told more or less how the money is spent; but to ask £9,000 and give no information whatever about it, seems to be asking rather too much. We read recently of a big reception at the Admiralty. I do not know how many of my hon. Friends opposite were invited to it. I think very few of those who sit on this side were invited, but we are not complaining of that. All we want to know is if the cost of a reception of that kind is included in this Vote, or does it come under the Vote for Admiralty expenditure? I know that there is a most excellent, competent and efficient Government entertainment officer with offices in the Treasury building—I do not know his technical name. Does his salary come under this Vote? I am not making any criticism of any kind in reference to this official, and I do not desire to know what his salary is, if it is not

      1687
      considered proper that the Committee should be informed, but I think we should know whether or not there is some other governmental fund out of which these various expenses are met and to which this present grant is supplementary. If it is an additional grant we have a right to know where this £9,000 has gone.
      I presume that the Conferences on the operation of Dominion legislation and on merchant shipping legislation, to which the hon. Gentlemen referred, are finished and therefore we may take it that all this extra money is being spent on the Naval Conference. Speculation is rife as to how long that Conference will last and I think it highly probable that a larger sum than £9,000 will be required before it ends. I understand that it is quite untrue, and I hope it is quite untrue, that the British Government are paying the hotel expenses of the various delegations. This expense would be considerable owing to the size of the delegations, because I understand, that the Japanese delegation numbers about 100, while those of the United States and France are each well over 70. However, as I say, I understand that the British Exchequer is not to be responsible for their hotel bills. While one does not wish to pry too deeply into the expenditure under this Vote, I think we are entitled to more explicit and detailed explanation of the points I have indicated.
      Mr. BUCHANAN: I wish to direct attention to the contrast between the attitude of hon. Members opposite towards this Vote and the critical attitude which they take up towards other Votes. All three hon. Members who have spoken on the other side, have assured the Committee that they do not wish to probe into the details of this Vote or to examine it in the minute and careful fashion in which they would examine any other Vote. I remember when the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) sat on the back benches and before he reached the exalted position which he afterwards occupied. He and one of his colleagues, who is now, I am sorry to say, no longer among us—I refer to the late Sir Frederic Wise—were two very active Members of the Conservative party, both on the Opposition benches and on the back benches on this side,
      1688
      and they watched every shilling and every penny of expenditure and criticised it. If only £10 were being granted as unemployment benefit or in connection with any matter of that kind, they gave it the closest scrutiny. Now it is a matter of £9,000 for guzzling. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That is what it is. You may modify it if you like, and call it what you care, but this £9,000 is for nothing else but guzzling.
      Let me be quite frank about this. Everybody attending this Conference is, comparatively speaking, well-fed and well-clad. They all have incomes, perhaps not great incomes but they have, like myself, incomes which assure them of the minimum standard of life. They are assured of food, clothing and shelter and the man who asks for more than that is, in my view, engaging in guzzling. The sum of £9,000 which is now being asked from the State is for the purpose of giving more food to people who are already well-fed—food which, in most oases, is not good for them. I think this Vote is indefensible. I cannot see the logic of the kind of business which seems to be growing up. We call people here to the London Naval Conference which is supposed to be, primarily, a business assembly. Why is it that whenever people are gathered together for business purposes you must feed them? [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite know perfectly well what I mean. I do not refer to feeding them in the ordinary sense, but why cannot people dine in their ordinary fashion and pay for their own food themselves in the ordinary way? [An HON. MEMBER: "Lyons!"] Better men than they have gone to Lyons—
      Captain CAZALET: Might I ask the hon. Member how he defines guzzling? What is the difference between feeding and guzzling?
      Mr. BUCHANAN: I will try to explain to the hon. and gallant Member. As I see it, the ordinary Member of the Conference is getting his food in the ordinary course, but, in addition to that, they are invited out at night or during the day to extra functions where food on a lavish scale is provided. That to me represents nothing but guzzling. I cannot see why the London Naval Conference cannot conduct its business without all these functions. Let them do

      1689
      their business and go home. Why is it necessary for all this entertaining? As far as I can see, the last Labour Government in 1924 spent about £9,000 or £10,000 on entertaining, which is less than half the expenditure now proposed and I cannot see why we are spending £24,000 now. I might mention, by way of analogy, that on a previous occasion we passed £40,000 or £50,000 in order to extend the Unemployment Insurance Act for about a month or six weeks and we were told then how difficult it was—how, indeed, it was almost impossible—for the Government to find that money. We could not find a few thousand pounds for the unemployed, but apparently we can with ease find this money for extra entertainment for which no reason has been shown. An hon. Member opposite said that if the amount were more he would welcome it gladly. Hon. Members would gladly vote more for extra feeding and extra luncheoning of their particular friends—
      Captain CAZALET: The whole point is that we have not heard what this money is for. The money is not necessarily being spent on food. It may be on telephones or motor cars or hotel expenses. We want to know the way in which it is being spent.
      Mr. BUCHANAN: The hon. and gallant Member ought to remember his own speech, because it is only about five minutes since it was delivered.
      Commander SOUTHBY Commander SOUTHBY rose—
      8.0 p.m.
      Mr. BUCHANAN: One at a time. I will take on the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Commander Southby) later if he likes. I was saying that the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) ought to remember his own speech and that he was talking about a bar at the Palace. If he was talking about the bar, he has been at one.
      Captain CAZALET: I am a teetotaller.
      Mr. BUCHANAN: The hon. and gallant Member talked about the entertainment at the Admiralty Conference.
      Captain CAZALET: I asked for information.
      Mr. BUCHANAN: Yes, and he talked about hotel expenses. They are all of them things requiring food, and I would
      1690
      ask him to have some regard to his own speech. Now, if the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom wants an interruption, I am ready.
      Commander SOUTHBY: The hon. Member quoted me as saying that I would be prepared to support the Government if the Vote was more, but he did not perhaps pay quite a good tribute to his own memory, because he might have gone on with the quotation from my speech and said that I added, "if it was considered necessary and proper to have more," and that of course would mean that it was justified. I think the hon. Member might have added that.
      Mr. BUCHANAN: The hon. and gallant Member says he would vote for more if he thought it justified, but if his own Front Bench leader's opinion be correct, that we should not examine the Vote too closely, how will he know if it is justified? As a matter of fact, in this hospitality business, we have to take it on trust. Once you go out with your hospitality, it ceases to be hospitality, and you stop examining it detail by detail, and there is no use the hon. and gallant Member saying it is hospitality and then saying he would examine it in order to see if it was justified. If it is going to be hospitality, it must be entrusted to the people who administer it. Therefore, the two statements hardly coincide.
      My view is that the spending of this sum by a Labour Government is indefensible, when there is terrible poverty in the country. I am sure a better, a more useful way could be found, and it is an indefensible spending of public money. Whether the sum be large or small, it has not been spent on an absolute social necessity at the moment, and this Government ought to spend money on only one object, and that is on absolute social necessities. Any sum of money spent outside of that is, in my view, socially indefensible, and I think the sum asked for here is indefensible and ought not to have been incurred, but that the delegates ought to have provided their own hospitality and the Government spent the money in a more useful social fashion.
      Viscount WOLMER: I hope the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) feels that he has relieved his feelings by the speech he has just made, but I hope he

      1691
      will forgive me for saying that the Committee cannot be expected to take him very seriously. He is merely making a little outburst to appear in the Glasgow papers to-morrow morning, but not even his closest friends have taken the trouble to support him in his protest.
      Mr. BUCHANAN: What right has the Noble Lord to say that?
      Viscount WOLMER: Where are they?
      Mr. BUCHANAN: My closest friends at the moment happen to be the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), who is not well, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), who is speaking at Stockport. I am quite sure the Noble Lord is telling an untruth when he said my closest friends would not support me.
      Viscount WOLMER: I think the Clyde has a stronger voting and debating strength on occasions which they really care about than they are showing in the Chamber at this moment.
      Mr. BUCHANAN: We are a bigger proportion than any other party.
      Viscount WOLMER: Three just men among all the crowd, protesting against this guzzling! I should like to say why I do not desire to demur in any way from the sum that the Government are asking, because they assure us that the money is required in connection with a very important international conference, and on a matter of that sort it is not the desire of this Opposition at any rate, whatever may have been the desire or practice of previous Oppositions, to inconvenience or incommode the Government when they -are acting as the representatives of the nation in a great international conference. But the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is quite mistaken if he thinks that, while we approve of the money being spent on this subject, we wish to abrogate the duty of the Opposition to inquire exactly as to how it is being spent.
      If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I should like to say that I think he was just a little bit casual in his explanation to the Committee. He told us there would be a certain amount of money left ever—he did not know how much—he hinted broadly that he was over-
      1692
      budgetting, and he treated the Committee, I thought, a little bit in an offhand manner. I should like to ask him exactly how much of this money is required for each of the three conferences. Surely he can tell us that. He can tell us how much is required for the Expert Committee on the Operation of Dominion Legislation and the Sub-Conference on Merchant Shipping Legislation, because both of these conferences, I think I am right in saying, have concluded their labours, and, therefore, all the expense in respect of them is terminated.
      I venture to hazard the opinion that the amounts required for those two conferences will be very small indeed, if anything at all, because I think they had been allowed for in the Estimates of my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel). The bulk of this money, I believe, is required for the London Naval Conference;, and I do not think the hon. Gentleman will deny that.
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE indicated dissent.
      Viscount WOLMER: If the hon. Member will give us the figures, I shall be much obliged. In regard to what has been said by the hon. Member for Gorbals and other speakers, I should like to point out that this figure of £24,000 does not in the least represent the total amount which the Government are spending on hospitality and entertainment, or, in the very beautiful word of the hon. Member for Gorbals, guzzling. I think practically every Government Department has its own entertainment fund. I can tell the Committee that the Post Office, at any rate, this year has spent over £20,000 in entertainment—the Post Office alone—and what the Foreign Office has spent, I do not know. Therefore, this £24,000 does not by any means represent the total amount that is being spent on entertainment by the Government. We have to face the fact that a large sum of money has to be spent or entertainment. I will not say that I am glad the Labour Government are spending more than the Conservative Government, but I should like to say I am glad that they desire to continue the same standard of hospitality that has been shown in the past. While we may desire that that standard should be maintained, we, certainly have a duty to know exactly how the money is

      1693
      being spent, and I hope, therefore, the hon. Gentleman will give the full particulars which have been asked for.
      Mr. DUNCAN: The Committee has really been engaged in the task of trying to make bricks without straw. On a Supplementary Estimate like this there has got to be an attempt made to make ourselves believe that there is going to be a Debate. Statements are bandied about from one side to the other, and it causes one to wonder what the people who receive the hospitality that is paid for in this Supplementary Estimate would be inclined to think. To me, at any rate—and I cannot pretend to rise to the height of some of the hon. Members opposite—it seems just a little bit disgusting. Supposing we, on this side, were to ask whether the delegates to this or that conference were to be supplied with fish and chips, or sausages, or something like that. The whole thing seems to savour of meanness. It is a painful and a pitiable thing to raise a Debate on a question like this, where, after all, there is no hospitality unless the hospitality is dealt out to people who are over here in just the same way and for exactly the same reasons as it is dealt out to people from this country when they visit other countries.
      It is not so long ago since a number of representatives of this country went to America, and I have not the slightest doubt in my own mind that when they were at Washington they would be entertained by the Government of the United States of America in a proper and befitting manner; and even my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), who criticised very severely what he called this guzzling, has had, I am sure, sufficient experience of life to realise this, and possibly even he has entertained people in his time, as I have always entertained people. We do not reckon up whether it is going to cost 6d., or 9d., or 1s. 6d.
      Mr. BUCHANAN: I do it myself.
      Mr. DUNCAN: Exactly, but here we are dealing with matters affecting the State as a State, and if that applies when people from this country receive hospitality abroad, surely the least we can do is to return that hospitality in exactly the same spirit to visitors here. I think a great attempt has been made to magnify
      1694
      a mountain out of a pimple, and it seems to me that the sooner this Supplementary Estimate is done with, the better it will be for all concerned.
      Captain CROOKSHANK: I quite agree with the hon. Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Duncan), who has just sat down. I am glad we should have had from the back benches opposite a reply to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), who has put the whole Committee in considerable difficulty. Anybody who might wish to give any hospitality might be afraid to do it for fear of leading people into the temptation of guzzling. The hon. Member should not let his imagination run away with him as he did when he said that the Government should spend nothing at all except on social services. I understood from this side of the House that one of the reasons why the Government were so anxious for the success of the London Naval Conference was in order to be able to save enough on the Naval Estimates to have more money available for the social services, and, from the point of view of the hon. Member for Gorbals, it would have been better if this Estimate had been three or four times bigger, in order to bring a more pleasing atmosphere into the Conference, and thus bring about the desired result.
      The object of having these little debates on the Supplementary Estimates is very useful, because they allow the House at regular periods of the year to cast a few inquiring glances at Estimates and Votes which on normal Supply days never get a look in. It is as well for the House and the country to know something about the administration of one Department and another in its smallest, as well as in its largest, political aspects. That is why it is good that we should devote even only a few minutes to inquire what is covered by a Vote like this, and to give the Minister responsible an opportunity of telling the Committee exactly what is involved. The Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) said quite rightly that two of the three conferences mentioned in the explanation have expired. The Expert Committee sat from 8th October to 4th December, and it is rather curious, incidentally, that the first reference that has been made in the House to one of the most important Imperial Committees that have been set up in recent

      1695
      years, is made when some small part of the Government Hospitality Fund is required to pay for the hospitality extended to that Committee. The fact that that Committee was set up as a result of the Imperial Conference of 1926—and this also applies to the Merchant Shipping Conference—makes me wonder why it did not come in the ordinary Estimates. Negotiations for the Conference had been going on for a long time, and it must have been clear at the time of the main Estimates last year that it was going to take place. There was, therefore, no occasion for a Supplementary Estimate.
      The bulk of the Estimate must be for the Naval Conference, and I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman this question. The Noble Lord the Member for Alder-shot said that other Departments have entertainment funds, but what happens in the case of a Minister who goes abroad, and is entertained very lavishly, as, for example, the Prime Minister was when he was in the United States? A Minister in other countries usually returns some form of hospitality. That kind of thing happens to Ministers who go to Geneva frequently, and it happened in America. Are payments for this hospitality, which are perfectly proper in order to help Ministers in their public capacities, financed out of this fund, or does the fund merely pay for the hospitality to foreigners in London? If it is not extended in this way, it might be worth the while of the House to consider extending it. At The Hague Conference, for instance, the Chancellor and the other Ministers were there a long time, and the entertainment involved must have been very considerable. I do not mean their ordinary expenditure for housing and so on, but entertainment. Would any part of the cost come out of this fund? The fund was originally set up to be the means by which entertainment could be offered in London to distinguished visitors. It is now extending its scope very considerably. It is important to see that our guests are treated in the best possible way, and are shown as much as possible of English life, because that will colour their views of us as a country when they get home. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will let us have a little more information with regard to the fund, and tell us whether that little beanfeast
      1696
      which took place at a public-house in Lewes in the presence of the Foreign Secretary and the Soviet representative, was paid for out of it?
      Mr. MARJORIBANKS: The Debate has been rescued from an informal atmosphere by the speech of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). I was waiting for him to make that speech, for he has made it before on other occasions. I heard him make it when we were discussing the purchase of masterpieces for the National Gallery, and he said then that it was wasteful expenditure when people are starving. It expresses a simple point of view, and he made the same point to-night. He said that it was scandalous for us to throw money away in this fashion while there are people who really need food and drink. If he really persists in this view, he will proceed to a Division, and, if he does that, he will be giving his vote against employment, because this money is not thrown away; it is employing people who otherwise would not be employed.
      Mr. BUCHANAN: Would the hon. Gentleman suggest to the Lord Privy Seal that the way to decrease unemployment is to increase this hospitality?
      Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I would not be willing to advise the Lord Privy Seal in that way, but, if the normal method of spending money in entertaining were stopped, we should throw a good many people out of employment.
      Mr. MESSER: If that is a logical argument, how many more would we put in employment if the money spent were given direct to them?
      Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I cannot answer that question at short notice. The interesting speech of the hon. Member for Gorbals was followed by a speech from the hon. Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Duncan). He was ungrateful to us on this side of the House, because our criticism has not been carping; it has been sympathetic. If we were mean, as the hon. Member said we were, I do not know what the hon. Member for Gorbals was. This Estimate really raises the whole question of host and guest. Hospitality has been one of the deepest ingrained sentiments since civilisation began, and it is appropriate that at the

      1697
      largest Peace Conference in the history of the world, we should entertain our guests decently and properly. It is very unfortunate that there should have been even one Member of the House of Commons who should have expressed himself in the way that the hon. Member for Gorbals did. The Peace Conference is in the interests of himself and his friends, who are here to support him in the greatest cause that humanity knows. I happened to be in America and saw the way in which his leader, the Prime Minister, was entertained by that country. One could not help feeling sorry that it was not the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin) who was there, but one was proud, and grateful to the American nation for entertaining the head of our Government in the way that they did. It is only proper that we should repay, as far as we can, the kind of spirit that they showed on that occasion. I felt that some protest ought to be made from this side of the Committee, as well as from that side of the Committee, at the attitude of the hon. Member for Gorbals, and, having made my protest, not too greatly, I can sit down with a clear conscience.
      Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not propose to criticise in the slightest degree the expenditure of the money which we are now asked to vote, but I want to raise what I regard as a somewhat important constitutional point. Hon. Members will notice that £5,000 has been advanced out of the Civil Contingencies Fund. There are two funds out of which moneys are advanced before its expenditure has been actually sanctioned by Parliament, one being the Civil Contingencies Fund and the other the Treasury Chest Fund. I would like to hear from the Financial Secretary what really is the exact difference between those two funds, from this point of view. I would also like to know what is the amount of the Civil Contingencies Fund at the present time. During the War that fund amounted at one moment to no less than £120,000,000. Of course, it does not amount to anything like that sum to-day. I should like to know. Is there any limit to that Fund? Is there any limit to the amount which can be issued from the Fund at any moment? Is there any particular source from which
      1698
      the Civil Contingencies Fund money is obtained? I would also like to know who fixes the amount which may be paid out. This is really important, because I fancy—although I do not know whether I am right in saying this—that the difference between the Civil Contingencies Fund and the Treasury Chest Fund is this, that in the case of the Civil Contingencies Fund—
      The TEMPORARY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Snell): I am afraid the Civil Contingencies Fund is not in order in this discussion.
      Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Of course, I will obey your Ruling, but in a note to the Supplementary Estimate it says that £5,000 has been advanced from the Civil Contingencies Fund, and a corresponding amount of this Vote is required to make repayment to that Fund. My point is that the money was issued from that Fund without sanction from this House. I think that is an important issue. I do not say the money ought not to have been advanced on this particular occasion, but I think Parliament ought to be very careful of this privilege. It is essential to know how big the Fund is, who issues the money out of the Fund, and whether any limit is placed—
      Mr. STEPHEN: On a point of Order. Can the right hon. Gentleman go on discussing the Civil Contingencies Fund generally? Cannot he discuss only this particular contribution, and not the Fund as a whole?
      Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: May I make this submission on that point of Order? In my opinion my right hon. Friend must be in order, because on page 13 of the Supplementary Estimate it states quite specifically that £5,000 has been advanced, and although my right hon. Friend is not going into the principles which govern the Civil Contingencies Fund he is asking, in effect, what right the Treasury had to pay that money out.
      Mr. STEPHEN: Further to that point of Order. I would submit that there is no objection to the right hon. Gentleman asking why the money was paid out; but what I drew attention to was the general discussion of the Civil Contingencies Fund.
      Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I may have gone rather wide and begun discussing

      1699
      the general principles of the Civil Contingencies Fund, but, I will now limit myself to asking the Financial Secretary under what Parliamentary authority that £5,000 was issued, by whom it was issued, and whether there is any limit to the amount for which the Hospitality Fund may draw upon the Civil Contingencies Fund. I raise this matter because I think it involves an important point of principle.
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I will reply to the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman while it is fresh in the minds of the Committee before I deal with the other subjects raised in the Debate. The Civil Contingencies Fund and the Treasury Cheat are entirely separate and have got practically nothing to do with one another. The Treasury Chest is quite outside this Vote. It is mainly used to enable persons in foreign parts who are responsible to this country to hold a certain sum of money in foreign currency with which to make disbursements in those foreign countries, or to dealt with exchange in this country.
      Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: But money is only issued from the Treasury Chest Fund after a Parliamentary grant has been made. Is not that so?
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The Treasury Chest is a kind of balance which has to be held in various places in order to enable payments to be made—payments which are in the ordinary course of fulfilling the wishes of Parliament. That really is quite a separate matter from that with which we are dealing, and I only refer to it to get rid of a confusion which I think may have been in the minds of the Committee even if not in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman.
      The Civil Contingencies Fund exists for the precise purpose which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to call in question. It exists for the specific purpose of enabling the executive of the day to devote money to a certain object before the precise authorisation of Parliament has been obtained, and the conditions which operate are two: First of all the total of the Civil Contingencies Fund must never exceed £1,500,000; and in the second place the payments must be brought before Parliament on the earliest available opportunity. With regard to the particular item before us, the autho-
      1700
      risation of Parliament is really implied, because we have had a Hospitality Fund for many years, and it is understood that the Government are authorised to provide hospitality as it may be required. If hospitality in excess of the original Estimate has to be provided at a time when it is not possible to bring a particular Vote before Parliament, it is provided temporarily out of the Civil Contingencies Fund on the understanding that at the earliest available opportunity the matter will be regularised, if necessary, by a Supplementary Vote. I think I have dealt with the constitutional point raised by the right hon. Gentleman. It is correct, as stated in the White Paper, that £5,000 of this additional £9,000 has already been found out of the Civil Contingencies Fund; and therefore when this money is voted, £5,000 will be used to pay back the Civil Contingencies Fund, leaving £4,000 available for the other purposes of the Vote, on which money has not yet been expended. I think that is clear.
      I am glad that most of the speeches have been in favour of this expenditure, the only exception being that of my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), and I will say a few words about his criticisms later on. In the short speech I made at the commencement of the Debate, I said that I should be willing within certain limitations to reply to questions put to me. But it would not be in order for me to reply to all of the points which have been raised. Broadly speaking, the money voted on the original Estimate has been spent for the purposes for which it was originally voted. The Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) and the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crook-shank) appeared to assume that the expenditure of the Expert Committee on the Operation of Dominion Legislation must have been voted on the original Estimate, but that is not the case. That particular conference had not been envisaged in February of last year, and therefore no money was taken in the original Estimate for that particular hospitality, and the amount required for that purpose in this Vote is £6,000.
      With regard to the Naval Conference, we cannot judge how much that will cost because we do not know how long it will

      1701
      last, but the amount put down has been estimated on the assumption that the Conference will last two months and on that estimate the total figure will be about £4,500. Thus, as I explained to the Committee when I moved this Vote, the combined amount required is £10,500, but £1,500 of that is found from the margin of the original Estimate, and therefore that leaves a sum of £9,000 still to be found. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) thought that we were putting up a reserve for the purposes of next year, and be was quite right when he stated that the balance was not surrendered each year to the Treasury. In fact, there was a balance of £333 from the previous year and it is estimated that there will be a balance of £739 at the end of the year assuming the Naval Conference lasts two months. Of course, if it lasts less, the balance is likely to be greater and vice versa.
      Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Take the case of the President of the Board of Trade who has gone to Geneva. On what Vote does that expenditure come—I mean the cost of the journey and allowances for living?
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: That is not relevant to this Supplementary Estimate, but I am quite willing to try to answer the question, though it is not strictly in order. As far as I am aware I do not think that the expenses incurred by any representative of this country abroad come under the Hospitality Vote, but I give this answer with reserve as I speak from memory only. The hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) asked a question about the details of the hospitality provided at the Naval Conference, but those are the sort of details which we do not as a rule give in minute particulars for the reasons I have already mentioned. The hospitality for the Dominions Conference included the hotel expenses of the delegates, while the hospitality in the case of the Naval Conference does not include the main hotel expenses of the various delegates, but it does include other forms of hospitality. I think that information will be sufficient and I will leave the matter there.
      Captain CAZALET: I am not asking the Financial Secretary to range over the whole question of the hospitality
      1702
      fund. What I want to know is who is in control of this expenditure. Is it the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or a Government hospitality officer who decides what can be spent and what cannot be spent?
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am sorry that I forgot to answer that question, among the many points that were put to me. I meant to do so. In the case of this Fund, the actual control is rather unique. A Treasury official is, in the first instance, the person who deals with these questions, but only, I think, after sanction by the First Commissioner of Works. Any Government Department that wants money from this Fund has to go to the First Commissioner of Works. He sanctions the expenditure, and the money is accounted for to the Treasury in the way that I have described. As the money is accounted for to the Treasury, it has been the universal custom for a great many years that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and not the First Commissioner of Works, should be here to deal with the question, and that is why I have to trouble the Committee on these occasions.
      Captain CAZALET: It is subject, I imagine, to Treasury control.
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Oh, yes; it is subject to Treasury control. I thought I had made that clear.
      Mr. PYBUS: Is it subject to the same control as during the 4½ years for which the Conservative Government were in office?
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It is subject to the same kind of control, but the personnel is different. There was some question with regard to other hospitality. That is somewhat outside this particular Vote, but perhaps I might just deal with the question in general terms. Many Members of the Government have to find hospitality that comes out of their own personal pockets, but there is a certain amount of hospitality that is incurred by Government Departments.
      With regard to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals, I want to say in the first place that he is perfectly entitled to state his point of view, although it is not my point of view, and

      1703
      I strongly disagree with it. It must not be assumed that all this money is spent on food, or even on board and lodging. It must be remembered, for instance, that motor cars are very often required, and I think that everyone would agree that that is a perfectly necessary expenditure where delegates come to a conference and have to be taken about to different places; and probably my hon. Friend would agree to some extent, though not perhaps completely, that delegates should be afforded some opportunity of meeting one another at receptions and so on, which are a necessary part of any conference of this kind. I think that my hon. Friend visualises an entirely different world from that in which we live at the present time, but we have to take the world as it is. We have to take visitors coming from foreign countries as they are, and I think the Government would be very foolish, taking the world as it is at the present time, to cut down these expenses to such a point as to injure the value of the purposes of a great and important Conference such as this Naval Conference is, in order to save a few thousand pounds. [Interruption.] I think that the majority of the Committee will consider that this money is well spent.
      Mr. MacLAREN: I am not at all against hospitality, but I heard a distinguished visitor to London say that he has not been able to do any business here owing to the very fine time that he is having every day and every night. There must be some official who is in charge of the expenditure which comes out of this Fund, though I take it that the First Commissioner of Works is ostensibly responsible. I should like to ask whether the official in question is left to say that there shall be a "do" to-night, another "do" to-morrow night, and so on. Can he have a free hand to institute festivities without discussion with the First Commissioner of Works, or is it the First Commissioner of Works who really institutes these festivities?
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The position is precisely similar to the position in the case of any other Department. The person responsible is the First Commissioner of Works, and, for good or ill, he takes the praise or bears the blame
      1704
      for whatever is done. Of course, as everyone knows, Ministers have many occupations, and a great part of the work has to be left to the permanent officials, but all the major decisions must be taken by Ministers, and theirs is the responsibility. In this particular case the expenditure is subject to more than the ordinary checks. In the first place, there is the decision of the head of the Department that wants to organise the hospitality. Then there is the decision of the First Commissioner of Works; and, finally, there is the decision of the Treasury. Meticulous care, therefore, is taken to see that the money is not wrongly spent.
      Sir CLIVE MORRISON-BELL: The explanation which the hon. Gentleman has given will probably satisfy the whole Committee. His remarks at the commencement brought to my mind the old Treasury Chest, which, as I remember very well, used to be the subject, 20 years ago, of an annual speech by Lord Beaverbrook when he was in this House.
      Mr. BENSON: On a point of Order. Is it permissible to discuss the Treasury Chest Fund on this Vote?
      The TEMPORARY-CHAIRMAN: I must draw the attention of hon. Members to the fact that this is a Supplementary Estimate dealing with a quite specific matter, and that the discussion should not wander from the exact purpose of the Vote.
      Mr. STEPHEN: Surely, in view of the starting of the new party, the hon. Baronet should be allowed to say something on this Estimate?
      Sir C. MORRISON-BELL: I was not going to discuss that question at all. It was only that the remarks of the Financial Secretary brought back to my mind the annual Debates that we used to have on the Treasury Chest in years gone by.
      I wanted to say a word or two on the point raised by the hon. Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Duncan), who has just left the Committee. He seemed to resent the fact that hon. Members on this side of the Committee were asking the Financial Secretary for some further details with regard to this Fund. He approved of hospitality being shown to these visitors, as I think we all do, but I think we ought to protest from this side when

      1705
      hon. Members opposite raise an objection to our asking for a certain amount of information, because, unless my memory is at fault—and I am sorry that the hon. Member is not here to correct me—I have a sort of recollection of a speech delivered by the hon. Member from these very benches on this particular Fund. I am glad that his change from one side of the House to the other has brought about such a very mild point of view on this question.

    CLASS II.

      FOREIGN OFFICE.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Dalton): This is a very small sum, and I hope that it will not lead to an unduly long discussion, although, of course, I am prepared to answer reasonable questions with regard to it. This sum is required in respect of those expenses of the Naval Conference which fall upon the Foreign Office Vote. Other expenses of the Conference fall on other Votes, such, for example, as the one which we have just been discussing, and other Votes into which it would not be in order for me to enter now. I want to emphasise, however, that those expenses of the Naval Conference which fall on the Foreign Office Vote amount only to £10 net additional.
      I will explain how that £10 is arrived at. The Estimates in this case, as in the last, are based on the assumption that the Naval Conference will last for two months. On that assumption, the additional charges falling on the Foreign Office Vote in respect of the Naval Conference will amount to £5,990, as against which savings have been made by the Foreign Office on their original Estimates to the extent of £3,980, and an additional Appropriation-in-Aid will be payable in respect of increased passport fees over and above our Estimate to the amount of £2,000. The reason these figures do not appear in the White Paper is that I have
      1706
      lumped together certain figures in order to give a clearer view of the total transaction. The figures in the White Paper are divided between various sub-heads. Thus, in the case of Sub-head A, Salaries, Wages and Allowances, we have an additional charge of £3,800, as against which we have an anticipated saving on the original Estimate of £2,500. £3,800 minus £2,500 gives £1,300, the figure shown on page 5. Similarly, with regard to the other sub-heads. We have brought about these savings as the result of careful administration of the Foreign Office and, consequently, we see at the foot of the page, the total original net Estimate, deducting the Appropriation-in-Aid, £202,120, requires now to be increased only by £10, making it up to £202,130. That is the general basis on which this Token Vote is calculated.
      I am prepared to answer any further questions, but I trust hon. Members will feel that the Foreign Office, at any rate, is conducting its affairs with considerable economy and is able to offset the additional and unexpected charge when the Estimates were drawn up last year by means of savings not then anticipated and by this increase in passport fees, which is welcome as indicating an increasing inclination of our people to travel abroad.
      Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £5.
      9.0 p.m.
      I move this reduction in order to obtain information about these accounts in detail. I listened with considerable apprehension to the hon. Gentleman's self-congratulations upon the increase of the passport fees, and in a moment or two I will direct his attention to what I think is rather a blot upon this Estimate instead of being something for him to congratulate himself upon. I hope he will give a reply which will satisfy my hon. Friends and myself, in which case perhaps we shall not take the reduction to a Division. The first item on the Vote shows an addition to salaries of £1,300. I was amused at the hon. Gentleman saying that as against the increase of £5,900 there was a set-off of £3,900, represented by savings, and that therefore there was only an increase of £2,000, which was paid for by an increase of passport fees. The fact of the matter is that with all his savings

      1707
      he is asking for more money. He is spending more, and he is getting it paid for by selling more passports.
      The first item is an increase of £1,300. I do not take much exception to that. The next is messengers' salaries—£325. I do not take very much exception to that. Incidental expenses show another increase of £400. I pass by that. Then we come to his own telephones—an increase of £1,385. The telephones, I assume, are paid for in cash. This is not the case with postages. The other communications, telegrams, are not charged upon the Foreign Office Vote. They come under the Diplomatic and Consular Service and come to a very considerable amount. Telegrams alone come to £45,000. The country, therefore, is not getting its telegrams cheaply, but has had to pay £45,000. [An HON. MEMBER: "Book-keeping!"] That is true, and I am inclined to think this paying by one office of the State into another—taking out of one pocket and putting it into another—may affect some sort of check upon wastage, because a record is kept of telephones and telegrams, and may, perhaps, be a healthy way of dealing with business. If you look into the Post Office accounts, you will find that, although these telegraph and telephone charges appear as cash, no less than £3,900,000 appears as the amount due by various Departments to the Post Office, and to that extent il falsifies the postal surplus of £9,000,000 which we are told the Post Office earns. But that is not quite germane to the discussion.
      Now we get to the anticipated savings on Sub-head C, Messengers' Travelling Expenses. How do we get a reduction of £1,400? I see that in the original Estimate we had got them down from £19,600 to £17,890. I do not quite see the point in respect of the messengers' salaries going up by £325. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will deal with that point. He puts up the messengers' salaries by £325, and for the same service gives us a saving of £1,400 on messengers' travelling expenses. No doubt an explanation can be given, and he will perhaps give it to the Committee. The gross total for which he asks is
      1708
      £2,010, and he gets it by Appropriations-in-Aid, a sum of £2,000 under Section G, leaving us to find £10. I would ask him whether he can justify in this Appropriation-in-Aid a greatly increased figure for passports. If he will look at passports Appropriations-in-Aid in page 8 of the Estimates, Class II, which appeared under my name in February, 1929, he will see there the passport accounts for 1928—
      Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. I do not want to embarrass the hon. Gentleman, but I think that this point should be settled. Are we entitled on this Supplementary Vote to discuss the question of passport fees? Is not the only subject before us the extra sum required for services with which the Foreign Office deals, and the savings made in the passport department are not the subject of discussion? Are the principles on which the passports are granted a subject for discussion now?
      Mr. SAMUEL: The point which I was taking is this: The Appropriations-in-Aid are mentioned in black and white. The extra sum provided is £2,000, and in the estimate the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that this £2,000, grafted on to the £10, totals the amount for which he is asking. I do not think that I am out of order, but I submit myself to your ruling, Mr. Snell.
      Mr. BUCHANAN: We are discussing a Supplementary Estimate of £10 towards the expenses of the Foreign Office. Does the question of the saving of £2,000 in connection with passports justify us in having a Debate on this Supplementary Estimate as to whether the saving is a proper one or not? Is not the subject which is before us one as to whether the Foreign Office are justified in asking £10 in respect of their work in this connection?
      Mr. STEPHEN: Has it not been laid down repeatedly by the Chairman of Ways and Means, and more especially by Mr. Hope, who used to occupy the position, that we could not discuss the main Question in this way, but simply the narrow limited issue of the particular amount concerned?
      Mr. C. WILLIAMS: This is a most important point, because we are not only discussing the £10 but the question as to

      1709
      how that £10 is arrived at. It is only possible to do that by going to the original Estimate. If hon. Members will look at the Estimate they will find that there is an original Estimate and a revised Estimate, and in the third column is shown the additional sum which is required. If hon. Members take the three figures, make the necessary additions and subtractions, they will see how the Minister arrives at £10. Therefore, are we not entitled to deal with the additional sums required?
      Captain CAZALET: Did not the Minister himself, in introducing this Estimate, carefully draw our attention to, and ask us three times, to look at A, B, D, E and G, which are the particular items in page 6, and specifically invite us to ask further questions on any of these figures? Therefore, if we are going to be out of order in asking these questions, surely the Minister was out of order in asking us to do so.
      The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The Minister may not have been discreet in the way in which he introduced this question, but it is clearly out of order to discuss on this Supplementary Estimate the question of policy on passport fees. It is in order to discuss how the amount asked for has arisen.
      Mr. SAMUEL: I was proposing to carry out your wishes. The additional amount is £2,000. I have seen the amount rise from £102,000 in the Estimates of 1928 to £107,000 in the Estimates of 1929, and now we bring it up to £109,000. I want to know what is the actual increase in respect of passport fees. I can scarcely credit that it comes to such an amount as to give a round sum of £2,000. What are the actual receipts? I cannot say—it would be discourteous—that I do not believe it, but I should find difficulty in believing that £109,000, which to a penny gives you an increase of £2,000, would allow you to come down to the House for £10. The coincidence is very remarkable. For that reason, we have a right to raise the question. In any case, it is deplorable that there is this rise in fees for passports.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was with me at Geneva four or five years ago when I took some part in a Debate of which he was a spectator, and we did all we could to
      1710
      bring down the charges for passports and induce other nations to do the same. I do not like to see this amount increasing. The late Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade, my right hon. Friend the late Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and myself have striven for the removal of the charges. We do not like to see these increases on passports. They are a clog on the "Come to Britain" movement. I know that the money is not raised from passport control abroad, because we have a special amount coming to us from that. In page 56 of the main Vote there is under passport control abroad a sum of £40,000, but that has nothing to do with this particular point. We are anxious to sweep away passport charges. We ourselves tried and failed to get accommodation from other nations to reduce passport charges.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is discussing the broad policy of passports, and that is not permissible on this Vote.
      Mr. SAMUEL: I will not discuss the policy, but will deal with the amount raised by the passports. I think that passports are too dear, and, because they are too dear, they have given this big amount.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is also a question of policy.
      Mr. SAMUEL: If I am out of order, all I can say is that it is very bad policy. That sums up my view without being out of order, and I appeal to the Under-Secretary of State to try and bring down the price of passports. Another question with which I want to deal is Telephones (E), in regard to which we are asked to vote an excess of more than 50 per cent. on the original Vote. In the past, when we had an increase upon an original Vote of 50 per cent. it used to cause a considerable amount of discussion in the House. Here you have telephones springing up from £2,500 to £3,910. If these are all inland telephone calls, as I suppose they are, because overseas telephones will be debited to the Diplomatic and Consular Services, it means that we have had a quarter of a million more calls. We know that this is a very talkative Government, but a quarter of a million extra telephone calls is rather a big order. Have they arisen in connection with the Naval Conference and

      1711
      the other Government Conference which has taken place recently? There must be some justification for this enormous increase. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State, in his reply, will justify this increase, and also deal, as far as he can within the limits of Order, with the other point that I have raised.
      Captain BOURNE: There are one or two questions of detail which I wish to ask. Under sub-head "B" there is an increase of £345 in respect to messengers' salaries. In the original Estimate, I notice that there are 15 King's messengers, 10 King's messengers (temporary), 10 King's home service messengers, and two unestablished office keepers. I should be much obliged if the Under-Secretary will tell us in which class the extra salaries were required, whether they are temporary or permanent and whether they are required for home service or for service abroad. Under the heading "Incidental Expenses" an increased sum of £400 is required. Is this increased provision required in connection with the Naval Conference? I notice from the original Estimate that the sub-head "Incidental expenses" includes an item, "Housekeeper's and Doorkeeper's disbursements," £160, and also an item, "Carriage of official books and papers sent as parcels," £30. Although I can well understand that the presence of the Naval Conference in London has increased the number of confidential documents sent as parcels or otherwise, I can hardly believe that the increased amount would cover the amount in the Supplementary Estimate of £400. There is also an item in the original Estimate for uniforms for office keepers and doorkeepers, £350. Have any new doorkeepers been provided, and have they been provided with new uniforms?
      There is an item Miscellaneous, including travelling expenses, amounting to £215, an item which has been constant. It was the same amount in the previous year. I do not know whether there has been a great increase in travelling, but on looking at the Estimate as originally presented it is difficult to see why the incidental expenses should have increased by over 50 per cent. on the original Estimate. There is an anticipated saving of £2,000 under sub-head C, Messengers' Travelling Expenses, which embraces the
      1712
      expenses of journeys, including subsistence allowance to foreign service messengers while abroad, the amount being £17,890 as against £19,500. I understand that a considerable part of this expense is accounted for by the transport of diplomatic books between London and the various capitals. I should like to know whether the reduction in expense under this head is due to the reduction in the cost of travelling abroad, or whether the Foreign Office are sending fewer King's Messengers abroad and trusting more to the post offices of the various countries for the distribution of diplomatic documents. If my memory serves me aright there is one King's Messenger who travels to Berlin, Warsaw and Moscow, and another to Paris and Vienna, thence to the Balkan capitals and Constantinople and back again. Are we sending fewer King's Messengers abroad?
      Under sub-head G, Appropriations-in-Aid, there is an increase with respect to receipts from passport fees of £2,000. I have a suspicion that the increase is a good deal larger. The Appropriations-in-Aid over and above the amount needed to balance the accounts of the Department disappear into the insatiable maw of the Treasury, and only so much is shown in the Estimate as is necessary to balance the account. Will the Under-Secretary tell us how much is the increase and how the increases come about, especially as I understand that on certain short distance journeys between this country and France and other countries on the Continent there are short-period passports. I am glad that there should be, because that means that more British subjects are travelling abroad. I should like to know how many new passports were presented.
      Commander SOUTHBY: Under subheads A, B, D and E there are increases asked for of varying sums, and I should like a little information on two points. First, in regard to the messengers. I understand that the supplementary amount of £325 is due entirely to the increase occasioned by the Naval Conference now sitting in London. I should like to know how many more messengers were required and what exactly they do in connection with the Conference. With regard to the question of the telephones, the extra amount of £1,385 re-

      1713
      presents a large increase, which I understand, again, is entirely- occasioned by the Naval Conference. Does that mean that the telephone calls, for example, such as calls from here to Washington, are being paid for out of this Vote? Does it include, for example, wireless telephone messages and telegraphic charges for the delegates to the Conference communicating with their home Governments? Does it include the provision of private lines from the hotels in which the delegates are staying to the Conference and the Embassies, and does it entail fresh staffs and a new exchange to deal with this traffic occasioned by the Conference? It is such an enormous increase, representing a 50 per cent. increase, that the Committee is entitled to detailed information.
      Although we are agreed that there should be every facility for the delegates at the Naval Conference, we ought to examine carefully a bill of such magnitude. I would like more information in regard to the incidental expenses, which have increased by £400 owing to the Naval Conference. I hope the Minister will give us a little detailed information on these points, because it is a good deal of money to be asked to provide for these expenses, and the Committee is entitled to know how it is being spent. I am sorry the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has gone, because he was very anxious on the point of economy, and he and I would be as one in this case, because we would count every penny on the Hospitality Vote and look very carefully at every penny being spent under these heads.
      Captain CAZALET: I want to respond to the invitation of the hon. Member in charge of this Estimate, and put one or two questions. It would have been wiser on his part if he had put down on the Vote those figures which he gave us. It would have made it much clearer, and our arithmetical faculties would not have been taxed to the same extent. As I understand, the savings which the Foreign Office have been able to effect during the past year are £3,980, whereas the only savings one can discover by glancing at this Supplementary Estimate are the savings under Sub-head C, which deals with messengers' travelling expenses, which is only £1,400 instead of the £3,980 which was the actual savings the Foreign Office was able to effect. It
      1714
      is very satisfactory from every point of view that the Foreign Office was able to effect this very large saving. With regard to messengers, I gather that the term "mesengers includes King's Messengers, and the messengers who stand about or run about, as an hon. Member has said, in Whitehall, and some of whom have had blue uniforms this year, and have had to carry about an additional number of boxes. My hon. Friend asked why the expenditure of King's Messengers has been diminished in the last year. Do any of our King's Messengers now proceed by aeroplane instead of by train to their various destinations? It is obvious that you need have only one King's Messenger sent to the far-off parts of Europe once a week or once a fortnight if he goes by aeroplane, instead of having to send twice a week or twice a fortnight by train, because of the shorter time spent on the journey. The efficiency of the telephone system throughout Europe is also increased, and obviates the necessity sometimes of sending King's Messengers with despatches and boxes.
      Then we come to the extraordinary increase in the telephone charges. I do not pretend to deal with the interruption of the hon. Member who deplored the inefficiency of the telephone system here. Has this increase been caused by the inefficiency of the telephone system in this country? Owing to that inefficiency it may have been necessary to have new lines. As we know, it is necessary to call up two or three times in order to get into communication and, as far as we know, we are charged for each of those calls. That, on a bigger scale, might quite easily account for a considerable proportion of this figure. One would like to know from the Minister if the telephone experience of the Foreign Office is similar to that of many hon. Members on these benches and on the benches opposite. I presume the telephone account is a book-keeping account, and that no money passes, as the Foreign Office is a Government Department.
      There is a point in regard to passports. Are these fees which are paid for passports and visas on passports to foreign Consulates put down to the account of the foreign Consulate, or are they credited to the Foreign Office? On that matter might I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to a fact which has been disconcerting many minds in this country dur

      1715
      ing recent months? Are we not losing many passport fees which we ought to receive owing to the system which has sprung up in recent months of passengers going on week-ends to France and the Continent without passports? It is, of course, only a small point, and I hope it is in order. We have here an estimated increase which the Foreign Office is to receive from passport fees, and I am suggesting that, if they looked into this matter, their receipts would increase. I have not seen you rise, Mr. Dunnico, but, as I think that you are very carefully listening to me on this point, I will not go into it in further detail. The hon. Gentleman cannot be oblivious to the national disquietude which this state of affairs has aroused in this country during the past few months, and if our minds could be relieved on this subject we should be very grateful. I should be grateful if he could give us a little information on some of these points.
      Mr. HASLAM: There are two points about which I should like to inquire in regard to this Vote. The first is the question of passports. I see that receipts from passport fees have exceeded the original Estimate by £2,000. These passport fees and the passport system are very trying and very irksome, and, considering the distance we are from the War—
      Mr. KELLYOn a point of Order. Are we entitled to discuss the whole of the passport system on this Estimate?
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No, I have already ruled that questions of policy cannot be discussed. I understood the hon. Member was simply asking why the passport fees had exceeded the original Estimate.
      Mr. HASLAM: That is what I was pointing out. A sum of £2,000 has been extracted from these unfortunate people who travel abroad under most unpleasant and difficult circumstances, and seeing the irritation that is caused to the ordinary traveller by this passport system—
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: A matter of policy like that is entirely out of order.
      Mr. HASLAM: I will not pursue it further. I think I can ask the Under-Secretary whether he can make some reduction in fees?
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have made it perfectly clear that we cannot discuss any question of policy. The reduction of passport fees is a matter of policy and cannot be discussed on this Vote.
      Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I think a certain amount of confusion has been caused by the Under-Secretary himself, who talked about increased fees. Does he mean that the fees are being increased or that the receipts from the fees have been increased? [Interruption.] They are two different points. I took down the words of the Under-Secretary of State. He talked about the extra sum due to increased fees. If the fees are being increased I think my hon. Friend is quite entitled to raise that point.
      Mr. DALTON: I think I can put the misunderstanding straight at once. It is described in the accounts as:
      "Increased revenue and passport fees."
      Actually the fees have not been altered. The number of persons securing passports have increased and, therefore, the total revenue from fees has increased.
      Mr. HASLAM: The Under-Secretary has given me the explanation I wanted, and I will not pursue the subject, although I regard it as of some importance. Am I to understand that the increase in telephone charges is due entirely to the Naval Conference? The amount is £1,300 for the Naval Conference, but the total increase is £1,385; there must be, therefore, other items to come into the account. I should like to ask whether there has been an increase in telephone communication to continental countries, to foreign capitals by the Foreign Office. That is a point on which the House should have some information.
      Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Sometimes in a comparatively minute point one discovers interesting facts. This is really an exceedingly interesting and useful inquiry. We have discovered that there is a surplus of £2,000 in passport fees. One is rattier mystified as to how it has come about. Is it because more British people travel abroad or because more foreign subjects have visited this country? It may be due to the increased

      1717
      facilities for travelling in Russia which His Majesty's Government have given. More people may be going to Russia owing to the increased friendship between the Soviet Government and ourselves, and it may be that more Russians are coming to England. I should like to know the explanation of this increase in passport fees. We may discover a great deal from this line of inquiry, and we should be all satisfied if the Under-Secretary will pursue it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] If hon. Members opposite want to raise a point of Order, I am quite willing to give way. The Under-Secretary might analyse these figures and discover to which countries there is an increase in the number of British travellers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] I see other hon. Members are now saying, "Order, order!"
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will please address his remarks to the Chair and not to hon. Members opposite.
      Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I heard hon. Members say, "Order, order!" and I was about to say that I am quite willing to give way on a point of Order. I should like to know how this increase of £2,000 in passport fees has been brought about. It is quite possible to evade the passport rules and travel abroad without any passport, and the figure might well be more if cases of evasion could be detected. One has read of such cases in the newspapers. This is a most important question and behind it lies the much larger question of British enterprise and travel abroad.
      Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I should like to express my gratitude to the Under-Secretary for his intervention a few moments ago on the subject of passports. Hon. Members who are not very skilful in following the complicated details of this matter were able to follow him a little easier. I presume he has fortified himself with a knowledge of the facts of the case and will be able to tell us exactly how this increase has occurred. My hon. Friend wants to know how many persons went to Russia. Quite frankly that does not interest me in the least. I want to know whether there has been an increase in passports between this country and South America, and whether there has been any increase in trade be-
      1718
      cause of this increase in passports. I have made a point which might be quite useful to the Government.
      Mr. LEIF JONES: On a point of Order. Is it not out of order to discuss the use of passports at all on this Vote? I submit that the only reason why £2,000 is put down as an increased estimate from passports is to enable hon. Members to talk about the particular subject for which the Supplementary Estimate is designed. In our accounts it is in order to transfer savings from one sub-head to another, with the consent of the Treasury. In order that the Committee may have an opportunity of deciding where the savings are to be spent a token vote is put down. There is nothing here to show the increase from passports during the year. The increase is probably far larger than £2,000.
      The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members are entitled to ask how this increase is brought about, but to go beyond that is really an abuse of the rules of the House.
      Dr. DAVIES: On a point of Order. This is not money that we have actually received, but money that we expect to receive. Perhaps it would be as well if the Committee were given information as to where it is expected that this money will come from.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.
      Mr. WILLIAMS: I was only following strictly your earlier ruling, Mr. Deputy-Chairman. Sub-head E deals with telephones. We were told just now that there had been a certain increase here, and I think it has been stated that the increase is due to breakdowns. Were those breakdowns due to the new automatic machines or not? Or is the explanation that there are a certain number of additional women Ministers now, and that the ladies of the country are known to chat over the telephone and to take longer about it?
      HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!
      Mr. WILLIAMS: I am willing to withdraw anything that can be considered in the least offensive. I was merely exercising a naturally inquiring disposition.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must ask hon. Members to put reasonable questions. We do not want the Debate to become frivolous.
      Mr. WILLIAMS: I am sorry if in any way I have trespassed in the matter. I come next to a most serious point. Subhead B refers to messengers' salaries. When one turns back to the original Estimate one finds that these messengers are King's Messengers. I cannot be certain as to where the increase is taking place. I understand that a great deal of work is done in carrying despatches between this country and other countries. Surely the fact that the Naval Conference is sitting in London must mean that a great deal more of these communications are made in London itself, and for that reason it would seem that there should be a decrease in the amount of the Estimate.
      Next there is Sub-head A. In the original Estimate I find that at one time there was an historical adviser. When a conference as important as the Naval Conference is taking place, is any historical record kept of what is going on? If additional money is spent we ought to see that some part of it is used in getting such a record. I object to these Supplementary Estimates in the form in which they are presented to us. I think I have seldom seen a Supplementary Estimate so badly drawn and so vague. It has apparently been drawn up with the intention of not letting the Committee know precisely what it deals with. I hope that we may have a chance of voting against it, because I regard it as quite needless, and it seems to indicate that the Government have no real control over the matters with which they are supposed to be dealing.
      Viscount WOLMER: I should like to have some explanation about the telephone bill in this Estimate. Hon. Members opposite will recognise that this relates to a subject in which I have taken a deep interest. It is a matter of some importance, because the increase in the telephone account of the Foreign Office reaches the extraordinarily big figure of £1,385. There is a note which informs us that this additional expense is in connection with the Naval Conference, but one feels that this explanation cannot be quite accurate. After all, the Naval Conference has only been sitting for about a
      1720
      month and a simple sum will show that, if this amount has been spent on increased telephone calls in London, it means that the Foreign Office has been indulging in over 14,000 extra calls every day. The Conference, obviously, cannot be the explanation. I hope that the explanation is that the Foreign Office, all the year round, is doing more of its business on the telephone, particularly as regards the long-distance routes to the Continent and America. Of course it would be easy to run up a very large telephone account in calls to America, at the rate which the Post Office charges for that service.
      I believe it would be a great economy of time if the Foreign Office made use of the trans-Atlantic telephone service to a very large extent and I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us that some of this money, at any rate, has been spent in that way. If it pays business men to use the trans-Atlantic telephone, surely it would pay the Foreign Office to do so. There is not only the trans-Atlantic service but also the service to Geneva. Special lines have been laid to Geneva and I think one was laid at the request of the Foreign Office. I hope the Foreign Office is making good use of it. If this increase is due merely to penny calls in London in connection with the Naval Conference there has been a gross waste of money somewhere. If on the other hand the Foreign Office is making more use of long distance telephones I welcome the fact, because it means that Foreign Office business will be done more quickly than it has been in the past.
      10.0 p.m.
      Mr. DALTON: I will do my best to enlighten the various hon. Members who have put question to me on this subject, but since several hon. Members in succession have raised the same points, it may be more convenient if I take these points, not with reference to particular speeches but with reference to particular subheads of this Vote. The additional charge for messengers' salaries under Sub-head B has no relation to King's Messengers abroad. This is a matter of getting additional messengers for the work here in connection with the Conference, and it may be of interest to the Committee to know that the Substitution Board, which operates in relation to the Civil Service vacancies, has supplied

      1721
      us with six additional messengers for the period of the Conference and their salaries, including overtime and incidental expenses, are met in this Vote. With regard to the expenses of messengers travelling abroad, in respect of which we have made a saving, there has been no appreciable reduction in the amount of travelling abroad, but there has been an appreciable reduction in railway fares and this saving is due to that reduction in fares and not to a reduced number of journeys.
      I was asked to give more particulars about the incidental expenses under Subhead D. These include payment for the services of certain interpreters and translators who have been engaged in view of the additional translating and interpreting required at the Naval Conference. Some, who are normally in the employment of the League of Nations, have come from Geneva, and one or two have come from Belgium. Their travelling expenses and the payments made to them while they are here are included in the incidental expenses. There is another item in these incidental expenses to which I may refer. It is a small item but, after all, incidental expenses consist of a large number of small items. That is an item for additional travelling expenses for secretarial staff, including the provision of conveyances for taking home some of the women staff who are detained very late at night on duties connected with the Naval Conference. I am sure the Committee would not grudge a payment of that kind which represents £175 or nearly half of these incidental expenses.
      In regard to telephones under sub-head E referred to by the Noble Lord opposite—who is such an expert by reason of his past experience in connection with these subjects—I may say at once that this additional payment of £1,300 odd is not due to additional calls. It is due to the provision of special telephone facilities at St. James' Palace where the Conference is sitting. A sum of £500 is due to the facilities povided at St. James' Palace for the delegates and their advisors and a further £760 is due to facilities provided for the Press. It may be known to the Committee that a large number of Press representatives are in attendance in connection with the Conference. A considerable part of this telephone ex-
      1722
      penditure is due to various engineering expenses and operating charges and also the salaries of the office attendants who have been brought to St. James' Palace in connection with this work. It may be well to explain that no foreign calls are included in this item. Calls by foreign delegates are not included, these being paid for by the delegates themselves.
      Viscount WOLMER: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many instruments have been installed at St. James' Palace?
      Mr. DALTON: I could not say off-hand, but if the Noble Lord is anxious for that information I will find out and let him know. With regard to the passports, keeping within the rules of order laid down by your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Young, I think I can answer in general terms the direction of the increased flow of British applicants for passports, and this point may be of some interest to the Committee. More than half the increase in the requests for passports arises from the increase in the quota now allowed for British migration to the United States of America.
      Mr. E. BROWN: Does the hon. Gentleman refer to the actual increase received or the increase appropriated?
      Mr. DALTON: The increase of which we have experience, which has allowed us to modify our Estimate. The increased Estimate is due to the fact that we find that there has been a considerable increase in the applications for passports, and of the increase more than half is in respect of the United States.
      Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member said—
      Mr. DALTON: I am not giving way until after I have finished my sentence. I was saying that more than half of the increase which I have explained is in respect of applications of British subjects to travel to the United States of America, and we attribute that—I do not think there can be any doubt that we are right in so doing—to the increase of the quota of British immigrants now admitted by the United States. With regard to the remainder, it is not possible to select any one particular country, neither Russia, which is the special interest for the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks), nor the South American

      1723
      countries inquired about by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), but that half of the increase is very evenly divided between a very large number of countries, no one of which shows any predominance.
      Mr. LEIF JONES: Could the hon. Gentleman tell us what the actual increase in receipts for passports has been? I understand that this is only a token Vote. What is the actual increase under the item of passports?
      Mr. DALTON: The right hon. Gentleman will perhaps allow me to put it in this way. I cannot give, in the middle of the financial year, figures which would be of great value, but the general position is this, that we found that the demands for passports were going up, and the increase to date has made us feel justified in increasing our estimate of revenue under this head by £2,000. Estimates are naturally done in round figures, and it is very unusual to put the odd shillings and pence.
      Mr. JONES: But can the hon. Gentleman tell me—
      Mr. DALTON: I will answer the right hon. Gentleman's question if he will retain his seat. I said that slightly more than half the increase was due to passports for the United States of America, and the right hon. Gentleman asked if that half is a percentage. Of the increase that we have experienced, more than half is in respect of the United States, and the remainder, something less than half, is widely dispersed among a very large number of countries.
      Mr. JONES: How much is that half?
      Mr. DALTON: We are dealing with sums of money, not with numbers and—
      Mr. PYBUS: On a point of Order. The hon. Member cannot answer questions about sums of money by waving his arms about.
      Mr. DALTON: I desire to give an answer to the right hon. Gentleman, and the answer is that there has been an increase of applications for passports. I am debarred through the rules of order from going into other matters, but I am answering the question as to how this additional Estimate has been arrived at.
      1724
      It is, in our view, a modest estimate of the increase which we thought would be shown by the end of the financial year, and we have found that the increase of persons applying for passports is, in respect of slightly more than half, due to emigrants to the United States and, in respect of the rest, it is widely dispersed—
      Mr. JONES: The hon. Gentleman has not understood my question. I am now asking what is the sum of which he says a half is due to American passports, and why he takes £2,000 and not £2,010. Had he taken £2,010, he need not have come to the House at all.
      Mr. DALTON: I have already told the right hon. Gentleman that an Estimate is an Estimate, and that this has to be in round figures. £2,000 is the figure which has been assumed by the officials of the Foreign Office whose business it is to estimate these things to be the likely increase for the financial year. If the right hon. Gentleman asks precisely how many additional passports have been applied for in respect of any country, I am afraid I must say that I have not got that information.
      Mr. JONES: I did not ask that. The hon. Gentleman said that half the increase of the amounts received for passports by the Foreign Office was due to passports to America. I ask what is the sum that he had in mind when he said that. If he can give me the half, I can tell the whole. I am not asking about the increase in the numbers of passports, but what increased money has been received for passports.
      Mr. E. BROWN: I should not have risen but for the fact that a simple question, which is within the rules of order, inside this Estimate, and admits of a plain answer, has not been answered. My right hon. Friend asked, not about the numbers of passports, nor about the direction of passports, but we are entitled to know something about the figures here. If the Committee will turn to the Civil Estimates, Class II, Vote I, they will find that the sum which was to be appropriated in aid in the original Estimate was £102,500. That is included in this Supplementary Estimate in the figure of £107,608. Now we have a revised figure of £109,608, and we have an extra sum

      1725
      of £2,000 appropriated, but the total appropriation in aid of £107,608 covers more than passports. It covers the refund of the salary of an officer seconded to the League of Nations, an officer serving as Private Secretary to the Prime Minister, and other officers seconded to the Dominions, to the total of £4,928. It also covers fees received for attesting signatures and legalising documents. All this is within this sum.
      The hon. Member brings down a Supplementary Estimate, and really he cannot treat the Committee in that cavalier way. Hon. Members are entitled, in pursuance of their duties to their constituents, to put to the Minister plain straightforward questions, and they are entitled to receive straightforward courteous answers. I put to the hon. Member the question which he said he has answered, but which he did not answer. His answer was a diplomatic evasion. I have a great admiration for the talents of the hon. Member with regard to diplomatic evasions. He knows a great deal about secret diplomacy, but this is not an occasion for it. This is an occasion for straightforward financial answers to straightforward financial questions. I ask the hon. Member, since his Department has appropriated in aid £2,000 extra in respect of passport fees, what is the actual sum in excess of the Estimate which I have read out in respect of this particular Appropriation-in-Aid? If he can give us that answer, well and good. If he cannot give us the answer, where is the Financial Secretary to the Treasury?
      Mr. DALTON: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) has given me a large number of other items included in the Appropriation-in-Aid, but the only items in this total in which we estimate an increase, or in which a change of any kind is expected, is in respect of passports, as I have already explained. There are various salaries and so on, and they are going on without any change in our establishment. Consequently, the only change here is in respect of these passport fees. The hon. Gentleman puts to me a question as to the number of persons travelling, and so on—
      Mr. E. BROWN: I put no such question; that would have been entirely out of order. We are not concerned with the numbers, but with the amount, and we are entitled, when an Appropriation-in-Aid is made in a Supplementary Estimate, to ask the hon. Gentleman what is the total increase?
      Mr. DALTON: It is clearly indicated to the hon. Gentleman here that the increase which we estimate is £2,000.
      Mr. BROWN: That is Appropriation-in-Aid.
      Mr. DALTON: That is because we anticipate an increase of revenue of £2,000, not exactly, but as near as we can estimate. A previous Chairman has ruled on this question of passports, so there was a rather narrow field for discussion, and I have endeavoured to keep within the rules of order. In doing so, I have explained that a little more than half is in respect of the United States, and the remainder is in respect of different countries, all of which show an upward tendency. Beyond that, I cannot enlighten the hon. Member. If be chooses to ask for figures which have to be dug out, I can get them, but I cannot give additional information of the kind suggested at the end of the Debate.
      Mr. LEIF JONES: May I take it that £1,000 is the increase in respect of the United States?
      Mr. DALTON: Approximately.
      Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The whole of this Appropriation-in-Aid of £2,000 is due to an increase estimated in the receipts from the sale of passports, and yet we have heard from the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) that this is an increased Appropriation-in-Aid, and is part of the same Vote which covers salaries of certain Foreign Office officials, one of whom, when the Estimate was framed, was seconded from the Foreign Office as Private Secretary to the Prime Minister. That gentleman has ceased to be Private Secretary and has reverted to the Foreign Office, and, therefore, in presenting this Supplementary Estimate showing the Appropriation-in-Aid of £2,000 has he not shown £2,000 for passports, plus £500, or it may be £600, for the restoration to Foreign Office charges as against Prime

      1727
      Minister's office charges for the present Permanent Under-Secretary of the Foreign Office?
      Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I was very much surprised to hear the view the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones) took upon constitutional rights. As one who is getting to be an old Member of this House, I would like this point to be thrashed out. It is evident that the right hon. Member for Camborne does not agree about the token Vote with the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. I am not going to make any hostile observations, but on this point we ought to know where we are, so that we can carry on our Debates in a regular way and without any doubt about the position. My view is this. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that if the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs had put down £2,010 instead of £2,000, there would have been no duty put upon the Government to come down to the House of Commons to get an authorisation. I entirely disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. My view is this, and he must agree, after having taken trouble to think the matter out: If a Department has a gross Vote of, say, £1,000, made up of a Supply grant of £900 and an Appropriation-in-Aid of £100, the £100 requires Parliamentary sanction as much as the Supply Vote. If that Department during the year has, as happened in this case, spent not £1,000 but £1,200, while the Appropriations-in-Aid amount to £300, and have increased, just as they have done in this case, a Supplementary Estimate must be presented to Parliament for sanction for the excess on the gross Vote. The fact that the original Supply grant had not been exceeded is treated as irrelevant. I think, therefore, the right hon. Member for Camborne is wrong, and I hope that you, Mr. Young, or someone else in the House who know these matters better than I do, will give a ruling.
      Mr. LEIF JONES: I fear I did not make myself clear to the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) or to the Committee. I entirely agree with what he has said. The Government must come to Parliament when the amount required is more than the original total estimate. My actual point in discussion with the Under-Secretary was that the amount of
      1728
      £2,000 was chosen that the extra expenditure might amount to £10, that is to say, that there should be special extra expenditure which would bring the matter before the House. He might have brought in £100 or £500, any sum would do, but if the money was spent by the Department, which would be a wrong and unconstitutional practice, there would have been no Supplementary Estimate to bring to the House. The Vote shows this special sum derived from passports in order to arrive at the £10 which enables the House, under old constitutional practice, to discuss the Estimates.
      Captain PEAKE: I am not at all satisfied with the explanation which has been given by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in regard to this £2,000. The hon. Member told us that this amount was the estimated increase in the receipts from passports. Now we all know that the fee for a passport is 7s. 6d.
      Mr. KELLY: On a point of Order, Mr. Young, may I remind you that the Deputy-Chairman, when the question was raised as to whether we could discuss on these Estimates the matter of passports, ruled it out of order. I now ask you, Mr. Young, whether it is in order for the hon. and gallant Member for North Leeds (Captain Peake) to discuss the question of passports?
      The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Robert Young): The hon. Member has not given me time to discover how far the hon. and gallant Member is going in relation to the question of passports. I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that he cannot discuss the value, price or use of passports.
      Captain PEAKE: My point is that in estimating the excess as £2,000 in regard to receipts from passports the Under-Secretary must have made a mistake. There is either one passport too many or one passport too few; there is either 5s. too little in this estimate or 2s. 6d. too much.
      Sir BASIL PETO: I am afraid that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has failed to give satisfaction to my hon. Friends on the points which they have raised. I would like to ask a question in reference to Item A. As far as I could follow the explanation of the

      1729
      hon. Gentleman, he skated very skilfully and very quickly over that particular item, and commenced with Item B. I can well understand his reason for avoiding this item, but we are certainly entitled to some explanation as to why an additional sum of £1,300 is required for salaries, wages and allowances. Of course, the Committee generally is aware that we recently entered into diplomatic relations with the Soviet Government of Russia—
      The CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Baronet that this expenditure for salaries, wages and so on has nothing to do with the Soviet Government, and I must ask him kindly to keep to the subject of the Vote.
      Sir B. PETO: That is what I wanted to know. I was hazarding a conjecture—
      The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Baronet had applied himself to the Estimate, there would have been no need for that kind of conjecture. It is perfectly clear.
      Mr. PYBUS Mr. PYBUS rose—
      HON. MEMBERS: We want Peto!
      Mr. PYBUS: On a point of Order. The question at issue, I take it, is not the amount in connection with Russia, but the 2s. 6d.
      The CHAIRMAN: I would ask hon. Members to consider the dignity of the House, and to keep to the question before the Committee. If the hon. Baronet will look at the Estimate, he will see that it is for an amount that is required to cover additional expenditure in connection with the Naval Conference.
      Sir B. PETO: I quite appreciate, Mr. Young, and am grateful to you for, your Ruling, but the White Paper states that this precise sum of £1,300, neither more nor less, is what is required for increased salaries, wages and allowances in connection with the Naval Conference. I thought that I was in order in calling the attention of the Committee to the fact that at any rate it was very strange that there should be no other demand on the Committee for any increased expenditure other than that connected with the Naval Conference.
      The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet has no right to call attention to anything of that kind; he must confine himself to this Supplementary Estimate.
      Sir B. PETO: In those circumstances, confining my remarks to the narrow issue of the Naval Conference, I would like to ask whether this Token Vote represents an estimate—obviously it is a round figure—and whether it is the last that we shall hear of expenditure in this direction? I should like to know for how many months this sum will provide for the additional salaries in respect of this Naval Conference. It has been going on for a considerable time, and the expenditure up to date seems, considering the results so far achieved, to have been rather considerable. In any case, I think the Committee are entitled to some explanation from the Under-Secretary as to why the Government come to the House at this particular moment. They have plenty of time before the end of the financial year, possibly at the termination of the Naval Conference, if we are so happy as to see it end before that, to present a Supplementary Estimate for a definitely ascertainable sum, and not merely for a round sum. Obviously, this is not the completion of the account, and, if it be an actual estimate of the expenditure per week or per month in salaries, wages and allowances, I should like to ask what is likely to be the expenditure in the current financial year on this item? At least we are entitled to know why at this particular moment it is necessary to be in such a hurry to ask the Committee to sanction this particular item of expenditure. We are left in the dark. The Under-Secretary started by dealing most minutely with questions regarding telephones and passports and things of that kind, and then left the matter quite vague. Before we pass from this Vote I think we are entitled to ask the hon. Gentleman for what period this £1,300 will provide; whether he can give us any estimate of what the total will be; and, particularly, why the Committee is asked to spend its time in considering a Supplementary Estimate which is only the first of, possibly, many that will be required before we come to the termination of these long drawn out deliberations.
      Sir JOHN GANZONI: Hon. Members, with the best intentions, have been falling into a grevious error. We are not dealing with a matter of constitutional practice. It is a very simple issue of fact. This well-attended House is like a jury,

      1731
      which generally does deal with the facts, leaving the law to the judge, in this case represented by you, Sir. Is not the whole difficulty in this case just this, that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with whom I am sure in this matter we have the greatest sympathy, has totally failed to explain successfully to the right hon. Member for Cambourne (Mr. Leif Jones) the remarkable phenomenon that there should indeed and in fact and in sooth be an increased demand for passports to a country where prohibition is in force?
      Major HARVEY: I fully appreciate my hon. Friend's remarks, but this is really a serious matter.
      Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: On a point of Order. May I draw your attention, Sir, to the posture of the Noble Lord the Member for Newark (Marquess of Titchfield).
      Major HARVEY: I must again say this is a very serious matter. I am dealing with the finances of the country.
      Mr. McSHANE: On a point of Order. I want to ask you, Sir, with the congestion of business as it is, whether the people whom we represent are going to be proud of this House of Commons in treating matters like this as they are doing.
      The CHAIRMAN: That certainly is no point of Order. The Chair is not responsible for the procedure of business. It is responsible for keeping order and, up to the moment, the hon. and gallant Gentleman is in order.
      Mr. McSHANE: I want to make my complaint.
      The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not raising a point of order. The only point of Order he can raise must have regard to the business under consideration.
      Major HARVEY: I only want to raise one particular point. It is a question with regard to the messengers. I am given to understand, from what I read in the Press, that there is a probability of this Naval Conference being postponed for some considerable time and I am wondering whether these messengers will continue to be employed.
      Captain EDEN: It would be the greatest possible mistake if the Committee were to allow itself to be rushed into a decision without a more adequate reply than we have heard from the Under-Secretary. I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman for a very much more adequate and explicit explanation of the increase of the cost under item A than he has yet honoured the Committee with. Upon what is this figure based? How long, for instance, does he presume that the Conference will last? May we look to this as a Supplementary Estimate which at least will cover the remainder of the financial year? That is a point to which we might quite reasonably expect an answer.
      The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman must assume that. He will see that it is a Supplementary Estimate of the amount required for the year ending 31st March, 1930.
      Dr. DAVIES: On that point of Order. The Supplementary Estimate is required for the year ending 31st March, but if you will look at the sub-beads you will find that it is to meet expenses incurred in connection with the Naval Conference. The Naval Conference is now sitting, and we should like to know the date to which this Estimate was made up. We are definitely told that this expenditure has already been incurred, and we should like to know definitely what length of time is covered by the Estimate, and whether the Minister intends to introduce another Estimate to cover the period to the end of the year.
      The CHAIRMAN: Hon. Gentlemen must assume that the documents which are placed before them are correct, no matter which party may be in office. It is a Supplementary Estimate for the amount required for the year ending 31st March, 1930. If there should be another one required, that would be brought in. That matter is not now before the Committee.
      Dr. DAVIES: Surely we are entitled to ask the question.
      Captain EDEN: I am obliged to you, Mr. Young, for clearing up that most important point. At the same time, I do not think that it is unreasonable to ask for a rather fuller explanation than that which has been given to us in view of the changed circumstances in the consideration of international affairs.
      Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: My hon. Friends behind have expressed themselves in regard to their doubts, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will show his usual courtesy and give proper attention to what has been said. Although his reply is not on the whole satisfactory, he has given us some information, and I do not wish to be ungracious. I, therefore, beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLASS VI.

    DEPARTMENT OF OVERSEAS TRADE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £9,850, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Overseas Trade, including Grants-in-Aid of the Imperial Institute and the Travel Association of Great Britain."
    Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): This Supplementary Estimate is divided under five headings, while the Overseas Service is divided under three headings. I need hardly remind those hon. Members who have been in this House for any length of time that the Consular Service does a good deal of the commercial work particularly in centres where we have no special representatives. Although the Consular Service is not under my Department's vote, I would remind the Committee that both my Department and the Consular Service are associated with the Foreign Office. So far as we are concerned, we only have to deal with the full-time officers whose services are given entirely to trade problems overseas for this country. In that connection, confusion has sometimes arisen owing to the different terms which are used in connection with these officers. We have the Commercial Diplomatic Service with commercial secretaries connected with the Embassies and Legations overseas whilst, on the other hand, we have the Trade Commissioner Service, which is entirely confined to those who represent this country in our Dominions and Colonies. If hon. Members keep that clearly in their minds, they will see that it is a question of the country to which a person is accredited that gives him the title under which he serves.
    1734
    Accordingly, the first of the different items concerns the Commercial Diplomatic Service. It is a very simple one and deals with the fact that, when there was a resumption of relations with Russia and an Ambassador had been appointed to Moscow, the question came up as to whether there should also be a commercial secretary appointed as at the time when the relations with that country were broken off. It was decided to appoint two as two had previously been connected with the Mission in that country. The sum of £1,525 is involved, and the note on page 15 explains how that amount is being expended for the quarter of the year that remains after these officers have arrived in that country. There has been in the Department a saving of £700 on other items, and that has been deducted from the £1,525, leaving a sum of £825 which is required for the Russian service. The reason why we decided to have these commercial representatives in Russia was firstly because some of the business interests in this country asked to have them appointed, and secondly, because there are very considerable financial interests in Russia at the present time connected with this country. It is a distinct advantage to have men on the spot who can give us information as to what is passing in that great and mysterious country.
    The second item deals with the Trade Commissioner Service. Since the Labour Government attained office, it was felt that an extension overseas of our service was urgent and two centres, one at Sydney and one at Singapore, felt especially the need for further representation. We have already one representative at Sydney, and it was felt that, if a junior trade commissioner was employed there, it would leave the senior trade commissioner free to devote a good deal of his time to travelling in other parts of Australia. We decided to appoint this representative partly by reason of the fact that the British Economic Mission which visited that country had recommended the strengthening of our service there. In the case of Singapore, we felt that Malaya was a country of very considerable trade interests. British Malaya imports to the extent of £100,000,000 a year and our proportion is only £16,000,000. We felt

    1735
    that much of that trade could be developed in future to British advantage.
    We then turn to the question of how far we might strengthen the overseas staff in some of the subordinate offices. We felt it exceedingly important that more chief clerks should be appointed under our trade commissioners, so that, when the trade commissioner was away either on account of leave or on account of business, there should be an efficient substitute to carry on the work in his absence. Accordingly two new chief clerks were appointed, one in Singapore and the other in Johannesburg. Those are the chief items in connection with Trade Commissioner Service involving a sum of £2,625. Then there is a reduction of £850 due to estimated saving. The next item is simply connected with the expenditure involved in opening new offices in Singapore, and £500 has been allocated for that purpose. The next item deals with the question of travelling. The sum of £350 may be divided into two figures. The first figure is £250. We have decided to send, in fact he is already on his way, a representative of the Department to visit British West Africa, and the chief clerk in one of our centres in South Africa has been sent on that mission. It is estimated to cost £250. The other £100 is allocated for travelling in the Singapore area.
    Of the other items, one of £245, represents the travelling expenses of the new trade commissioners to their new centres, and £1,155 represents not only the cost of the two chief clerks going out from this country to their new posts but also the fact that as one of the new trade commissioners was recently promoted from chief clerk the appointment of a new chief clerk had to be made, and the cost of his travelling expenses from England to Australia is included in the item of £1,155. The concluding item deals with the Economic Mission to South America. The principle of this Mission has been recognised in all parts of the House, and the arrangements were really made by the right hon. Member who preceded me in this office. Of the desirability of the mission there is no doubt whatever. The hour is late and I will not go into the other financial items, but if hon. Members wish to have further particulars I shall be only too pleased to give them
    1736
    when the Debate is resumed. In regard to the Mission, their Report has been presented to the Government and it is expected that publication will take place in a few days' time.
    Major NATHAN: After the interesting exposition by the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department I only wish to draw attention to two items, one under the heading C.1 and the other under the heading D.1. The first deals with the additional two commercial secretaries to Russia, and the second with the provision for the additional trade commissioners at Sydney and Singapore. A number of questions arise under both heads; and I hope the hon. Member will give me a reply when the matter is next debated. As regards the former, I desire to ask whether in deciding to send these representatives to Russia he has taken into account the importance—
    It being Eleven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  PRIVATE BILLS.
  Ordered,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report whether any and if so, what, alterations are desirable in the practice and procedure of this House with a view to facilitating proceedings on Private Bills and lessening the expense at present incurred."
  Mr. Aneurin Bevan, Captain Bourne, Mr. Ernest Brown, Mr. Dunnico, Major Hills, Sir Boyd Merriman, and Mr. Tinker nominated Members of the Committee.
  Ordered,
  "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records."
  Ordered,
  "That Three be the quorum."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

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

PUBLIC HEALTH.
  REFUSE (DISPOSAL).
  REFUSE (DISPOSAL).
  PSITTACOSIS.
  PSITTACOSIS.
  BIRTH CONTROL.
  BIRTH CONTROL.
  IMPORTED PRESERVED MILK.
  IMPORTED PRESERVED MILK.
  SYNTHETIC AMMONIA WORKS, BILLINGHAM.
  SYNTHETIC AMMONIA WORKS, BILLINGHAM.
POOR LAW.
  TEST WORK.
  TEST WORK.
  RELIEVING OFFICERS (SUPERANNUATION).
  RELIEVING OFFICERS (SUPERANNUATION).
HOUSING.
  SHOPS, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
  SHOPS, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  SLUM CLEARANCE.
  SLUM CLEARANCE.
  TOWN-PLANNING SCHEMES (VARIATIONS).
  TOWN-PLANNING SCHEMES (VARIATIONS).
  MUNICIPAL HOUSES, VIENNA.
  MUNICIPAL HOUSES, VIENNA.
  BRILL.
  BRILL.
  ROADS, SOUTH-EAST ESSEX.
  ROADS, SOUTH-EAST ESSEX.
  SINKING FUNDS, LOCAL AUTHORITIES.
  SINKING FUNDS, LOCAL AUTHORITIES.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (MASSAGE TREATMENT).
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (MASSAGE TREATMENT).
  COMMONS (PRESERVATION).
  COMMONS (PRESERVATION).
  HOME-FED BEEF (PRICE).
  HOME-FED BEEF (PRICE).
AGRICULTURE.
  SMALL HOLDINGS.
  SMALL HOLDINGS.
  IMPORTED BUTTER (MARKING).
  IMPORTED BUTTER (MARKING).
  POTATOES (IMPORT, EMBARGO).
  POTATOES (IMPORT, EMBARGO).
  FLOUR (HOME-GROWN WHEAT).
  FLOUR (HOME-GROWN WHEAT).
  SHEEP DISEASES.
  SHEEP DISEASES.
  WORKERS (STATISTICS).
  WORKERS (STATISTICS).
  HORSES (EXPORT).
  HORSES (EXPORT).
  FRENCH WHEAT.
  FRENCH WHEAT.
  ECONOMIC ADVISORY COUNCIL (STAFF).
  ECONOMIC ADVISORY COUNCIL (STAFF).
  POLICE WOMEN.
  POLICE WOMEN.
  SILICOSIS.
  SILICOSIS.
  SENTENCE, TOTTENHAM.
  SENTENCE, TOTTENHAM.
  MARRIED WOMEN (NATIONALITY).
  MARRIED WOMEN (NATIONALITY).
PRISONS.
  CLOSING.
  CLOSING.
  WHIPPING.
  WHIPPING.
  SOLITARY CONFINEMENT.
  SOLITARY CONFINEMENT.
  HOLLOWAY.
  HOLLOWAY.
  TWO-SHIFT SYSTEM.
  TWO-SHIFT SYSTEM.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  BANK FOR INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENTS.
  BANK FOR INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENTS.
  SUGAR DUTIES.
  SUGAR DUTIES.
INCOME TAX.
  VALUATION LISTS.
  VALUATION LISTS.
  GROSS INCOME ASSESSMENT.
  GROSS INCOME ASSESSMENT.
  RESIDENCE ABROAD.
  RESIDENCE ABROAD.
INDIA.
  LAND OWNERSHIP, SOUTH AFRICA.
  LAND OWNERSHIP, SOUTH AFRICA.
  DRUG TRAFFIC.
  DRUG TRAFFIC.
  CUSTOMS DUTIES.
  CUSTOMS DUTIES.
  ROAD FUND (RAILWAYS).
  ROAD FUND (RAILWAYS).
POST OFFICE.
  REDUNDANT TELEGRAPH STAFF, BELFAST.
  REDUNDANT TELEGRAPH STAFF, BELFAST.
  INSURANCE POLICIES.
  INSURANCE POLICIES.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE, CHANNEL ISLANDS.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE, CHANNEL ISLANDS.
  MAILS, ISLE OF MAN.
  MAILS, ISLE OF MAN.
  SCHOOL TEACHERS.
  SCHOOL TEACHERS.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  BENEFIT.
  BENEFIT.
  LEYTON.
  LEYTON.
  TRANSFER OF WORKERS (BOROUGH).
  TRANSFER OF WORKERS (BOROUGH).
  SUGAR-REFINING FACTORIES (EMPLOYMENT).
  SUGAR-REFINING FACTORIES (EMPLOYMENT).
  SOMERSET.
  SOMERSET.
EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.
  RAMSGATE.
  RAMSGATE.
  WALWORTH ROAD (BOROUGH).
  WALWORTH ROAD (BOROUGH).
  WALSALL.
  WALSALL.
  ELECTRICITY COMMISSION.
  ELECTRICITY COMMISSION.
  KENYA (PRE-MARRIAGE RITES).
  KENYA (PRE-MARRIAGE RITES).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

LIVERPOOL EXCHANGE COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed.
RAWMARSH GAS ORDER, 1930.
HALSTEAD GAS ORDER, 1930.
PADIHAM GAS ORDER, 1930.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Orders as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last be approved.
Moved, That the Special Orders as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.—(Lord Marley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (BRADFORD EXTENSION) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.

RELATIONS WITH THE SOVIET.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether and, if so, what conditions were agreed, and whether and, if so, what understanding was arrived at between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the Union of the Soviet Republics before diplomatic relations were resumed; and whether His Majesty's Government have found it necessary to represent to the Soviet Government or to their diplomatic representative in London that there has been any breach of any such conditions or understanding, and if so, what reply, if any, was received by His Majesty's Government; and to move for Papers.
The noble and learned Earl said: My Lords, the Questions that stand in my name on the Paper have a rather limited scope, but some introductory matter might seem to be not altogether unhelpful
640
in approaching them. I observe that the most rev. Primate, in the speech that he delivered on the subject of religious persecution in Russia a few days ago, emphasised the importance of distinguishing between the topic to which he addressed himself and that which, as he pointed out, was to be dealt with by me to-night. If I did not misread the most rev. Primate, he claimed that the subject under discussion, in which he intervened, differed from that which I raise to-day inasmuch as it was not in its character political. With deep respect to the most rev. Primate, I am not able to concur in this view. Indeed, I know of no definition of politics, from the most ancient days until the writings of the most recent political philosophers, which would exclude from the term "politics" the topics with which the most rev. Primate, in my humble opinion most rightly and usefully, concerned himself on that occasion.
The term "politics" has often been defined. It can be defined simply by calling it "the science or business of governing men and administering their affairs in organised societies." Very ancient authority lies behind such a definition. How can it be contended by any one that the science of governing men and administering their affairs, which, as we have seen, is a branch of the art of politics, can be divorced from the treatment by the country whose affairs are under analysis of large sections of their people in matters which appertain to religion? The Massacre of the Innocents by Herod was, I conceive, undoubtedly a political act. It may have been bad politics, though hardly worse politics, in my understanding, than some of the acts that have been in evidence before our eyes. The question of order in Russia is undoubtedly political, and I cannot conceive of any of those on whose behalf the Primate spoke so feelingly, and on whose behalf His Holiness the Pope had spoken with so much power a few days earlier, if they were asked whether the misfortunes from which they were suffering so cruelly were political in their origin, that their opinions would differ from those of the most rev. Primate and others who spoke from that Bench. If it be true, as indisputably it is, that these matters are political in Russia, equally the reaction to those matters in this country, their treatment by the authorities of this country, the

641
views which constituted authority forms upon the qualities of those acts, are purely political.
In the history of diplomacy it has never, so far as I know, been disputed, and as a matter of International Law it has never been disputed, that if in the opinion of a country which entertained the diplomatic representative of another country a deliberate line of policy was pursued in that country so outrageous to the civilised sentiments of the whole world that it could only be described by the most moderate of men in terms of complete abhorrence—it has never, I say, been disputed that if the State which offered hospitality to the representatives of such a Power conceived either that its duty to civilisation as a whole required such a step, or that a due regard to the inculcation of a humaner course of conduct in relation to its own citizens pointed to a similar conclusion as a matter of politics, it was in the power of such a country to request that diplomatic associations with the offending country should cease.
I could give many illustrations drawn from ancient days, but it is sufficient if I take two which occurred within, or very nearly within, my own Parliamentary experience. It will be within the memory of many of your Lordships that after the brutal regicidal murders in Serbia—if my memory serves me aright they took place about 1904—the Serbian Minister, unless I am mistaken, was requested to leave this country, and our own representative was withdrawn from the Serbian Court. Equally, and more recently, when certain judicial murders, or so they were conceived to be by the Government of the day in this country, were committed by the then authorities of Greece, an immediate breach of diplomatic relations took place. If this course has recommended itself to the Government in the case of an isolated outrage, a fortiori it must apply to a scheme and a campaign so deeply founded in the purposes of the rulers of Russia, carried out with such penetrating and unpitying cruelty into the branches of almost every religious community.
Some questions are asked as to where the evidence is to be found of these outrages. I confess that I was astonished when I heard the noble and learned
642
Lord, Lord Parmoor—one who, I know, feels strongly upon these subjects—state not indeed as legal evidence (he did not make such an attempt) but as a matter that was worthy of the consideration of the House, that he had been informed that a member of the Russian Government had announced that whatever harsh measures had been adopted had been adopted solely in relation to those who had been guilty of counter-propaganda. Be it observed that this valuable witness felt it quite impossible to allow his name to be mentioned. I have not observed that those who in the first place had been guilty of directing, supervising and carrying out these outrages have felt the slightest delicacy in advertising their names to the whole civilised world, but I suppose that this gentleman thought it right to shroud his identity in a decent ambiguity, having regard to the fact that he was not claiming the right to repudiate the practice of wholesale murder applied to every religious community in Russia.
I read to-day, as noble Lords everywhere must have read, published and re-published with the plain approval of the Government of Russia, a news bulletin, "This week's report upon the anti-God front." What, it may be asked, is the meaning of this? It means, of course, and it can only mean, that in the course of those outrageous crimes, the existence of which some pretend to deny, the events of the week have been favourable to the campaign. Does it mean that the pious persuasions to religious people to reform their superstitious practices have been carried on with gratifying success? Is that what they mean by the success of the anti-God campaign? I do not know whether in the interesting (I am sure they must be) and hitherto carefully veiled conversations which take place weekly between the Foreign Secretary and the Russian representative information is asked for or information is given as to what is the success—on the assumption that the outrages are to be denied—of the anti-God campaign.
And I would add this: of all the clumsy forgeries, and they have been many, which have been put forward by the Soviet Government, surely there has been none more impudently clumsy than that which was associated with the name of the Metropolitan Sergius. I know the

643
opinions upon these matters of the noble and learned Lord opposite too well to believe that for one moment the would allow himself to be deceived by this document. The Metropolitan is a man, according to all the information which I have been able to gain, who has been an ornament to the faith of which he has been a pious and—until his energies were violently curtailed—an inspiring administrator; and we are asked to accept an alleged interview with the Metropolitan in contradiction of the evidence which is available to, and is known to, every Chancellery in the world. What is the Metropolitan made to say? He allows his attention to pass to the speech of the most rev. Primate, and, having quoted one or two sentences, he makes the trenchant, if ungraceful, comment "Fishy!" with a mark of exclamation. Then, having glanced at the address of His Holiness the Pope, he proceeds to accuse the Pope of being associated with, if not in the pay of, the money markets of the Continent. These are the very taunts which have been common upon Bolshevist lips in the course of the last few years, and I can only marvel at the clumsiness of the folly, and the folly of the clumsiness.
The facts are known to all, and I would earnestly say to noble Lords opposite that we, who had deep experience of what these men are capable of, we, who from the days of the Coalition had occasion to negotiate with them, knew that no pledge that they gave was worth the paper upon which it was written. We knew that the introduction of their diplomatic representation in this country could only add to our anxieties and increase our dangers. We pointed this out to the Government of the day. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, who on the last occasion when I raised this topic made an interesting speech in reply, dwelt upon the business advantages which were to be gained by diplomatic recognition of Russia. This was, indeed, the only argument that was put forward. Is it a worthy argument of a civilised country, confronted by the tragic events before which at the present moment every country in Europe and the United States of America is recoiling in almost incredulous horror? The only reply is nummi non olent. Nor is even that a very satisfactory rejoinder if one were for a moment to pass by the
644
morality of the argument. For we observed that the United States of America, which gave its reasons for refusing any association with the Soviet Government in burning language, which I think must have caused deep and repeated contrition to members of the Government when they considered and re-considered its terms—the United States of America has indignantly refused, upon those very moral grounds which have been stated and re-stated in this House; yet it has increased its business with Soviet Russia both in its actual volume and in its developing ratio in a higher degree than we who have been subjected to this ignominy.
And with how much humiliation have we in this House and those who agree with us in another place been treated by the Government in this matter! I will not now go back to the singular circumstance that the Foreign Secretary happened to be unaware that by constitutional usage the term "Parliament" included an obscure Assembly which occasionally meets here. I will not in detail dwell upon the fact that the assurance made to us that we should have an opportunity of debating this matter was only redeemed—only partially redeemed—upon the action of a private member, when I myself asked a question of noble Lords opposite, and, had I not so intervened, that promise would have been completely unfulfilled, because the responsible Minister happened to be ignorant of the proper use of the most elementary terms of constitutional law in this country.
And when the debate which I initiated took place I was bold enough to ask certain very definite questions of noble Lords who sit upon the opposite Bench, and there was one question which interested us above all others. When we were assured that the Soviet Government had entered into an undertaking neither directly nor indirectly to carry on any propaganda against this country or against this Empire, I most explicitly asked the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, this question which the noble and learned Lord will find in the pages of the OFFICIAL REPORT: Does this pledge include propaganda carried on by the Third International or the Comintern? This was not a pointless or an unconsidered question. We had before us at that moment the statement contained in the present

645
Prime Minister's much discussed letter to the Russian Government, the statement in which he swept aside the futility and the dishonesty of pretending that the Soviet Government could disinterest itself of responsibility for the crimes against the organised civilisation of other countries which were committed by the Third International. That was the view of the colleagues of noble Lords who were their predecessors in the short Labour Government, in the course of which that letter was written. The view of the Labour Government then was clear and precise. It is to be presumed that the view of the present Government has not altered; at any rate, if it has altered we have been indulged with no explanations upon that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, in reply to that question said: "Yes, it does include the Third International"—an assurance which, if well founded, if one could accept it, if it was put forward, I do not mean by the noble Lord but by those who gave it, with good faith and with an intention to observe it, would have afforded some considerable reassurance to those who entertained so much doubt in relation to this controversy. I cannot and I will not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, who has held many positions of responsibility and has never incurred the charge of using light or ill-considered language in any of those capacities, assured Parliament and assured the Legislative Chamber of which he is a member that the pledge so given by the Soviet Government included the Comintern unless that conviction in his mind was founded upon some warranty of reliable information. Be it observed that most obviously this matter must have been the subject of discussion and re-discussion at the Cabinet. It must have been the subject of the most detailed and precise inquiry in the conversations, written or spoken, which took place between the Russian and British Governments.
I say so emphatically that it must have been the subject of precise inquiry because it was the very rock upon which relations had first been formidably impaired under the predecessors of the Government of noble Lords opposite. Therefore, no one who was fit to be trusted with the government of the affairs of any country having in diplomatic matters so grave had a difference of
646
opinion not less grave a few years ago, could possibly resume diplomatic associations without satisfying himself that there was not to be a recurrence of these gross and continued injuries to this country. We are consequently driven to the conclusion, and I accept the conclusion, that discussions had taken place between the Russian and British Governments before the Minister was received in this country, which authorised the noble Lord to give that assurance to the House of Lords. I see no answer to that inference consistent with what we know of the noble Lord's carefulness in such matters.
It is necessary, therefore, to carry the matter a step further. The Soviet Minister is reintroduced into this country carrying with him on behalf of his Government a definite assurance that they will undertake the responsibility of curtailing the propaganda activities of the Comintern. What happened before our eyes without concealment from the first day that the Minister was received into this country? Insulting contempt is poured over the assurances given in this House by noble Lords, contempt proceeding from organs which are admitted to speak with high official authority in Russia and which indeed, did they not speak with such authority, would not be permitted to speak at all. All of them with one accord deny that any such pledge was ever given, affirm its impossibility, and contemptuously deny that any such proposal will be observed by them in the future. It follows inevitably from this that here in limine there was a breach of the very essence of the undertaking that was given. No one, be it observed, can deny that who is not prepared to rise in his place tonight to contradict the assurances which were given to us before, and to say: "No, the assurances which we received from the Soviet Government did not include the Comintern." I doubt whether there is a Minister in either House who will be bold enough to make such a statement in view of the assurances already given. Nor, indeed, can there be a Minister in either House who would, or could, justify the resumption of that relationship unless, as they told us was the case, these assurances had been given.
What then has happened? They have been broken, and they have been broken with every circumstance of public con-

647
tempt. It is no use any member of the Government replying that there have not been overt acts in Great Britain or the British Empire since this Minister came. I dispute it absolutely. If the time which it was reasonable for me to request from the House would allow of its examination I could show the profound untruth of such an attempted defence. It is unnecessary to do so. It is unnecessary to show that this assurance has been broken in any specific case, when those who are alleged to have given it have told us in plain terms that they did not give it and that they do not intend to observe it. Such is the situation to-day.
We understand from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that certain discussions have taken place between himself and the Soviet representative with reference to the activities of which we complain on the part of the Comintern. If it is not asking too much I should like to be informed of any rational consideration of State which makes it impossible even at this stage to communicate to us for our reassurance the general effect of the discussions that have taken place between the Foreign Secretary and the Soviet Minister. It is not reasonable or, indeed, possible to say that considerations of State render it impossible. How can considerations of State render it impossible to acquaint us with an explanation when we have been publicly told before the whole world what the nature of the understanding is? If, in other words, as is indisputably the case, we were told that the understanding was that propaganda was to cease, if it be the fact that the Foreign Secretary has felt it necessary to ask for explanations of these continuous activities in the Russian Press and elsewhere—if that is so, either an explanation has been given by the Ambassador or it has not. If it has been given, why are we to be deprived of the advantage of hearing it? Parliament is entitled to hear it. If, on the other hand, no explanation has been given, if no explanation can be given, are we not equally entitled to be told that the Soviet Minister, who has previously given the assurance to which I have referred so often, has now explained that it meant nothing, that he is not in a position to carry if out, that it was never intended to carry it out? On what grounds these matters cannot
648
be mentioned I do not know. It is all, I suppose, a part of the new diplomacy—open discussions, openly carried out!
And I observe, in the same association, that a communication has been received from our Ambassador in relation to the subject matter of the earlier period of my observations—a Despatch or the preliminary part of a Despatch, elicited by a request for official information as to the nature and extent of the religious persecutions which have taken place in Russia. Is it too much to hope that in the fullness of time, and at a convenient moment, we may be informed what the information contained in this Official Report may be? Is the excuse for not giving it now that the information is incomplete? If that be the excuse, may we assume that when a completed explanation is supplied that will be printed as a White Paper and placed before Parliament; or are we to be denied, is the nation to be denied, all means of obtaining official information while we are told daily that no doubt hundreds of people have been shot, perhaps religiously-minded people by a coincidence, but, if they will resort to counter propaganda, it is really in the interests of discipline and good government that they should be shot? If that is indeed to be the last word in defence, and if we are to be excluded from the means of checking this statement, the diplomatic course pursued by His Majesty's Government may win some success, but it will be fugitive indeed in its character and in its duration.
We are told that there has been a cessation. Without going in detail into the large number of cases which have been and are being accumulated, it is notorious that the Government and its agencies have publicly boasted of the support which, while the Minister has been in this country, they have continued to give to revolutionary newspapers accepting both financial support and revolutionary instruction from the Government in Russia. It is equally notorious that there has been no cessation of energetic activities against us in India. It is a matter upon which I speak in the hearing of the Under-Secretary for India. I myself had some years of experience at an early stage of these activities, and I have made it my business, as far as the published sources of information extend, to keep myself abreast of the recent developments in India, and I say, chaos-

649
ing my words carefully, not only has there been no alleviation of the intensity of Soviet intrigue and propaganda in India, but that in the last twelve months it has positively increased. The same is unquestionably true of Afghanistan. It cannot be forgotten that this assurance was given not only in relation to this country but also in relation to the British Empire, and is, indeed, more important in relation to the British Empire than it is in relation to the people of this country, for there is still a residuum of plain common sense and intelligence among the people of this country which enables us to preserve the hope that, amid all difficulties and trials, they will retain a balance and a poise which, historically, have distinguished them. But when we deal with India, we deal with very different considerations. There are inflammable materials there for those who will apply the torch, and the torch is ready to be supplied by those whose representative we are supposed to welcome at the Court of St. James's to-day.
And what an irony, what a commentary upon the error of judgment which this Government have shown it is that at the very moment when they have decided, for reasons I have hitherto not heard adequately explained, to restore relations with Russia, those relations are becoming more strained, are more menaced with determination in almost, every country in Europe than they have been since the earliest recognition of the Soviet Government took place. We have seen the exasperations to which France has been subjected in Indo-China as well as in her own domestic politics. We know the bitter complaints which are made by powerful political Parties in France and the demands there that this association should be brought to an end. At the very same moment they have chosen to affront Germany, in relation to whom they lie under so many material obligations, whose business enterprises, encouraged by their invitation to transplant themselves into Russia, they have robbed and treated with insulting violence. It was at the very moment when the whole of the commercial civilisation of Europe, when the whole of the organised conscience of the world is turning more and more against this dangerous and malignant power, that this Government has chosen for recognition.
Now, my Lords, I have asked plain questions. The matter is too grave to import heat unnecessarily into it, and I have tried to avoid it, but if the Government is able to answer two questions I would desire to put those questions very positively. First of all, may we still assume that the engagement entered into by the Soviet Government neither directly nor indirectly to carry on propaganda in the British Empire included an undertaking to curtail the activities of a similar kind of the Comintern? The second question is: In the view of the Government has there been a breach of such an undertaking? And, collaterally to this last question, there are two others. Has His Majesty's Government made a complaint to the Soviet representative in London of the breach to which I have called attention, and, if so, what reply has His Majesty's Government received?
I should be very unwilling that it should be thought—because after all I was, I suppose for some twelve years, myself a Minister in not unimportant and irresponsible positions—that I was lightly asking questions which any reasonable Government might reasonably meet by saying: "We cannot answer these questions in the public interest." Part of them has been answered already, but the events which have passed since they were answered have challenged the accuracy and the reliability of the replies that were given. Those who took, and take, the view that until there has been a complete change of mind in the Russian people, a recasting of social polity, a, readjustment of the views which in every civilised country in the world are regarded as elementary and axiomatic, there can be neither peaceful nor fruitful relationship between this country and the Soviet Government—those of us who hold that view would entreat the Government at this last moment, if misled they have been, to say so frankly. It is not indeed an ignoble error to be deceived by assurances, apparently given in good faith, of amendment; but if that error has been realised there can be no excuse for those who still persist in their course and deny the truth of that which is recognised and known in every Foreign Office in Europe and in the New World. I beg to move formally for Papers.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, we have had a powerful speech this afternoon from the noble and learned Earl, a speech of powerful criticism and rhetoric, spoilt I think, if I may say so, by over-statement of what is undoubtedly a difficult matter and of which I will give the explanation for which he has asked. At the outset may I say that the noble and learned Earl in the first part of his speech referred I think wholly to what we have called in this House and elsewhere the religious question. This matter was fully discussed in the House a few days ago, and I should like to reiterate now what I made perfectly clear at the time, that I was prepared and the Government were prepared to support the views so ably put forward by the most rev. Primate and by the Archbishop of York. I am sorry that the noble and learned Earl was not here on that occasion, because I could not ask your Lordships a second time to listen to the arguments which I then put forward.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: The noble and learned Lord knows why. I wrote to him. I expressed regret that I could not be here.
LORD PARMOOR: I apologise. I did not mean to intimate anything disrespectful of the noble and learned Earl. I perfectly realise his position if he will allow me to say so. He wrote to me in a most courteous manner and explained the reasons why he could not be present last Thursday. That, however, does not in my opinion alter the position. As a matter of fact the religious question was amply and fully discussed at that time. Then as now, without reservation or limitation, I expressed the opinion that the views of the two Archbishops are accurate and I said that the Government were prepared to accept them. I noticed to-day, if I may come to a little fresh ground, that the same views have been expressed in very nearly the same language by the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester. What I said then I must repeat to this extent—although I cannot go back to my whole argument—that we are all agreed I think in this House that there is a distinction between the religious and the political outlook on this question.
I do not deny—indeed perhaps I go farther than the noble and learned Earl
652
—that in one sense religion should be the dominant factor in all our world relationships and our public and private morality, and on another view one may say, taking the illustration which the noble and learned Earl gave, the word politics has a very wide-reaching signification. But that is not the point that we were discussing. What we discussed was: What is the wise attitude that the Government should adopt if they desire to avoid the great risk of adding to the persecution of the very religious bodies whom they desire to protect in every possible way? I quoted on that point—and I think no one took objection to it—the very valuable statement made on the matter of principle in old days by the late Marquess of Salisbury, the father of the present Leader of the Opposition. Everyone, I should have thought, who was cognisant of this matter must have felt that it was not a question of general definition as regards terms used. The question is: Shall we do good or harm if we take particular action in regard to the persecution of Christians in another country? What I want to say upon that point is that, in my opinion, no Government, certainly no Government of a great country and Empire like ours, would be worthy of being entrusted for one month with its great duties unless in a matter of this kind it resolved, with all the skill and judgment at its command, to come to a determination and, having come to that determination, was prepared to accept it without alteration or limitation until the whole basis, by some fundamental differences, was again altered.
I do not agree with what the noble and learned Earl said upon this point. He quoted, I think, one reference of mine which, when I gave it to your Lordships, I said that I gave only as a quotation, for the truth of which I did not take any responsibility: but he forgot the evidence that I gave from Mr. Donald Grant who had lately been in Moscow, he forgot the evidence that I quoted from, amongst others. Prebendary Gough, and he forgot that I had personal experience in the case of the Patriarch Tikhon—a case in which my recollection was corroborated by the noble Archbishop, Lord Davidson of Lambeth. But I will not go back into these matters. Will any one say that a question of this kind can or

653
ought to be decided merely on the general definition of terms on which we can all agree, and that we either can or ought to put out of mind all the special conditions which, if they are not carefully regarded, may bring the utmost misery, distress and even death to the very people whom we are hoping to assist? That is the answer that I make to what I call the religious portion of the noble and learned Earl's speech, I do not know whether the most rev. Primate is again going to assist us in this matter this evening, but I say unreservedly that I am opposed to the attitude of the noble and learned Earl, who stated quite frankly, as I think, that he criticised the attitude and the language of the most rev. Primate on a former occasion. That is not our attitude. It is not my attitude, and I must leave the matter as it stands before the House, so that your Lordships may make up your minds between those two views of this difficult religious question.
The next question which the noble and learned Earl approached—and I should like to say a word or two upon it before I come to the definite evidence, of which I think there is ample for replying to his Questions—concerned our attitude towards the Third International. He quoted in this regard some very clear statements, made without reservation or limitation by my noble friend Lord Thomson. Of course this Government, both in 1924 and since it returned to power, has unreservedly said on many occasions—not on one occasion only—that it considers that the undertaking of the Soviet Government covered an undertaking for the action of the Third International. Why should anyone be disposed to doubt a statement of that kind? In a moment I will give chapter and verse for what I am saying, but I should like any member of this House, if he can, to find any statement published or any statement made by a responsible Minister of the present Government which could possibly throw a shadow of doubt as to the accuracy of my statement on the question that was asked by the noble and learned Earl.
The noble and learned Earl, I think, asked a second question which I do not wish to ignore. I shall refer in a moment to the actual Questions on the Paper. He asked whether there had been, in the view of the Government, a breach of
654
the undertaking so given. That there has been what I might call a technical breach—is this a matter for laughter?
A NOBLE LORD: Yes.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not think so. I think it is far too important for laughter. Whether, owing to an obscure paragraph in a paper of no significance, of which the name was probably unknown beforehand to every member of your Lordships' House, a paper of uncertain life and of very small circulation, your Lordships would say that it would show a proper discretion in any Government, on a breach, if it is one, of that kind, that they should throw over their whole policy for the friendly resumption of diplomatic relations between this country and Soviet Russia—
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: What paper is the noble and learned Lord referring to?
LORD PARMOOR: The Daily Worker.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I was thinking, of course, apart from the Daily Worker of the admittedly official organs of the Russian Government.
LORD PARMOOR: I will come to that, if I may, presently, and I will give the whole story when I come to it. I am much obliged to the noble and learned Earl for reminding me. I certainly do not intend to forget it. But the particular act to which attention was called in the other House, and in reference to which the Foreign Secretary made a specific answer in that House, was the publication in this obscure organ of a paragraph which was said—and I do not deny it in any way—to be published under the direction and authority of the Third International. Where the headquarters of the Third International might have been then I do not know—whether in Paris, Berlin, Moscow or elsewhere—but I think that there should be no difference of opinion upon this point: that, without reservation or limitation, so far as any action of the Third International renders it necessary in the opinion of the Government to break diplomatic relations with the Russian Government, they will do it just in the same way as if the action had been taken by the Soviet Government itself. No distinction whatever has ever been

655
raised, or ever will be raised, by this Government as between those two bodies.
I think I have now answered the two questions that the noble and learned Earl put to me specifically. The first was whether the Third International is, in the view of the Government, included in the undertaking given to them by the Russian Ambassador—or rather, it was by Litvinov that the special undertaking was given. His second question was whether there was a breach. My answer is: No such breach as any Government, in my opinion, ought to take notice of in the sense of breaking off diplomatic relations between this country and Russia. I beg to say that that is the only point. You have to face it from that standpoint. Facing it from that standpoint, let us see what the noble and learned Earl tells us. He has told us that the Russian people and the Russian Government have been treated with disdain—I think he used that word or a similar one—by all the countries of Europe, including our own. Has that been an effective remedy for the conditions in Russia? I admit that I take entirely a contrary view. I take the view of the present Government that if you want improvement in Russia, if you want the conditions there to come to the higher level intimated by the noble and learned Earl, the way to obtain it is by a friendly resumption of ordinary normal diplomatic relations, and that is the only way in which, in the long run, I think Russia will come into co-operation with the general life and general outlook of other European countries. I should have thought that the noble Earl would have quoted what had happened in the past as indication of a total failure as regards the improvement of Russia. So it appears to me to be. We are going to try in the other direction. We desire the resumption of friendly intercourse, and I believe that it is in the resumption of friendly intercourse that the path of improvement and progress really lies.
Not to take up your attention too long, might I now refer to the particular Questions which were asked by the noble Earl in his Notice, and give what I think are the answers to them. They are covered by what I have already said in one sense, but I want to be more direct and more specific. The first Question he asks is as to what general conditions
656
were agreed, and whether any and if so what understanding was arrived at between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics before diplomatic relations were resumed. The answers are perfectly clear. They are contained in Command Papers laid on the Table of your Lordships' House, and the same answers have been repeated more than once by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who is the responsible Minister in matters of this kind, from his place in the House of Commons. In this House, moreover, a debate was initiated, I think by the noble Earl himself, on December 4, and to that debate the noble Earl has already referred.
Let me ask your Lordships, if I may, to see what the answer is from the public Command Papers laid on the Table of this House, with which I would assume that at any rate a large number of members of this House must already be acquainted. The first is Command Paper No. 3418. It contains the Protocol applicable to the resumption of relations with the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It was submitted to and approved by the other House on November 5 of last year, and if your Lordships will look at paragraph 7 on page 8 you will see exactly what the undertaking was. It is as follows:—
"7. Immediately on the actual exchange of Ambassadors, and not later than the same day as that on which the respective Ambassadors present their credentials, both Governments will reciprocally confirm the pledge with regard to propaganda contained in Article 16 of the Treaty signed on the 8th August, 1924, between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics."
We all know what Article 16 means. It was Article 16 in the letter of the then Prime Minister, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, in which it appears to me he states in the widest terms the range of the obligation which is to be in force as between the two parties.
Then later, in Command Paper No. 3467, we have the carrying out of that obligation in terms, and in fact, before diplomatic relationships were renewed. Perhaps the most crucial document which appeared in Command Paper No. 3467 is one signed by Litvinov. It is on page 7, and the writer says this:—
"In taking due note of this declaration, I have the honour to inform you that, in

657
accordance with the understanding between the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, as recorded in the Protocol of the 3rd October, 1929, the Ambassador of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in London has been instructed to inform His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of India that the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, for their part, also regard the undertaking contained in Article 16 of the Treaty signed on the 8th August, 1924, as having full force and effect as between themselves and His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of India."
Therefore, my Lords, it is perfectly obvious, in answer to the first part of the noble Earl's Question, taking the actual words themselves, that in the published White Papers submitted to both Houses of Parliament the conditions are specifically set out as they were agreed between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, before diplomatic relations were resumed. I do not see how any publicity could make that matter clearer. There cannot be the smallest doubt, I think, if you read what is called Article 16, that it in terms not only places the obligation upon the Soviet Government itself, but also places the obligation upon any organisation, of any kind, which in any degree, directly or indirectly, is under the control of the Soviet Government, and as I have said before it has been pointed out on several occasions that this Government at any rate have no doubt whatever, and have expressed the view, that that undertaking includes propaganda work carried out through the Third International.
The next part of the noble Earl's Question is this. He asks as to any understanding arrived at between His Majesty's Government and the Soviet Government before relations were resumed. He asks both as regards conditions and as regards arrangements. I think that Mr. Henderson, the Foreign Secretary, made it clear to the Soviet representative that His Majesty's Government placed upon the Government of the Soviet and its representatives the responsibility for any subversive activity of the Third International. This point was laid down before the resumption of relations, and there never has been any departure so far as the Government are concerned, and
658
there never will be any departure either in the form of reservation or limitation.
The second part of the noble Earl's Question is this. He asks whether His Majesty's Government have found it necessary to represent to the Soviet Government that there has been any breach of this condition or understanding. Here again I think the whole matter has been made absolutely clear by the Foreign Secretary in another place. I am not now discussing, of course, whether noble Lords opposite agree with the policy of the present Government or not—that is not the question. The policy of the present Government has been absolutely clear, and I cannot understand how any doubt can have arisen after the publication of the two White Papers and the statements of the Foreign Secretary in another place. Of course, the responsibility rests on the Foreign Secretary.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: The noble and learned Lord will perceive that we do not enjoy the advantage of illumining debate in another place. We cannot, for instance, ask questions of the Foreign Secretary, and it has always been regarded as our constitutional right as a separate branch of the Legislature to ask the Minister who represents a Depart-merit to give his own explanations for our own consideration.
LORD PARMOOR: I have not the least desire to avoid doing that, but the noble Earl knows perfectly well that, where negotiations have been carried on and statements made by the Foreign Secretary, and questions are further asked desiring explanation of what he has already said, the place to obtain those explanations is another House. I have not the least desire to shirk any responsibility of any kind in this matter, nor have any of us who represent the Government here; but to ask us or any one else to enter into minute details of negotiations at which we were not present, and which in their details are unknown to us, is of course to demand an impossible task, as the noble Earl must know perfectly well.
On January 1 last the Daily Worker, a Communist Paper of insignificant circulation and no influence, published a message of greetings from the Third International. I believe it was the first occasion on which that paper had been published. These greetings are in them-

659
selves of little importance, and certainly not of a character to which great weight should be attached. Nevertheless, on January 6 the Foreign Secretary, as he has already stated in another place—and this, I think, deals with what the noble Earl particularly asked me—drew the attention of the Soviet Ambassador Sokolnikov to this message. The position then created was made clear when the question was raised in the House of Commons on January 22. This is what the Foreign Secretary said—and may I ask your Lordships to accept from me what the Foreign Secretary said? It is for him really to give the explanation. I can only give the explanation from the information I have derived—and I have derived all the information that was possible on this point—from him. The Foreign Secretary said:—
"Although His Majesty's Government are not without hope that the agreement recently entered into will result in a permanent improvement, a message from the Third International which appeared in a daily paper on January 1 led me to inform the Soviet Ambassador that such action was calculated to impede that improvement in the relations between the two countries. … For the present His Majesty's Government do not propose to take further action."
They were aware of what is called the breach. They called the Soviet Ambassador's attention to it; and then the Foreign Secretary states what I regard as a right judgment, and that is that for the present His Majesty's Government are not prepared to take further action.
Then, on February 3, the Foreign Secretary stated:—
"Should causes of serious complaint arise, the Government will not hesitate to take the House into their confidence, but they must in the first instance be the judges as to the action which may be expedient and necessary to safeguard the interests of the country."
Would any Government be worthy of the confidence of this country if they did not take that responsibility? I should like to ask any noble Lord here whether he would care, I will not say to be a member of a Government, but to be a supporter of any Government which would not take the responsibility of making up its, mind on a diplomatic question of that character? Of course, it is the duty of the Government, and they intend to perform that duty. And the fact that other members of this House may differ from them will not alter the judgment to which they have come.
660
I cannot help making a reference to a quotation which was made last autumn from a speech by Lord Balfour in 1926:—
"The condition of the world, the condition at least of the European world, at this moment requires us to walk in all these international matters with a very cautious tread."
That is the attitude of the present Government. It does not mean that they are shirking their responsibility. It means that they are taking it as a most serious matter. It means that in their duty towards the people of this country they intend to the best of their discretion and judgment to deal with the difficulties with Russia as and when they may arise. Of course, the object of the Government is undoubtedly the resumption of friendly relationship, so far as it may be possible, with the Soviet Republics. That is their policy. It is a settled policy which they put forward in 1924, which they reiterated many times between 1924 and 1929, and which, on coming into power in 1929, they again stated as one of the first steps they intended to take towards the wider policy of peace, both in Europe and in the world at large.
I do not believe that anyone who has studied the peace question in its broader aspects has come to any other conclusion. It is almost impossible to have a successful issue while these conditions continue as they are at the present time in Russia; and those who care for the policy of peace, who care for a new foundation of a more moral kind in international relationships, should, in our view, do all they can not to irritate opinion in Russia, not to make statements which cannot but arouse indignation in Russia, but, on the other hand, within the limits which this Government have laid down, do what they can, and in every way that they can, to promote peace, friendliness and goodwill between the people of Russia and the people of this country.
There is one other factor to which the noble Earl referred. I do not think he gave due weight to the consideration of the economic importance of the Russian market to the people of this country. Unemployment is the curse of the moment. Why should we not do what we can within the limits I have announced to open the Russian market to the products of this country? The noble

661
and learned Earl has referred to the case of America. Conditions between America and Russia have differed in many respects. I recollect that during the great famine, when we were doing all we could in Russia and helping about 250,000 people during the winter, the Americans were at that time feeding more than 10,000,000. There is a feeling of gratitude, of proper gratitude, for the treatment which the Russian peasants received during that most difficult period through which they passed. I do not want to go into matters of that kind, but I have here the actual statistics which speak for themselves. In 1924 the trade of the United Kingdom with Russia was £11,000,000 odd. It went up to £19,000,000, and then in 1928 after the Arcos raid it fell to £4,801,000. In the meantime the German trade, which was £4,935,000 in 1924, rose in 1928 to £19,783,000, Surely we are entitled, and surely it is the duty of every Government to do all that can be done, to get a fair share of the Russian market and in that way to help the unfortunately numerous people in this country, admirable workmen and able to produce what Russia wants, and to give them continuous employment; not by shutting up one of the best markets but by opening it in the spirit of friendly relationship and with a renewal of normal diplomatic intercourse.
LORD CUSHENDUN: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord who has just addressed your Lordships appears to regard Russia as something in the nature of a wasp's nest. I am not at all sure that there is not a good deal of force in the analogy. Towards the end of his speech he told us that the policy to be pursued with regard to Russia was above all not to do anything to irritate opinion. That is very much the advice that he would give to any one in the neighbourhood of a wasp's nest. The noble and learned Lord told us that it was the settled policy of the Government, as of course we knew, to resume diplomatic relations with Russia. We know that the Government have resolved to do that and that they will not be turned from it by any consideration, good, bad or indifferent. The noble and learned Lord said in the courts of his speech that he regarded friendly diplomatic relations as the most likely method of producing improved conditions in Russia. I believe
662
that to be a complete illusion. I do not in the least believe that anything we can do will produce improved conditions in Russia, if by that the noble and leaned Lord refers not to their relations with us but to their internal domestic concerns. I do not believe that any policy we can pursue will have any effect whatever in that direction.
The noble and learned Lord referred in his speech mainly to two questions raised by my noble friend Lord Birkenhead, and I must say that his reply upon those two points appeared to me to be extremely unsatisfactory. The first one he dealt with was what he calls, and what we all call, the religious question. The noble and learned Lord told us that that question was amply debated the other day, that he was quite content to refer to that as if it was a chose jugée and there was nothing further to be said. He adopted the opinion expressed by the most rev. Primate, and did not pursue the matter—
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Your Lordships will forgive this interruption, but I do not want it to be understood for a moment that I consider that the discussion which took place a week ago on the religious aspect of the question has concluded the matter. On the contrary, as I think I stated, I propose to make the most exhaustive inquiries possible. I have already received a great deal of information which greatly increases both the gravity and the difficulty of the subject. I desire, after there has been greater opportunity to consider the whole matter and to discuss it with the fulness which is impossible now, to have the matter debated again in your Lordships' House. Therefore, so far from regarding the matter as being settled a week ago, I desire most emphatically to reserve the right of raising the distinct issue when information has been received which makes it possible to do so in a really responsible manner.
LORD CUSHENDUN: I was very glad indeed to hear the declaration which has just been made by the most rev. Primate because I was about to express exactly the same opinion. I was about to demur to the argument of the noble and learned Lord opposite that the debate the other day had been so ample and so conclusive that there was nothing further to be said. I do not accept that view at all.
LORD PARMOOR: I mean for the time being. I do not mean for all time; I mean now. I have, as I said the other day, adopted the same view as the most rev. Primate. Of course we want fuller inquiry and fuller information and when the time comes I hope there will be a very full further discussion.
LORD CUSHENDUN: I was only going to say that I differed entirely from the noble Lord in thinking that the matter was amply discussed the other day. There was a debate and various opinions were expressed: but, so far from the matter having been thrashed out, there was a great deal left unsaid and there were some things that I should have liked to say had I had the opportunity on that occasion. I am going to say them now. I entirely differ from the opinion which was expressed generally the other day that we are likely to do more harm than good. Noble Lords will remember the argument and the way it was used. I freely admit, of course, that it is possible we might, in certain circumstances, do more harm than good. We might, as the noble and learned Lord has put it, irritate opinion. We might possibly intensify the terrible persecution that all in Russia are suffering who owe allegiance to any form of religion whatever. That is always assuming that the policy which the noble and learned Lord has said is the settled policy of the Government is their policy. I agree, if you continue diplomatic relations with Russia, if you continue trying to avoid irritation (and that means trying to conciliate in every weak manner possible opinion in Russia) it is very likely that things that might be said in this House or in another place might lead to an intensification of the persecution.
But Russia has shown herself in the past desperately anxious for recognition. No one can doubt that it was a very great object with Russia to obtain recognition by this country, and that they would do a great deal to retain diplomatic relations. I have no hesitation in saying that in these circumstances this Government should have boldly said: "You are behaving like savages, you are intolerant, you are outside the pale of decent, civilised nations, and whatever we may have done, whatever we may have attempted to do on the falsely raised enthusiasm of a few months ago, now that
664
you have shown yourselves in these colours we will resume our freedom, we will recall our Ambassador, we will compel your representative to leave London and we will also order out of London those other Russian citizens who, for good or for ill"—and I am very much afraid it is more for ill than for good—"have been allowed to come in during the last few weeks or months." Therefore, I do not accept the idea that there is no alternative to the weak policy which I think was prevalent in your Lordships' House last week—the weak policy of saying that because we might cause intense suffering by irritating opinion there is therefore no alternative. I do not believe that. I think a bold, a dignified, a Christian policy pursued by this country would have had effect. But I go further and I say that whether it had effect or not it was the policy we ought to have pursued. It is the only policy which offers any hope of permanently improved relations with Russia, and in any ca-se it is the only policy which is reconcilable with the dignity, with the history and with the instinct of this country and its people.
I pass from that to the subject of the Third International. I tried to follow the explanation given by the noble Lord, and up to a point I agree that his explanation was not unsatisfactory, because I understood him to say that this Government had laid it down that any breach of the propaganda pledge of which the Third International might be guilty would be treated by the Government as if it were a breach by the Russian Government. I understood the noble Lord to lay that down. But that does not cover quite the whole ground. It is all very well to say we regard a breach by the Third International as equivalent to a breach by the Soviet Government, but do the Soviet Government accept that proposition? I do not think they do. My impression is that the Soviet Government have said emphatically over and over again that they will not be responsible for the actions or the words of the Third International, and as long as that position remains there is at least an ambiguity between the two Governments which cannot be regarded as satisfactory. I do not think, therefore, that in that respect the noble Lord in the least answered the case that was made earlier this afternoon by my noble friend Lord Birkenhead.

665
I do not propose at this hour to occupy your Lordships' time by reference to the Russian market, to which the noble Lord alluded towards the end of his speech. I will only say in that respect that we shall have an opportunity later on no doubt of discussing this when the question of a commercial treaty comes before your Lordships' House, and, therefore, I need not go into it in any detail now. I should like to say, however, that in regard to the Russian market I believe the Government and their supporters are labouring under the greatest possible illusion. I do not believe for a moment that there is any Russian market open to us of any very great value. To begin with there was not any Russian market of any value before the War. The whole of our exports to Russia before the War amounted to some 3 per cent. of our total exports, and, therefore, the Russian market for our manufactured articles is almost a negligible market. I believe someone who spoke with knowledge mentioned the other day that the magnitude of our Russian trade was almost exactly the same as our trade with Holland. Therefore it is a minor matter, almost a negligible matter, and when some supporters of the Government in another place talk as if there were millions and millions of orders only waiting to c pine to this country if we could arrange the finance of the transactions, I am perfectly confident that this is an entire illusion.
What happens, of course, is that these representations are made by Russian traders, or rather by the Russian Government which is the only permitted trader in that country, and it is a very easy thing to represent that an order for so many hundreds of millions of goods will be forthcoming in this country if you can only arrange a satisfactory credit, whereas everybody who thinks about the matter knows perfectly well that even if you could arrange the credit—which you could not do—you would not have the orders. The orders are not there. The Russian economic position is not such as would enable them to give large orders of that kind. Therefore do not let us delude ourselves with the thought that we are doing anything which is deleterious from the point of view of unemployment, or from the point of view of the expansion of trade, or that we could do anything that would harm us if we took the bold line
666
which I earnestly wish the Government would take of cutting off all diplomatic relations with Russia. We should not do ourselves any harm so far as trade is concerned, and from the example that we have of the United States of America it is perfectly obvious that the amount of trade that is done is not in any way dependent on the diplomatic relations one way or the other. Therefore I repeat that I think the noble Lord has dealt very unsatisfactorily, as regards the propaganda issue, the markets issue and the religious issue, with the powerful case which was made earlier by my noble friend.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I cannot help feeling that if everybody who spoke in this debate expressed his exact feelings we should discover that nobody regrets more than noble Lords sitting upon the Front Bench the return of the Bolsheviks to this country. It has been productive to them of misfortune in the past, and it will no doubt be productive of even greater misfortune to them in the future. But in this connection I cannot refrain from expressing my admiration for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, and I do not think that justice has ever been done to him with regard to this particular matter. The noble and learned Lord, in the course of a long and honourable career at the Bar, amassed, I believe, a considerable fortune, largely by defending the interests of capital in the Committee rooms upstairs, and he invested a large portion of his hard-earned gains in Russia. The moment the Bolsheviks came into power I believe they seized every penny that he possessed. Yet the noble and learned Lord bears no malice. He is the first to fling himself, so to speak, upon their necks. Personally, I am quite incapable of soaring to heights of altruism of that description. If a man had flagrantly robbed me and if I was again called upon to associate with him, I should feel rather reluctant to do so. especially if not only having robbed me in the past he now indulged in continual vituperation of me and my associates. In those circumstances I could not accord these people any hearty welcome when they returned to this country, and I cannot help thinking that that is probably the feeling that animates most of the noble Lords I am addressing at this moment.

667
I have always been struck by the fact—perhaps my impression is quite inaccurate—that neither this Government nor the previous Government nor the first Socialist Government have ever understood properly what kind of persons they were dealing with. The Bolsheviks have quite a different mentality and everything else from every other people. I confess that they always rather remind me of those unattractive members of the animal world which are pronounced to be untamable, such as boa-constrictors, alligators and so forth, who will accept food from you but show no sense of gratitude or pleasure, and who if they were able to obtain the opportunity would be only too ready to swallow their keepers and the people who look after them. That seems to my mind to be the attitude of the Bolsheviks towards the countries which offer them hospitality. I may remind the noble and learned Lord that every nation which has so to speak accorded hospitality to the Bolsheviks has suffered in turn. Take any nation that you like—Finland, Bulgaria, Turkey, France (as we have been reminded this afternoon) and Germany: they have all suffered in consequence of their action; and to that list I may even add Mexico where I believe there are many sympathizers with Bolshevist doctrines. All those countries have found the presence of Russian Missions an intolerable nuisance and have been only too pleased to get rid of them when they had the opportunity.
The only country that has got solid tangible benefit is America, and that has been done by keeping the Bolsheviks at arm's length. Considering the perpetual grovelling attitude which in this country we always assume towards America, it is somewhat surprising that we should not have had the good sense in this instance to follow their example. The proper way, in my opinion, to deal with Bolsheviks is to keep them at arm's length, to keep them away as much as possible, and if they are really anxious to return and if they show any signs of repentance, then to let them sue in forma pouperis, so to speak, and give pledges, if they are able to do so, with regard to their future behaviour. I do not think that any greater instance of ingenuous innocence has been shown than by the present Government in
668
imagining that if they resumed relations with the Bolshevist Government propaganda would cease. Propaganda is the basis of Bolshevism, and it consists in a relentless war upon all established forms of government and upon ourselves in particular. The only way in which you can carry out the real Bolshevist principle is by eternal, untiring propaganda. It is not easy to grasp this fact until you have been to Soviet Russia itself, and unfortunately it is very difficult to obtain information on the subject.
We really know very little about Soviet Russia and we are not likely to know much from the statements made from time to time by the Foreign Secretary in another place which seem to me, to put it mildly, to be of a very evasive description. We are not likely to learn much about the condition of that country in present circumstances—more especially as, if I read the Foreign Secretary's answers correctly, he is not disposed to disclose any information regarding the Soviet Government which may be distasteful to the comrades from Clydeside and elsewhere who will never believe anything to the disadvantage of their friends. But if people were able to go to Soviet Russia, not in organised groups of Socialists with opinions already formed and under the guidance of practised showmen, but as independent observers, they would find many illusions disappear. They would find that there had been a certain amount of exaggeration on both sides. They would find that Soviet Russia is not altogether the hell it has been frequently described as being, but on the other hand they would find that the so-called proletarian paradise is certainly one of the poorest and most unpleasant countries in the civilised world at the present moment.
But what they would realise, and what they could not help realising above all, is the enormous influence exerted by propaganda. Propaganda in Soviet Russia overwhelms everybody with a kind of flood. There is no getting away from it. Every agency is called in for this purpose. The Press, the arts, the theatre, the Army, and the school—all these agencies are used for the purpose of perpetually impressing upon the unfortunate inhabitants of the country that in the Bolshevist principle lies the only salvation for the individual. For something

669
like twelve or thirteen years this propaganda has been going on incessantly. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that at the present moment and for the last twelve or thirteen years Russia has been a kind of vast internment camp, a place from which it is very difficult to escape and into which it is equally difficult to penetrate. What does not pentrate there is any knowledge of the outside world, and the unfortunate subjects of the Soviet Government have been stuffed like fowls or geese for these twelve or thirteen years with the Bolshevist pabulum. They know nothing, or practically nothing, about the outside world and many of them are firmly convinced that every other country is in the depths of misery. The propaganda of which I speak consists of course, as everybody knows, of hostility to three things—hostility to capital, hostility to any form of settled government, and hostility to religion. As I hay e already explained, the people get no opportunity of learning what is going on in another country.
What amazes me and seems almost incredible is that His Majesty's Government should accept the impudent assertion of the Soviet Government, which is far and away the most despotic Government in existence at the present time, that they are unable to control the various propaganda organisations. I really do not care—it does not seem to me a matter of enormous importance—whether these organisations are controlled by the Government or not. As a matter of fact, everything is controlled by the Government, but that, to my mind, is not the point. The point is the intention, and the intention is perfectly clear. The, intention for which the Soviet Government are continually working—and they make no concealment about the fact—is the eventual overthrow of other existing forms of government, and of the British Empire in particular. That is a concise statement of their real aim; and all I can say in conclusion is that having once got rid of these people and having been foolish enough to re-admit them to this country, we shall be looked upon with derision by the rest of the civilised world, and rightly too.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE): My Lords, perhaps I may venture to
670
make a few observations before the conclusion of this debate, as it fell to my lot in 1924 to conduct the negotiations with the Soviet Government of that day. No one pretends that this is in any way an easy thing to do. I found myself in the position of a Socialist Minister, acting on behalf of a capitalist country, negotiating with a Communist Government, and my right hon. friend the present Foreign Secretary finds himself in the same position, and his path is not an easy one. As to whether it is to be made easier by the debate that has taken place here to-night remains to be seen. I do not think it is the intention of the noble and learned Earl who raised this question to-day that the path should be made easier. On the contrary, I think it is his intention that every obstacle and barrier should be put in the way of a successful reconciliation with the Soviet Government.
I could not help being grateful, on hearing the speeches of the noble and learned Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Cushendun, that they are not in charge of the conduct of diplomatic negotiations on behalf of Great Britain. I think Lord Cushendun said that he would have them in and say to them: "You are savages," and a lot of other very direct phrases. I do not know if that method of diplomacy would be likely to succeed, nor do I think that the noble and learned Earl's reference to a country with which this Government, anyhow, has declared itself to be in friendly relations, as a Government which is a dangerous and malignant power, is calculated to bring about a peaceful atmosphere in Europe and the world. There is a tendency to suppose that anything may be said about the Russians to-day, and, curiously enough, one notices that what is said about them would be just as true of the Russians before the Revolution. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, said that the Bolsheviks were different from anybody else. The mistake he made was to use the word "Bolsheviks"; he ought to have said "Russians."
LORD NEWTON: It is not the same thing.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: We talk much about propaganda. Was there no propaganda before the Revolution, in the old days of the rule of the Tsar? There was propaganda, and pro-

671
paganda of a very dangerous character—far more dangerous than anything that exists to-day. A twopenny-halfpenny newspaper produces a few hundred copies down in a slum in London, and you call that propaganda and make a great fuss about it. It is of no account whatsoever. But the propaganda of the Russian Government in days gone by made us so nervous in India, in Afghanistan, in Turkey, that steps had to be taken in order to counter their very careful and clever diplomatic intrigues, backed by the forces of the Russian Army and Navy. That was propaganda that was really dangerous.
Those who know the facts about the Communist Party in this country really cannot repress their laughter at the supposition that the propaganda of the Comintern and the Socialist International is going to have any effect whatsoever in this country. Why, you could nearly get the whole Communist Party into this Chamber. The Communist Party now, I think, amounts to about 2,000 people. It shows a considerable fall in number, and the only assistance it gets is from members of the Party opposite, who will insist on advertising it. This newspaper would have died a natural death in a week or two, but now, I believe, its circulation has revived. When a Labour Member of Parliament or politician makes a speech he is lucky if he gets two or three lines in the newspapers. When a Communist makes a speech he will get half a column, if not a whole column. They are advertised every time. The noble Viscount, who is not present to-day, Lord Brentford, when he made his great raid on Arcos, produced a fat Blue Book which provided untold advertisement for Communism, but really showed up the nakedness of the land and the folly and absurdity of supposing for a single moment that this country is in danger from Communist propaganda. We are just as likely to listen to the propaganda of Mormon missionaries over here. They are just as likely to convert us to Mormonism as these puny efforts are likely to convert this country to Communism.
When a debate of this sort takes place, when these very close questions are asked—embarrassing very often from the diplomatic point of view, when a Foreign Secretary is in the middle of negotia-
672
tions—one is obliged to look for the motive behind them. It is perfectly certain that the motive is purely political. I think it is a matter for surprise that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Birkenhead, who has such a very great reputation and whose judicial mind is well known throughout the country, should lend himself to becoming the leader of what I may call this anti-Bolshevik hysteria. It really is taking the thing in a wrong proportion and in wrong perspective. So far as I can understand, the noble and learned Earl advocates a breach with the Soviet Government. He declares that all he hears is true, and he refuses to accept any denial on their part. I admit that it is very difficult to carry on any sort of relations with people whose word you refuse to take on any subject whatever, and, since that is what he believes, his conclusion is perfectly logical—namely, that it is impossible to deal with them.
But surely there is a better way. Ought we not to face the fact that this country has made, and is still making, every endeavour for good relationships with other countries of the world? As during the last ten years or so a great spirit has grown up with a view to preventing the outbreak of war between countries in their attempts to settle international disputes, can it be right that we should cast this great nation outside the pale and refuse to have any relationships with it? From the point of view not only of diplomacy but of humanity and common sense, I believe that that would be a very disastrous policy, and I can assure noble Lords that it is not one which His Majesty's present Government intend to adopt. We may find the path difficult, but the Foreign Secretary has laid down our intentions very clearly.
My noble and learned friend has already stated that the Third International is included in our interpretation of Article 16. Lord Cushendun asked a very pertinent question. He asked: "Does the Soviet Government accept that?" I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, who said that they had repudiated time after time that interpretation. I cannot say that I have come across those repudiations. I think there was one passage in the Pravda in which the editor said that that was not the interpretation that Mr. Dovgalevsky

673
had put upon it. I think that was the only reference; but, whether that is so or not, it is sufficient for our purpose that our interpretation is perfectly clear, and we do include the activities of the Comintern; but the Foreign Secretary holds himself free to exercise his discretion and not in an hysterical way to go and break off the relations with Russia because of some article in a miserable newspaper, which is of no account whatsoever.
I differ from Lord Cushendun. He says that you can get on better with them if you keep them at arm's length. I think that was the expression used by Lord Newton. In my short experience in 1924, when on several occasions difficulties arose—cases of propaganda and cases of abuse—I was able to talk matters over with Mr. Rakovsky, and so smoothed over some of the minor difficulties in that way. The inconvenience of not having a representative of a country in this country is so great that I hope it will never be resorted to again. France has had cause for quarrel with the Soviet authorities, but France has never dismissed the Soviet Ambassador, because it is very much better to have intercourse in such a way as to be able to discuss things. After all, these Governments are here to-day and gone tomorrow in all countries, whereas the people are there all the time, and there ought to be links between peoples of all countries of a permanent character, and these channels of communication ought to be kept free and open.
The points raised were points with which we have become closely acquainted ever since the Soviet Government was established in Russia. Very deep feelings are stirred and undoubtedly great indignation is aroused. Before we have another debate on what is called the religious side of the question I hope we shall be able to have authentic information, because the atrocities I am very suspicious of. I think some of them bear a very great resemblance to the Belgian baby without hands. Some of them have been published in the Morning Post, and I very much distrust them. At any rate we know that although a service was arranged for the 300 naval officers supposed to have been shot, it was found that that report was not true.
LORD CUSHENDUN: That has not been found at all.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I think so.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: No.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I admit that to get at the truth is very difficult, because Lord Birkenhead refuses to accept any communication, or evidence, or Despatch or statement which comes from Russia.
LORD CUSHENDUN: Whose fault is it that you cannot get information from Russia?
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: The information is sent from Russia and can be given by the Ambassador in this country, but noble Lords refuse to accept what he says, and so it is very difficult indeed to get information. But I hope we are not going to get hysterical about it, and believe every little snippet reproduced in the Press, which is there to get some sort of stick with which to beat the present Government. That is the underlying motive, and we see through it and understand it, and when we saw the Motion on the Paper we recognised how authentic our view was.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, I shall not trouble you for more than a moment at this late period of the evening. I retain some recollection of the admiration felt by a certain section of thought in another place for the lecturing capacities possessed by the noble Lord. He has been good enough to indulge in them to-night. As far as I am concerned, he will give me leave to tell him that the majority of the observations which he has made are entirely ill-founded, and 'his inferences without the slightest warrant. I have not brought forward this Motion with any political purpose. I am outside active politics. I have a position as a Peer of Parliament which entitles me to raise any subject of foreign affairs, on a discussion which I think on the whole to be requisite in the interests of this country. So far as the Socialist Government are concerned, I am no particular enemy of it. If they will avoid increasing the numbers of the unemployed by 100,000 a week, if they will leave me something to live on when they

675
come to their next Budget, and if I still find a Navy and an Egypt and an India in existence when they go out of office, I shall have no quarrel at all with them; and I entirely resent the suggestion which underlies the observations made by the noble Lord.
And his tone as a lecturer, it seems to me, might have been somewhat abated by the historical facts of which he himself thought proper to remind us. I suppose most of us had forgotten them, if we ever knew them. He tells us that he negotiated the first Treaty with Bolshevist Russia. I have not the slightest doubt that at the time when he negotiated that Treaty he was convinced that they would not indulge in propaganda. Either he was or he was not. If he was convinced he was made a fool of; if he was not convinced he betrayed his duty to this country by recommending that we should enter into diplomatic relations with them. There is no escape from that dilemma. The truth, of course, is that the noble Lord was completely deceived by those whom he pompously invites us to-day to accept as faithful and rather agreeable acquaintances. The noble Lord was completely deceived by them, and the result was that in the Election which very shortly followed one of the most aggravating circumstances which contributed to the happy decease of that Government was the very fact that the noble Lord had made such an incompetent Treaty that the Zinoviev letter was disclosed at the relevant moment. [Laughter.]
Noble Lords think it perhaps a little more humorous now than they did at the time. They might realise—though they may not be aware of a circumstance so inconsiderable—that I happened to be on two Committees which investigated this matter and four other Zinoviev letters identical in tenor with this one, were discovered. And, believe me, it is démodé now to doubt the authenticity of the Zinoviev letter. It is not even done in Russia. The noble Lord is three years behind the time. Having been completely deceived on one occasion, the noble Lord might be well advised not to come and accuse us of hysteria because we think nothing good about the Bolsheviks. You might think, from what the noble Lord said—it was not "peccadilloes," but a
676
more dignified word; "snippets" I think was his description—of any unfavourable judgment which the partial eye of the noble Lord is able to discern of his Russian friends, that during the period of his efforts which were so happily crowned by fruition, when he had discussions with the Russian representatives he was often able to influence them, that the kindly relationship, the friendly social appreciation that sprang up between the noble Lord and the temporary guests, as they were on that occasion, was of advantage to the State. Well, all I can say is, in the first place, that they treated him with the most absolute contempt, that they broke every promise that they had made to him, so that his own Leader had to point it out in that famous letter which I believe is called No. 16—his own Leader had to point out that he could no longer be deceived. It seems to amuse the noble Lord, but what I say is I think not susceptible to challenge. In Number 16 the then Prime Minister—
LORD PARMOOR: The Prime Minister's letter of 1924?
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: Yes, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. He points out most distinctly that this contention was not a contention put forward in good faith, or one that could be accepted. Obviously, it had been accepted by the noble Lord. And what guarantee have we, who are the recipients of these lectures, that the same mistake has not been made to-day? We have, on the contrary, every reason to suppose that it has. And in neither speech has there been the slightest answer to the main point in my speech, and the main point in the speech of my noble friend Lord Cushendun. It is this, that at this moment we are in the supremely dangerous position that the Government of this country believes it has entered into a grave negotiation upon one basis, and the Government of the negotiating party believes, or states, that it has entered into that negotiation upon an entirely different basis. The noble Lord is entirely wrong in what he says that this statement has been confined to one paper, the Pravda, which, with very great lack of knowledge, he describes as an obscure organ.
Loan PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I never did.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: Well, if the noble Lord reads the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will see; he may have been referring to the opinion which he had of the Daily Worker. There, again, the noble Lord's treatment of this paper was very characteristic. The noble Lord has the advantage over most of us of knowing everything. He says that paper would have ceased to exist if it had not been for the advertisement that was given to it. How does the noble Lord know whether it would have ceased to exist or not? He admits that its circulation has grown. Has there ever been a Communist paper in this country which could get as much Moscow money as it wanted which has ceased to exist? Why should it cease to exist? It is its only means of livelihood, and it is very likely to continue until the financial contributions are withdrawn.
And when the noble Lord represents that I am willing to believe nothing which can be said on behalf of the Bolsheviks, and I am willing to believe everything that is stated against them, the noble Lord does me great injustice. The moment I can obtain any reliable evidence in support of any official statement made by the Soviet Government I am prepared to accept it and to consider it; but there is no reliable evidence forthcoming, because they have made themselves an inaccessible country, because they dare not face the consequences which would be produced upon the mind of the world if the actual conditions ruling in that country became known. The noble Lord and his friends can go there. I do not know whether the noble Lord has been himself, but their Russian hosts perfectly understand alike their mentality and their gullibility. There is always hospitality waiting for them, carefully arranged houses, and Courts of Justices, and hospitals, and schools—all known as "the tourists' round." Who else can go? What independent witness can collect evidence as to what is taking place in Soviet Russia to-day?
I cannot believe that a dangerous situation has not been created by this disparity of view as to the meaning of these negotiations; and when the noble Lord, imputing, a little unusually, motives in this matter, says that I introduced the subject of this debate in order to damage relations between this country and
678
Russia, he is partially accurate. I will explain the range of his accuracy. I am convinced that in existing conditions we shall sustain nothing but injury, humiliation, constant, futile and dangerous controversy, by offering diplomatic hospitality to these people in this country. And my object in raising this debate is to call the attention of Parliament, and, as far as I can, of the country to the mentality of these people, with a view to terminating these relations. I have never put forward any other view, or any other purpose. And when the noble Lord establishes a comparison between pre-War Russia and the Bolshevist system, when he corrects my noble friend Lord Cushendun for using the word "Bolshevik" and says he should use the word "Russian," surely the noble Lord knows that hardly one in a hundred of the governing and influential Bolsheviks is Russian; and ill indeed and superficially has that man read history who, with all the faults, the admitted faults, of the pre-War Russian régime, attempts to establish a sincere and honest comparison between the faults of that régime, such as they were, and the crimes, the negation of all civilisation, of all conscience, which have rendered and will render the régime which at the present moment discredits and disgraces Russia, the most unworthy, perhaps the most criminal, in the history of the world. After the noble and learned Lord has been courteous enough to call my attention to the several Papers, I ask the leave of your Lordships to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, before moving the adjournment of your Lordships' House may I say that I propose to move it until Wednesday next as there is nothing on the Order Paper for Tuesday. I do not know whether the noble Marquess (Lord Salisbury) has any objection to offer? Then, subject to judicial business, I move the adjournment of the House until next Wednesday.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before seven o'clock.