Sitting of 8 May 1930

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Bristol Corporation (No. 2) Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.
Malvern Hills Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Read a Second time, and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    GERMAN ENGINEERS.
    Mr. HOFFMANasked the Minister of Labour if she is aware that three Germans who were given permits to enter employment in this country as engineers are now engaged as scissors grinders with a Sheffield firm (George Westonholme's); if the union concerned has been consulted on the matter; if she is aware that men capable of performing the work these men are engaged upon are signing on at the Employment Exchange; and whether she proposes to take any steps in the matter?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): In January, 1930, permits were issued to employ for limited periods two German engineers, for the purpose of erecting and perfecting new machinery for grinding and finishing scissors, which has been designed and patented by their father. It is understood that the work is in the experimental stage. When this stage is past, British subjects will be taught to operate the machines, the use of which will, it is anticipated, lead to the employment of further British subjects.

    REPAIR WORK (AMERICAN SHIPS).
    Mr. ALBERYasked the Minister of Labour whether she is aware that complaints are still made that British workmen employed on American ships for repair work do not always have their employment
    1098
    cards stamped and are subsequently unable to obtain unemployment benefit; and if she will take steps to remedy this?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I am not aware of any cases of the kind referred to by the hon. Member, but if he will send me particulars, I will make inquiries.

    YOUTHS.
    Miss LEEasked the Minister of Labour (I) the number and percentage of unemployed young men and women under 21 years of age;
    (2) if any estimate has been made by her Department of the number of young persons under 21 years of age who are unemployed but not in an insurable occupation?
    Miss BONDFIELD: At 24th March, 1930, there were 219,618 unemployed persons under 21 years of age on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain, of whom 181,340 were insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts and 38,278 were not insured. The unemployed insured persons aged 16–20, inclusive, represented 7.3 per cent. of the total number of insured persons of those ages. A corresponding percentage cannot be given in respect of those who were not insured against unemployment. I am unable to say how many unemployed young persons under 21 years of age there may be who have not registered at Employment Exchanges.

    DOMESTIC AND AGRICULTURAL WORKERS (INSURANCE).
    Miss LEEasked the Minister of Labour when she proposes to introduce legislation with a view to including domestic service and agricultural work as insurable occupations?
    Mr. GOULDasked the Minister of Labour what progress has been made in regard to the provision of unemployed insurance for agricultural workers; and when she expects to be able to make an announcement thereon?
    Miss BONDFIELD: As regards domestic service, I have no proposals at present in contemplation for the extension of the unemployment insurance scheme to cover such domestic servants as are excluded by the present Acts. As regards agriculture, I would refer my hon.

    1099
    Friends to the reply which I gave on 1st May to the hon. Member for Crewe (Mr. Bowen).
    Miss LEE: Is the right hon. Lady aware that many women have been forced into domestic service who previously have had years of service and insurance in other industries, and that they are now unable to get back to their former jobs or yet to claim insurance benefit, and cannot something be done to press forward this legislation?
    Miss BONDFIELD: If my hon. Friend has any specific cases, I shall be glad if she will let me have details of them.
    Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: Is there any appreciable amount of unemployment in domestic service?
    Mr. BROCKWAY: Have any further steps been taken regarding the possibility of the insurance of agricultural workers?
    Miss BONDFIELD: There is another question on the Paper.
    Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: Is the supply of domestic servants up to the demand?
    Miss BONDFIELD: No, the demand still exceeds the supply.
    Miss LEE: The question is not one of domestic service. The question is that girls in insurable occupations are forced against their will into domestic service and thereby cut out, of benefit.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Labour what steps have been taken to carry out the Report of the Committee on Domestic Service, 1923, suggesting that the artificial distinction between various types of domestic workers should be obliterated as far as possible by bringing all female domestic workers, wherever employed, under a scheme of insurance in addition to national health insurance; and that, in the case of women and girls in private domestic employment, there should be as an alternative to unemployment benefit a scheme whereby a pension of 15s. a week should be obtainable at the age of 55 and should continue until the old age pension becomes payable, when it should be reduced by the amount of that pension, and that contributors to the pension scheme
    1100
    should have the option of a cash payment on marriage in lieu of pension?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I do not contemplate the extension of unemployment insurance to private domestic service. I would remind the hon. Member that the suggestion of the Committee on Domestic Service as regards pensions has been met to some extent by the provision of pensions at the age of 65 for persons insured under the National Health Insurance Act.
    Mr. MANDER: Have the Government any policy at all for domestic service?

    TRAINING CENTRES.
    Dr. HUNTERasked the Minister of Labour whether it is proposed to maintain the farms at Carstairs, Brandon and Claydon as Government training centres for emigrants to the Dominions; and, if not, what the Government proposes to do with these centres?
    Miss BONDFIELD: So far as the centres referred to by the hon. Member may not be required for training men for employment in the Dominions, it is proposed, for the time being, to utilise them so far as may be practicable as training and transfer instructional centres at which men will receive courses of instruction to fit them for employment in this country.
    Earl WINTERTON: Does that apply to serving Service men who are given instructional courses before their service is up?
    Miss BONDFIELD: That is a different question.

    WORK SCHEMES (LONDON).
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Minister of Labour whether, in the case of those borough councils of London who had not in February last accepted the Ministry's works schemes to absorb numbers of the unemployed in their respective districts, she has endeavoured to induce them to put the same into operation and, if so, with what result; and whether any further councils have now agreed to assist the unemployed in this way?
    Miss BONDFIELD: A further approach was made in March last in the case of those London metropolitan borough councils entitled to grants for relief works on a transfer basis which

    1101
    had not availed themselves of the terms offered, but so far, there has been no response.
    Sir K. WOOD: Is the right hon. Lady going on with her efforts in that direction?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Certainly.

    FOREST WORKERS (INSURANCE).
    Mr. FRANK OWENasked the Minister of Labour if it is the intention of the Government to bring in legislation to include workers employed by the Forestry Commission as an insurable trade; and, if so, when such legislation will be introduced?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Consideration will be given to this question in connection with the examination of the possibility of the application of unemployment insurance to agriculture.
    Mr. OWEN: Is the right hon. Lady aware that a considerable number of men have now been paid off, and that there is very real distress among the skilled workers, and will she bear that in mind and expedite this legislation?

    PENSIONER WORKERS.
    Mr. SINKINSONasked the Minister of Labour if she will consider legislation for the compulsory withdrawal from industry of all people in receipt of adequate pensions?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I do not think such a penalty, even if it would be practicable to enforce it, could fairly be imposed on persons who have become entitled to pensions without such a restriction attached to them.
    Mr. McSHANE: Is not the right hon. Lady aware that there are many cases where people who have an entirely adequate pension to keep them in comfortable circumstances are engaging in situations which might well be left to others?

    INSURANCE (GERMANY).
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Minister of Labour whether any officials of her Department are now visiting or have recently visited Germany for the purpose of examining the system of unemploymeut insurance there; and, if so, whether it is proposed to make their report available to Members?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Three officers of my Department recently paid a short visit to Germany to study the methods of dock labour engagement, and certain aspects of the placing machinery in the German Employment Exchanges. As their inquiries related to points of detail affecting departmental machinery, I do not propose to publish their report.

    COURT OF REFEREES, BRIDGETON.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Minister of Labour (1) the number of workers' representatives who have acted as members of the court of referees since the new Act came into operation to the latest available date at Bridgeton Employment Exchange, Glasgow; and the number of times each of them has been summoned to act as a member of the court;
    (2) the number of claims at Bridgeton Employment Exchange, Glasgow, which have been decided by incomplete courts of referees consisting of one and two persons, respectively, since the coming into operation of the new Act to the latest available date; the number of claims which have been refused; and the number refused without the claimant being given the right of appeal to the umpire?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I have asked for the information which my hon. Friend desires, and I will communicate with him as soon as I can.

  TRADE BOARDS.

    CATERING TRADE.
    Mr. McSHANEasked the Minister of Labour whether she is now in a position to make a statement with regard to the proposed establishment of a trade board for the catering trade?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I have arranged to receive deputations from employers' associations in the trade next week at their request, and hope very soon afterwards to come to a decision.

    GROCERY TRADE.
    Mr. HOFFMANasked the Minister of Labour when she proposed to reconstitute the Grocery Trade Board?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I am not in possession of evidence that satisfies me that it is desirable to re-establish the Grocery Trade Board.

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Minister of Labour the number of workers at present covered by the various trade boards and the lowest minimum wage of an adult male and female worker, respectively, sanctioned by such trade boards?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The number of workers covered by trade boards is estimated to be approximately 1,300,000. The lowest general minimum time rates fixed for adult workers are for males a rate of 39s. 1d. per week of 48 hours for certain workers in the jute trade; and for females 24s. per week for women engaged in the flax and hemp trade and in the drift net mending trade. There is a minimum rate of 22s. for women engaged in the manufacture of aerated waters in the Orkneys and Shetlands.

    Country.

    Towns covered.

    Index numbers based on food.

    Index numbers based on food, fuel, light and soap.

    (a) Based on hourly time rates of wages.

    Great Britain

    …

    London, Birmingham, Bristol, Glasgow, Leeds, Manchester, Newcastle.

    100

    100

    Austria

    …

    Vienna, Graz, Linz

    53

    52

    France

    …

    Paris, Bordeaux, Lyons, Marseilles

    59

    58

    Germany

    …

    Berlin, Breslau, Hamburg, Cologne, Leipzig, Munich.

    77

    77

    Italy

    …

    Rome, Bologna, Brescia, Genoa, Milan, Turin, Trieste.

    51

    43

    Netherlands

    …

    The Hague, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Utrecht.

    89

    87

    (b) Based on actual earnings.*

    Czechoslovakia

    …

    Prague, Bratislava, Brno

    77

    74

    Denmark

    …

    Copenhagen

    112

    112

    Poland

    …

    Warsaw, Katowitz, Lodz, Poznan

    68

    65

    Sweden

    …

    Stockholm, Gothenburg, Malmo

    115

    113

    * These index numbers would be somewhat lower if based on a figure of actual earnings in Great Britain instead of on time rates of wages.

    The above index numbers are subject to certain reservations, which are explained in the "International Labour Review"; in particular they are based on the wages of workers in a limited number of towns, industries, and occupations, and no account is taken of differences in the relative costs of housing

  WAGES.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Minister of Labour what is the latest information she has as to the index number of comparative real wages in the principal European industrial countries, taking the British index as 100, and relating to the food-purchasing power of the average hourly time rate of wages in the leading occupations in the respective countries?
  Miss BONDFIELD: As the reply is rather long and contains a number of figures, I propose with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the reply:
  Comparisons of real wages in January, 1930, prepared by the International Labour Office in respect of most of the principal European industrial countries are given in the issue of the "International Labour Review" for April, 1930. The index numbers, taking Great Britain as 100, are as follow:
  accommodation, clothing, and various other items of working-class expenditure.

  CO-OPERATION IN INDUSTRY.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Labour if she is prepared to take steps to place her Department in a position

  1105
  to take the initiative in stimulating, encouraging, and giving active advice to employers on the subject of the formation of works councils, pension schemes, suggestion, co-partnership and profit-sharing schemes?
  Miss BONDFIELD: My Department is always ready to supply information and advice on such matters, but in my view the initiative should rest with the representatives of employers and work-people concerned.
  Mr. MANDER: Is not the right hon. Lady aware that under previous Governments a great deal of initiative has been displayed by her Department, and can she not come up to the same standard of previous Governments in this respect?
  Miss BONDFIELD: The very essence of success of these councils depends upon their voluntary agreements.

  WORKERS (ECONOMIC STANDARDS).
  Mr. RAMSBOTHAMasked the Minister of Labour if she possesses reliable statistics on the economic standard of workers in countries which compete with our workers in respect of tenders issued by local authorities and railway companies; if so, whether she proposes to supply such information when desired by these bodies; and, if not, whether she will obtain the information?
  Miss BONDFIELD: As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, the International Labour Office periodically publish statistics as to money wages, retail prices and, subject to certain reservations, the relative levels of real wages in Great Britain and a number of countries oversea. The Ministry of Labour is in possession of these and such other statistics as have been published by that Office and by the official statistical authorities in the principal countries oversea, bearing on working-class conditions and standards of labour, and is prepared to supply such information, so far as available, in response to requests from local authorities and railway companies.
  Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Will the right hon. Lady bring these figures to the
  1106
  notice of local authorities and railway companies, as advised by the Lord Privy Seal recently?
  Miss BONDFIELD: They are entirely at their service.
  Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: Will the right hon. Lady, either herself or through her colleagues, recommend that the standard of the Fair Wages Clause be applied with regard to tenders from foreign countries as well as to tenders in this country?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I must have notice of that question.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDasked the Minister of Labour whether she will make available for Members of Parliament copies of the Italian Bill recently promulgated which deals with hours of employment; and also English translations of the Bill?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I will arrange to have copies of the Bill, with a translation, placed in the Library of the House as soon as possible.
  Sir A. POWNALL: Can the right hon. Lady say how far this Bill has gone; whether it has become law or whether it will become law in the near future?
  Miss BONDFIELD: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question.
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Minister of Labour the approximate number of workers in Great Britain whose hours of labour will be reduced in the event of the Industrial Employment Bill becoming law?
  Miss BONDFIELD: Information is not available as to the numbers of work-people whose working hours are in excess of those which will be permissible if the Hours of Industrial Employment Bill becomes law. Some statistics for the year 1924 as to the proportions of work-people, in a large number of industries, whose normal working week exceeded 48 hours as shown by the results of a special inquiry made by the Ministry of Labour, are published on page 117 of the "Nineteenth Abstract of Labour Statistics" (Cmd. 3140).
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Minister of Labour whether she will lay upon the Table of the House, in

  1107
  respect of countries which have ratified the Washington Hours Convention other than Great Britain, the texts and translations of legislative proposals to give effect to the terms of that convention?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I have under consideration proposals for the publication of certain foreign legislative measures which will, I think, contain the information desired by the hon. Member.
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Can the right hon. Lady say when this information is likely to be published?
  Miss BONDFIELD: As soon as possible.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Lady also include the countries which are waiting for us to ratify before themselves legislating?
  Sir A. POWNALL: Can the right hon. Lady assure us that this information will be available before the House discusses the Bill on the Motion for the Second Reading?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Can the right hon. Lady tell us whether they are unconditional ratifications and, if not, what reservation has been attached?
  Captain PETER MACDONALD: Have other countries which have signed the Treaty placed the same interpretation upon it as we do?
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Lady aware that we are being bombarded by the Chambers of Commerce asking us to hold up the present Bill until other countries have ratified, and, therefore, can we have the information as soon as possible?
  Miss BONDFIELD: My hon. and gallant Friend should put down a question.
  Mr. ROSBOTHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether in connection with the Government's efforts to reduce unemployment, any instructions have been given in his Department that, in accepting tenders for the supply of foodstuffs to institutions under its control, preference must be given to home produce and regard must be had to the economic standard of the workers in competing countries?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes): Preference is given to borne produce but, as I stated in answer to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for the Sudbury Division (Colonel Burton) on the 4th December last, financial and other considerations render it impracticable to limit supplies entirely to such produce.
  Sir BASIL PETOasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that instructions have been issued to local authorities and railway companies, in accepting tenders, to give a preference to British products and to take into consideration the economic standard of the workers in competing countries, the same principles will be embodied in the measures to be introduced to give effect to the Government's agricultural policy?
  Mr. RAMSBOTHAMasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the advice of the Lord Privy Seal to local authorities and railway companies that in accepting tenders they must not only give a preference to British products but must take into consideration the economic standards of the workers in competing countries, he will consider the possibility of helping agriculturists by advocating wherever possible the preferential use of British products?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): One of the principal aims of the Government's agricultural policy has been, and is, to encourage and assist the improved marketing of British agricultural products.
  Sir B. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a definite reply to my question? In view of the fact that the Lord Privy Seal is sitting beside him, will he try to reconcile the policy for other industries in this country, which is being announced by the Lord Privy Seal, with that of His Majesty's Government in relation to agriculture?
  Dr. ADDISON: My answer is perfectly consistent, and I am sure that the Lord Privy Seal is capable of answering for himself.
  Mr. SKELTON: How can a thing that does not exist have a name?
  Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Has the right hon. Gentleman been in communication with the Secretary of State for War about this matter?
  Dr. ADDISON: That does not appear to arise out of the question.
  Mr. RAMSBOTHAMasked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in view of his advice to local authorities and railway companies that, in accepting tenders, they must not only give a preference to British products but must take into consideration the economic standards of the workers in competing countries, he will recommend that other Government Departments should issue similar instructions in regard to the supply of foodstuffs to all public institutions of any sort?
  The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE:
  87. To ask the Lord Privy Seal the terms of the instructions he has given to local authorities and railway companies that in accepting tenders they should not only give a preference to British products but also take into consideration the economic standard of the workers in competing countries?
  88. To ask the Lord Privy Seal whether, in advising local authorities and railway companies in accepting tenders to take into consideration the economic standard of the workers in competing countries, he has considered how these local authorities and railway companies are to obtain reliable statistics on the subject; and whether they are to make inquiries from the Board of Trade to secure the information?
  The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I will with the hon. Member's permission answer these three questions together.
  It is one of the conditions of the Government grants made to local authorities in respect of schemes of work to relieve unemployment that all materials required for such schemes are, so far as practicable, to be of United Kingdom origin and all manufactured articles of United Kingdom manufacture, subject to such exceptions as the Department or Committee dealing with the particular case may find to be desirable, having regard to all the circumstances, including
  1110
  the comparative price of British and foreign articles. In addition, in circulars issued by the Ministry of Health and the Scottish Office local authorities have been urged to apply the same principles in the case of all contracts entered into by them, whether or not such contracts are in respect of services which are aided by Government grants. Further, departmental instructions have been issued to the various Departments and Committees dealing with Government grants, including grants to railway companies, that in considering any exception to British goods or manufactures they should bear in mind among other things any evidence that may be available as to the wages and conditions of labour in the foreign country concerned compared with those existing in this country. As regards the source from which this information may be obtained I would refer the hon. Member for Willesden East (Mr. D. G. Somerville) to the reply given to-day by the Minister of Labour to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Ramsbotham).
  As regards the second part of question 89 I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on a similar subject by the Minister of Health to the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) on 6th March, 1930.
  Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman give specific instructions of that nature with regard to gloves and lace?
  Mr. THOMAS: I know of no Govern-grant under the Development Act for the purchase of gloves.
  Mr. BRACKEN: Does not the Minister believe that it would help industry at Nottingham if he and his colleagues would purchase lace to decorate themselves when in their uniforms?
  Duchess of ATHOLL: Could the right hon. Gentleman extend the instruction to local authorities and other bodies in such a way as to secure preference for United Kingdom labour?
  Mr. THOMAS: I should hope that would be the first consideration. I know of no grant that was not specifically intended for that purpose.
  Mr. LAMBERTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in connection with the Government's efforts to reduce unemployment, any instructions

  1111
  have been given in his Department that preference must be given in supplies for the Navy at home stations to meat of home origin and to flour milled from home-grown wheat; and that in the case of all foodstuffs regard must be had in accepting tenders to the economic standard of the workers in competing countries?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): The answers are in the negative. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply, given on 27th November last (OFFICIAL RAPORT, column 1444).
  Mr. LAMBERT: Has the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty seen the statement made by the Lord Privy Seal at Derby the other day to the effect that preference must be given by the Department to home-grown products?
  Captain CROOKSHANK: Has the hon. Gentleman noted the interest taken by the Liberal party in this question?

  COST-OF-LIVING INDEX FIGURE.
  Mr. HARDIEasked the Minister of Labour the cost-of-living figure this month as compared with the same period a year ago and the figure of July, 1914?
  Miss BONDFIELD: The cost-of-living figure for 1st May is in course of compilation and will be published on 17th May. The figure for 1st April showed an increase of 57 per cent. over the level of July, 1914; the corresponding percentage for 1st April, 1929, was 62.
  Sir K. WOOD (for Mr. A. M. SAMUEL)asked the Minister of Labour the reason why the index figure of the cost of living is calculated for current Government purposes at 70 above 1913, in view of the fact that the "Times" index figure of wholesale commodity prices at 1st May, 1930, recorded only 19 points above 1913; and will she state the index figure for retail commodity prices as at 1st May, 1930 (1913=100)?
  Miss BONDFIELD: The cost-of-living index number for 1st April was 57 per cent. above the level of July, 1914, which is the date taken for the pre-War cost of living comparison, figures for 1913 not being available. The index number
  1112
  for 1st May is in course of preparation and will be published on 17th May. As regards the reason for the difference between the wholesale prices index numbers and the cost-of-living index number, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by the President of the Board of Trade on 29th April.

  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.

    STAFFORDSHIRE.
    Mr. LOVAT-FRASERasked the Minister of Labour if she will consider the desirability of establishing a new Employment Exchange nearer the coal area of Pelsall, Heath End, and Rushall, in Staffordshire, than the one that now serves that area?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I am having inquiry made and, if I may, will communicate direct with my hon. Friend.

    LIVERPOOL.
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Minister of Labour if any further progress has been made in acquiring a site for a new Employment Exchange in the Everton division of Liverpool?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Plans of a new building for the Walton Employment Exchange have been approved, but some delay is being experienced in connection with the conveyance of the site.

    STOWMARKET.
    Mr. F. OWEN (for Mr. GRANVILLE)asked the Minister of Labour if she is aware of the inadequacy of the staff and buildings of the Stowmarket Employment Exchange; and if she will take steps to improve them upon a permanent basis?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I am fully alive to the position at Stowmarket, and have taken steps to deal with it. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has already informed the hon. Member that he will be happy to discuss the matter further with him if he so desires.

  INDECENT PICTURE POSTCARDS.
  Mr. DAYasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the display of indecent picture postcards

  1113
  in certain shop windows; and whether he has taken any action?
  Mr. CLYNES: A few picture postcards alleged to be indecent were recently sent to me, and I have forwarded them to the local police for consideration.
  Mr. DAY: Have the local police taken any action in this case?
  Mr. CLYNES: I have no information that action has been taken.

  AMUSEMENT MACHINES (INSPECTION).
  Mr. DAYasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to an accident which occurred to a machine known as the big thriller, a figure-of-eight railway, in the North Parade Amusement Park, Skegness, Lincolnshire, on 21st April, which seriously injured several people; and whether any Regulations exist for the regular examination of machines of this kind by inspectors either under the authority of the Home Office or local authorities?
  Mr. CLYNES: I have no information about this accident other than what has appeared in the Press. So far as I am aware there is no general law which requires or empowers any public authority to test this kind of construction.

  SUBVERSIVE PROPAGANDA (HOUNSLOW BARRACKS).
  Sir K. WOODasked the Home Secretary whether any proceedings have been taken against the printers and publishers of the pamphlet distributed on 12th April to soldiers at Hounslow Barracks, and which called upon them to refuse to attend church parades, to form barrack committees, and to refuse to obey orders?
  Mr. CLYNES: No, Sir. This matter was discussed in the Debate yesterday, and I have nothing to add to the statement which I made then.
  Sir K. WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this was a case where the court ordered the destruction of the leaflets, and is he not going to take any action in the circumstances against the publishers and printers?
  Mr. CLYNES: I realise all that, and I have explained the reasons why I took no further action.

  VIVISECTION.
  Mr. FREEMANasked the Home Secretary whether any applications for licences to experiment on animals under the Cruelty to Animals Act of 1876 have been rejected by his Department during the 10 years ended 31st December, 1929; if so, how many; whether any such rejections were on the grounds that the experiments to be performed thereunder would involve suffering to the animals to be experimented upon; and, if so, how many?
  Mr. CLYNES: Applications for licences are refused and certificates are disallowed from time to time for various reasons, but I am not in a position to give the information specified in the question. This could only be procured by a laborious examination of the files relating to vivisection; and I should not feel justified in directing such an inquiry to be made.
  Mr. FREEMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider withholding licences for further experiments which have been proved over a long period of time to be useless for the purposes in view, such as in the case of cancer.

  RUSSIA.

    RUSSIAN SUBJECTS (ARCOS).
    Sir A. POWNALLasked the Home Secretary what action he is taking with regard to the continued stay in this country of the Russian subjects who have been till recently in the employment of Arcos or other similar firms?
    Mr. CLYNES: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the full statement which I made last night in the course of the Debate on the Home Office Vote.
    Mr. SMITHERS: Are these 11 men late employés of Arcos, who are still in this country, under police supervision, do they have to report periodically to the police and are their present addresses known to the police?
    Mr. CLYNES: Last night I gave ouch information as I had upon these points, and the hon. Member will find it all in the report of the Debate.

    DEPORTATIONS.
    Sir A. POWNALLasked the Home Secretary if he has now come to a decision with regard to the Russian subjects recommended for deportation?
    Mr. CLYNES: I can only repeat that application is being made in proper cases to the Soviet Government for the recognition of such aliens as I have reason to think may be Soviet citizens.

  EDUCATION.

    PARENTS' NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL UNION (GLOUCESTERSHIRE).
    Mr. LOVAT-FRASERasked the President of the Board of Education if he is satisfied with the methods of teaching of the Parents' National Educational Union adopted in the County of Gloucester; and if he is prepared to hold an inquiry into these methods?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Sir Charles Trevelyan): I have no reason to be dissatisfied with the results of the teaching in the schools in Gloucestershire where the methods of the Parents' National Educational Union are followed. I do not, therefore, propose to hold an inquiry into these methods.
    Mr. McSHANE: Have any complaints been made to the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the County of Gloucester in this respect?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: I have not heard of any complaints.

    MIXED SCHOOLS (REORGANISATION).
    Mr. LOVAT-FRASERasked the President of the Board of Education if he will require that in all mixed schools, where reorganisation for children over 11 years of age into a separate department is impossible, all children over 11 years of age shall be placed in a separate division with suitable schemes, time tables, apparatus, and books?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: The Board's aim is to secure that all children at the age of 11 are transferred to a fresh school or department. Where this is for the time
    1116
    being impracticable, the aim is, as my hon. Friend suggests, to secure at that age an effective break in organisation and curriculum within the school.

    WOMEN TEACHERS.
    Dr. VERNON DAVIESasked the President of the Board of Education if he has reached any decision as to the age at which it is inadvisable for boys to be taught by women teachers?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: No, Sir. Discretion in this matter rests with the local education authorities.
    Dr. DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many schoolmasters in the country hold definite views on this point, and would welcome an expression of opinion from the right hon. Gentleman?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: It is possible.
    Dr. DAVIESasked the President of the Board of Education (1) if he has any statistics as to the health of men and women teachers; and is there any evidence to show that the health of women teachers is not as good as that of men teachers;
    (2) if he can express in percentages of the number of teachers employed in either sex the 347 men and 1,609 women teachers who were granted infirmity allowance for the three years ending 31st March, 1930; and if these allowances were for life or for a limited period of time?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: The infirmity allowances awarded in the three years ended 31st March, 1930, represent in the case of men 0.2 per cent. of the total number of teachers employed, and in the case of women 0.4 per cent. These allowances are awarded for life. These figures show that a higher percentage of women qualify for infirmity allowances; but I have no other evidence which would justify me in drawing a comparison between the sexes in the matter of health.
    Dr. DAVIES: Will the President of the Board of Education bear these statistics in mind when he is considering the extra number of teachers who will be required when the school age is raised?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: Yes, Sir.

    AIR FORCE DISPLAY, HENDON (SCHOOL CHILDREN'S VISIT).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the President of the Board of Education whether the same facilities as before are to be given for school children to visit the Hendon Royal Air Force display this year?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: No special facilities are provided by the Board of Education, but local education authorities may arrange for the attendance of parties of children at the display.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the President of the Board of Education seen the programme of the display this year?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: I have not.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman see it in due course?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: I imagine so.

    OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the President of the Board of Education how many schools receiving grants from public funds maintain officers training corps for the schoolboys?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: There are contingents of the Officers Training Corps in 74 grant-aided secondary schools in England and Wales.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the right hon. Gentleman power to intervene if he feels that the standard of education is interfered with?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The President of the Board of Education is responsible for the expenditure of public money, and I thought he would have power to intervene.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I said that that point does not arise out of this question. The hon. and gallant Member only asks for the number.

    SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE.
    Duchess of ATHOLLasked the President of the Board of Education how many married women teachers or teachers
    1118
    over 60 years of age, additional to present requirements, will be available and regarded as suitable for employment by the Board and the local education authorities at 1st April, 1931, assuming that the school age is raised at that date?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: I am afraid that I cannot add anything to the answer which I gave to the Noble Lady on the 27th March.
    Duchess of ATHOLLasked the President of the Board of Education the number of additional teachers required on 1st April, 1931, 1st September, 1931, 1st January, 1932, and on 1st April of each year from 1932 to 1938, inclusive, in the event of the school-leaving age being raised as from 1st April, 1931; how many of these teachers will be class teachers; how many teachers of special subjects, such as various forms of handcraft and physical training; and what is the average salary assumed payable to such teachers?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: I have not yet received full returns from local education authorities on this matter; moreover, the reorganisation of elementary schools will be proceeding with varying degrees of rapidity in different parts of the country for some time to come. In these circumstances, I am not in a position to give an estimate of the numbers of additional teachers who will be required on the dates mentioned in the question, either as class teachers or as teachers of special subjects. The average salary of adult full-time teachers is £246 8s. per annum.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not the case that he told a meeting outside this House some weeks ago that many thousands of teachers would be required when the school age was raised; and is the House not entitled to have as much information as is given to outside bodies, and ought we not to be informed as to the number which will be needed?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: I never gave any specific number. Everybody knows that many thousands will be wanted, and I was only stating what is a matter of common knowledge.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: Will the right hon. Gentleman soon be in a position to state exactly what he meant by "many thousands"?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: I will give the House, as soon as I can, specific information, but it is quite impossible at present to make a definite estimate.

    REORGANISATION (COST).
    Duchess of ATHOLLasked the President of the Board of Education whether the estimate of £2,500,000 given in the Financial Memorandum to the Education School Attendance Bill as the estimated total cost of extra teaching staff, accommodation, maintenance of buildings, etc., for the proposed additional age group includes the cost of the reorganisation of elementary schools throughout England and Wales; and, if not, what he estimates the total cost will be, allowing for the cost of such reorganisation?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, I am not at present in a position to frame an estimate of the cost of the reorganisation of elementary schools in England and Wales.

    MILK (CHILDREN).
    Mr. OLDFIELD (for Dr. PHILLIPS)asked the President of the Board of Education whether he can now give further information as to the local education authorities which are supplying milk to the children in their schools; the methods pursued by them; and the views of the Board on those which are in their opinion most effective?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: In reply to the first part of the question, I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of an answer which I gave a week ago to the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hurd). I regret that I am not yet in a position to communicate the results of the further inquiries which I am making, to which I referred in my reply to my hon. Friend's previous question of 27th March.

  TRADE DISPUTES ACT.
  Mr. OSWALD LEWISasked the Prime Minister when the House is to be given an opportunity of discussing the Bill to amend the Trade Disputes Act of which notice has been given by the Attorney-General?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I can add nothing to what has already been said in reply to questions on this subject.
  Mr. LEWIS: Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the Government propose to get this Measure passed into law within the limits of the present Session?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The time has not yet come for announcing the programme of the Session and, until that time arrives, the hon. Member, I am afraid, will have to restrain his curiosity.
  Sir K. WOOD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman regard the Trade Disputes Bill as more important than the Taxation of Land Values Bill?
  Mr. MARJORIBANKS: May I ask whether the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has given facilities for this Bill?

  EGYPT.

    FAILURE OF TREATY NEGOTIATIONS.
    Captain BENNETTasked the Prime Minister whether he can now make a statement to the House on the Anglo-Egyptian negotiations?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I have been asked to reply. I regret to inform the House that, in spite of the most sincere and friendly efforts on both sides, the negotiations have failed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—His Majesty's Government not having seen their way to meet the demands of the Egyptian Delegation in regard to the Sudan. I shall very shortly lay before the House a White Paper dealing with the negotiations.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, observe the exultant cheers from the other side of the House?
    Captain EDEN: May I ask whether it is clear that in the meantime the status quo is maintained; and particularly that the five reserved points still remain reserved?
    Mr. HENDERSON: That must be the inevitable result of the failure of the Conference.
    Sir K. WOOD: Can the Foreign Secretary say when the White Paper will be laid?
    Mr. HENDERSON: The right hon. Member must give us a little time. We only completed the negotiations at noon, after sitting all night.
    Sir K. WOOD: Completed!
    Mr. HENDERSON: If it will satisfy the right hon. Gentleman, we ended the negotiations at noon.

  HOUSING.

    DEFICIENCIES (CENSUS).
    Sir A. POWNALLasked the Minister of Health whether he will take advantage of the census of next year to obtain information with regard to housing deficiencies?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Greenwood): This matter is under my consideration in connection with the preparations for the forthcoming census.

    RENT RESTRICTIONS ACT.
    Mr. ALBERYasked the Minister of Health whether it is the intention of the Government to amend the Rent Restrictions Act in the near future?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: As I have already intimated, it will not be practicable to introduce legislation for the amendment of the Rent Restrictions Act in the near future.
    Mr. BROCKWAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very great difficulty experienced by thousands of tenants who are suffering increases of rent; and can he not extend this Act so as to cover houses which are now uncontrolled?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I am aware of the great number of difficulties which exist in many respects and I am also aware of the difficulties of passing legislation to apply to all these cases.
    Mr. ALBERY: Did I understand the Minister to say that it was the intention to amend this Act?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I have said on several occasions that it will not be possible in the near future to undertake legislation.
    Mr. ALBERY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of a public statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health to the effect that it was at present an unjust muddle, and called aloud for amendment?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: That is true, and has been for the last five years.

    COUNCIL HOUSES, SCARBOROUGH (RENTS).
    Mr. THOMAS WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health if he has now received full information from the Scarborough Council relating to the rents charged for council houses on the North-stead housing estate; and, if so, is he satisfied that the tenants are obtaining the full benefits of the 1924 Housing Act?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I have now received information from the Scarborough Town Council relating to the rents of houses provided by them under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, and am informing them that the rents charged appear in the aggregate to be slightly in excess of those that can be recognised as complying with the special conditions of the Act.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman insist on the town council giving the tenants the benefit of the 1924 Act?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: They are being informed that the rents do not conform to the regulations.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: How much are these rents in excess of what would be the just rent?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I cannot say without notice.

    BARNSLEY.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the tenants of 181 municipal houses in Barnsley are threatened with ejection owing to their having gas installed in their houses; and whether he will inquire into this matter?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The matter has not been brought officially to my notice and is not one in which I have any jurisdiction. I will, however, make inquiries of the town council, and will communicate further with the hon. and gallant Member.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Barnsley Council own the local electricity supply, and that the local gas supply is in the hands of a private company; and will he see that undue pressure is not brought on these unfortunate people by threats of eviction, to make them take the electricity supply?
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is not electricity more costly than gas?

    COUNCIL HOUSES, TWICKENHAM (SALE).
    Mr. McKINLAYasked the Minister of Health why his Department has informed the Twickenham Corporation that they must not sell houses which they desire to build to sell to tenant purchasers at about £550 each, and for which tenders have been received, at the prices at which the houses can be built, as this would undercut the private builder, but that they must make a profit of £100 on each house so as to bring prices up to the level of the houses being erected in the borough by private enterprise; and whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to keep the price of houses at an artificial level, discouraging local authorities from providing cheap houses?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The question of the price at which I can authorise the sale of these houses is still a matter of negotiation, but I am bound by the requirement of Section 59 (3) of the Housing Act, 1925, that any such houses shall be sold at the best price that can reasonably be obtained, having regard to any condition imposed.

  CHILDREN'S HOME, THETFORD (PUNISHMENT).
  Mr. WILLIAM TAYLORasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in March last a child of seven years of age was birched for some misdemeanour, by order of the children's home committee, at Thetford, Norfolk; and whether he will make inquiries with a view to preventing a repetition of such
  1124
  form of punishment upon a child of such tender years whilst under the care of the local public authority?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I was already aware of this case and have caused inquiries to be made into it. Two children, aged nine and eight, committed an act of serious dishonesty and were punished with a light strap by the foster-mother of the home. I see no reason to question the propriety of the action taken.

  POOR LAW.

    TEST WORK.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Minister of Health, in accordance with the latest information in his possession, in how many areas stone-breaking, as distinct from quarrying, is being imposed as test work for unemployed men?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The new authorities generally have not yet submitted their arrangements for work, training and instruction under the Relief Regulation Order, 1930, and my latest information is derived from the special inquiry into test work. According to that information, in 14 unions stone-breaking, as distinct from quarry work, was being carried on, but in most of these cases it took the form of ordinary road work performed by arrangement with the local councils and generally under their supervision.
    Mr. THURTLE: Has the right hon. Gentleman the power to prohibit such test work and, if so, in view of the strong feeling against it, will he exercise that power?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I would ask my hon. Friend to await the report on test work, which will be available in a few days.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is there anything dishonourable in stone-breaking?

    CASUALS.
    Mr. SHEPHERDasked the Minister of Health whether he contemplates making any amendment to the Poor Law Act, 1930, Section 44 (2), to obviate the probability of a destitute wayfarer being detained for long periods whilst passing through the new Poor Law areas?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: This matter will receive consideration in connection with any recommendations on the subject of administration of casual wards which may be made by the Departmental Committee on the Relief of the Casual Poor. My hon. Friend is no doubt aware of the provisions of Article 131 of the Public Assistance Order.

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    MEDICAL SERVICES (NATIONALISATION PROPOSALS).
    Mr. FREEMANasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the proposals of the British Medical Association to nationalise the medical services of this country; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take to give them practical effect?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I assume that my hon. Friend refers to the proposals described by the association as proposals for a general medical service for the nation. These proposals have only recently been published, and I have not yet had an opportunity of considering them closely; but I do not gather that they are intended to have any such effect as is indicated in the question.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Would it be necessary to bring in legislation?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: Most certainly.

    CREAM (PRESERVATIVES ORDER).
    Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWNasked the Minister of Health whether he will withdraw the order forbidding the use of preservatives in cream which has caused a reduction in the production of that article with a consequent loss to agriculture and an increase of unemployment in the businesses concerned?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: Representations on this subject were recently made to my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am considering the question in consultation with him, and a decision will be announced as soon as possible.
    Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: In view of the answer recently given to the effect that 138,000 cwts. of cream are imported into this country every year,
    1126
    will the right hon. Gentleman keep an open mind upon this question, with a view to modifying these regulations?

    MATERNITY BENEFIT.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Health whether any proposals are under consideration for altering the amount or method of payment of maternity benefit; and, if so, what changes are contemplated?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply on the same subject given to the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Kedward) on 9th December last.
    Sir K. WOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten all that he promised about increasing maternity benefits? When is that going to be done?

    SMALL-POX.
    Mr. FREEMANasked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the method at present adopted in the periodical returns of the League of Nations Health Committee, under which the mild cases of small-pox occurring in this country are compared with severe cases occurring in other European countries, thereby giving a false impression as to the extent and character of the small-pox outbreaks in this country; and whether he will request the League of Nations Health Committee to always include deaths as well as cases whenever they publish any record of the small-pox statistics of the countries sending in returns, so that a just comparison of the relative positions of the various countries may be made?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I have requested the British representative to bring my hon. Friend's suggestion to the notice of the Health Committee of the League of Nations.

  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS.

    APPLICATIONS REFUSED.
    Sir K. WOODasked the Minister of Health the number of applications that have been refused to date in respect of the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1929?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The total number of applications for pensions under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1929, rejected to date is 4,734. This figure is for Great Britain.
    Sir K. WOOD: What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do about those widows to whom he promised pensions at the last General Election?
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these 4,000 cases are going to be appealed?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I am afraid I have not the information asked for in the last question. These 4,734 cases were cases excluded from the Act to which the right hon. Gentleman put his name and I am delighted to know that the Conservative party now want indiscriminate doles.
    Sir K. WOOD: What is the answer to the question? What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do for those people to whom he made promises?
    Mr. COCKS: Will not the right hon. Gentleman give a full answer to the Leader of the Opposition?

    SERVICE PENSION DISQUALIFICATION.
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Minister of Health under what section of the Act the receipt of a service dependant's pension by a mother in respect of a child by her deceased husband disqualified her from receipt of an allowance under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act in respect of that child?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The Section in question is Section 24 (1) of the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925.

  RATING ASSESSMENTS, WICKFORD, ESSEX.
  Mr. OLDFIELDasked the Minister of Health whether he has received a petition signed by 187 residents of Wickford, Essex, protesting against the increase in rating assessments in the Wickford area consequent upon the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925; and, if so, what action does he propose to take?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I have received the petition, but I have no power to interfere with the discretion of the local assessment authorities. I can only refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave him on 6th February last.
  Mr. OLDFIELD: Since the increases in this area are out of all proportion to the increases in the surrounding neighbourhood, will the right hon. Gentleman bring the facts to the notice of the county valuation committee who have certain duties entrusted to them under Section 18 of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: The information is before them. The remedy of the ratepayers is to bring the matter into the courts.

  INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE.
  Mr. JOWETTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will recommend the immediate appointment of a Royal Commission on industrial assurance methods?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): My right hon. Friend has been carefully considering this matter, but in view of the pressure of other business he has not been able to reach any final conclusion.

  CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (INCOME TAX).
  Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the figures on which the calculation was based that the yield of Income Tax, if applied to co-operative societies, will only amount to £350,000?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Yes, Sir. I will circulate particulars of the computation in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not the fact that £350,000 is three times the figure which he, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is taking off the pre-1916 insurances?
  Following are the particulars:
  The following computation shows the additional Income Tax that would be payable by the co-operative societies if the law were altered so as to make the surplus on mutual

  1129
  trading a profit for Income Tax purposes and to render the societies liable to Income Tax on the net surplus remaining in their hands. The computation is based on the trading results of the year 1928. The interest on share capital and bonus to employés which are deducted from the surplus in the computation are chargeable to Income Tax under the existing law in the hands of the recipients if liable to tax; the dividends on purchases are trade discounts and as such are not liable to tax.

  All Co-operative Trading Societies.

  £

  £

  Surplus on trading for year 1928

  27,500,000

  Less:

  Dividends on Purchases

  20,800,000

  Interest on share Capital

  4,650,000

  Bonus to Employés

  150,000

  25,600,000

  Net surplus on trading

  1,900,000

  Add back:

  Excess of amounts written off for depreciation over amount estimated to be allowable for Income Tax purposes

  1,500,000

  Income Tax (Schedules A & B) already paid by Societies and deducted in arriving at surplus

  410,000

  1,910,000

  Total

  3,810,000

  Tax thereon at 4s. in the £

  762,000

  Less tax already paid

  410,000

  Additional tax that would be payable

  352,000

  FIGHTING SERVICES (DISABILITY PENSIONS).
  Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the regulations governing the award of disability pensions to petty officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the Royal Navy, His Majesty's Army, and the Royal Air Force only provide for the degree of disablement being assessed for all men on a comparison with a normal healthy man of the same age without reference to particular trades or any other circumstances; and whether, in view of the hardship which this inflicts upon skilled
  1130
  tradesmen when seeking employment in civil life, the basis of assumption will be altered to comparison with a similar craftsman?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative. The present basis is regarded as the most equitable, as well as the most practical, method of assessing disability in the circumstances presenting themselves in the Navy, Army, and Air Force. I might add that it was originally adopted as a result of War experience and in deference to representations made on behalf of disabled ex-service men.

  SEA DEFENCES, WINCHELSEA.
  Mr. HARRISasked the Minister of Agriculture what are the latest reports from the Board's engineer as to the sea defences at Winchelsea; whether they are strong enough to keep back high tides for the next six months; whether he is aware that if the sea breaks through many hundreds of acres of agricultural land will be damaged; and whether he has yet been able to get the co-operation of the county council in the matter?
  Dr. ADDISON: As indicated in my reply to the hon. Member's previous question on 1st May, the Ministry's engineer visited the sea defences at Winchelsea on 29th April, and again yesterday with other officials of the Ministry. Work has been carried out by some of the interested bungalow owners, and in the engineer's view this work, if completed, will probably secure the position at all events for some months. The object of yesterday's visit was to secure, if possible, a continuance of the work to enable the defences to be completed in a satisfactory manner. As a result of the visit, it is hoped that this object has been achieved. The Ministry is still in communication with the county council as to the possibilities of a permanent scheme. This, however, entails co-operation with all the landowners whose property is involved, and my right hon. Friend is endeavouring to arrange for a conference in the near future to see how far that co-operation can be secured.
  Mr. HARRIS: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his activity in the matter?

  SHELLFISH (GRADE DESIGNATION).
  Mr. ROSBOTHAMasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will make regulations as to grade designations and grade designation marks for shellfish?
  Dr. ADDISON: The Agricultural Produce (Grading and Marking) Act, 1928, does not empower the Minister to make such regulations in respect of fish or fish products.
  Mr. ROSBOTHAM: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that this is not worth consideration by his Committee?
  Mr. McSHANE: Will the shellfish be consulted?
  Dr. ADDISON: This matter has already been referred to the Committee to which my hon. Friend alludes.

  POOR'S ACRE, FOWNHOPE (ENCLOSURE).
  Mr. FRANK OWENasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will order an inquiry into the circumstances in connection with the enclosing of the Common Acre by officials of the Ministry of Agriculture at Broadmore, Herefordshire?
  Dr. ADDISON: My right hon. Friend is informed that an Order was issued by the Charity Commissioners on 30th July, 1929, under the Charitable Trusts Acts, authorising the sale to the Forestry Commission of the land in question known as the Poor's Acre, Fownhope, Hereford, by the parish council as trustees, the proceeds of the sale to be applied for the benefit of poor persons in the parish. The Forestry Commission are, I understand, fencing the land, and my right hon. Friend has no information to show that it is common land, and, as the case stands, he has no power to intervene in the matter.
  Mr. OWEN: Will my right hon. Friend order his officials not to enclose this Acre until the petition which is now in front of the Petition Committee of the House is considered?
  Dr. ADDISON: It is not our officials who are enclosing, but the Forestry Commission, and I have no power in the matter at all.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Will not the Government inquire whether this is common land or not?
  Dr. ADDISON: We have inquired, and there is nothing to show that it is common land, but if there be any question in dispute, there is a proper process by which the matter can be settled.
  Mr. OWEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman pass on this information to the Forestry Commission, because the enclosure is going on, and there is likely to be serious civil disorder?
  Dr. ADDISON: I have already done so, and we will do all we can to promote peace in the matter.

  PICCADILLY CIRCUS (TRAFFIC).
  Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Transport whether his advisers consider that the traffic experiments which have been made at Piccadilly Circus have proved satisfactory; and whether any decision has been arrived at as to the final position of Eros?
  The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Certain further alterations to the islands in Piccadilly Circus have been proposed with a view to facilitating the movement of traffic, and so soon as this position has been finally settled the question of the position of the Shaftesbury Memorial will be considered.
  Mr. SEXTON: Will it not be for the convenience of his colleagues if they review the position of the hon. Member himself on the Question Paper?

  CHARITY COMMISSIONERS (INVESTMENTS).
  Captain BOURNEasked the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring, as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether it is the policy of the commissioners to continue the ratio of investment of their trust funds in British funds and other securities at approximately 65 per cent. invested in British funds and 35 per cent. invested in other securities?
  Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSON: The securities in which the trust funds are invested are selected by the founders or the

  1133
  trustees of the respective charities, and the ratio between British funds and other securities is not controlled by the commissioners.
  Captain BOURNEasked the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring, as representing the Charity Commissioners, if he can give particulars of the holding of 6,875 gold roubles, which constitute part of the trust investments of the Commissioners, and the date when this holding was acquired?
  Mr. RICHARDSON: The holding of 6,875 gold roubles represents the face value of 11 bearer bonds of the Russian 4 per cent. Gold Loan, second issue, 1890, which were the property of the trustees of the Wingfield Orthopædic Hospital at Headington, and were transferred to the Official Trustees of Charitable Funds on 10th March, 1923. The commissioners have ńo knowledge when the trustees acquired the bonds.
  Captain BOURNE: Can the hon. Gentleman state if any interest is being received on these bonds?
  Mr. RICHARDSON: I would ask the hon. and gallant Member to put that question down, and I will try to find out.
  Captain BOURNEasked the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring, as representing the Charity Commissioners, when the holding of 161,800 francs, which constitutes part of the trust investments of the commissioners, was acquired?
  Mr. RICHARDSON: The commissioners are unable to say when the holding of 161,800 francs, which in varying amounts are the property of six different charities, was acquired, but the respective amounts were transferred to the Official Trustees of Charitable Funds at various dates between July, 1915, and October, 1926.

  WOLSINGHAM TOWN HALL AND MARKET SQUARE.
  Mr. LAWTHERasked the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring, as representing the Charity Commissioners, what progress, if any, has been made in relation to the suggested new scheme of control of the Wolsingham town hall and market square?
  Mr. R. RICHARDSON: The scheme has been drafted and sent for confidential consideration of the trustees. Its publication is awaiting the removal of a legal difficulty.

  LACE (IMPORT DUTY, UNITED STATES).
  Sir HENRY BETTERTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he made any representations to the Government of the United States protesting against the proposals of that Government to increase the ad valorem duty on imported lace; if so, the nature of such representations; and on what date were they made?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the other parts, therefore, do not arise.
  Sir H. BETTERTON: Can the hon. Member say whether any protest was made by France against the imposition of the proposed duties?
  Mr. SMITH: I could not say without notice.

  FOREST WORKERS (CONDITIONS).
  Mr. LAWTHERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, what improvements, in addition to the increased wages already announced, the Commissioners contemplate making in relation to their workmen?
  Mr. W. R. SMITH: None are contemplated except the acceleration of the scheme for the provision of forest workers' holdings.
  Mr. LAWTHER: Will the question of wet weather conditions come up?
  Mr. SMITH: Yes, that will come up in connection with the decision to increase the minimum wage and in connection with the guaranteed week.
  Mr. F. OWEN: May I inquire about shelters to be erected in the woods for these men?
  Mr. SMITH: I understand that shelters are provided in many places, and if my hon. Friend knows of any case

  1135
  where he thinks further shelters ought to be provided I will draw the attention of the Commissioners to it.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (MICROPHONE).
  Dr. HASTINGSasked the First Commissioner of Works if he will consider the desirability of the installation of a microphone in close proximity to the Despatch Box with an accompanying loud speaker so that the occupants of the Government Benches may be able to hear the replies given at Question Time.
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): Such an installation would present a number of acoustic difficulties, and I am not aware of any serious demand from hon. Members.
  Dr. HASTINGS: Has the Chief Commissioner of Works any other proposals to enable hon. Members on this side of the House to hear answers to questions?
  Mr. LANSBURY: I think I have heard Mr. Speaker say that we ought to be silent while a Member is speaking.
  Mr. HARRIS: Could not other Ministers follow the example of the First Commissioner of Works and speak up?
  Mr. MUFF: Will not the right hon. Gentleman provide the same facilities here as are provided in another place?
  Mr. COCKS: May I ask the First Commissioner whether, as an alternative to a loud speaker he would suggest to his colleagues that they should speak up?

  HADRIAN'S WALL.
  Mr. LAWTHERasked the First Commissioner of Works if he will consider the purchase of that part of Hadrian's Wall that has been the subject of special investigation, in order to preserve it for the nation?
  Mr. LANSBURY: I am afraid that, at the moment, I can add nothing to the reply which I gave to the right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) on Monday.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    NAVAL CANTEEN, GIBRALTAR.
    Sir B. FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether steps will be taken under paragraph 8 of A.F.O. 1015/28 to properly furnish the chief and petty officers' bar at the Royal Naval canteen, Gibraltar, observing that that bar is not in the state it should be and that complaints have been made?
    Mr. AMMON: The instructions contained in paragraph 9 of Admiralty Fleet Order 1015/28 in regard to furniture for canteens at Naval shore establishments will be applied to the Royal Naval canteen at Gibraltar. The necessary steps to give effect to this instruction are being taken.

    PENSIONS (INVALIDED RATINGS).
    Sir B. FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty why the regulations governing the award of pensions to invalided ratings lay down a definite scale of service pensions when provision is made for only half of either the disability allowance or service pension, whichever is the greater, to be paid; and why it is considered necessary to halve one of the allowances, when one is a pension earned by service and the other is compensation for injuries or disablement received whilst serving?
    Mr. AMMON: The present method of combining the service and disablement elements in the assessment of disability (attributable) pensions was adopted after very full and careful consideration as the most suitable way of awarding compensation in the varying circumstances of such cases. It is common to the three fighting services.

  RIVER POLLUTION.
  Rear-Admiral BEAMISH (for Mr. HANNON)asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the recent resolution, unanimously adopted by the Birmingham Anglers' Association, on the subject of the increase in river pollution all over the country during the past 12 months; if he is aware that, as a result, valuable fishing reaches of rivers have been destroyed, farmers have been deprived of supplies of pure water for their stock, and difficulties

  1137
  have arisen in maintaining supplies of drinking water for families in rural areas; and that, in particular, the River Tame has been transformed in recent years from a healthy stream to a current of foul water; and if he proposes to adopt any measures to remedy this state of affairs?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: My attention has not been drawn to the resolution of the Birmingham Anglers' Association, nor have I received any complaints as to pollution of the Warwickshire Tame. The whole question of river pollution is at present under consideration by the Joint Advisory Committee on River Pollution, and they are now considering measures to prevent pollution by trade effluents. They have already recommended the appointment of joint river committees, and I have urged this policy on local authorities. I may also point out that local authorities under the River Pollution Prevention Acts and Fishery Boards under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1923, have power to take proceedings for the prevention of pollution.
  Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that there will be a golden opportunity to insert a Clause in the Drainage Bill when it coms before the House?
  Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Has the Minister of Health any powers to deal with this matter?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: Only by way of advice and exhortation.

  AGRICULTURAL CONFERENCE.
  Mr. LOUIS SMITHasked the Minister of Agriculture whether the evidence of the Agricultural Conference is to be published in full; and whether it is still the intention of His Majesty's Government to announce their agricultural policy during the lifetime of the present Parliament?
  Dr. ADDISON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and to the second part in the affirmative.

  TITHE RENTCHARGE.
  Mr. F. OWEN (for Mr. GRANVILLE)asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is prepared to appoint a commission of inquiry into the whole question of the system of tithe payment in this country?
  Dr. ADDISON: As stated in reply to a similar question on 11th December last, the question of tithe rentcharge was exhaustively discussed during the passage through Parliament of the Tithe Act, 1925, and no fresh circumstances have arisen which appear to require the Commission suggested by the hon. Member.
  Mr. OWEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take any action to deal with this very serious grievance?
  Dr. ADDISON: We do so in every case that is brought to our notice, so far as we have any power. If the hon. Gentleman has any information on the matter I shall be glad to receive it.

  INDIA (DANGEROUS DRUGS).
  Major GRAHAM POLEasked the Secretary of State for India what is the present position in regard to the proposal of the Government of India to concentrate the control of the drug traffic in India in the hands of the central Government?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Benn): I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of the Dangerous Drugs Act which was recently passed by the Indian Legislature and explains the proposals of the Government of India.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask the Prime Minister what business he proposes to take next week, and what business he proposes to take after 11 o'clock to-night?
The PRIME MINISTER: The business for next week will be:
Monday: Supply (6th Allotted Day). The Votes will be for the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, for the Department of Agriculture (Scotland), and for the Beet Sugar Subsidy (Great Britain).

1139
Tuesday: Air Transport (Subsidy Agreements) Bill, Second Reading; Sea Fisheries Regulation (Expenses) Bill, Second Reading; the further stages of the Mental Treatment Bill; and the Overseas Trade Bill, Committee stage.
Wednesday: Supply (7th Allotted Day). The Vote will be announced later.
Thursday: An opportunity will be given for a Debate on the London Naval Conference.
On any day, should time permit, other Orders will be taken.
We are asking the House to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule to-night so that the Motion for the Second Reading of the Consumers' Council Bill may be completed and the Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution as well. There is also a departmental Bill which I am informed is not controversial, namely, the Board of Education Scheme (Devon, Crediton Exhibition Foundation) Confirmation Bill. We ask that that Bill may also be taken.
Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not raise any objection to finishing the Second Reading stage of the Consumers' Council Bill or to the taking of the Motion to which the right hon. Gentleman has just referred, but I suggest to him that he might really postpone the Committee stage of the Money Resolution until another day. I think it is very unusual to take a Money Resolution of this kind—which, on Report, is normally taken after 11 o'clock—on the day on which the Second Reading of the Bill is taken.
Mr. LAMBERT: May I ask the Prime Minister whether, in the event of the Consumers' Council Bill passing its Second Reading, it is to be taken upstairs or on the Floor of the House?
The PRIME MINISTER: Quite obviously, upstairs. Once the principle of the Bill is agreed to, it is a matter of detail, and there will be a very full opportunity of considering the details. I am informed that the Money Resolution for this Bill can be debated on the Second Reading, and is in itself a matter of pure formality. The amount of money involved is very small, and the effect of the Resolution is contained in the Bill itself.
Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the decision which he has just announced that he is going to send the Bill upstairs. I think that the House might have a little more time for its consideration before it goes upstairs, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to postpone the consideration of the Committee stage of the Resolution to another day, and to take it before 11 o'clock.
The PRIME MINISTER: I am very anxious to meet all reasonable requests, but we really would like to get this Resolution to-day. I am quite willing to keep my mind open until a later period, when we see how things progress.
Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid that that is rather embarrassing for all of us. We raise no objection to finishing the discussion on the Consumers' Council Bill itself. All that we ask is that the Money Resolution should not be taken after 11 o'clock on the day on which the Bill is read a Second time, but before 11 o'clock on another day. If the Prime Minister is prepared to agree to that, I should not propose to divide against the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule, because then my only reason for doing so would be gone. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman reserves his judgment until later in the evening I must make my protest now, while reserving my liberty to accept what, I hope, will be the right hon. Gentleman's concession when it comes.
The PRIME MINISTER: If the right hon. Gentleman does not mind, I think we will leave the matter where it is.
Colonel GRETTON: Have the Government yet decided when they propose to take the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, and when will copies of that Bill be available for the use of Members?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): It is intended to take the Finance Bill in the week after next on Monday or Tuesday, and the Bill will be circulated in good time.
Colonel GRETTON: May we expect the Bill during this week, or will it not be issued until next week?
Mr. SNOWDEN: Not this week.
Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see that the Bill is circulated early next week. The circulation of this Bill at the end of next week, if it is proposed to take it on Monday or Tuesday, will not, as the right hon. Gentleman himself will recognise, give the House sufficient time.
Mr. SMITHERS: When will the Prime Minister be able to announce the Vote for next Wednesday?
The PRIME MINISTER: As my hon. Friend is aware, I am in the hands of the Opposition in regard to this matter, and I am not able to announce the Vote until the Opposition inform me of the subject.
Sir ROBERT HORNE: May I take it that two days will be allowed for the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, according to custom?
Mr. SNOWDEN: No. We propose that one day should be given, and we are basing that on a precedent made in 1928 on a most important Budget.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply, and that the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 270; Noes, 117.

Division No. 277.]

AYES.

[3.53 p.m.

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

Duncan, Charles

Lang, Gordon

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

Ede, James Chuter

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Edge, Sir William

Lathan, G.

Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

Edmunds, J. E.

Law, Albert (Bolton)

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

Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

Law, A. (Rossendale)

Alpass, J. H.

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Lawrence, Susan

Ammon, Charles George

Foot, Isaac

Lawson, John James

Arnott, John

Forgan, Dr. Robert

Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

Ayles, Walter

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

Leach, W.

Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)

Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Lees, J.

Barnes, Alfred John

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Barr, James

Gibbins, Joseph

Lloyd, C. Ellis

Batey, Joseph

Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)

Logan, David Gilbert

Bellamy, Albert

Gill, T. H.

Longbottom, A. W.

Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

Gillett, George M.

Longden, F.

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

Glassey, A. E.

Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

Benson, G.

Gossling, A. G.

Lowth, Thomas

Bentham, Dr. Ethel

Gould, F.

Lunn, William

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

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

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Blindell, James

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

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

Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

Broad, Francis Alfred

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

McElwee, A.

Brockway, A. Fenner

Groves, Thomas E.

McEntee, V. L.

Bromfield, William

Grundy, Thomas W.

McKinlay, A.

Bromley, J.

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

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Brooke, W.

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

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Brothers, M.

Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

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

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

McShane, John James

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Hardie, George D.

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

Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

Harris, Percy A.

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Buchanan, G.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Mansfield, W.

Burgess, F. G.

Haycock, A. W.

March, S.

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

Hayday, Arthur

Markham, S. F.

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

Hayes, John Henry

Marley, J.

Caine, Derwent Hall-

Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

Marshall, Fred

Cape, Thomas

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

Mathers, George

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

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

Matters, L. W.

Charleton, H. C.

Herriotts, J.

Maxton, James

Chater, Daniel

Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R., Wentworth)

Melville, Sir James

Church, Major A. G.

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Messer, Fred

Clarke, J. S.

Hoffman, P. C.

Millar, J. D.

Cluse, W. S.

Hollins, A.

Milner, Major J.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Hopkin, Daniel

Montague, Frederick

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Horrabin, J. F.

Morley, Ralph

Compton, Joseph

Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

Morris, Rhys Hopkins

Cove, William G.

Hunter, Dr. Joseph

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

Cowan, D. M.

Johnston, Thomas

Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

Daggar, George

Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

Dallas, George

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

Mort, D. L.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhonghton)

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Moses, J. J. H.

Day, Harry

Kelly, W. T.

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

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Kennedy, Thomas

Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

Dickson, T.

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

Muff, G.

Dudgeon, Major C. R.

Kinley, J.

Muggeridge, H. T.

Dukes, C.

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

Murnin, Hugh

Nathan, Major H. L.

Sandham, E.

Tinker, John Joseph

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

Sawyer, G. F.

Toole, Joseph

Oldfield, J. R.

Scurr, John

Tout, W. J.

Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

Sexton, James

Townend, A. E.

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

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Vaughan, D. J.

Palin, John Henry

Sherwood, G. H.

Viant, S. P.

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Shield, George William

Walkden, A. G.

Perry, S. F.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Walker, J.

Peters, Dr. Sidney John

Shillaker, J. F.

Wallhead, Richard C.

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Shinwell, E.

Watkins, F. C.

Phillips, Dr. Marion

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Picton-Turbervill, Edith

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

Wellock, Wilfred

Pole, Major D. G.

Sinkinson, George

Welsh, James (Paisley)

Potts, John S.

Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

Price, M. P.

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

West, F. R.

Quibell, D. J. K.

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Westwood, Joseph

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

Rathbone, Eleanor

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

White, H. G.

Raynes, W. R.

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Richards, R.

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Snell, Harry

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Ritson, J.

Sorensen, R.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

Stamford, Thomas W.

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Romeril, H. G.

Stephen, Campbell

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

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

Rothschild, J. de

Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

Wise, E. F.

Rowson, Guy

Strauss, G. R.

Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

Sutton, J. E.

Wright, W. (Rutherglen)

Salter, Dr. Alfred

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

Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

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

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

Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Sanders, W. S.

Thurtle, Ernest

Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

Paling.

NOES.

Albery, Irving James

Grace, John

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Pownall, Sir Assheton

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

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Purbrick, R.

Atholl, Duchess of

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Ramsbotham, H.

Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Remer, John R.

Balniel, Lord

Hammersley, S. S.

Reynolds, Col. Sir James

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Hanbury, C.

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

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

Ross, Major Ronald D.

Betterton, Sir Henry B.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

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

Bird, Ernest Roy

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Salmon, Major I.

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.

Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Bracken, B,

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

Simms, Major-General J.

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

Hurd, Percy A.

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

Buckingham, Sir H.

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Skelton, A. N.

Butler, R. A.

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Castle Stewart, Earl of

King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.

Smithers, Waldron

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Knox, Sir Alfred

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

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

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Christie, J. A.

Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Colfox, Major William Philip

Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Cranborne, Viscount

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

Long, Major Eric

Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Lymington, Viscount

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

Train, J.

Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Macquisten, F. A.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

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

Marjoribanks, E. C.

Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

Meller, R. J.

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Eden, Captain Anthony

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Wells, Sydney R.

Elliot, Major Walter E.

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

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

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

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

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

Everard, W. Lindsay

Muirhead, A. J.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

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

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Ferguson, Sir John

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

O'Neill, Sir H.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Ganzoni, Sir John

Peake, Capt. Osbert

Major Sir George Hennessy and Sir

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

Penny, Sir George

Frederick Thomson.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Sir Cyril Stephen Cobb, K.B.E., M.V.O., for Borough of Fulham (West Division).

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL,
"to grant money for the purpose of certain local loans out of the Local Loans Fund, and for other purposes relating

1145
to local loans," presented by Mr. Pethick-Lawrence; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 190.]

BILLS REPORTED.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Fylde Water Board, Oldham and Rochdale) Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.
Liverpool Exchange Company Bill [Lords],
Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bill to be read the Third time.
Great Western Railway (Docks) Bill (Certified Bill),
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

  HOURS OF MEETING AND RISING OF THE HOUSE,
  That they give leave to the Viscount Ullswater to attend in order to his being examined as a witness before the Select Committee appointed by the Commons on Hours of Meeting and Rising of the House, if he think fit, his Lordship consenting.
  That they have agreed to,—
  Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Blandford Forum Extension) Bill, without Amendment.

RURAL AMENITIES BILL.
Order [21st February] that the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee read, and discharged:—Bill withdrawn.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CONSUMERS' COUNCIL BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  It may be for the convenience of the House if I outline very briefly the history of recent efforts to deal with food prices, and if I proceed in the second place to the kind of abuse or difficulty with which we have to deal, and in the third place describe the provisions of the Bill. This preliminary statement need not be very long. The Royal Commission on Food Prices in 1925 pointed out that the aggregate sum spent in this country year by year on food, drink and tobacco was approximately £1,700,000,000 to £1,800,000,000. We remember that round about that time and later the total income of the British people was put at approximately £4,000,000,000. So that if there is added to the items in the Bill fuel and clothing and certain other commodities that it is proposed this legislation should cover, there appears to be no doubt that very much more than half of the total income of the people of this country on the side of expenditure is before us in the Debate this afternoon.
  During the War there was, of course, an inevitable and profound disturbance of price levels. No country could pour out nearly £10,000,000,000 of expenditure, suffer dislocation in its home and export trade, and be exposed to great disturbances in foreign exchanges and all the rest of the troubles associated with the War, without having violent fluctuations in prices. During the War, as hon. Members will recall, there was either a definite ownership by the State of important commodities, or their regulation, and after the War in particular there were the steps taken by the Profiteering Acts in 1919, the investigations of the Linlithgow Committee in 1922–23, and finally the declarations of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition round about that time, and particularly in 1924, as a result of which he set up the Food Council on its present basis in 1925.
  1166
  I do not propose to dwell at length on either the War experience or the experience of the Profiteering Acts, because whatever view hon. Members take of the present Bill, that effort was associated with a period of such deep or profound disturbance that to a large extent the lessons of it are not applicable to the present time. But it is relevant to recall both the evidence which was tendered to the Linlithgow Committee in their important investigations, and the recommendations which were made by that body, devoted as they were to the problem of agricultural produce and its disposal. They inquired into wheat, fruit and vegetables, and certain other classes of agricultural produce, including milk, and they directed attention to what they regarded, and indeed, described, as the quite unfair spread between the producers' prices and the price which was charged in the retail trade. In the most emphatic terms they stated, at the end of that Report, that the difference between the producer's price and the retail price was greater than society would permanently consent to bear.
  They made many important and constructive recommendations in the field of agriculture, more particularly relating to marketing and the charges of the railways and other forms of transport, and the tolls which were levied at markets. I think hon. Members in different parts of the House will agree that to an appreciable extent the gravity of our existing agricultural problem would at least have been minimised if more of that constructive programme had been applied between 1923 and the present day. But be that as it may, the opportunity has been lost. Nevertheless there was a clear message from the Linlithgow Committee that there was far too great a spread.
  That leads us naturally and easily to the announcements which preceded the establishment of the Food Council in 1925. There was persistent criticism of too high retail and wholesale prices, and although I do not want to draw any distinction or to apportion blame either here or there, in the main the criticism was directed to the retail trade. Prior to the General Election of 1924—in some of the declarations of the Leader of the Opposition in 1923, and certainly in 1924—there was a promise of an inquiry regarding retail prices, and more than a

  1167
  promise of inquiry—a hint that if the investigation did not result in a remedy more drastic steps, which were not defined, would be taken. That was repeated in the declaration that the Opposition made in 1924. Those declarations were re-emphasised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite in the autumn of 1924, and the Food Council was set up in 1925. But prior to that there had been the investigation by the Royal Commission on Food Prices, into wheat and bread, and other articles in common use. It would be wrong to suggest that the report of the Royal Commission showed manifest or great abuse in many important fields, but a very considerable part of the report went to show that the retail trade was doing comparatively well, and the report underlined in unmistakable terms the message of the Linlithgow Committee as to the unfair spread between the producer's price at one end and the retail price at the other.
  What did the Royal Commission recommend? It is a very important point, having regard to the Amendment which the Opposition are to move this afternoon. Apart from the Minority Reports, the Royal Commission recommended unanimously the establishment of a Food Council, and made it perfectly plain that that Food Council should be given compulsory powers for the acquisition of all relevant information; and it said that the Council should be established on a statutory basis, that is under Act of Parliament. Let the House clearly, and I trust carefully, observe that these recommendations, which were moderate in character, were not adopted by our predecessors in office. On the contrary they set up the Food Council by a Minute of the then Prime Minister and gave it no powers of a statutory character as regards information. From July, 1925, down to the present time that Food Council has operated with very great earnestness and with a fair measure of success under the two handicaps that I have described.
  Whatever view is taken of this Bill no one disputes the value of the work which has been undertaken by the Food Council. I would like to pay a public tribute, which I think will be generally endorsed, to Sir Allan Powell and his colleagues on
  1168
  the Council for a great deal of unselfish work which must have involved a considerable sacrifice of time and indeed of remuneration in other fields, because all this work was of a purely voluntary kind. I am glad to have this opportunity of recalling that fact this afternoon. The Food Council made many important inquiries and to some extent they have made their wishes prevail, but there have been important fields in which they have not succeeded, and I trust that I shall be able to show that non-success has been clearly traceable to the absence in part of the statutory basis and of statutory powers for getting information; and I propose to go beyond that and to show that it has been partly due to the absence of sanction in trying to make fair prices prevail.
  Let us pause for a moment to look, in the second place, at the kind of difficulty with which we are confronted. It is easy for Members in all parts of the House to produce glaring instances of overcharging in one field or another for retail sale compared with the original producers' price. Let me try to give one or two simple illustrations. If, for example, hon. Members take the price of fish, an article in general consumption, my attention was called, as regards February of the present year, to the case of cod sold at the port of landing at 1.66d. per lb. and retailed, very often not far away, sometimes in the immediate vicinity, at 8d. per lb.
  Mr. WOMERSLEY: How does the right hon. Gentleman know it is the same kind of cod? In arriving at those figures, have they taken into calculation the cod landed for salting purposes?
  Mr. GRAHAM: The hon. Member is going into details into which I cannot follow him in a Second Reading speech. These prices are given after very full inquiry and they are a fair representation of the position, the various factors having been taken into account. In the case of haddock, they point to a price of 2.4d. per lb. retailed at 10d. I am not going to suggest in illustrations of that kind that there are not changes within recent years which, to some extent, account for the spread between the producer and the retail price. I will refer to that a little later after one or two additional illustrations have been given. These illustrations are being given in a field which, while very important, I do not regard as

  1169
  nearly as important as the great central controversies of, say, London bread, because of the vast population affected, or of London milk prices, the controversy of August last year. I merely refer to those as showing the kind of problem which is constantly presented to the Food Department of the Board of Trade, and which reach hon. Members in their correspondence.
  As regards milk prices, this was brought out to an appreciable extent in the Linlithgow Committee. There is a body of evidence applicable to quite recent times showing that the price per gallon of milk on the farm destined for liquid consumption was a shilling to 1s. 1d., but it was retailed in London, and indeed in other areas, at about 2s. 2d., or rather more. In a minority statement to the Linlithgow Committee on this subject, which I suggest is of very great importance to agriculture, Mr. Ashby alluded to an aggregate consumption of 600,000,000 gallons, and suggested that if there could be a saving of as little as a penny in distribution costs, or in the spread between the producer and the retail price, there would be, under that head alone, some £2,500,000 to distribute, either between the producers or the consumers, in relief in one case or in better prices in the other, but that by economies in distribution costs, by reorganisation, which indirectly this Bill should promote, as much as £7,500,000 might be saved. I cannot pledge myself to a strict reading of those figures, which were taken out some years ago, but it seems to me to be beyond dispute that there is, first of all, room for very careful inquiry, and in the second place certainly room for powers to provide a remedy.
  So I might go on giving illustration after illustration of the difficulty which undeniably exists. There is the case of petrol prices, the raw material of an enormous industry and of a good deal of public enjoyment—the report produced last year when this controversy was before the House. There is the question as to how far, by the operation of the combine in this country, based upon the determination of the wholesale price related to Mexico gulf prices in the United States, there is too high a price to the consumer, and whether that could be reduced. There is also the case of coal,
  1170
  which, I am reliably informed, has been considered at some length in this House within recent times. When an analysis was taken out quite recently as regards retail prices of standard classes of coal consumed in London between 1920 and 1929, it was perfectly clear that there had been a very considerable fall in pit-head prices within that period—the problem with which we were immediately concerned in the recent legislation. As regards Derby Brights and nuts for kitchen use, retail prices had varied during that time as between 39s., 40s., 45s., up to nearly 50s. per ton, but there had been practically no variation at all in the price charged to millions of consumers in Central London, and the emphatic conclusion of that investigation, which had no party end to serve, and was merely directed to the facts, was that while there had been that fall in the pithead price, and perhaps to some extent in the wholesale price, the benefit had not passed down to the consumers to anything like the extent to which it should have reached them, if it passed at all. These things demand investigation, and accordingly we seek in the Bill to obtain powers for that purpose.
  But I want to concentrate to-day on two leading controversies, because I think they will meet many of the objections to the Bill, and I think they form a true reply to the reasoned Amendment which hon. Members opposite have put on the Paper. The first case, which was within my own knowledge at the Board of Trade in July, 1929, was that relating to milk prices in London. The position there is that there is for all practical purposes a great milk combine into whose exact relations with farmers or producers I need not enter to-day, but in any case, after a most detailed inquiry conducted with the assistance of most eminent chartered accountants, it was definitely laid down that for the milk year 1928–9, that is ending on 30th September, 1929, the new year beginning on 1st October, there should be charged 7d. per quart for seven months, normally called the winter price, and 6d. per quart for the other five months. A report was presented by the Food Council in March, 1929, prior to our taking office. It was hinted from time to time, after that date, that the milk distributors, in this case distributing that commodity certainly to 10,000,000

  1171
  people or more—the population of the London area is very great—proposed to charge the winter price for August, in other words to alter that to eight months at the winter price of 7d. and four months at the summer price of 6d. A difference of 1d. per quart, no doubt, appears on paper to be a small consideration, but it is of vital importance to millions of people, and certainly to the poorest of the poor, because it is a notorious economic truth that in these essential commodities of human existence it is worse for the poverty stricken classes or those with the lowest rates of wages to be driven to pay more for these primary commodities than it is for other sections of the community.
  No formal statement and no definite information could be obtained, although a question was addressed to the milk distributors round about 19th June, 1929, and it was not until the last day of July, one day before they proposed to make this change, that I was able to get any definite statement from them regarding it and to meet them by deputation at the Board of Trade when the facts were placed before me. Hon. Members will be familiar with the controversy that has taken place in the "Times" between the chairman of the United Dairies Company and the chairman of the Food Council. When I discussed the matter quite impartially with the milk distributors, they were quite unable to say at that date, at the end of July, that there had been any change in the contracts or in the circumstances as compared with March, 1929, when the report was made, and therefore there was no justification for the variation made by bringing forward the winter price to August of that year. I endeavoured in the most conciliatory terms—because the House does not normally accuse me of violence—to reason with them and to dissuade them from the increase. I suggested to them that it was unfair to the community and was not justified by the facts. I am bound to say they did not meet that argument in any way. They imposed that price. In no spirit of threat I said to them that the only effect of that would be to encourage the Government to seek powers to obtain information and possibly even to enforce recommendations if a remedy could not be found for that state of affairs, and accordingly they
  1172
  were fully alive to the consequences of such action.
  The other case which I regard as of vital importance is the London bread price scale. Since 1925, or at all events for a period of rather more than four years, there has been a bread scale applicable to the price of the quartern loaf in the London area. This form of regulation, if I may so describe it, is applicable not only to London but reaches out in influence to a fair part of the rest of the country. It is of very considerable importance for areas adjacent to London and even for areas further afield. In this case, there was a bread price list in operation and the price of the loaf was conditioned by the price of a sack of 280 lbs. of what I think they call straight run flour of from 52s. to 48s. a sack, a variation of 4s., at which price the 4 lb. loaf in London was regulated at 10d. For each fall of 4s. it was regulated further. It might go down to 9d., 8d. or a lower figure, if that had been possible. I want to recognise that in bulk during the 4½ years of the operation of that scale it has been observed, but for reasons which I cannot pretend to understand two large associations of bakers in the city of London, covering again an enormous part of the population of consumers, have decided to alter the scale as based on charges per 280 lbs. of straight run flour by 2s., that is, to bring down the maximum point to 50s., and in that way to add one farthing to the price of the 4 lb. loaf.
  They profess to have certain reasons for that in regard to distributive costs and other charges, but the question was very faithfully considered by the Food Council and again, with the information at its disposal, the Food Council was unable to agree that that increased charge had been justified. The Food Council has not been consulted by these two associations regarding the change; in other words it has been ignored, although for rather more than four years the terms have been kept within the scale. While I confine myself to the precise figures of the costs to the community, it is true to say that within the area in question this change might mean taking £300,000 to £400,000 from the pockets of the consumers, and taking it at a time of undeniably industrial depression.

  1173
  These illustrations lead me to a plain and, I trust, clear statement of our proposals. In the first place, we propose to make good what was not done by our predecessors in 1925 and to put this Consumers Council, reduced in numbers to seven, on a Statutory basis. That is, to set it up as a permanent body to discharge the duties of review and investigation which were recommended by the Royal Commission in 1925. That is the first step. In the next place, we propose to make good the second difficulty, and to endow this Council with compulsory powers under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, to get information. I pause for a moment to address myself to that part of the argument because I have reason to believe that while hon. Members opposite may resist the price-fixing part of this scheme they may not entertain quite the same view regarding the giving of compulsory powers to get information. I am only making a guess, but there is a difference of opinion or view as between the two propositions.
  During the years of existence of the Food Council information has been tendered over a considerable part of the price field with regard to foodstuffs in this country, but there have been occasions, and sometimes important occasions, when there has been either great delay in getting the information or when that information has been withheld. In particular, in June, 1925, the Leader of the Opposition, in a speech to an enormous gathering at Welbeck Abbey, indicated that if the information was not forthcoming compulsory powers would be sought. In May, 1928, in reply to a question by my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the then Prime Minister, admitted that information had been withheld or was not forthcoming, and he warned the interests concerned that if it were not supplied he would have no hesitation in asking Parliament for appropriate powers to compel it. That statement was very clearly and definitely made and I think it had a salutary effect, because certain quantities of information were provided.
  But it is none the less true that in regard to certain important commodities there is great delay, or there are incomplete returns. Particularly in the case of
  1174
  provincial milk, which is the only illustration that I will cite, there has been an inquiry dragging on for two years or more, since, I think, 1927, in which questions were addressed to 53 different bodies or representative traders and only 20 or 30 returns have been forthcoming, notwithstanding repeated reminders. The effect of that is perfectly obvious. It is no use trying to fix a fair price or to arrive at even a declaration of price by the Food Council unless we are satisfied that a reasonable part of the field or the whole field has been covered. Hon. Members opposite will agree—this is part of their own campaign about safeguarding—that unless there is an adequate basis on which to base any recommendation or statement we may do an intolerable injustice to perfectly honest traders in this country—that is an elementary fact—or, on the other hand, we may fail to protect the consumers. So long as that exists there is, in my judgment, an unanswerable case for these compulsory powers. We propose to take these powers in this Bill. That is the second part of the proposals.
  I pass now to what is unquestionably the controversial field and clearly the point which has moved my right hon. Friend opposite and others to offer resistance to the Bill. They seem to indicate that the information is all right and should be obtainable, but they regard it as a dangerous exercise of bureaucratic powers in any way to try to make that price obligatory or to bring it into force, once the information has been obtained and the price has been fixed. I am afraid that I cannot agree with that view, and I hope by my explanation to show that the attitude which they adopt is impossible and would only lead to a great deal of ridicule for the reconstituted Consumers Council. May I make it perfectly plain that if the Government were setting out to try to fix the price for every individual commodity or class of commodity in this country, we should be embarking economically upon an impossible task? I make that statement not only as regards the other side of the House, because I believe it is an underlying conviction of the great majority of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, who have argued, quite truthfully, that there can be no effectual

  1175
  control of prices in this or in any other land unless we either own or control supplies.
  During the long discussions on the Coal Mines Bill I endeavoured to be perfectly frank, and on this legislation also I will not put the case one inch higher than, in my judgment, it will properly go. We do not set out for war-time ownership or war-time control. We are not closing our minds to any discussion about import boards or anything like that, but I am obliged to say that we have not, as I have been careful to ascertain, a majority in the House of Commons for a definitely Socialistic scheme, whatever form it might take, dealing with ownership or out-and-out control of prices in this country. We are in a minority in the House, and it would be idle to introduce legislation which was doomed to defeat under that head, but I think we have gone to the effective point, short of a definitely Socialistic scheme. Nevertheless, it remains my invincible faith, and I think I represent the views of my colleagues, that as many of these commodities are subject to combines and trusts they will inevitably become the materials for public utilities and public corporations. That is my economic faith, and I shall continue to recommend it enthusiastically until we get a majority for it.
  Taking the situation as it is, what would be the position of the consumers, assuming that the Amendment to be proposed by hon. members were carried? In practice, it would be this: we should get the information which substantially we got in regard to milk prices in 1929, and we should indicate in terms of that scale that the price should be 6d. for so many months and 7d. for the other months, or whatever the case might be. All that could be definitely ascertained and done, but simply because there was no power to make that price, ascertained in that precise way, beyond the shadow of a doubt, by chartered accountants and other evidence, there would be no means of making it ultimately applicable, and every section of trade in this country could do exactly what the milk distributors did. Therefore, we should be in the extraordinary difficulty of having covered the whole ground almost beyond dispute—for my part I think beyond dispute in
  1176
  the case of milk—but we should not have any ultimate sanction by which we could make the price obligatory.
  What is the kind of criticism that the Food Council has had to endure within recent times? The very people who today are denouncing the so-called bureaucratic powers have over and over again ridiculed the Food Council because it could merely make recommendations. Sir Allan Powell has, quite properly, pointed out that that would be the position of the Council unless additional powers were given to it. The same condition is true about the bread price scale. Let the House observe that in this particular argument I am concentrating upon two single commodities, in the case of milk and bread, consumed in an area inhabited by millions of people, roughly one-fourth of the population of the country, and provided, as the ascertained facts have shown, by industries which are very largely of a combine, trust or syndicate character or in the industries I have indicated, if they are not actually federated, then such price regulation obtains as to give for all practical purposes, trust powers. That is the kind of field which we have immediately in view on the Food Council. If I imagined for a moment that this Council was going to dissipate its time on all manner of very small propositions, scattered all over the country, I would say at once that it would not be serving the great masses of the consumers in Great Britain. It must make an effort to discharge its functions properly in relation to the great central commodities. We have here two illustrations, milk and bread, which are clearly in that category. That is the kind of effort we have in view for this fixing of prices.
  I think it would be in order for me very briefly indeed to anticipate some of the objections which will be brought forward. I do not propose to waste the time of the House dealing with the old argument about the extension of bureaucratic power, because no proposal is made by any Government which is exempt from that class of criticism. I remember, years ago, when I was a member of the Royal Commission on the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, that I was handed, in one of the Oxford Colleges, a little pamphlet entitled "Fresh Light on Roman Bureaucracy."

  1177
  That pamphlet repeated the arguments used 2,000 years ago and we shall have the arguments repeated to-day.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: And Rome fell.
  Mr. GRAHAM: Rome fell, but not for the reasons in the pamphlet. It is an old argument, but against it we have to set the needs of millions of our people in this country, and, as I will show in a final word, a very important problem relating to our public administration and our industrial production, although I will not concern the House too much about that. Again, it may be suggested that if by any chance we fix a price of that kind, within the bread scale, the milk scale, or any other large commodity, that will automatically become the price to be charged by all classes of distributors or producers whatever the cost may be. I do not think that follows. Indeed, the very letter which has been written by the great bakers' associations in the present controversy shows that within the bread scale they have, in numerous cases, according to their own argument, charged less than what was permissible under that code. If it be the case, as they suggest, that elements of competition remain, then they will still continue to operate. If it is not the case that there is an effective competition, then the other part of my argument comes into play, and we have that monopoly power against which we must take powers. There are other arguments which suggest that large numbers of the smaller and border-land firms will be forced out of distribution or production. Without seeking to do them any injustice at all, very large numbers of them are being forced out of the field of production and wholesale distribution, or of the retail trade, at present. They are being forced out by all manner of combinations in the retail trade: the power of the great co-operative movement on the one side, and the growth of multiple establishments on the other. We have here before us the broad problem of the price level in certain commodities, which can be ascertained and which, as I have already indicated, is so far under monopoly regulations. I think we can make during the Committee stage an unanswerable argument on all these points.
  1178
  I trust that these illustrations will remove a doubt which hon. Members may have had as to the precise application of this part of the Bill. Were this ultimate sanction not included, traders could defy the new Consumers Council, as they have defied the Food Council. There is no intention of abusing the powers which we seek to obtain. It is also my faith that the mere existence of powers will be a sufficient deterrent over a very large part of the field, because very few men like to risk prosecution—and a prosecution would never be brought unless a conviction was tolerably certain—because of the odium which would attach to them in their trade, and because of the damage that would be done to them once it got abroad, as it must do in the community in which they conduct their operations. This ultimate sanction is very important and, in my judgment, is a vital part of the Bill.
  I have said that I would refer to this legislation in terms of our public administrative practice and in terms of industrial conditions. Hon. Members know that over a wide field in this country remuneration is regulated by the cost of living. I want to see remuneration increased; I do not believe that wage reductions are any cure for industrial disturbance; they aggravate it. It is of vital importance at the present time that we should maintain and improve the real wages or the real income of the mass of the British people; by that, of course, we mean to maintain their purchasing power. If that purchasing power is maintained, not only are the burdens on the public authorities to that extent relieved or improved, but there is a much greater measure of, I will not say comfort, but at all events of satisfaction, or of the feeling that there is not the manifest injustice which I am afraid exists in regard to the production of some commodities at the present time. Take the industrial side. During these nine years of industrial depression, it is a moderate and cautious statement to suggest that approximately 10,000,000 people in this country have lost, in income, a sum of not less—I am under-stating it here—than £700,000,000. That has been admittedly the price to the masses in income of the industrial depression. Undeniably, side by side with that, there

  1179
  has been a fall in producers' or commodity prices. A full analysis of every field shows that that has not reached the consumer in the retail markets, and accordingly there has been a spread between the producer and the consumer which has been unjust. I am willing to admit that there are injustices elsewhere, and I recognise the purely static element which has been introduced between the consumers and the producers. Transport charges have increased, and other burdens have grown, but it is the considered judgment of responsible economists that, even when the fullest allowance has been made for this new static element between producers and consumers, there is still too great a spread between the one end and the other in this country. That is a manifest injustice to millions of our people.
  I want to remind the House of the constructive side of the Bill. This Bill is not designed merely to get that information. It is not designed only to apply that ultimate sanction if it should be required. It is designed to build up a body of knowledge regarding production, wholesale and other, distribution and retail prices; in other words, so far as we can do it, to educate the consumers in this country—one of the greatest tasks on which any man in existing conditions has to embark. That is our constructive purpose. So, in moving the Second Reading, I have not one moment's hesitation in saying that I believe, faithfully and rigorously applied, with all that considered information at our disposal, the Bill will be of very great advantage during the remaining years of our industrial stress, and beyond that in the times of prosperity which we hope will come.
  Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
  "this House, while prepared, where necessary, to give to an authoritative and independent tribunal adequate powers of investigation and report on prices of articles of food of general consumption or other essential commodities, declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which creates an arbitrary and bureaucratic power to fix prices over a wide and indefinite range of commodities, the effect of which must be detrimental to the interests of producers and consumers alike."
  1180
  The President of the Board of Trade has explained the Bill to us in a speech of great lucidity, but in a speech which I do not think revealed quite the whole of the powers which this Bill contains. The industry of the President of the Board of Trade is only equalled by his versatility, and by, if I may respectfully say so, his inconsistency. He has spent the last four or five months in piloting a Bill—a rather difficult Bill—through the House, the whole object of which was to give power to Coalowners Councils to fix the price of coal and, incidentally, to fine any dissentient coalowner who sold below the minimum price fixed. Coal, I should have thought, was, in the words of this Bill, "an article in general use and an article of common consumption." The right hon. Gentleman comes to us to-day with a Bill which proposes to give power to the Consumers' Council and the President of the Board of Trade to fix the price of every other commodity in ordinary use, at any stage and at any time, and to send to prison anybody who sells above the maximum price so fixed. These two Bills have only one thing in common. They are both, in the words of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), incredibly bad Bills. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon is going, I understand, to vote for both of them. The President of the Board of Trade mentioned the word "fuel," and that word finds itself in this Bill. I should like to ask him whether coal, which affects every consumer and every industry in the country, and the cost of every industry is a commodity regulated under this Bill?
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I am sure he would wish this to be perfectly clear. Up to the pit-head the price of coal is covered by the Coal Mines Bill, from that point it is covered by the present legislation.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: We have now got it. It will not be open to any consumer or any industry, however high the price of coal may be fixed by the Coalowners Council, to come to the Consumers Council and say, "The price of coal is too high." That is the price at the pithead.
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: The machinery as regards pithead prices is provided under

  1181
  the Coal Mines Bill, and this legislation expressly excludes any cases for which machinery already exists.
  5.0 p.m.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Then I have not in the least misunderstood. It will not be in the power of any industry to appeal to the Consumers Council because the pithead price of coal is too high. Under the provisions of the Coal Mines Bill there is a Committee consisting of coal-owners and miners and independent people, and then a further inquiry by the Board of Trade, and then there is the right, but only if the Committee agree, to appeal to an arbitrator. That is all the right which British industry has in respect of the pithead price. Pithead coal is going to be fixed by a coal-owners' council. If that is all the right that is to be given in the case of coal I ask why is coal given a privileged position like that, and why are the consumers of coal, the most elemental and fundamental article in common use, excluded in that way? If that Coal Bill, to which we devoted five months, is right, why is not every other industry given a Bill of the same kind? You could not have a greater inconsistency than the Bill which is now put before us and the Bill which we were asked to consider for some months. I am of opinion that both are bad, but plainly both cannot be good, and if the right hon. Gentleman stands by this Bill he stands condemned on all the proposals he put before the House on the Coal Bill.
  There is another inconsistency in the position of the President of the Board of Trade. He, second only to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is the keeper of the Ark of the Free Trade Covenant. He carries it from Geneva to Nottingham and will probably get some bumps on the way, but he produces the most amazing Free Trade measures that anybody has ever seen. I should have thought that if ever you could have a Bill which was the negation of Free Trade it was this Bill. It has almost strained the new Free Trade alliance. I do not know how many times we have heard Liberals in this House and in the country stand up and say that they alone are the friends and defenders of the trader. Where is their defence of the trader if they support
  1182
  this Bill? Apparently they are prepared to waive every one of their principles in the hope of favours to come. The truth of the matter is that Free Trade, to the President of the Board of Trade, means freedom for our competitors and fetters for our own industry. We have had this out at one election and we will fight it at other elections.
  There is another thing which used to appeal to Liberals as champions of Free Trade. They said they were the champions of Parliamentary control and watch-dogs against bureaucracy. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) explained in one of his speeches for or against the Coal Mines Bill—[Interruption]. Yes, I say advisedly, "for or against." He said that the only true freedom was to be found in wise control. He is quite firmly in the other camp, but in this country if not in this House, there are a great many Liberals who do attach great importance to Parliamentary control and to the placing of some limits on bureaucracy. The right hon. Gentleman does not. He dismissed all this by saying that he was not going to waste the time of the House by talking about bureaucracy, that it was said about everything that he did. That is just the point. He tells us that he was handed a pamphlet on lessons of bureaucracy in Rome. He learnt his lesson well and improved on everything anybody has ever done before. His Bill is the apotheosis of bureaucracy. [An HON. MEMBER: "Big words."] It is a common enough word. I say this Bill is the apotheosis of bureaucracy. The most bureaucratic provisions are in the most contentious part, which gives the right hon. Gentleman power to fix the prices of any commodity at any time. As the right hon. Gentleman slurred over this part of the Bill I will draw the attention of the House to its provisions.
  The Second Schedule of the Bill, which is I think its most important part, purports to lay down the procedure by which prices can be fixed, and it is a fairly long procedure. There is to be a Report to the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade considers the Report and prepares a draft Order fixing the prices or the rates of commission. It then publishes this draft Order. It does not give very much notice. It is intended to give time for complaint to be made. I think it is 21 days, and

  1183
  anybody who is aggrieved is entitled to make representations. The Board has to hear them, consider them, and give judgment and, if the Board of Trade still thinks prices ought to be controlled, it issues the Order in its final form. It then has to lay the Order before both Houses of Parliament. It is only if both Houses of Parliament object that price control is not to take place. That seems to be a novel form of procedure. In that case why trouble to lay the Order before both Houses at all? One would suppose that you could not get this drastic control of prices until that elaborate machinery had been in operation, but that is not true.
  The President of the Board of Trade can wipe all that out. He can at any time make an emergency Order without any publication of it, without giving anybody a chance of making representations and without coming near this House, fixing the price of any commodity in common use which, as the President has pointed out, is more than half the commodities sold. He may make an Order which will last two months without coming near the House or giving the House an opportunity to challenge it or any trader a chance of making a complaint. If the emergency Order runs out, I think I am right in saying—I submit it to the Attorney-General—he can make another emergency Order, not quite the same, just a little different, and he will still be within his powers, and he can go on in that way fixing the price of commodity after commodity on a wider range.
  It does not end there. He has the power, after the House has approved the Order fixing prices, to make an emergency Order varying what Parliament has done, without laying the Order before Parliament. I have not exaggerated, therefore, in describing this Bill as the apotheosis of bureaucracy. These would be very strong powers for a dictator in an emergency, and they are very remarkable powers to be submitted to what the President is pleased to call a Council of State. It is very disturbing to trade, for there is no trade that will not fear being harassed and that will not be uncertain. Proposals so unusual, so unconstitutional and so disturbing to trade, need very strong and urgent justification.
  I listened to the President's speech. It was as clear and lucid as his speeches
  1184
  always are, but I did not hear from beginning to end one word of justification for the price fixing. He never met one of the arguments founded on all experience of price fixing, and he did not attempt by any proof or any example from past experience to justify the proposals to the House. Indeed he could not do so, because this proposal to fix prices in a bureaucratic way flies in the face of all experience in this or any other country. He said the object of his Bill was to secure that reasonable prices are charged for commodities in common use. That is a very laudable desire, a universal desire, with the exception, of course, of coal. It is a desire we all share, and after the last intervention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer we shall desire it even more fervently.
  The President of the Board of Trade does not justify this Bill by standing at that Box for an hour and saying, "I want things to be cheaper and more reasonable prices charged." He has to prove to the House that legislation is necessary, and still more that the particular legislation proposed will be effective. That is the whole test. It is upon that that we shall vote, and we shall discuss it on that basis if, by the working of the alliance the Bill passes into Committee. The President was right in saying that there would be little opposition to a proposal to give to a proper authority statutory powers of investigation. We have always held that view, but what is the right course to adopt? The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Royal Commission on Food. It held a very exhaustive inquiry, and it laid down two things, which, I think, run the whole way through the Report of the Royal Commission and its recommendations. The first thing they emphasised was the importance of carrying traders with them. Everybody will agree—I think that the right hon. Gentleman would—that you are carrying a large proportion of traders with you so far, but after this Bill I very much doubt if you will carry any.
  The other thing that the Commission laid down was that the great safeguard to the public was an informed public opinion, and the Balfour Committee, which sat so long, in its final report confirmed this over and over again in everything it said about combinations and trusts. We urged it in the discussions on the Coal Bill without very much

  1185
  success. I should be sorry to see the Food Council supplanted by any other body. I do not know why it should be. It has done amazingly good work, and as I had to do with the setting up of the Council and worked with it for a number of years, I should like to join in the tribute which has been paid to the members of the Food Council for the unsparing, generous and arduous public work which they have done. I should also like to pay that tribute, not only to the present chairman, but to the man who presided over it for so long, Lord Bradbury. If the President of the Board of Trade had come to us and said, "We want the Food Council or some other independent responsible tribunal to have powers of investigation into the prices of articles of common use, and to have statutory powers like a court when information is withheld"—assuming he could establish a case—I believe that this House would immediately say, "That is all right; you shall have these powers."
  As a matter of fact, that is what the Food Council asked for with regard to bread. A great deal of information was forthcoming. It was not for power to control the price of bread which the Food Council asked in their last Report. If they had, I should have disagreed with them. It was an application that they should see the figures which Messrs. Plender, Griffiths see, so that they could ascertain whether the margins and the costings were correctly set out. We should be ready to assent to a proposition of that kind. When we set up the Food Council, we said that we should give that power whenever necessary. I think that we were right in withholding it in the first instance, because we wanted to carry the traders with us, but we always made it clear generally and in the specific instance cited, that we should give those powers. You can do it under the Tribunal of Evidence Act. The President of the Board of Trade has said that the statement that we were going to do that provided the Food Council with a very large part of the information which they required. That is the right way to go to work in this matter. You inform the public, and an informed public can judge, and they can make their judgment effective by dealing with traders who have conformed in this regard. There would always be traders who would insist upon selling at
  1186
  the lower price unless it was a controlled price. What about the co-operative societies? Is it not a magnificent opportunity for co-operative societies—if they want to extend their clientele—if they find some other firm is selling at a price higher than that which the Food Council believe to be a fair price, to come in and sell at a lower price?
  I know that the right hon Gentleman the Member for Darwen has a passion for control and that he is most illiberal in the matter. The ordinary man rightly believes that the housewife is a far better shopper than any Government Department is ever likely to be a trader. The public will get their way unless you do what you did in the Coal Bill, namely, force traders into a combine and make it a penal offence to sell below the price which is fixed. Your coal legislation is the only example I know which makes it impossible for this common law to work. There is less necessity to-day for this kind of control than there has been at any other time. The only occasions when control is necessary are in times of scarcity, and every authority has laid that down over and over again. To-day we have a time of glut. To-day there is an excess of production whether in raw material, in food, or in manufacturing capacity, and, therefore, it is in the interests of the producer to sell the most he can and to narrow his margin. Yet it is at this time and in these circumstances that the Government are trying to force these bureaucratic powers upon us. It is said that by fixing prices they are going to bridge the gap between wholesale and retail prices. It is, as I understand the right hon. Gentleman, to eliminate unnecessary middlemen and to reduce excessive commissions. Is it really believed that by Orders and the slow machinery of making Orders, and by the bureaucratic action of a Government Department that you really can fix the proper prices and the proper rates of commission in all the wide ramifications in trade and industry and the ever-changing conditions? You will very soon find you are mistaken. You can only get proper dealing of that kind by the efficient organisation of industry exactly in the way the right hon. Gentleman said on the Coal Bill. One of the few things with which I agreed was when he said that the only effective way to deal with exporters and coal merchants was by a

  1187
  combination of owners dealing collectively. He certainly will not do this by orders made in the Board of Trade.
  All experience, to which the right hon. Gentleman did not refer, shows that control defeats its own object. That is not a dictum; it is the result of practical experience. If you look wherever control has been tried, you find these results. You find, in the first place, that if you fix minimum prices you have to fix them on the standard of the less efficient and not on the standard of the most efficient. In the experience of War time control—I am speaking from memory—I believe that when you were fixing the price of bread you found out what was the cost of the conversion of a sack of flour, and that it varied enormously between the very efficient bakeries and the inefficient bakeries. You did not fix, as the maximum price, the cost at which the efficient baker could do it; you fixed it much nearer the scale at which the least efficient could do it. When you fix prices, the maximum price tends to become the minimum price. There is another phase, and it came out very plainly in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. If you fix prices you will have a complete disregard of all quality. That is the whole experience of the War. I am going to state some examples in a moment. How could the right hon. Gentleman, even with his ingenuity and his energy, fix prices for varying articles of food, for different cuts of meat at every stage and at different times. He gave the example of cod. He said that cod cost so much at the dock side and so much in a shop, and he courteously gave way to an hon. Friend whose experience is second to none. The hon. Gentleman asked the right hon. Gentleman a very pertinent question when he was stating, I think, that a shilling or 8d. a pound was an unreasonable price. He asked what was the quality of the cod, and the right hon. Gentleman said, "I have no time to trouble myself with details of that kind." That is what he said in effect. Those are just the kind of details with which the President of the Board of Trade will have to trouble himself when he gets to price-fixing, unless he is going to put everybody into a worse position than is the case to-day.
  1188
  Take another objection. There is no sort of elasticity. The one thing you want in trade to-day, and most of all in trade in perishable commodities, is elasticity of action—quick decision. How can you have elasticity when you have to hold inquiries before you can alter prices? This Bill contains the real vice of control without responsibility. There is something to be said for your Socialism if it is straightforward and you really think that you can run industry better, if you are prepared to buy it and run it. There is absolutely nothing to be said for irresponsible control. You are to give an Order and take no responsibility, and if there is a loss the trader loses. This is a nice way of giving encouragement to traders, when the Lord Privy Seal has said that they require encouragement! The last of the vices of control—and it has always been found to be so—is that you cannot fix the price of one commodity in one form without fixing it in all its forms and at all its stages. The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not want the House to think that he was taking very great powers in this Bill. There were only a few things of which he should want to control the price. If he only wanted to control a few things in price—and he stated bread and milk—why take power in this Bill to control the price of practically every commodity that exists?
  If you try to control any commodity at any stage or any part of any commodity at any stage, you will find that you have to control the whole of that commodity in all its stages and all its uses. You will find that you will not be able to do that effectively because supplies will largely be outside your control unless the right hon. Gentleman takes a further step, which certain hon. Gentlemen are only too anxious to see him take, and obtain control of supplies. By this Bill you take the first step. It is a very short step and it is perhaps an inevitable step, if you use these powers, for the State to take over every phase of marketing in the field which you seek to cover. Into this pit of State control you propose to plunge all the industries serving the public at a time when it is least called for and when industry needs most encouragement. I have given the objections to this price control, objections which, as I have said, all authorities support. The right hon. Gentleman

  1189
  gives no experience and no authority in support of his proposition. I do not want unduly to weary the House, but I think that when we are asked to make a great experiment of this kind we ought to see what experience has taught and what those who have had most experience have to say about it.
  There was a Royal Commission on Food Prices. That Commission was dead against compulsory prices, and in dealing with meat, it said, in paragraph 230 of the Report:
  "The fixing of meat prices may be regarded as a measure to be adopted only in an emergency when there is an acute shortage of supplies and when some form of rationing has to be introduced without reference to variations in quality and individual methods of cutting. In any other circumstances fixed prices for meat are unsound and unworkable."
  The right hon. Gentleman gave quotations from the Linlithgow Committee which had many suggestions to make. They were not satisfied. We can go through the reports of that Committee without finding any recommendation for the control of prices, and indeed the right hon. Gentleman will find that they definitely turned down the proposal for the control of prices. He spoke of how he could serve the producer and agriculture. The National Farmers' Union have already expressed their gratitude to him for this Bill. They say:
  "The Bill seeks to confer far-reaching powers upon the proposed Council, and if they are to be properly executed it is obvious that nothing short of an army corps of officials will be required to carry the perpetual inquisition into every centre of production and distribution throughout the country. When the Board of Trade, free from Parliamentary control, embarks upon its orgy of despotic price-fixing, it is safe to say that producers and consumers will suffer in the process."
  That is what one of the principal beneficiaries under this Bill says about the proposals. Let me quote two more authorities. The first is Sir William Beveridge, who was the Secretary of the Ministry of Food during the War, and has a unique experience of food control. Considering the difficulties he had to encounter during War time he met with a singular measure of success. Every one of the objections I have raised to price-fixing in this Bill is borne out up to the hilt by what Sir William Beveridge says in his book on "British
  1190
  Food Control" which he wrote as the result of his experience. He says:
  "The wide extension of control came as the result of experience and conveys an economic lesson. To control the price of food in one form while leaving free some other form in which the same material may be used is futile.… Ultimately it became clear that nothing that mattered at all as food for the people could safely be left free of price control; the Ministry was driven to hazardous and not wholly successful experiments with such perishable and elusive commodities as fresh fish,"
  There you have your cod—
  "rabbits, onions and fruit, and recoiled only before the problem of fixing prices for fresh vegetables.
  The margins and prices must be standardised, and unless a breakdown of supplies or distribution is to be risked, must be such as to ensure that even the less efficient producers or distributors find it possible to remain in business.
  Control involved a diminished regard for quality. The better qualities of home-made cheese or of Southdown lamb could no longer command a special price and ceased to be produced.
  The effectiveness of control depended upon its completeness. Control of prices, if there was any shortage, that is, if there was any need for fixing prices at all, had to be control at all stages from the producer to the consumer. It had to be founded upon control of supplies and had, as a rule, to be accompanied by rigid control of distribution. All this meant an elaborate and costly organisation, worth its cost in case of real need, but not to be lightly undertaken. In control it must generally be all or nothing; half measures are disastrous."
  And this is by a man in whom I should have thought the Government would have found a favourable critic if they could find one anywhere. He goes on to say:
  "I can only record here, as a result of Ministry of Food experience, a personal doubt of any gain either to consumer or producer from public regulation of food supply in peace, that would repay the cost of the vast organisation involved, or justify diversion to it of any of the limited store of political energy and ability needed for more urgent problems, or outweigh the risk of bribery by subsidies."
  That is the judgment of a man who had a unique experience of the work of price control of commodities at all stages, and it justifies up to the hilt every criticism I have advanced against this Bill. I will quote just one other authority, and that is the Imperial Conference of 1923. There you got the combined and considered judgment of the whole Empire. They considered in a calm atmosphere whether control was practicable and whether any benefits were derived from it. The committee, over which I had the

  1191
  honour to preside contained representatives of this Government, of all the Dominions Governments and of India, and it had at its disposal the experience of those who had been responsible for food control during the War in the different parts of the Empire. This is how they sum up their opinions—it was an absolutely unanimous report:
  "War-time experiences demonstrated that under control it is impracticable to let quality govern price, since the variety in quality is too great for the controlling authority to be able to take accurate account of it. Thus, in the case of meat control in Great Britain, it was not found possible to differentiate in price according to varying quality for the same cuts of meat. Control is also costly, in that experience shows that the profit margins fixed must be governed by the least efficient elements in the controlled trade. Present day margins, in so far as they are excessive, are in no small measure a relic of the wide margins which it was in this way found necessary to establish under control. Nor is it feasible to confine price control to any one stage. Once applied it becomes necessary to extend it to all stages. Indeed, ultimately the State might find itself involved not only in control, but in the necessity of taking over every phase of the business of marketing. And, having done so, it would probably find that margins had increased rather than diminished in consequence."
  That report appears with my name at the end of it, but it was a unanimous report of a Committee on which every Government of the Empire was represented and, as such, no doubt the Prime Minister is proposing to sneer at it. All experience shows that the proposal to control prices will defeat its own object. And what encouragement are you likely to give to industry by it? The one thing industry needs to-day is certainty, and, if there is one thing which this Bill will give, it is uncertainty in all its phases. The only set of people who are to be congratulated on the introduction of this Bill are hon. Members opposite below the Gangway, and I tender to them my congratulations. Before the Recess they were unhappy because they thought their own Front Bench could not be converted to Socialism. I congratulate them on having converted their Front Bench. They have pushed them well on the road, and they have converted the Liberal party as well. If this Bill receives the support of Liberals in this House then Liberalism is not existent in this House, whatever it may be in the country.
  1192
  We have heard a great deal from Liberals as to the danger of taking one step on the slippery slope of Protection. What about the landslide of control, which will soon land them in Socialism, and Socialism in their time and through their agency? This is not Socialism by the back door; it is Socialism through the front door. It is bound to fail in its purpose, that is the protection of the producer and the consumer. It can only succeed in doing one thing, and that is to discourage trade and create so much uncertainty that more and more you will have to force your control on industry and take over more and more stages of industrial life. The majority of Members of this House were elected to oppose that kind of proposal and we, at any rate, are going to oppose it.
  Mr. WISE: As I listened to the right hon. Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) this Bill appeared in a little more favourable light than when I first read it. I was also somewhat surprised by the complete and healthy satisfaction the right hon. Gentleman seems to have derived from the success of the Food Council, which was his own particular baby. Listening to his speech one would have thought that the Food Council had had some effect in controlling prices, that its operations had merited the gratitude of the producer and consumer, that its decisions had been acted upon, that its advice had been accepted, and that traders had regarded it with respect. As every hon. Member knows, the facts are just the contrary: and if any further evidence were necessary that proposals on the lines of this Bill in order to bring the labours of the Food Council in its present form to a quick but not dishonourable conclusion, the letter which appears in the "Times" this morning from the chairman of the Food Council would provide it. Let me draw the attention of the right hon. Member for Hendon to the last paragraph in that letter, in which the chairman says:
  "It must be admitted that … information has been supplied or withheld, and that the conclusions reached have been accepted or ignored as the likelihood of further powers being given has advanced or receded. Almost the only general criticism levelled at the Council during the past five years has been that it could report as much as it liked but that, if traders so willed, the report was the end of the matter."

  1193
  The fact of the matter is that the Food Council has been acting practically without powers in trying to investigate the ramifications of trade in this country. It has been without an adequate staff and it was hardly backed up at all by hon. Members opposite whilst they were in power when it got into trouble with the traders as was inevitable and as it has been most of the time. At the beginning the big traders learnt that it had no powers behind it and might safely be treated with contempt. Then, two or three years ago, the small traders made the same discovery and now hardly anybody at all pays any attention to its somewhat infrequent meetings. It is perfectly obvious that whatever Government is in power they would have to end a situation which was as discreditable to the Government which was officially responsible for it as it was dangerous to the respect for law and its administration in this country.
  Listening to the right hon. Member for Hendon one might almost think that there was no problem of food prices; that retail prices give satisfaction to consumers and to everybody else. Everyone who examines the broad economic problems of the country at the moment knows that the wide disparity between wholesale and retail prices is one of the main causes of our present industrial difficulty; that the great drop in the price of production has been accompanied by no corresponding drop in the price which retail traders require and are able to exact; and that the long lag between producers and retail prices which put up the cost of living, and created serious difficulties at the same time for farmers and manufacturers throughout the country, must be dealt with somehow or other before industrial equilibrium can be restored. As the President of the Board of Trade has shown, committee after committee has drawn attention to this post-War phenomenon of retail traders being able to exact quite unnecessary and unnatural margins for their services while, on the other hand, in the domain of wholesale trade, there has been such a concentration of capital and other resources, so great an extension of trustification, that the ordinary economic laws of supply and demand which were supposed to operate, have ceased to have any effect. The problem has to be dealt with, and whether it is dealt with on
  1194
  the lines proposed by the right hon. Gentleman or on other lines, this House could not for very long have continued to ignore it.
  There are two schools of thought as to the method by which prices may be controlled, and two lines of approach to the problem. First, there are those who believe that all that is necessary is to provide powers for careful inquiry to find the facts, whether by voluntary or compulsory arrangement, and then to publish these verified facts and leave public opinion and the possibility of competition to do the rest. The second school of thought believe that those measures, while useful in themselves, are not enough and that some further control must be exercised, directly or indirectly, to secure that traders shall comply with standards of profit and margins laid down by some responsible public body. The Bill goes some distance in both directions. It attempts to achieve both objectives, but in its present form—and I hope that during the Committee stage it will be possible to repair these omissions—it fails in my opinion to achieve either objective adequately.
  Take the powers of inquiry. Everybody on both sides of the House, apart from the usual need to make party points on such occasions as this, realises that the Council had to be endowed with powers of full and adequate inquiry, that it had to have compulsory powers behind it. But it seems to me that the powers which the Bill gives the Council are one-sided and inadequate. Its powers are, apparently, limited to examining costs, prices, and profits as they are. But the real complaint in many of the distributive trades is, not that the individual traders are getting too much, not that the particular links in the chain are receiving too large rewards—many of them are not—but that there are too many of them. I recall the case of Covent Garden market, in regard to which the Linlithgow Committee pointed out that, between the grower and the consumer, there were frequently six intermediaries. There was the London Commission salesman who received the goods from the grower; there was the London wholesaler; there was the London Commission buyer, who bought on behalf of the provincial towns; there was the provincial wholesaler, and very often a second provincial wholesaler, and

  1195
  finally, there was the provincial retailer. The real criticism of that elaborate system, and it is a criticism which can fairly be levelled not only against the fruit and vegetable trade, but against a dozen others, is not that the individuals concerned are getting too high a commission but that three or four of the six would be proved unnecessary by a proper organisation of distribution, and could be eliminated.
  There is also the case of the milk combine to which a good deal of reference has been made. The criticism of the milk combine is not concerned with its efficiency as a machine, but is concerned with the fact that it has planted itself in such a position as to be able to exact for itself an entirely disproportionate remuneration out of the amount which the consumer pays. What is wanted is not merely power to examine things as they are, but power to produce schemes for reorganising distribution so that the total margin between the producer and the consumer may be—
  Major SALMON: Will the hon. Member kindly state what he considers to be a disproportionate remuneration?
  Mr. WISE: In the case of milk, the Linlithgow Committee pointed out that the margin which the distributing interest receives varies sometimes from 100 per cent. to 120 per cent. of the amount which the producer receives. I cannot conceive that it is at all necessary that the milk distributor, for the service of carrying the milk from the London station and distributing it to the consumers, should receive about as much as, or more than the farmer receives for his capital sunk in stock and farm, for his work and for wages, for the food which he supplies to his stock, for the risks which he takes, for the transport of the milk to the country station and sometimes for the transport of the milk to London. That margin of 100 per cent. or so is, I am convinced, absolutely unjustified. It is not necessary in New York; it is not necessary in Copenhagen, and it is certainly not necessary in London. That is what I meant, that is what the Linlithgow Committee meant and that is what the various other committees have meant by a disproportionate margin of remuneration.
  1196
  Let me now proceed with my argument until the next hon. Member desires to interrupt. I think that the proposal in the Bill to give compulsory powers to find the facts and figures, with the addition which I have suggested, is a big step in the right, direction. But, then, the whole success of this first method of controlling prices depends on the facts becoming known. The idea is that you find the facts and then bring them to the notice of the general public and you look to public opinion to do what is required. When I read the Bill, however, I begin to wonder what has come over the President of the Board of Trade. A whole page is devoted to what seem to me to be elaborate and extraordinary measures to prevent the facts, when discovered, being of any effective use, or at any rate to diminish heavily their possible use, by insisting that, save with the permission of the interests concerned, complete and absolute secrecy is to be maintained under heavy penalties. I was astonished to find that the Bill insists that the penalty for disclosing facts in regard to any of the inquiries made into profits and costs, shall be 10 times as much as the penalty for profiteering. If any individual present at any committee or a member of any committee, or a person concerned in any way with the proceedings of a committee, discloses what has happened at any of these inquiries, he is liable to a file of £100 or two years' imprisonment or both.
  Mr. BLINDELL: Will the hon. Member allow me to ask him a question with regard to this matter of secrecy? Do not these Clauses refer to persons who are given power in the Bill to inquire into prices, and to extract from the private books of individuals or companies such information as they consider desirable; and are not these penalties designed to safeguard private information of that kind from being broadcast? I think it is a very reasonable thing to do.
  Mr. WISE: The provision is very much wider than that as the hon. Member will see if he looks at Clause 4. It concerns anybody who, in any circumstances, happens to be present at any of these committees or any of these inquiries, or who is in any way concerned, and who comes into possession of information which by the machinery of the Bill is required. Without the permission of the

  1197
  firm concerned or the owner of the trading institution concerned those facts may not be disclosed under the penalty I have mentioned.
  Mr. BLINDELL: If you are going to give power to people to inquire directly into the private books of any undertaking or any individual, you must safeguard that undertaking or individual against the publication of facts which ought not to be published.
  Mr. WISE: Yes, against the publication of facts which ought not to be published. That is all right, but what about the facts which ought to be published? A great deal of the information to be procured under this Bill will refer to facts which, most undoubtedly, ought to be published. In any case, why should there be a penalty of £100 or two years' imprisonment or both attached to the disclosure of any information, whereas, if any firm makes a profit by disregarding the council and the prices fixed by the council, the maximum fine is £5 for the first offence and £10, or three months' imprisonment for the second and later offences. That is an extraordinary contrast and certainly requires justification. When the council have made a report to the Board of Trade, the Board of Trade itself is prevented from publishing the facts, unless the case actually comes into Court, without the permission of the individuals or firms concerned. If the inquiry has been of any use at all these latter will be the persons most concerned to prevent the facts leaking out to the public. As a matter of fact, the very interesting letter from Sir Allan Powell in the "Times" would have landed that gentleman in the possibility of two years' imprisonment several times over, had it been published under the operation in this Bill without the permission of the United Dairies—who published, as Sir Allan says, an entirely misleading statement and, therefore, would naturally desire that the facts should not be put up against them.
  6.0 p.m.
  As the matter stands, the Consumers Council and the Board of Trade, with all the facts in their possession, may be quite unable to defend themselves against the attacks of trading associations or individual firms engaged in a campaign of misleading publicity in order to prevent the practices of which the Board of Trade disapproves, being
  1198
  stopped. There are cases, I admit, where business secrecy may be defensible, as for instance where a trader is in competition with foreign traders and where the disclosure of the details may assist the foreigner in a competitive business; but those cases might be covered, as they have been covered in previous Acts of this kind by giving the Board of Trade proper discretion in regard to publication. But this limitation does not at all apply in cases where you are dealing with distributive industry or great distributive trades like the United Dairies or the big meat combine associated with the name of Vestey, which is not in competition in these markets at all with the foreigner, but in regard to which the facts are all very vitally interesting, not only to the shareholders of these companies—who very often are not told very much about them—but also to the public generallly.
  As a matter of fact, in this strained desire for secrecy, this Bill in its present form goes far beyond what has been recommended by previous Committees. The Committee on Trusts in 1919 recommended complete publicity. The Profiteering Act gave powers to the Board of Trade or the Committees of Inquiry to publish their findings and a good many valuable reports were made available to the public. Even the Liberal Yellow Book goes so far as to say that the withholding of facts may sometimes benefit an individual, but that it can never benefit the community as a whole, and it recommends a very much wider publication of the facts. I hope, therefore, that when the Bill is in Committee, if Amendments are put down on this point, we may have the valuable support of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite.
  Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: What about the question of the books of Arcos?
  Mr. MAXTON: They have been examined already.
  Mr. WISE: And I think that it would give very little satisfaction to the hon. Gentleman, who is always misinformed on this question.
  With regard to the fixation of prices I find myself a good deal in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman opposite,

  1199
  though for very different reasons. It is the case that the mere fixation of prices by itself is very often the cause of as many difficulties as it removes, but I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman both in his quotations and in his conclusions. He quoted from the high authority of Sir William Beveridge. I am very familiar with, and have a great respect for, the work that Sir William did in the War and has done since; I happen also to be very familiar with that very admirable book which he has written of his experiences in that connection. I noted that the right hon. Gentleman opposite did not bother to quote something which appears on the same page:
  "The Ministry of Food, suppressing private enterprise, completely accomplished, what private enterprise in the War could never have accomplished, and the British people were fed not only better, but more cheaply than, without the Ministry, they possibly could have been fed in the War."
  I dare say the right hon. Gentleman overlooked that, but it is very easy to establish a case by one or two sentences extracted from a book of about 450 pages. In leading up to his conclusions, the right hon. Gentleman might have recalled that Sir William wrote that book in 1922 or 1923, and the whole of his final conclusion was largely conditioned on the assumptions which he made on page 343 of the book, that competition would renew after the war the check on retail and other prices which it had exercised before the War. We know quite well that the situation is not as Sir William at that time hoped it might be, and to a very large extent that vitiates Sir William's very cautious conclusions.
  When I come to examine the machinery in the Bill for the fixation of prices, I confess that I am very doubtful as to what the effects will be. I am quite sure that the proposals to fix prices are not intended to be much more than a threat. I do not like legislation which proposes remedies which it is practically impossible to enforce. Traders will find it out, just as they found out the Food Council pretence which the right hon. Gentleman set up. All experience in the War and afterwards confirms the view that it is dangerous, if not impossible, to fix maximum prices unless you are prepared to control supplies. Though the
  1200
  point may be dealt with by other legislation, there is nothing in the Bill which gives any real control of supplies. It is the experience of this and of other countries. I remember a long talk which I had immediately after the War with the head of the German Food Ministry, and we found that our experience in this matter exactly coincided. It was very unsafe and practically ineffective to fix maximum prices unless at some stage or other you had a grip of supplies, and therefore real power to control prices.
  I am bound to say that I thought perhaps the President of the Board of Trade understood that central principle thoroughly when in the Coal Bill, the purpose of which was to deal largely with the prices question, he made it dependent through the quota system on an effective control of supplies. The existing system of distribution works by means of very delicate adjustment of prices, and secures distribution by the elasticity under which it operates; and if you are proposing to put a block at any stage on the operation of that reasonable latitude, you have sooner or later to face the problem of controlling distribution. Otherwise, you will have difficulties both in regard to home produced supplies, and in regard to imported supplies. There are, perhaps, exceptions to that rule. There are cases in which you can delegate control to some body like an all-comprehensive milk trust, which in fact would take general responsibility for distribution of individual supplies. But where you are dealing with a host of traders, small and large, you will either have to put your prices so high that they are not really effective, or you will have to provide some other means of securing supplies going to those places where, for transport or other reasons, the maximum price is less profitable than in the great centres of population.
  That is the case with home supplies, but the case of imported supplies is very much more difficult. Take wheat for example. Suppose you decide to fix a maximum price for flour. On what are you going to base it? I suppose that the price of flour, to the extent of 80 per cent. or so, is dependent on the price of wheat, which fluctuates from month to month, from day to day, and even from hour to hour. In November, 1929, it fell 14 per cent.; in the next three weeks it rose

  1201
  again 14 per cent.; by Christmas it had dropped 7 per cent. It then rose again; in the next 10 weeks it dropped 26 per cent., and rose 10 per cent. in the following month; and in only the last three weeks the price of wheat has gone down and up again about 12 to 15 per cent. How, on such a basis, can you possibly fix the price of flour? It is quite impracticable. You cannot have a constantly adjustable price for flour, and if you try to deal with it by fixing a margin within which the miller could sell his flour, having regard to the price of wheat, you will be up against the other point that the miller is buying flour at different times at different prices and adjusting the quantities and prices in his grist. No two millers at any time will be putting wheats bought at the same prices into a particular quality of flour. That is the case of flour, but it is just as difficult with other commodities.
  Take the case of margarine, a commodity which the right hon. Gentleman did not deal with in detail, but which would merit the careful attention of the new Consumers Council. It is a very important factor in the food supply of the working class, and is controlled, as to about 80 per cent. of its production throughout Europe, by one great international combine. How are you going to fix a maximum price for margarine? There are various grades and qualities, but in any case, even if you try to standardise a particular quality, into that quality may go at different times refined oils derived in varying quantities from half a dozen different raw materials. Take the case of beef, another of the staple food commodities. Our beef supplies are controlled by two great combines, one of which is British and the other American, who between them agree as to the amount of beef that shall be shipped to this country in any particular week from South America. They say they do not attempt to fix the prices, but they achieve it very efficiently by controlling the amount that comes forward. So far as their organisation in this country is concerned, you will find that the wholesaler, the cold-storage man, the Smithfield salesman, and the retailer are no doubt making quite a reasonably small margin; the real profit is being made by a part of the same organisation outside our jurisdiction in South America. The
  1202
  machinery of this Bill in its present form is quite inapplicable to that situation.
  There is one case in which I think it might be of some special value; that is, in the case of milk, but only then in the event of a deadlock, where the farmers and milk distributors are trying to agree on prices. There distribution is largely controlled by one important organisation. But even there, unless you have very much wider powers of interference and control than the Bill proposes, I doubt very much whether you will be able to effect any very big and substantial reduction for the consumer. Where, as in that case, and as in the case of beef and margarine, a vital commodity necessary for mass consumption has got into the hands of one single organisation whose purpose quite frankly—and there is nothing improper about it as things are—is to make as much profit as it can for its shareholders, I think you have to have—and here I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite—very much wider measures than those set out in this Bill. In regard to imported commodities you cannot possibly fix prices unless you have an effective control over the import prices. If you have a stabilised basis for the price of wheat you can fix a price fairly and closely, and you can effect great economies for the consumer in the price of flour and in the price of bread, but you cannot do it unless you have a steady price over a reasonable period of time for wheat.
  It is the same with meat, and margarine and other goods. If you want a stable basis for the prices of such commodities you must take charge of imported supplies and see that the miller and other manufacturing elements get their wheat or other raw materials at steady and known prices. Then you can effectively control prices to the consumer. As for milk and other internal commodities, you have to choose between having the food supplies of this country properly controlled or used as a basis for unduly high profits. There is no question that under the milk combine, associating dozens of companies, and dealing with a wide range of commodities, all the bookkeeping is mixed up in such fashion that, as the Food Council and the Linlithgow Committee pointed out, it is difficult to determine the real cost of distributing milk; and you have to be prepared to face up to the alternative of having those

  1203
  food supplies of vital importance to the community controlled by an organisation whose purpose is the profits of its shareholders or controlled in the public interest by some organisation, some corporation, such as the right hon. Gentleman indicated in the latter part of his speech, acting for and responsible to the public, for the benefit of consumers and the producers alike.
  We on these benches, however, do not believe that the way to secure lower prices to the consumer is by lowering the prices paid to the farmer here or elsewhere. It is not the farmer who is profiting, it is the intermediary. The consumer and producer have one common difficulty to overcome, the top-heavy and expensive organisation of the distributing trade, which has entrenched itself so firmly since the War. The measures we had to take during the War to some extent contributed to that, because we had to create organisation where organisation did not before exist. The real difficulty is that these intermediaries in the aggregate, though not necessarily individually, take far too large a toll of the price that the consumer pays. Though I welcome this Bill because of its power to get information, and because it insists on the right to fix retail food prices and clothing prices, thus showing that the Government recognises that it has to take its share of responsibility, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be willing to accept Amendments which would enable him to achieve more effectively the objects in view.
  I hope, also, that he will proceed with the parallel legislation to which he referred in the very last phrases of his speech for import boards. These are as vitally necessary for agriculture as for the protection of the consumer. The Government, in its minority position, has a very big problem with which to deal. It must know, however, that half-measures of this sort, though they may carry us a little way along the road, are apt to create as many difficulties as they remove. I would very much rather the right hon. Gentleman had given to the House the sort of Bill which I know he would like to produce and had let the other side take the responsibility of throwing it out. This Measure, unless it is supplemented on the lines I have suggested, will not fulfil more than half the hopes we have built upon it.
  Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: In this Bill the Government are dealing with a problem which is of the first importance, and as difficult as it is important. Obviously there is no subject which should more fully engage the attention of Parliament than the cost of living of the people. Of all the figures published on official authority from time to time, none are more fundamentally important than those which show the variations in the cost of living. Upon the fall in the cost of living depends the comfort of the people, particularly the poorest classes, and upon it ultimately depends also the prosperity of our export trade, by which, in the long run, this country must live and prosper. The central economic problem which faces this island is how to maintain a high standard of living for our people with low costs of production of goods for sale in the world markets, and those two objects can only be reconciled by a very high standard of efficiency and organisation and by keeping down the cost of living to the lowest point consistent with giving a legitimate reward to the producer of the commodities.
  In the last five years there has been a remarkable fall in wholesale prices, but a very much smaller and disproportionate fall in retail prices. In the case of cereals and meat there has been a fall of no less than one-fourth, and in other foodstuffs a fall of one-fifth. Taking commodities generally, wholesale prices have fallen between one-fourth and one-fifth, but the cost of living, so far as concerns food, has fallen only by one-eighth, by only half as much. If we take all the items included in the Board of Trade figures of the cost of living—which includes, however, rent—the fall has been only one-eleventh. Therefore, the advantage of the fall has by no means reached the masses of our population. We have restored the gold standard, and in doing so have greatly hampered our export trades, but that disadvantage ought to have been counterbalanced by a cheapening of imports and a rapid fall in the cost of living. Imports have been cheapened, but the fall in the cost of living has by no means arrived. The lag, as economists call it, in the fall in retail prices is partly due, I believe, to the continuance of the very heavy burden of taxation. I agree with what Sir Auckland Geddes said in an interesting speech

  1205
  the other day that heavy taxation is reflected in prices; one of the reasons why retail prices have not kept pace with the wholesale is that the heavy taxation imposed upon all classes dealing with those commodities in the course of their transit to the ultimate consumer is reflected in a considerable degree in the price.
  In addition to that public opinion feels, and I think feels rightly, that much of the difference has been intercepted by the wholesalers and retailers who handle the commodities. They see that while many of our great staple manufacturing industries are exceedingly depressed the intermediate industries are very prosperous. They see great combines controlling important commodities, they see reports of immense fortunes accumulated by the heads of those combines, and they see, also, that many of the retail trading combinations are making great profits. Therefore, this matter does occupy a large share of the public mind, and I am glad the President of the Board of Trade has addressed himself to the problem and is endeavouring to deal with it in a Bill. I welcome his appearance in the capacity of a Minister endeavouring to keep down prices much more than I welcomed his appearance in his former capacity of a Minister endeavouring to keep up prices; but I observe that there is a provision in the Bill, Sub-section (3) of Clause 2, which warns the Consumers Council off any commodity which has been dealt with under another Act of Parliament. I imagine the object of that is to prevent his first child, the Coal Owners Committee, getting into any unseemly and unbrotherly conflict with his second child, the Consumers Council.
  The problem of monopolies and combines and their effect upon prices is not a new one. It has always attracted the attention of economists and of Parliaments in this and other countries. So long as there is the free play of competition we may leave matters at that, because the desire of retailers and wholesalers to obtain trade will induce them to keep their prices down to the lowest figure which gives them a fair and legitimate profit. By fortunate speculation they may sometimes get a higher profit, but in the long run prices are kept down to a reasonable level by free competition. Where you have a monopoly or a combine
  1206
  however, these simple economic rules do not apply. Some monopolies are natural monopolies, for instance, the postal service, telegraphs, telephones, railways, trams, canals, water, gas and electricity, and no one in any quarter of the House would say that the price of those commodities or services should be left to the free play of competition and that there should be no social intervention at all. No one has ever said that these matters should be left to the free play of laissez faire. In natural monopolies of this kind there must be some kind of municipal or State ownership or control, and that has been set up with the consent of all parties over a series of years.
  The new problem to which Parliament has to address itself is that the same principle of monopoly and combination is being applied in our day to all kinds of commodities which are not in the least natural monopolies. Combination is able to effect a great economy and there are large profits to be gained by bringing into two or three hands the control of supplies of important articles, and when that control has been established in the case of two or three hands it is often found exceedingly profitable to centre it still further and place the whole organisation under one head. In these circumstances, are the public to have no redress if those who hold this monopoly power exercise it unfairly by extorting from the community a much higher price than would have been obtained if this monopolistic system did not prevail? That is a new problem of our time. It did not present itself to the older economists and is one to which they gave no answer. Those being the circumstances, and I think all Members will agree that those conditions do exist, we must address our minds to them and decide what course it is possible to take.
  Not very long ago the current opinion was that you ought to try to break up these monopolies. In America they passed a series of anti-trust laws, because it was thought that combines of this sort in restraint of trade were deleterious to the interests of the company and ought to be suppressed by law. It has since been shown that in certain circumstances such combines may be useful and may give the public the best service, and the public have now come to believe that amalgamations of this sort and all

  1207
  kinds of trade associations are organisations which ought to be encouraged rather than discouraged. Moreover, any attempt to break up these trusts and combines in America has been found to be ineffective. Such attempts always introduce friction, and may lead in the long run to costs being raised and to higher prices. Such attempts often lead to evasion, and it has been discovered in America that you cannot suppress those combinations and that it is neither practical nor desirable to do so.
  There is another alternative, which is that you should apply to these combinations the same rules which you apply to such enterprises as the Post Office, trams, gas, water and so forth, and I am sure that course would be favoured by the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise) who has just addressed us in such an interesting speech. I am aware that on this occasion I cannot argue that matter, because it is not dealt with in the Bill, and it would be out of order. But, so far as we are concerned, we do not accept what is proposed as a solution. We think that to purchase these commodities by the State, and to supply them through the State, or any other social organisations to the public, would involve all the disadvantages of substituting political management for business management, and that in the long run the consumers would suffer through prices being higher than they would otherwise be. Or else heavy loss would be incurred by the wheat board, or whatever body was dealing with these commodities, which would have to be met in the long run by the taxpayer. That is what has usually followed from attempts of this character in most countries, but it would he out of order for me to discuss this question at any length.
  Then there is a third proposal, in regard to which I think all parties are agreed, and that is that there ought at least to be a large measure of publicity with regard to the operations of these combines. It is one of the purposes of the Bill that you should bring publicity to bear. In the old days, punishments were not confined to fines and imprisonment, but you had the pillory and the stocks, and they were the means of bringing public opinion to bear upon the doings of malefactors, because it was believed
  1208
  that public opinion would have a considerable effect in restricting their activities. On the other hand, you cannot be sure that such measures would be adequate, but, so far as publicity is proposed in this Bill, I think the House will be willing to agree to it. I do not think that the traders themselves would demur to a Measure of that kind if it is not a policy which is unduly inquisitorial, and I do not think that either retailers or wholesalers would object if they were really convinced that the inquiry was impartial. Such a Measure is needed to satisfy the public mind, and I think it will be received with approval by hon. Members above the Gangway and by us.
  Now comes the point of difference. We ask, is that enough? If when the Consumers Council have made their investigation and report and have indicated, as they may possibly do, that there are real abuses, is nothing more going to be done? Is the Council to be left with the mere power of shaking a warning finger at those they condemn, with no authority whatever to take any further action? The late President of the Board of Trade said that it is unnecessary to give them any further powers. When the Council have made their report and published information showing that the public has been charged too much, the public are to be told that they must purchase elsewhere where they will not be charged so highly. But we are dealing with the case where there is a monopoly, or a combine in the nature of a monopoly. If you have one group fixing the price of petrol for everybody and the Consumers Council say that the price is unduly high, what remedy has the motorist or other consumer of petrol? Almost all the milkshops of London are controlled by a milk combine, and if they charge too much for milk, what is the remedy of the consumer in that case? The same argument applies to quite a large number of other cases. These consumers cannot go elsewhere because there is no elsewhere. In this respect the speech of the late President of the Board of Trade, while admitting that there might be grievances so far as the remedies were concerned, was negative and barren, as speeches made from that Bench frequently are.
  The late President of the Board of Trade took a keen interest in the attitude

  1209
  and policy of the Liberal party, and, that being so, in answer to his inquiry I will tell him the view taken on this matter by those responsible for that party. We held an inquiry into all those matters. Our committee sat for many months; we examined in detail these monopoly prices, and we found the question exceedingly difficult. In the end we came to the conclusion that there ought undoubtedly to be publicity, and a large measure of publicity, wherever there is reason to think that there is a monopoly or combine. We recommended that there ought to be a board to watch these matters, and the final words of our proposals were:
  "The recommendations made by the board might in exceptional circumstances include the control of prices."
  Following on that, and in order to answer further the right hon. Gentleman's inquiry, I would mention that the National Liberal Federation held a meeting in October, 1928, which endorsed generally the proposals of that inquiry, and said that there ought to be greater publicity and the establishment of a trust tribunal. That is the spirit in which we approach this Bill.
  But we find that this Measure is couched in very wide terms indeed, and there is a fear in many parts of the country and amongst many classes of the people that it will, in fact, authorise a kind of official supervision of all the retail and wholesale traders in the country and of every broker and dealer. The President of the Board of Trade has made out a good case for an inch, but his Bill asks for an ell, and much more than an ell. So far as monopolies are concerned, and so far as you are dealing with the relations between wholesalers and retailers, it is not an easy thing, but it is quite possible to impose price-fixing, because you are dealing with a few standard articles which are in a few hands. When you come to the further stage of the relations between the retailer and the consumer, it is a far more difficult problem. The difficulties there are very formidable indeed, because price depends upon a great variety of circumstances. You may speak of milk, petrol, bread or clothes, but each one of those terms covers an enormous range of slightly different articles.
  1210
  Take, for example, the question of quality. A suit of clothes made by a Savile Row tailor is quite a different article and is sold at a different price from that which is made in a Leeds factory. Even the same article may differ in quality and in price at different times. The humble egg, for example, is one thing to-day, but it may be a different thing in a week's time, and a very different thing in a month's time, and the price must vary accordingly. Commodities sold in one portion of a town may command a higher price than the same commodity sold in another part of the same town. The same may apply to an article sold in a front street as compared with the price at which it may be sold in a back street. Articles which are almost identical may be sold to customers at different prices according as they are delivered to their homes or not. With regard to fixing prices, it should be remembered that the profit that may be made by a retailer will vary with the efficiency and cleverness of the retailer. One man may make a profit by selling at a certain price, and another man might not make a profit at the same price. The reason may be that one tradesman knows when to buy and how to sell and the other does not. If you fix your prices so as to meet the needs of the efficient trader, you may impose losses and ruin on the less efficient trader, and you may close his business and stop his source of supply. If you fix a price to meet the case of the inefficient salesman, you must fix it unnecessarily high, and you may be giving a fortune to the efficient at the expense of the consumer.
  If wholesale prices are falling, as they are falling now, it may be comparatively easy to fix a range of prices, but we have to contemplate the possibility that some day or other the general range of prices may move upward, and when that is going on, if you have fixed by law a whole range of standard prices for commodities and wholesale prices are going up, your Consumers Council will have to be very nimble to watch the markets. They would have to be continually readjusting prices, which would be an unpopular thing to do. It is a very unpopular thing to raise prices to a higher level, and meantime your traders will be suffering losses. If by experience they find they are suffering such losses, in

  1211
  ordinary times they will safeguard themselves by increasing their margins. The conclusion is that, while it is exceedingly difficult to fix the price of a few simple standard commodities when they are sold wholesale, although it may be possible in the retail trade, if this power is given to the Consumers Council, it will be found to be a power which it will be exceedingly difficult to enforce and which in practice it can seldom enforce. It would be rather a weapon in the background, intended as a deterrent, and I think that that is really what the right hon. Gentleman has in view. Judging from his observations, it is rather that than any attempt to apply a general State system to the fixation of wholesale or retail prices.
  In these circumstances, I venture to suggest that this House would be well advised to pass the Second Reading of the Bill—[Interruption]—there is nothing inconsistent in that conclusion—and that, when the Committee come to consider Clause 5, which is the important Clause in this connection, we should examine that Clause word by word with the utmost scrutiny, with a view to inserting in it Amendments which will make it clear that it is not intended to authorise the estblishment of an inquisitorial body, with inspectors examining every shopkeeper's books and conducting hundreds of prosecutions throughout the country, and that it is not intended to apply where there is real competition and where intervention is unnecessary, but only where the Council has reason to believe that there are combinations imposing restrictions which are prejudicial to the public interest. It will not be easy, I freely confess, to find the right form of words, because, if the restriction is made too rigid, it may impose upon the Consumers Council a burden of proof which they would never be able to bear, and those against whom this legislation is really intended will be able to escape from it through the Consumers Council being legally required to conform to conditions which may not be possible ones. I suggest that the Committee, and all parties in the Committee, should bend their minds to this very difficult proposition, and see whether an effective restrictive Amendment cannot be drafted which will effect the purpose that we have
  1212
  in view without incurring dangers which everyone in all parts of the House must realise may reside in this legislation.
  There is one other proposal which I suggest should be considered by the Committee. The powers which are conferred under the Bill, as they now stand, are of an arbitrary character. The Consumers Council will be empowered to fix prices in certain eventualities, and that may involve in some cases a long and elaborate and detailed schedule of different articles of different qualities sold under varying circumstances. Such a matter as that would have to be dealt with in detail largely by the officials of the Council—by its staff. The parties concerned would no doubt be heard, and fully heard, but, in the last resort, the Council would probably depend upon the advice that it would obtain from its officials and inspectors. If the traders are still dissatisfied, if they oppose the schedule, not as a whole, not in principle, but on certain points, I think they are entitled to a further hearing, and that further hearing cannot be given effectively by the Board of Trade itself, which, as we all know, is a department presided over by a very busy Minister, with a staff of highly competent civil servants, but of persons not necessarily familiar with the details of these trades.
  Nor is it enough to say that the Order would be laid before Parliament, and that either House of Parliament could deal with it, because these matters are far too technical and detailed to be suitable for a Parliamentary Debate or discussion. On the other hand, to give recourse merely to a judicial or quasi judicial tribunal like the Railway and Canal Commission would not, perhaps, be suitable, and, therefore, I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, for his consideration, whether in this Bill it would not be possible to follow the precedent of a number of other legislative Acts, and provide for the holding of a statutory inquiry under the authority of the Minister himself. Just as the Ministry of Health will hold an inquiry into some matter of local government, or the Board of Trade will hold an inquiry into the extension of Trade Boards or other matters of that kind, appointing an inspector or commissioner to hear the parties, to listen to the evidence, and to make a report, so it seems to me that traders might be given that further pro-

  1213
  tection. I would, at all events, make that suggestion for the consideration of the Minister and for the consideration, later, of the Committee. Further, it will no doubt be provided that the Consumers Council will make an annual report to Parliament. I suggest that by these means we may succeed in moulding this Bill so as to obviate the dangers which undoubtedly are feared from its operation, while at the same time leaving it effective and useful for the very necessary purpose which these proposals have in view.
  Lord BALNIEL: I do not know whether we should sympathise with the President of the Board of Trade in having again to bring in a Bill so unworthy of his powers, or whether we should not, perhaps, rather congratulate him on being invariably chosen as pilot when the ship is most unseaworthy. I fear that he will find little affection for his Bill in any quarter of the House. The hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise) has already spoken very unfavourably of it. Other hon. Members on the opposite side of the House, thinking that it might at any rate be expedient to fulfil some of the pledges that they gave during the Election, regret that this Bill has been introduced, because they think it means shelving other legislation which they may desire to see introduced. I have not noticed much enthusiasm for the Bill on the part of the party below the Gangway. While the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) was giving his reasons, or perhaps I should say, if he will forgive me, his excuses, for the common practice of having his cake and eating it by voting for the Second Reading and against the Bill in Committee—which I take it was the meaning of his speech—he said that his action was not inconsistent. It certainly is not inconsistent with the action to which we are becoming accustomed from his party. He might have made a more consistent excuse if certain events outside this House had not, unfortunately, taken place. He might have been able to say, with his Leader, whom I am glad to see in his place, that he did not wish to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill lest he should embarrass the Government during their delicate negotiations with the Egyptian Government.
  The Bill is certainly vague, but one thing is quite obvious, and that is that it
  1214
  is going to give wider bureaucratic powers than have even been given before, I believe, in time of peace in this country. We are reverting to a war-time act of legislation. I do not see why there should be any necessity for that at all, unless hon. Gentlemen opposite, in their modesty, really believe that their administration causes a state of national crisis and emergency. The scope of the Bill, too, is undefined, but it is equally obviously unlimited and immense, and that was practically admitted by the right hon. Gentleman. It ranges, in the words of the Bill, over the whole field of production, distribution, supply and price of any commodity. What the Government are doing in this Bill is virtually setting up, in all branches of industry, commissions of the scope and range and importance of the Commission presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen, but with executive power to fix prices in addition, and, incidentally, to throw into prison people who do not give them the information they desire.
  Primarily, no doubt, the object of the Measure is to fix prices, but, as the hon. Member for East Leicester has indicated, the implications of this Bill go incomparably farther than the mere fixing of prices. During the War, prices were controlled, but during the War, also, production and distribution and purchase were all controlled. As I understand this Bill, it seems to me that, unless the State intervenes, and takes over once again all those immense and, in peace-time, impossible functions of coupons, coal control, and all the other relics of the War, this Bill in itself will not work. It is a step toward that; it is a step towards nationalisation, admittedly, on the part of the right hon. Gentleman; it is yet another example of a disguised form of Socialism brought in through the back door which is held so conveniently open by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway.
  Who is to form this supreme dictatorship? The Bill and the right hon. Gentleman are on this point extremely reticent. It is to be formed of seven people, of whom two at least are to be women, appointed by the Board of Trade. All men with practical experience are, by another Clause, ruled out from serving. The result is that it is going to be com-

  1215
  posed of members of the Board of Trade, it is going to be a mere Departmental Committee, with unparalleled and supreme executive powers, not only to override the will of this House, but to supersede fundamental economic laws. These five super-men and two super-women, when, under Clause 7, they have settled what is to be a suitable salary for their work, what are they going to control? A list is given of various commodities, extremely important commodities in the life of everyone, and, after that list, we read the words:
  "any other article of common use."
  We really ought to have a definition of what the right hon. Gentleman means by this. As I read it, it includes practically every single thing that is produced in this country. Does it include building materials? Does it include tobacco? Does it include raw materials—iron ore and so on? These matters are left completely vague, and I think we need and deserve an answer from the right hon. Gentleman in regard to them. Fuel is specifically mentioned, and, in one's innocence, one imagined that to apply to coal; but the succeeding paragraph shows that this word "fuel" might equally well have been written, "fuel other than electricity, gas and coal." One of my hon. Friends reminds me that there remains wood, and perhaps he may be right; but the fact remains that these words are virtually meaningless, and their insertion seems to me to be a trifle disingenuous on the part of the promoters of the Bill. I suppose what happened was that this Bill was drafted before the Coal Mines Bill had been thought of, and that, when the Coal Mines Bill was introduced, the right hon. Gentleman, with relentless logic, thought that he might be considered inconsistent if he introduced practically simultaneously two Bills, one of which would put up the price of coal and the other of which would put it down.
  7.0 p.m.
  Does the right hon. Gentleman's logic extend to another category of goods specifically mentioned in the Bill—foodstuffs and clothing? It is quite obvious that the cases in these categories where the biggest profits are made are in the luxury trades. Is the hon. Gentleman going to take the trouble of inquiring into the prices of sables and caviare? The hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones)
  1216
  would undoubtedly be delighted if such inquiry were made, but I very much fear that the right hon. Gentleman will be inconsistent enough to confine himself to articles of food and clothing.
  Mr. J. JONES: And fried fish.
  Lord BALNIEL: In the same categories there are different foods which have been safeguarded by the late Government. Gloves and other articles had to be offered as a sacrifice at the altar of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's fanaticism, and the result of that will be that these commodities will increase in price, and that the home produced goods will be reduced. Are foreign goods of this and every other kind to be controlled by this Board? If so, we ought to know how it is going to be done. The right hon. Gentleman obviously cannot go into details of foreign manufacturers' production. How is he going to stop the foreign manufacturers making a good profit? He wishes to stop the British manufacturer from doing so. There is only one way, and that is by total prohibition of foreign goods of this kind. Does he propose to do that? The hon. Member for East Leicester spoke of the difficulty of settling a profit, and he put it far more clearly than I could hope to do. The Council has to make a statement of the information as to the prices at which each of the commodities should be sold, but hew is the right hon. Gentleman going to settle what is a fair price, and what is a fair profit? Is he going to have a fixed percentage for the whole range of an industry and say, "Yon must go no higher?"
  These questions may appear to be unfair. They would be unfair questions in any other Bill but this, but on this Bill they are absolutely vital, for the whole thing has been left vague. If the fixed profit is high it is of no service at all in attaining the object for which the Bill is being introduced. If profit is fixed low the obvious result will be that you will discourage capital from being invested in these industries, and discourage enterprise and good organisation, which alone can reduce in a normal way the prices which we all wish to be reduced; and the other obvious result which experience in the War and a low fixation of profit and prices proved—that the public will be supplied with diluted goods and less fine material. That is not mere

  1217
  theory; everyone in the War knew that. And these matters of immense complexity are to be decided by the right hon. Gentleman in this little Bill of six Clauses. No wonder he paves the way for certain failure by saying, as a confession, in anticipation, that no objection shall be taken by any person on the ground of any alleged lack of precision in the orders which are to be given.
  The Bill, I suppose hon. Gentlemen opposite will say, is a consumers' Bill. It is called a Consumers' Bill, and the interests of the consumer are intended to be safeguarded throughout. It is obviously unfair to retailers and shopkeepers and so on, but I believe it is unfair to the consumer himself. It is almost a platitude to say that again and again history has shown that a maximum fixed price becomes the standard price invariably. Under this rigid fixed system the consumer will get no benefit at all from any fall in price such as the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway was referring to. I think the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench will answer the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway by saying that he would make an emergency order to alter the price of any goods without too much delay; but an emergency order, if it is to be fair, can only be passed after prolonged and searching investigation, and by the time an emergency order is brought in the benefit that the public would otherwise have received will be more than nullified and stultified.
  Nor is the consumer to be protected against any sudden rise of price. When you have this rigid and fixed system, when the level is fixed, there is very little margin between profit and loss, and you will very soon get to the point when it becomes unprofitable to the retailers to sell their goods. The inevitable result will be a shortage in the most vital necessities of life. Even hon. Gentlemen opposite will find it is impossible for them to force people to sell when they do not wish to sell. Let me say one word about the consumer in his other capacity as taxpayer. In the official memorandum at the beginning it says that it is difficult to estimate the cost to the public of putting these provisions into force, but it goes on to say that probably about £20,000 will be the amount. If inquiries are to be made into industries on anything like the scale indicated,
  1218
  the estimate is ludicrously short of the mark. Most of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench was concerned with cases of profiteering. I think everyone in this House will wish to do all possible to prevent profiteering in the essential commodities of life.
  Mr. J. JONES: Why did not you?
  Lord BALNIEL: I think the method we adopted, the Food Council, the publicity and the pillory system, were incomparably better than the method now suggested, and at any rate the onus of proof rests with right hon. Gentlemen opposite and we have had no vestige of proof that this system will work. When a completely new, radically new system is introduced, the onus does not rest upon those who dislike it, but upon those who father it and try to make it the law of the land. This, I believe, is not a system by which we can cure profiteering. I believe it to be a vague and mischievous method, prejudicial to the very interests which the right hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to support. I only hope that in Committee on this Bill, if it passes Second Reading, they will allow very substantial and important alterations to be made, and that hon. Gentlemen of the Liberal party will just for this once vote in accordance with their conscience.
  Miss PICTON-TURBERVILL: The Government have now brought in four Bills of major importance, two of which are on the Statute Book, the Widows' Pensions, the Unemployment Insurance and the Coal Bill. Now we have the Consumers Bill. I am perfectly sure that of all these Bills the one that will be received with the greatest enthusiasm throughout the country is the Consumers Council Bill. Too long has there been this disparity between the money that is paid to the producer and the prices paid by the consumer. Too long has there been nothing done about it. Too long has the Linlithgow Committee Report been shelved and no action taken. The President of the Board of Trade gave one or two instances of the difference of price. He instanced the case of fish, but the Linlithgow Committee Report showed that in all necessary food of the people you have the same great disparity of prices between what is paid to the producer and what the consumer has to pay.

  1219
  Potatoes and cauliflower—[An HON. MEMBER: "Or broccoli!"]—or broccoli and all vegetables are over-priced. I will give you an illustration concerning cauliflower. The producer gets less than a penny and the buyer in the market pays 6d. or 8d.
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite suggest that we should again adopt an inactive attitude. It is true that the producer must be considered, but the woman with a basket who goes weekly to her marketing is one who will value this Bill more than any other Bill the Government has brought in since it came into power. The woman with a small wage goes out with her basket in a desperate effort to get enough food for her family, and with prices ruling high. That woman knows the market gardener has had less than a penny for the cauliflower and that she buys it for 6d. or 8d. She is making an effort, with her poor wages, to buy sufficient food for her family. It often cannot be done. That is one of the reasons why we are producing a C3 nation. It was stated in the House that no less than 60 per cent. of recruits were rejected for the Army because they were not physically fit. It is because so many women are unable to get enough food to bring up strong and healthy children. This Bill will have a beneficial effect, I believe, not only on the economics of the nation, but on the health and spirit of the people. It is said that in days gone by, in times of great depression, people used to say a grace before their meals. It was this:
  "Heavenly Father bless us,
  And keep us all alive;
  There are ten of us for dinner,
  And food for only five."
  If anyone accuses me of being sentimental for having quoted that, I am content to be sentimental, because it is still a fact in some of the homes of our people. I have seen a dinner table very much like it, scantily provided, with a large family round it. I do not say the children are starving, but they are under-nourished. No one likes to pay more than they ought to for their food. Under the present system, if a man with a family earns £2 a week, nearly all of it has to go on food, let alone clothing. The effect of this Bill will be to add greatly to the value of the wages. We are told farmers
  1220
  and other employers cannot give better wages. Then at least let us do what we can to make the wages that are secured go further and have a larger purchasing power than they have at present. The President of the Board of Trade reminded us that 10,000,000 inhabitants of the country are earning £700,000,000 less than they did many years ago.
  The late President of the Board of Trade tried to frighten the House by saying that this is Socialism. Any attempt to frighten people by saying that this is Socialism is rather out-of-date. Slowly, silently but surely, people are waking up to know that Socialism spells common sense. No one wishes to disparage the work of the Food Council, but everyone will admit that it was futile, so far as affecting prices was concerned. Hon. Members opposite have brought out the old objections. You are interfering with fundamental economic laws. Economic law was long ago interfered with, in the forties of last century. We are told there will be a host of officials. Many a time people have had to bless officials who have come in and put things straight. I believe no Bill will be more welcome than this, and I am immovably persuaded that it will be welcomed, not by the working classes alone, but by all sections of society throughout the country.
  Major SALMON: I approach the subject from the point of view of one who has had some experience in dealing with the food problem and the problem of distribution. The proposition contained in the Bill, of setting up a council consisting of five men and two women to try to organise the industry of the country, will be disastrous to the country itself. Is it supposed for a moment that those seven persons will be in a position to say what is a reasonable price to charge for a particular commodity? The first thing that will have to be decided is, what is a reasonable profit. You cannot decide what you shall sell a thing for unless you know what is to be considered a reasonable profit, if you are going to approach it from a business standpoint and a reasonable standpoint. The President of the Board of Trade mentioned milk, and said what a huge sum of money it tests the people of London. I have no interest in the milk trade, but I took the trouble to find out a few facts, and the figures I have show, on an enormous turnover, a

  1221
  net profit of 3.26 per cent. Is that considered to be an exorbitant profit on a turnover running into some millions of pounds in a business organised in a highly scientific manner? The point at issue between the Food Council and the milk combine was the allocation between the two sides of the business. Milk was originally sold alone, and ultimately another commodity was added to it. Fifty-five per cent. is milk and 45 per cent. other commodities, and the argument is, what is the correct figure of overhead charges to charge to milk and what to the other commodity? But the fact remains that 3.26 per cent. is the only profit that is made by adding them both together.
  Is the Consumers Council going to say to a combine, "You may make a certain percentage of profit" and, if it is not a combine, say nothing at all? You cannot have one percentage of profit for one and another for another. That is going to be a very difficult proposition. You are going to penalise efficient management, because the more efficiently a business is organised, the greater service it gives to the consumer, and you are going to say that the greater service that it gives is not to be recognised. Take the case of an article that is being produced and the owner has created a goodwill for it. If you come along and say there must be a maximum price for the article, the goodwill is going to be lost, because he will have to reduce his quality to meet the maximum price. It has been truly said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) that a maximum price is also a minimum price. That has been shown every time it has been attempted. You can trace it through the whole period of the War. The very people that you are out to protect are going to suffer by this, because unscrupulous purveyors will charge the maximum price. You do not provide what the quality shall be. He will sell the goods at the price you prescribe but he will take it out of the quality, and you can never control that. The hon. Lady who has just spoken is living in a fool's paradise when she says that the woman with the basket will be thankful to the Socialist Government, because it will be proved beyond all doubt that the very persons they are trying to protect will get less value for money than they do
  1222
  where there is a, free market and natural competition, which is the fresh air of trade.
  The question of raw material will cause a serious point of economics to arise. I think that the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise) put the case very fairly when he showed the enormous difficulty of dealing with grades of a particular commodity. If you are going to treat a thing not in grades but at one common price, you are going to reduce the price that the producer will get. The retailer will not be able to pay the ordinary market price, because he is limited to the price at which he may sell the commodity. Therefore you will be reducing competition. The necessary result of that will be that the price will go up on account of shortage of supply. That, to my mind, is a very great mistake. But, above all, you are not going to give the public the service and the quality that they get to-day, which exists simply by reason of competition. Competition forces good value for money. I have been brought up in the school of thought that believes that selling large quantities at a small profit is the best means of doing business. I am not approaching the subject with the idea of justifying exploiting the public. I am very desirous to see that the public are not exploited. The supposed cure that is suggested by the Bill is unreasonable, impracticable and unworkable. Its effect will undoubtedly be to retard the development of industry. The investment of money abroad, to be used in competition with business here, is going to be accelerated, because industry will be afraid to develop when it has hanging over its head such bureaucratic power as is proposed to be given.
  If the people who are brought up in industry, and have to live by it, are not capable of reorganising it, do you think seven individuals appointed by the Minister are capable of doing it? The thing is absurd on the face of it. No industry, and no successful business, can be run from an office on theory. You have to know the job and you have to go into details. The Minister made an observation as regards the price of fish and he was asked a question. He said he did not want to go into details. It is details that tell between success and failure. When you are comparing the prices of

  1223
  commodities you have to have regard to the service that the retailer is giving. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) in many of his views, though I do not understand his inconsistency. He has shown an enormous number of difficulties which would arise if the Bill passes as it is at present drawn. He does not like it at bottom, but he says he will vote for it, trusting to luck that in Committee he can get some alterations.
  That is an extraordinary way to deal with an important subject which is going to interfere with the whole of industry in this country. We are introducing to-day a system unparalleled in the history of this country by the power that is being given to a Department to investigate and to have a roving commission into people's business and books, for the purpose of trying to show that those who are making the inquiries are better able to run the businesses than those whose business it is to run them successfully. I would call the attention of the House to one particular Clause which struck me as most strange, and that is the heavy penalties to be inflicted upon anyone who discloses a secret. It is not unknown that very eminent officials in the Government service have left the Government service in order to get better positions and find scope for their talents in commercial undertakings. What is to prevent those who learn the secret of the running of a particular business from leaving the Government service and starting a business of their own, and to what penalties will they be liable?
  Mr. PERRY: The same standard of honour that applies to ex-Cabinet Ministers.
  Major SALMON: I do not think that anyone for one moment would suggest that a civil servant would do anything that was dishonourable, but if the matter is important enough to make a special provision with regard to secret information, it is also important enough to provide that if an individual leaves the service he should not have a free hand to do what he likes with his information. There is also the question of bread. There has been a dispute as to a difference of 2s. per sack, and it is not unreasonable to show how the increase has been added.
  1224
  The House should realise what has operated to justify the bakers in putting up the price of bread by one farthing. The cheaper flour that they were receiving at the price level arranged by the Ministry was such that the bread was not good enough, and they had to bring it up to a better level by blending it with more expensive flour. Also they wrapped the bread, and had to deliver earlier to their customers. These improvements cost 2s. extra. To what extent does the 2s. affect the consumer? If you take the 8,000,000 persons supplied in London, it has an effect of 1s. 3d. per annum per person in the whole of London. For that extra money, they are getting service and better quality. It is desirable that the House should be fully seized of the fact. The trade wrote a letter to the Food Council telling them that they were getting out the figures prepared by Deloitte Plender and Company to prove their case, and would be pleased to wait upon them and show the figures; but they heard nothing further about the matter until they saw a letter in the Press which had been addressed to the Minister.
  I was interested in the speech of the hon. Member for East Leicester with regard to the disparity of remuneration. It is very important that the House should make up its mind whether it thinks it desirable in the interests of the country that a good profit should be earned by individuals and corporations, companies or firms. There can be no doubt that this is a Bill, the Minister practically admitted it, the passing of which will cripple industry to such a degree that they hope by this insidious means, ultimately, the Government will get hold of the control of supply and distribution. That is the underlying principle of this Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish!"] The Minister did not disguise the fact. He said that they had to camouflage it because they had not had a majority, and that if they had a majority they would have deliberately come out and stated their object. If they have that behind their minds, they ought to have the courage to say so, and not to try to hoodwink the people that they are doing all they can to help the consumer when they are out primarily with the idea of nationalising a large number of industries in

  1225
  this country. The right hon. Member for Darwen could see part of the object, but, as he could not see the whole, he said that he was going to support the Second Reading of the Bill.
  We have to-day very large figures of unemployment. I believe that the passing of this Bill is going to increase unemployment, because it will retard and contract the development of industry and prevent its extension. Instead of trying in these days to stimulate industry, the Government are doing everything they can to depress it and to make things much more difficult. I hope that the House will not give the Bill a Second Reading; if they do pass it, they will regret the day they did it.
  Mr. BLINDELL: I have listened with a good deal of interest to the speeches, and I am bound to say that if the decision I had to make as to whether I would vote for the Second Reading could be altered by the consideration of whether I could wholeheartedly support some of the speeches made in support of the Bill, I should be in a difficult position. The President of the Board of Trade and the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) spoke of trusts, combines and monopolies. If this was a Bill aimed at trusts, combines and monopolies, and if trusts, combines and monopolies did exist and were attempting to profiteer at the expense of the poor, then I should say that something must be done to deal with them, but I see no reference in the Bill to trusts or combines. What I do see is a tremendous interference with the retailing section of the distributing trade. I happen to have been engaged in the retail trade for 20 or 25 years, having worked from the bottom, from the position of an errand boy. Therefore I claim to know something about the retail trade. I am sorry to hear speeches of some hon. Members and speeches made outside this House, based upon the assumption that the retail section of the distributing trade are making excessive profits. They cannot prove that statement; if they could prove the statement, why do they not prove it? The truth is that as a class and as a body the retailers are as honourable as any other class in the community, and they are not making exceptional profits.
  1226
  We have heard a good deal about the food trade, and how the retail section of the food trade are exploiting the people. There was a Royal Commission in 1925, which went into the question of the meat supply, the retail prices and the profits obtained by the butchers. The Commission came to the conclusion that the average profit per pound of beef sold to the public was not more than one halfpenny. Surely, hon. Members are not going to call that profiteering. The Commission went into the business of the butchers generally and found that the butchers in putting their case claimed that the average net profit, which included interest upon capital put into their business, was not more than £300 for the whole service rendered to the community. Whilst not accepting the £300 figure, the Commission were prepared to accept a figure which was far below £500. To assume that the retailers are extracting undue profits from the public, is to assume something that we have no right to do. It is a libel upon that section of our people.
  If this Bill aimed at dealing with monopolies, and we had sure proof that these monopolies were attempting to exploit the consuming public by making excessive charges, I would say God-speed to such a Bill and I would support it in every detail, but the Bill does not aim at anything of the sort. It is a Bill to set up a body whose business it will be to inquire into other people's business, with which they are not conversant. It will set up a, body of men and women who will be given power to spend large sums of public money in order to make investigations into the private affairs of the retailers of this country. That being so, I find it difficult to support it. The retailers are not profiteering, and the new body ought not to be given a roving commission to go from trade to trade and from business to business, without any real evidence that profiteering does exist.
  We often talk about the profits the retailers make, but not about the services which they render. We speak of their gross and net profits; but the overhead charges of the retailer have a good deal to do with the profits he must demand. It was said by an hon. Member to-day that wholesale prices have fallen, but that retail prices had not dropped pro rata. There is something else to be re-

  1227
  membered. The overhead charges on the retailers have increased tremendously. The rent he has to pay is tremendously higher than it was five, 10 or 15 years ago. Taxes are higher, rates are higher, assessments are higher—as a result of the activities of the last Government, assessments are enormously higher. If better wages are to be paid—and I do not complain about wages; I wish they were better—if shorter hours are to be worked—and I wish there were shorter hours—these things are bound to enter into the profits which distributors must make on the goods they sell. That may explain to a large extent why there is not a drop in the retail as compared with the wholesale price. The poor retailer is supposed to be the profiteer, and he gets all the kicks simply because he is nearest to the consumer, but he gets no sympathy for the increased overhead charges that he has to bear. The average retailer is not any more a profiteer in any sense of the word than any other average member of the community. The hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise) complained that the Bill does not go far enough. He wanted a great deal of publicity. While I am not afraid of publicity of the actual facts, he desired publicity, he said, with regard to trusts and monopolies only. I was sorry that I was constrained to interrupt him, but he ought to have known that in Clause 4, Sub-section (2), these words occur:
  "Where the Council acquire information as to any individual business (whether carried on by a person, firm, or company)."
  It is plain, therefore, that there is to be inquiry into the books and accounts of private individuals and firms. Surely there ought to be secrecy when a body of men and women are empowered to enter business premises and see books and make extracts of accounts; there ought to be an undertaking that the information which they get shall not be broadcast to all and sundry. Under this Bill we are to set up a body of men and women, presumably, to protect the consuming public, but it will do nothing of the sort. It is not fair to the retailers or even to any industry that, merely upon the complaint of an ordinary individual and not as a result of definite instructions from any Government department, this body can make the fullest possible investigation into an individual business.
  1228
  It is absolutely wrong, even if it is meant to protect the consuming public. When you have merely fixed the retail price, you certainly have not solved the whole problem. You cannot solve it in that way. Are you to fix the wholesalers' prices and the price of the producer and to trace the article from the producer to the consumer? No; you are throwing the whole of the onus upon the retailer.
  Tremendous sums are to be provided to this Consumers Council. It is to have power to employ the assistance it requires, to employ and pay accountants so that they may inspect books of firms and individuals. Are the Government going to help the retailers to employ accountants in order that they may refute any statements which the accountants of the Consumers Council may make, or is this to be an extra burden upon the retailer? Why is the retailer to be put to the trouble and expense of proving to the Committee that he is not a profiteer simply because a complaint is made against him? I do not see that you can fix the prices suggested in the Bill after you have got the information. You cannot fix a uniform price for many articles. This Bill does not deal with only standard articles; it deals with wearing apparel and almost any conceivable thing can be brought within the purview of the committee. If this were a Bill to strike at trusts and monopolies I would support it; but a Bill which is to interfere in matters which it cannot possibly control I will have difficulty in supporting. I hope that, if the Bill receives a Second Reading, it will be drastically amended in Committee so that retailers and those associated with industry will be protected as well as the consumer. Every protection ought to be given to the consuming public; but it is not sufficient that a person should merely make a complaint whether it can be substantiated or not. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about potatoes?"] I could deal with that.
  Mr. THOMAS SNOWDEN: Can the hon. Member give us the price at which potatoes are bought from the farms and the price which is charged to the consumer?
  Mr. BLINDELL: I could give the hon. Member particulars about that, and I could go into many reasons for the prices which have been charged, but I suggest that in order to meet the difficulty, the

  1229
  right way is not to set up a body to say to the retailer that he must charge no more than a certain rate for potatoes.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I think we are entitled to more than mere generalities from the hon. Member. He claims to be an authority on this subject, and he ought to give us some details.
  Mr. BLINDELL: A Second Reading Debate is not the time to go into details; that is for the Committee. I submit that by merely setting up a body of men and women you will not solve the problem of the difference between cost of production and the price charged to the consumer. I am prepared to admit, with the hon. Member for East Leicester, that, so far as potatoes are concerned, in many cases they go through too many hands; but you have to remember that this Bill does not deal with that. It is dealing in a very weak way with a tremendous problem. It has been suggested that the powers in Clause 5 with regard to the fixing of prices are to be held in reserve and hardly ever to be used. If these powers are never to be used, why do you want to put them into the Bill? If they are not to be used, the Bill is useless. My complaint is that because certain people may believe that excessive prices are being charged, the trade is to be put to the difficulty and expense of proving that the charge is not excessive. To give the wide powers which the Bill proposes to give is a huge mistake, and on this Bill I will have tremendous difficulty even in following my leader the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. PERRY: The hon. Member who has just spoken, before dealing in such a sweeping manner with the work of the Consumers Council, ought to have told us what frivolous complaints have been investigated by the present Food Council, on the structure of which the proposed Consumers Council is to be built. During this discussion there seems to have been a great deal of unreality. I have listened to critics on the benches opposite on the work of the Food Council; but I have read speeches delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister), in which they have praised the work of the Food Council and have emphatically declared that, if it
  1230
  were found that the council had not the necessary powers, then the late Government was prepared to take steps to confer those powers upon them. There is agreement as to the Food Council have power to make inquiries, and I suggest that all the retailers of this country are not opposed to this Bill. A few of my hon. Friends on this side are interested in an organisation which is sometimes referred to by hon. Members opposite as one of the chief trading organisations in the country. If that is true, and if we are supporting this Bill, we are fully entitled to claim that that is evidence that all retailers are not opposing the Measure. During the war period, when you were dealing with abnormal conditions, the work of the Food Council for the protection of the consumer undoubtedly created in the minds of the consumers of this country a desire for the development of that work, and time and time again within recent years the work of the Food Council has developed. But we have been told repeatedly that, in spite of the inquiries made and the strength of the case put in regard to profiteering in certain commodities, they have no power to carry out their recommendations. We have two glaring instances in the case of milk and bread. The claim was made by the combine only last year that winter prices must be charged for an additional month to give a fair return. Our co-operative organisation in London was able to sell milk at summer prices for that month and still make a fair margin of profit. In regard to bakers and confectioners, the Council has proved substantially that gross profiteering has been taking place, and its whole object has been to protect the interests of the comsumer. I cannot admit for one moment that the new Consumers Council, when it is established, is going to concern itself with a thousand and one small details that no one really bothers about, but on the big things, which are the main things of life, the consumer will feel that his case is being inquired into and his interests safeguarded.
  I have no fear that this Consumers Council, despite the fears of the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow (Major Salmon) is going to consist of supermen and super-women. If we take the personnel of the Food Council, we may assume that the men and women who

  1231
  would be willing to serve on the new Consumers Council will have as high a standard of efficiency and public service as have members of the Food Council who have served us so well in the past. We in the co-operative movement, who are often held up as one of the largest trading concerns in the country, have a membership of 6,000,000 in Great Britain and, allowing for four persons to a family, it means that indirectly we are catering for nearly one-half of the population. I think, therefore, that we may claim to have some interest in supplying people with the necessities of life at the lowest cost. We welcome the establishment of the Consumers Council with statutory powers. We are not afraid of maximum prices; they will not hurt us. It will be generally agreed that we are well able to look after the interests of the consumers as far as prices are concerned.
  I see present my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley). Perhaps he will be able to say why fish which cost one and one-sixth of a penny at the dockside is sold for 8d. at the retailer's. One of the things complained of is the danger of trusts and combines. He will appreciate, with his knowledge of the retail and distributing trades, that one of the greatest dangers to-day is the control of these bodies which fix prices and tell retailers that unless they charge them supplies will be refused. It is one of the great problems that retailers have to face. I cannot share the fear many Members seem to have of this Bill. It is stretching language to say that this is the first step in a policy of nationalisation, but we on these benches do think it is the first step in a policy of protecting the interests of the consumer, and having regard to the success of the Food Council and the tribute paid to it, and the admissions made in the past by the Leader of the Opposition, that if this Council could not carry out its work without further powers, the late Government would give those powers, we should have no hesitation in supporting the Second Reading.
  Sir CHARLES OMAN: This is one of those Bills to which that most damning epithet "well-intentioned" must be applied. I am bound to confess as a historian that history from Herodotus down to the present day is strewn with these
  1232
  well-intentioned experiments which have all ended in failure. The Emperor Diocletian fixed the price of everything from a pint of lentils up through lengths of rope to black negro slaves, putting an exact and what he thought an honest price on all of them. This did not succeed, though documents show the exact price of everything. But the system could not work very long. Robespierre and the Jacobins made the attempt with the celebrated law about food prices which led to the closing of the bakers' shops and Paris riots lasting for weeks. Modern Russia may be regarded as an example of what comes from trying, with the best of intentions, to fix prices for the "proletariat." The unfortunate people who do not belong to the "proletariat," of coarse, have nothing at all. But these are merely warnings in general; they show that the present Government, again with the best of intentions, is going over the old path that thousands of republics and monarchies, either well-intentioned or wishing to appear well-intentioned, have gone over before them, all ending in absolute failure.
  I have just three points on the actual provisions of the Bill which I would like to rub in. The first is that it is a Bill to encourage the obtaining of inquisitorial secret information by people with a personal hatred of an individual retailer or inspired with trade jealousy of him. There is no doubt whatever that this Bill is likely to lead to denunciations from personal spite. It is absolutely certain that if Jones thinks that Brown, his rival, is making too much money, he can send secret information about Brown to those who make the inquiry. Point 2 deals with a fundamental point of English justice. When a person is likely to be in trouble, the first thing the policeman warns him is that he need not make any statement dangerous to himself. What is the case with this Bill? The Committee has power to send for anybody, put him on oath, and begin to question him. They suspect him of being a profiteer, and possibly he may be, but is it consistent with the principles of British justice that you should put a man on oath, and then compel him to give all his figures, and even to hand over his books, when the result may be that you are going to prosecute him? It seems to me contrary

  1233
  to the simplest fundamental rules of British justice.
  This is a Bill not only to subject people to this danger, but to compel them on oath to give evidence possibly against themselves. I cannot see how that can be tolerated, and it surely must be struck out in Committee. My third point raises the principle that "time is money." Who are the people who are profiteering in "time"? My bills before the War charged so much for men's time. Since the War they are more than double. The work is no better done, but what I have particularly noticed in recent years is that it takes much longer to do! For the smallest job, repairing a single pipe or putting in half a dozen nails, two men come along, and I am charged half a day's work for two men. That is profiteering in "time," and I do not think this Bill has anything to say to that at all. I am under the impression that if you take seven, 70, 700 or 7,000 people, deal they never so wisely, they will not be able to fix a price for any commodity so that it can be sold at the same price all round the British Isles.
  Miss LEE: I think the subject under discussion merited rather more serious treatment than that given to it by the hon. Member who has just sat down. He talked about fundamental principles of British justice. I wonder if it is consistent with the principles of justice that at one and the same time there should be confessed and aggravated profiteering in Great Britain, and acute and widespread poverty in Great Britain. Few Members have attempted to deny that these two things are existing side by side, though it is rather a comedy in a serious situation that a Liberal Member should attempt to deny that profiteering exists, and that we should have to go to the Leader of the Opposition for proof, if proof were necessary, of our case—to his election speeches of 1924, and to the Food Council that he himself established in 1925, because he and his party were convinced that profiteering did exist.
  I want to say to the Conservative party that they must make a choice in one of two directions. Either they must be guilty of trying to humbug the housewives of this country by giving them the Food Council, which was merely a kind of political window-dressing and which
  1234
  they knew would not be able effectively to protect those housewives, or—I want to put a kindlier interpretation on their action than that—knowing that profiteering existed, they set up a Council with the object of checking profiteering. If this is the case, surely the experience of the ensuing years must have proved that their Council was completely ineffective, because its powers were inadequate. Therefore, if their election pledges of 1924 were sincere they ought at the present moment to be whole-heartedly behind the Labour Government, who are merely trying to strengthen the work which they began, and to put legal sanctions behind the Food Council which will force bread combines and milk combines, or any other combines, to respect decisions made after very careful and very clear inquiry by that Council.
  As for the hon. Member below the Gangway who made a vehement and indignant protest as to the entire innocence and honour of the retail traders, and then pleaded that they should not have any form of investigation, I cannot follow his logic in the slightest degree. It seems to me that if persons were so completely conscious of their honour and innocence, as hon. Members opposite seem to believe, they would welcome inquiry and the very fullest inquiry, so that we could give them a public certificate of merit and free them from what I am afraid are the very substantial and very real shadows of doubt as to the accusation hanging over them at the present moment. We might have expected that from the Conservative Benches, the Liberal Benches and from all benches, there would have been a unanimous desire to have this Bill made an effective instrument against profiteering.
  It is rather ludicrous when we find arguments put forward by some hon. Members opposite in order to avoid this conclusion. Indeed, I heard one hon. Member from the back bench above the Gangway declare that it was no use trying to bring in a Bill to check profiteering because if we interfered with prices the profiteer would persist in his evil deeds and would simply get his own back on the community by giving them a reduced quality. It was a very interesting admission. He went on to talk in terms which might have been relevant in pre-War days but which are utterly

  1235
  irrelevant and frivolous at the present moment. He went on to propound the good old maxim of producing in bulk and getting small profits, thereby giving the widest and the cheapest services to the general community. One really imagined that the hon. Member had never heard of such things as great trusts and combines deliberately restricting the food supply of the people of this country in order to keep up prices. Potatoes have been mentioned in this Debate. The hon. Member must be as well aware as any of us in this House that not long ago 20,000 tons of potaoes were put back into the soil in Lincolnshire and allowed to rot because they could not be marketed profitably. He must be aware that every year there are millions of fish thrown back into the sea.
  Mr. WOMERSLEY: Nonsense!
  Miss LEE: The hon. Member says "Nonsense." I shall be very pleased to bring to his notice the fact that the grave charge is brought against the industry which he is supporting of deliberately destroying food supplies which, if this had not taken place, might have resulted in cheap food for the poor people of this country. Here is a quotation, not from the "Daily Herald," but from the "Daily Chronicle" of the ninth of the second month of 1929:
  "Yesterday drifter after drifter filed out of the harbour with a million herrings to be emptied back into the sea. One boat's catch was loaded in wagons and taken away by farmers for manure."
  I have another quotation from a still more reputable source, perhaps, in the view of most hon. Members opposite, the "Manchester Guardian," which informs us—this quotation appeared in 1930—that near Sydney, Australia, there is a spot where the cart of a retail trust may be observed tipping cartloads of good food over into the sea. It goes on to say that those who restrict the output of raw material in order to keep up the price are looking to scarcity instead of to abundance as their friend, and human nature revolts at this indictment.
  Sir WALTER GREAVES-LORD: Would the hon. Lady explain to the House the difference between restricting the supply of fish and restricting the supply of coal in order to put up the price?
  Miss LEE: It is rather flattering if the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot think of a slightly stronger argument than that in support of his case. The object of the reorganisation of the coal industry, as I should have thought every Member in this House would have known after the long drawn out Debates, is that the coal shall be so marketed and so organised as at least to attempt to give a decent standard to the workers in the industry and to restore prosperity. There is not a single ton of coal destroyed. It is the deliberate destruction—
  Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: The quotation which the hon. Lady read was with regard to restriction of supply. [HON. MEMBER: "Destruction"!] No, restriction of supply.
  Miss LEE: The hon. and learned Member is quite right, restriction.
  Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: I am sure the hon. Lady is perfectly fair. She will see that I am correctly quoting her. The restriction—you may call it destruction—of fish, if it is done at all, is also in order that the men who work on the ships, who are almost entirely share fishermen, should be able to get such a price as would give them an adequate share.
  Miss LEE: I still believe that the common fisherman, even with the destruction of millions of fish, is not getting the adequate livelihood that he ought to be getting. While food supplies are being deliberately destroyed in order to maintain high prices to millions of destitute homes in this country, the hon. Member, who I am sorry is not in the House at the moment, talked as if the present state of British industry was something of which to be proud, and suggested that natural economic laws should be allowed to operate. In face of the situation in the coal field, in face of the plight of the steelworkers and cotton workers, in face of the condition of the woolworkers and the agricultural workers, there ought to be more humility in the speeches of hon. Members opposite when talking about the condition of British industry. We are all agreed that profiteering does exist, and I hope we are all agreed that we want to deal with it in an effective way.
  For my part, I consider that this is an excellent Bill in the sense that, whether

  1237
  it succeeds or fails, it will at least serve a very useful purpose. If it succeeds in any degree in checking profiteering, it will give a direct advantage to the millions of housewives who are struggling under very difficult circumstances. A penny here, or even a farthing there, on the butcher's bill may seem very small to hon. Members opposite and to most Members of the House, but if a housewife is going out with 20 shillings—and she is lucky if she has got that amount—she suffers very seriously if, after a careful and minute calculation as to how every halfpenny is going to be spent, she suddenly discovers that some big milk combine has put up the price of milk. If we can by our efforts minimise profiteering, we are doing something which is just as welcome to the housewife as if we had increased the wages of her husband at the end of the week. Hon. Members opposite, if it fails, will find themselves in a still more embarrassing situation. Some of us have attempted time and again to tell the people of this country that they will not end profiteering and poverty until they take the industries of the nation out of the hands of hon. Members opposite, who have made such a mess of them, and institute a spirit of service. Would hon. Members opposite like to tell us how successfully they have run agriculture and cotton and wool?
  We are out to take the resources of our country, the land, the industries, all those things upon which our livelihood depends, and rescue them from the anarchy and disorder of private enterprise on the one hand and the trusts and combines on the other, and mobilise them for the benefit of the whole community. We have told our people that they will have to come all the way of Socialism with us before they can have real prosperity and security. One ounce of practice is worth a ton of theory, and this Bill is an ounce of practice. In its very failure it is going to be immensely useful to us, because when the housewives of the country discover that, in spite of the best efforts of the Government, profiteering is still going on, they will come to us not only in support of what we are doing to-day but to urge us along much more radical ways; to the control of our imports and exports, to the mobilisation of our industries and resources in such a way that in the future we shall not be debating in this Chamber what are to be the limits of profits and dividends, because they will be immaterial
  1238
  since the profits and dividends will be shared by all citizens of the country, and in that case we shall all be concerned to have them at the highest instead of the lowest level.
  I disagree with the President of the Board of Trade in saying that we were not at the present moment in a state of emergency. He made a reference to the War years, and I want to remind the House that there is a war going on in Yorkshire now—a war of poverty-stricken men and women who are trying to defend their standard of living. There is a war going on in the cotton factories and in the coalfields. There is a war going on all over the industrial world, and in the agricultural part of the country as well. We have not the economic power to protect the people as adequately as we would wish to protect them. I hope we shall use any powers we possess under a Bill like this, but if it fails we shall arouse in the people outside a determination to have a Government which will not simply do a little thing in very difficult circumstances, but a Government which will have complete and sole power to tackle our industrial problems in the big, broad, imaginative and international way in which they should be tackled, and wipe out the anarchy and feuds with which our industrial life had been corroded while in the hands of hon. Members opposite.
  I hope that we shall recognise, as we did from 1914 to 1918, that this is a period of national emergency and that our central problem is either by a reduction of prices or an increase of wages to give the working people of this country the power to buy back the goods which they have produced. There is always going to be unemployment and poverty until we can bridge that gap. The present Bill is only a very small, tentative, and rather a feeble step, in that direction but, as far as it succeeds, it will win the blessings of the housewives and so far as it fails hon. Members opposite will win the curses of the housewives. Either way we have every reason to welcome the introduction of this Bill as a definite step, both practical and educational, in the work to which we have set our hand.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: I am very interested to hear from the hon. Lady who

  1239
  has just spoken that this Bill is a mere piece of propaganda by the Government. That was the accusation she made against the last Government. She said that the Food Council was a bit of humbug, and this Bill seems to be something of the same thing.
  Miss LEE: The action of the late Government was deliberate humbug. This is an honest attempt to deal with profiteering, and if it fails then we shall have to go in for more drastic measures in order to succeed.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: The difference seems to be that we were conscious humhugs—in that case there is some hope for us, because we can amend—but that the present Government are unconscious humbugs. In that case there is no hope. The hon. Lady perhaps knows Plato's "Dialogues," and the "Republic," in which he defines the lie against the soul for which he says there is no remedy because the person does not know how to speak the truth; he does not know that he is lying. If this is unconscious humbug, there is nothing to be expected from the Labour party in this particular regard. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is not Plato!"] Well, it is my paraphrase of Plato brought up to date, and, after all these years, it is possible that this generation may be just as wise as they were in those days. When the Food Council was originally introduced by the late Government, I suspected the proposal strongly. I thought it an exceedingly foolish proposal, and I thought I knew what was at the bottom of it. At that time there were a great number of men who had been busily employed in "mucking about" with the people's food during the War. Anybody who recollects the class of food supplied to us at that time knows the results of their efforts. How anybody could sit down to breakfast bacon of the kind supplied by the Food Ministry during the War, I do not understand. It certainly lasted a long time, because the same piece would do a person all week. It was foul stuff, and thousands of tons of it had to be destroyed. From every corner of the globe, from China and America and everywhere else, we had the rottenest stuff dumped on us by the experts of those days. The only people who really
  1240
  fattened upon that system were the bureaucrats engaged in administering it.
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): What about the profiteers?
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: They profiteered because the Government were taking Excess Profits Duty from them. The Government were the real profiteers. The Government encouraged profiteering, because they came along and took practically the whole of the profits made by these people. But we had all that huge staff of officials busily engaged in the task of looking after the people's food and supplying them with the most inferior food that the population of these islands have ever been compelled to eat. They certainly fattened in their jobs, and they would like to repeat the process again. I think they set a booby trap for the last Government, and got them to bring in the Food Council proposal, knowing, as I suspect, that the logical outcome of it would be some still more foolish Bill like the Bill we have before us now. One sees that kind of thing happening in every Department on which the Government gets its paws. They got hold of the liquor control in Carlisle and Invergordon, and everybody in those districts knows the result. Get any working man in those places to tell you of what happened there. But these bureaucrats keep on with measures of that kind and engage in propaganda, and try to make the people believe that they are much better off under Government control. All the time, they are working to get a further grip and to get more and more officialdom established until, if it goes on, we shall get to the situation which is described by George A. Birmingham as existing in the Irish Free State. He says that there are two ways of getting on in Southern Ireland. One is to get a Government job, and the other is to get into Guinness's brewery.
  That is what is at the back of all this class of business. That is what is at the back of practically every scheme of so-called social service. Examine every one of these schemes, and you will find that in the course of two or three years the beneficiaries are almost entirely forgotten, and the people administering the scheme are the people who are getting the real benefit. Whether they are doctors or officials, or anyone else, all the various people appointed under these schemes are

  1241
  in the position of tax collectors. They are the people who get the benefits, and this Bill is part of the same game. It seems to me obvious why prices are high. There are several reasons, and one of them is taxation. The results of taxation are astonishing. It works its way right through all departments of life, from the producer to the dealer, the broker, the wholesaler and the retailer. [HON. MEMBERS: "And the middleman!"] These are the middlemen. They are all paying heavy taxation. The landlord of the shop is paying heavy taxation and heavy rates, and all these things go on to the cost of the articles sold in the shop. Then there is the burden involved in the Shop Hours Act, which, undoubtedly, adds to the cost of production. If you shorten the hours, if you shorten the period during which the shops keep open, you diminish competition and cut out the small shopkeeper and leave the big stores and the co-operative societies to earn their dividends. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, they all earn dividends—only what is regarded as a merit in the case of the co-operative societies is regarded as larceny on the part of the ordinary retailer.
  All these shopkeepers are being added to the brotherhood of Zacchæus. Zacchæus was a public tax collector who got up a tree, and the shopkeepers of this country are up a tree in regard to matters of taxation. They may be men of small stature like Zacchæus, but they have long prices and they have to meet long charges in taxation. They are all, in fact, collecting taxes. We are really getting back to the position which existed when the Government were collecting Excess Profits Duty and how can anything else be expected than that charges should be high. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) said that wholesale prices had fallen by 25 per cent. in the last five years, but that retail prices had only fallen about half of that—I could not hear the exact figure. Of course that is so, because the actual price of the producer is only a very small part of the cost of retail distribution. If you buy a cheap article, like a cauliflower, from the producer, by the time it has passed through all the different hands concerned, the original cost of the cauliflower is nothing compared to the other costs. Water in a Highland lake, if you are beside the lake, costs you
  1242
  nothing, but if you lead it by a pipe to a town 50 miles away, it costs money. It reminds one of the story of the drover who was told that if he took his cattle to London, he would get five times the price which he could obtain for them in the neighbouring Highland town. His reply was that if he could take Loch Lomond to the nether regions he would get a shilling a glass for it.
  These are the real causes of cost and in these cases it is very largely a matter of taxation. In addition, we find that the people in the unsheltered trades like railwaymen, municipal employés, building employés, everybody in a non-competitive trades, through the efforts of their unions—perfectly properly—are having their remuneration put up to a more comfortable figure than that which is obtainable in the producing trades. [An HON. MEMBER: "Like your profession."] Yes, I think 20 per cent. was added on to the lawyer's right to charge and I hope they all deserve it. But it is one of the ironies of fate to see the Lord Privy Seal trying to deal with unemployment because as the representative of the railwaymen he has been extraordinarily clever in getting the best possible terms for his men. Of course it was his duty to do so, but that is very largely responsible for a good deal of the unemployment which the right hon. Gentleman is now seeking, in vain, to cure.
  There is no doubt that that has a great deal to do with the unemployment in the coal trade. The sheltered trades are 100 per cent. up and very much above the pre-War stage. I am glad to see anybody get an increase of wages, and I think that everybody should have two or three times as much as he has. If you have one section—the sheltered trades—getting more or less in a gilt state, that makes it all the harder for the other competitive trades. That was why the miners joined together to put pressure on the Government. They insisted on becoming a sheltered trade, and, having become politicalised, they got a sufficient number of members here to intimidate the Government, and they got a monopoly, with the kind approval of their employers, who were of course delighted to join in with the workers to get on the backs of the rest of the community. That will also raise the cost of living.

  1243
  One has heard a good deal of talk about the milk combine. The growth of these combines is extraordinary, and I think that it is largely due to legislation. You talk about the cost of milk and what the farmer gets. Every morning the housewife expects to have the milk on her doorstep, generally in a glass bottle. There is some cost in that; there is wear and tear, and it has to be delivered at specific hours. Suppose that you were to say that a postage stamp was to be delivered every morning at your house, you would find that it would cost 2½d., for there would be the cost of delivery. A very large part of the cost of milk is due to the handling of it. The costs of the retailer are due to the handling of the goods, to increased standards of wages and to rates and taxes. If retail prices are fixed, how will that help the producer? If the retail price is fixed low, the middleman will inevitably reduce the price to the producer; that will diminish the number of producers, and then there will be a shortage, unless we have communal farming like they have in Russia, and we are driven at the point of the bayonet to live as Communists working on the land. We will wait and see how that experiment succeeds. We are not a nation of serfs yet. We have been used to some liberty for a few generations. I admit that by the joint effort of all political parties, as time goes on it gets more and more restricted, but we have still some embers of the old fires burning in us.
  I admit that there are great abuses in the supply of food. I was told by one man, for instance, that in the fish market when the fish comes in in the morning, all the brokers sell the fish consigned to them to each other, and then they get the commission, and then sell the fish at a profit to themselves. There are all sorts of tricks going on, and I have heard that all traders are more or less akin. What is profiteering? Profiteering is the profit which the other fellow is getting and which you are not getting. It is a mere term of abuse. In Clause 5 there are the terms "excessive price" and "excessive charge." What is an excessive charge? It is like a lawyer's account; it is an excessive charge to pay, but far too little to get for the work and worry that you
  1244
  have. Nobody can tell what it is. I recollect that during the War there were a number of food prosecutions for food hoarding, and it was very interesting to see the superiority of the logic of the law of Scotland as opposed to that of England. There were a number of perfectly decent people convicted because they were a little more anxious than their neighbours, and they were prosecuted for having more than what was reasonable.
  What is reasonable? It depends upon the individual. One man may have a different standard of reasonability than another. You have only to be in this House to listen to some of the speeches to realise the immense discrepancies which there are between the reasonable methods of one person and that of another person. In the Scottish Courts a case was taken where a very old law was pleaded that the man must know the offence with which he is charged, and the accused in this case said, "Will you tell me what is 'reasonable'?" Nobody could tell him what was reasonable, and the judge could not. The accused said, "I cannot plead, because I do not know what I am pleading." Do you think that any profiteer, as thoughtless people call him without logical thinking, ever thinks that the price he is charging is excessive? It may be thought so by some official but that does not make it excessive. As the Bill stands, I am satisfied that if a man is accused, in Scotland, with our superior jurisprudence, the conviction would be set aside, because the man could not know what he is pleading.
  I am an intense individualist. I did my best in the last Parliament to prevent a great traffic combine in London getting its own way. I wanted to see as many individualists on the road as possible, but a Labour Government in 1924 brought in a Bill that gave the franchise of the streets of London to a combine. Though the public might have been less well served, I would rather have seen more individualists, more men standing on their own feet, and fewer men owning a master, even though the master were a combine. They are wonderful organisations. The milk combine is a marvellous organisation, so marvellous that when I go down to my constituency, a rural one, where one would imagine milk would be cheap, I

  1245
  find it is a penny a quart dearer than the combine charge in London. Some of the men at Loch Fyne told me that milk there was costing them 8d. a quart, whereas in London it was 7d. There cannot be so much wrong with the combine if that is the state of affairs, though of course, it would be much nicer to get it at 6d. These combines work on infinitesimal fractions. I believe it is a fact, in the case of the meat combine, that the meat imported from South America costs practically nothing at all. I am told that Armours' Combine make their profit out of the hair, hides, hoofs, and horns. I am told they make practically nothing on the meat at all, depending on the by-products. [Interruption.] The hide is a very valuable part of a beast. But unless you are working on the scale of these large combines, it would not be possible to carry on in that way.
  These combines do wonderfully well, and it is wrong for the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise) to say that they are actuated by no other desire than to make money for their shareholders. There was a time when that was so, but as a great corporation or a great institution grows up it begins to acquire a corporate spirit of its own. It begins to work with the spirit in it that works for righteousness. It tries to do its best for its employés and its customers. It realises the truth of the maxim of Henry Ford, that there are three people to be satisfied; first, your customer, who is the senior partner of your business, and gives you the money with which you can carry it on; and second, the employés, because, if they are satisfied, then your capital can look after itself. That is becoming more and more the spirit of the combines, and if that be so, there is no need for all the dreadful fears which have been expressed.
  With regard to the Food Council protecting housewives, I wish housewives would protect themselves. I do not think they are all such good housekeepers as they may believe. When I was staying in Kilburn a lady told me that she used to go to the shop of an ex-service man who had opened as a fish dealer because fish there was much cheaper than in the other shops and also was very good. After a time, however, she found that the prices he was charging for his fish were up to the prices in the other fish
  1246
  shops. She asked the reason for this, and he said, "Madam, I will tell you. The people here are so stupid that when I was showing the fish at the old prices they came and looked at my shop, said the fish could not be fresh because it was cheap, and went away; so I have had to increase my prices." Great numbers of people, even the poorest, have no other standard of value than the money price, and if you offer them something cheap they will not have it. One of the heads of the Disposal Board told me that they sold aeroplane silk to a great drapery company, which made it up into beautiful gowns and priced them at a guinea or two when displaying them in their windows. No woman would look at them! So they turned them round, put a flower on them, and labelled them at 15 or 16 quineas each, and they were sold out in a week!
  Mr. MILLS: Do you think we are all marines?
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: That is the nature of the sex; and that is the nature of men also. I have been told by clients of mine in the licensing trade that when they have wanted to get a good price they would put up a "special whisky"—the hottest and cheapest they had. Most of the customers would come in and, ignoring the ordinary whisky, would ask for the special whisky, and the hotter it was the better they were pleased. That was the standard. Occasionally one finds an anxious mother with a large family bargaining over prices, but really there are very few keen purchasers to-day. We are abolishing the small shopkeeper and replacing him by the big stores, and women are frightened to go in and attempt to bargain with the supercilious shop assistants there, though they would do it with an old wife who kept a shop in a back street. Great indignation was expressed because trawlers had destroyed fish, but those men want to make their living. If they bring in a mass of fish for which there is no sale and have to give it away, they have had all their labour for nothing. There is no money either to pay wages or to pay for the coal for the trip. The position is the same as it was in the Clyde Valley. There they were not able to grow strawberries because if it was a good strawberry year they were not able to make the cost of

  1247
  picking; but since then jam factories have come along to take surplus fruit off their hands, and so now they are able to carry on.
  The only remedy for the present situation, in my view, is to go back to the old laws against restraint of trade. If we had those old laws dealing with both combines and trade unionism and everything else of the kind, it would be the best way of disposing of the difficulty. By the course we are taking we shall create more and more officials, a greater bureaucracy. The President of the Board of Trade incautiously quoted the example of Rome. Rome perished for no other reason than that huge numbers of people began to try to live on the productive classes. We here are carrying far too large a load of governing machinery, both Parliamentary and municipal—[An HON. MEMBER: "And legal!"] Yes, half these things result in lawyers getting jobs—but they are also eagerly competed for by trade union secretaries. The last time I was in South Africa I read the history of the Boers from the Dutch point of view, and my heart went out to them. Their one desire was to get away from government. They said, "We are God-fearing citizens, we do no wrong, and we do not want the machinery of government. We do not want courts of justice, police officials, rent collectors and tax collectors. Let us live our own lives." But the British, with their zeal to govern somebody, pursued them and pursued them right away into the back country. Some of us still have the old spirit: we do not want to be governed. If we do not put a stop to this constant growth of more and more costly governing machinery then we shall share the fate that all civilisations have suffered; they grew more and more complex, with more and more officials, until ultimately they were broken down by the sheer weight of their own machinery.
  Mr. SINKINSON: I welcome this Bill because of the possibility it affords of bringing about a fixation of prices, and when that fixation of prices takes place I wish to see it applied in the most important industry in the country, that of agriculture. Its importance should be measured by the fact that it is the only industry which gives us food, which is the staple and fundamental of life. It
  1248
  should be regarded as an industry of some importance, and its workers should be paid wages which are commensurate with the importance of the work they do. I think it will be generally agreed that the agricultural worker is paid the most disreputable wages of any industry in the country, and the fact that the most important industry in the country is paying the least wages is something for us to think about. We are supposed to be national housekeepers and we ought seriously to consider a situation of this kind. Here we have this industry employed in such an important work and paying such miserable wages, and we are told that they cannot pay better wages because the farmer cannot get a fixed price for his goods. I never heard such an argument, and it is not true. The farmer will tell you that he has a fixed rate, and when he buys seeds he has to pay a fixed price for them. The wages paid by the farmer are fixed, and yet when he produces his goods he has not got a fixed price for them. There is something radically wrong in an industry worked on those lines.
  If we look at industries where success obtains, I think we shall be able to find the remedy. Take, for example, the Ford car industry, which pays good wages and produces a cheap article. There is not the slightest doubt, as far as the material is concerned, that it is a good article. In that industry, rent, wages, and all the materials have fixed prices, and there is one important factor which is that Mr. Ford has fixed a price for the manufactured article. Mr. Ford never dreams of selling his car at a higher price, and he never allows anyone to sell it at a lower price. Here is an industry which has fixed prices for everything, and because we wish to bring about a better state of society by applying a principle which has been successful right and left in some of our industries, we are told that we are wrong. Take wheat, as an example. The farmer has not got a fixed price for wheat, and the price may be anything between 38s. and 55s. a quarter.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Robert Young): I do not think that there is anything in the Bill in regard to the fixing of prices for the producer. It is a Consumers' Council Bill.
  Mr. SINKINSON: The Consumers Council will have power to control prices,

  1249
  and I was only following the arguments which have been put before the House by other hon. Members who have been discussing the price of wheat. This variation in the price of wheat goes on and it means ruin to the farmer. It is a rather curious thing that, although the price of wheat is always varying, we have a fixed price for the loaf. I think it would be generally agreed that right through the year we have had a fixed price of 9d. That is the price the consumer has to pay. If a Consumers Council is formed, and it can find out what is causing the great disparity between the miserable wages paid in industry and the price paid for certain articles by the consumer, then it will be doing a very good work. On those lines I think the President of the Board of Trade is justified in introducing this Bill.
  There are certain other ways in which we find the price is fixed to the consumer. Let me give my own experience. Not long ago we had a Housing Exhibition in Edinburgh, and there were baths there being sold to the consumer at £14 10s. apiece. One man who had been to this particular exhibition found a bath that would just suit his bathroom, and he went to the exhibition with a plumber to buy it. When the plumber asked the price he was told it was £14 10s. The plumber replied, "My friend is not buying this bath but I am buying it, and I am in the trade. What is the price to me?" The price to him was £8 10s. The plumber told me afterwards that he could have made £5 out of the bath without putting a hand on it. If the Consumers Council could put a finger on a wrong like that they would be doing a very good thing. No retailer need be ashamed if he is doing the honest and fair thing, and if he is doing that, why should he be afraid of showing his books if he is only getting a fair margin of profit? The retailer is justified in making a certain amount of profit because he keeps his store going for the distribution of goods. I know an instance where a man received a letter telling him that his landlord had put up his rent by £150 a year. An increase of that kind would deprive him of £3 a week, and as he is still going to keep his shop open he must have been making a decent profit.
  1250
  I am not justifying the landlord in taking an increase of rent like that, but I am showing that excess profits are being made. When I was visiting a crystal glass works I happened to pick up a beautifully chased tumbler, and I asked the price of it and I was told it was 3s. 6d. It was a beautiful thing. I was afterwards told that the same article could be seen in shop windows in Princes Street and they were being sold at 7s. I protest against such prices. This is the case of a company with a capital of £1,500,000. That company has to pay good wages and build furnaces and go to heavy expense in order to make this beautiful article, and yet the man who puts this article in his shop window makes more profit out of it than the man who produces the article. If the Consumers Council can find out what is actually wrong in a business like that, and can put the thing right so much the better.
  In the engineering trade in which I have been employed, it was necessary to use a tremendous amount of copper piping. Copper pipe can be bought in two places in this country. Then we got it from France, and we found that the copper pipe from France was supplied, to Admiralty tests and requirements, to the firm in Edinburgh at 7½d. per lb. cheaper than it could be produced in Yorkshire or Birmingham. In other words, the English price was £70 a ton dearer. If the Birmingham factory or the Leeds factory had to pay no wages at all, they could not produce their copper pipe at that price. On coming to this House, one of the first things that I asked the President of the Board of Trade was how much raw copper was produced in the mines of this country in 1927 and 1928, and I was told that in 1927 it was somewhere in the region of 320 tons, and, in 1928, 68 tons. That meant that our copper mines were practically finished in this country, as copper mines. When, on the other hand, I asked what were the imports of raw copper into this country, I was told that they were 40,000 tons, and the firms in this country were purchasing raw copper from the same place as the French people. If the Consumers Council can see that there is something wrong here, and can assist industry by bringing these abnormal prices down to rock bottom, they will be doing a service to the industries of

  1251
  this country. I could give more instances, but I think I have given sufficient to, illustrate the point that I want to make.
  Sir WALTER GREAVES-LORD: I sympathise very much with the hon. Member for Berwick (Mr. Sinkinson), but he has got, in one sense, a little wide of this Bill. He was discussing the comparative prices of manufactured copper piping produced in this country and in another country. Whether his intention was to suggest that the producers in this country were profiteering or not, I know not—
  Mr. SINKINSON: I pointed out that the people in this country were actually purchasing their raw material from the same place as the French people, and that was why I wanted to know why they were charging £70 a ton more.
  Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: The hon. Member has forgotten that he gave us the answer himself, namely, that, if the manufacturers in this country paid no wages at all, it could not be produced here for the price at which the French people were selling it. I can only think that he must look, for a remedy for that state of affairs, to something very different from this Bill. I may say in passing that he will not get that remedy from the Government which at present he is supporting, but he may get it at some time from another Government, with the support of a large number of Members of his party.
  The real difficulty with regard to this Bill is not so much to prove that there are certain cases in which there may be profits which some people think excessive, or to persuade people that there are cases where it may be thought that there is too large a discrepancy between the price received by the producer and the price which the ultimate purchaser has to pay. The real question with which we have to deal is whether this Bill is going in any way to remedy that position. I could not help thinking, when the hon. Member for North Lanark (Miss Lee) was speaking a little while back, that, had she devoted the very great ability which she possesses to thinking out and stating, in the very clear manner in which she does state things, what the real effect of this Bill was going to be upon industry, she would have been rendering a much
  1252
  greater service than merely stating, say, the difficult position of the housewife, for whom this Bill provides no remedy at all.
  The whole case for this Bill was destroyed by the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise), in his very interesting speech earlier in the Debate. He pointed out very clearly and conclusively that you cannot deal with so-called profiteering unless you can control, not merely prices, but the supply of material; and he pointed out that this Bill must fail because there was nothing in it which rendered possible the control of the supply of material. He did not go on to point out, however, that even in the remedy which he suggested there was still no real control of supplies, and, therefore, it was no remedy at all; but he did make us realise that when you are dealing with trade you are dealing with an extremely delicate thing. Dealing with profiteering is always a delicate thing. Profiteering is not confined to the mere difference between the purchase price and the selling price. Profiteering which affects the ultimate price to the purchaser is taking place in a great many different ways. You may have 15 or 20 men working together in a shop, all receiving the same rates of pay per hour and per week. As hon. Members opposite know perfectly well, you may have men in a shop like that who do not pull their weight, and those men are just as much profiteering as the man who may take a rather larger percentage than other people think he is entitled to. [An HON. MEMBER: "Rot!"] The hon. Member may think it is rot, but he knows perfectly well, if he thinks it out, that there are only two people who are called upon to pay the wages that these slackers have not earned. One set of people who are called upon to pay the wages of the slacker are the other people working in the shop, who pay by reason of the fact that they themselves are not properly paid. The others are the purchasers of the articles produced by these men. They have to pay an excessive price for them because there are men who are not pulling their weight in the workshop.
  Are we going to have an inquiry into that sort of thing under this Bill? I suppose it is possible, but, so far as one can see, there is no direct reference to that matter in the Bill itself. What the

  1253
  Consumers Council is asked to do is to report that an excessive price is being paid or that an excessive charge is being made by way of brokerage. If the inquiry into what is called profiteering is going to be limited merely to the so-called excessive percentage by which the ultimate selling price exceeds the first purchase price, or to the rates of intermediate brokerage, it is not going to touch even the fringe of the question of profiteering—
  Mr. J. JONES: You will have to go to Woolworths!
  Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: As the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones), who often enlivens these discussions, has called attention to Woolworths, I will give an illustration from Woolworths to show the difficulty of arriving at what is and what is not profiteering. Some time ago, a man whom I know was manufacturing in his works a certain article, which he sold at 3s. 9d. a dozen. The articles were retailed at 6d. per article. Woolworths came along to him and suggested giving him an order. He asked what was the size of it, and they said that it would be a large one, for a million gross, and they asked him at what price he could make the articles if they gave him an order like that. He said he could make them at 2s. 9d. a dozen. Woolworths gave him the order for a million gross, and sold the articles at 3d. each, making a profit of only ¼d. on each, but a very much larger profit in the bulk than the other people who had been retailing the articles at 6d.; and yet I doubt very much if any Consumers Council could have found that the people who were retailing the articles at 6d. were getting an excessive percentage, having regard to all the circumstances of their particular trade. I have only alluded to this instance because the hon. Member referred to Woolworths, but I have alluded to it for the purpose of showing how exceedingly difficult it is to arrive at an answer to the question whether there is profiteering or not.
  The point upon which I wanted to follow the hon. Member for East Leicester was this: As I say, he knocked the bottom out of the Bill and pointed out how delicate a matter it was to interfere with trade, and that obviously, if you have to take into consideration the large number of stages in production and distribution,
  1254
  you have to be very careful that you fix the limit in each case so widely and at such a height that you will not interfere with either the process of production or any of the intermediate processes so far as they are necessary. The result of that is that you are bound, in fixing a wide margin, very often to take a very much higher price as your fixed price, when you are fixing things by law, than if you leave the matter to competitive business. The result of that is that the effect of a Bill of this description is really to bring about excessive prices rather than to reduce prices. The other side of that is that if you do not fix those margins widely and prices sufficiently high, you reduce supply, and thereby bring about a worse evil than that which exists at the present time under free competition. The result of the position put by the hon. Member for East Leicester was that the effect of this Bill must be one thing or the other—either it must reduce your supplies by making it not worth while for people to bring them on the market, or you must fix prices which are likely to be far in excess of the prices charged at the present time.
  The hon. Member went on to suggest that you could get over that difficulty by controlling supplies. That might be very true and very effective if all your supplies were in this country and could be produced without the intermediary of human agency, but how any Government in this country is going to enforce production of supplies is a matter which would baffle most people, and even the party opposite. How are you to control supplies which are in the hands of foreign competitors is another matter to which hon. Members opposite, however much they may talk about it, have never really applied their minds. The result is that one can understand now why the Liberal party are taking up the attitude they are taking. They have accustomed themselves to a dear Coal Bill, and now they are supporting this Bill because in the end, if put into operation, it would be a dear Food Bill. I am not going to refer to the Bill at any length, but there are one or two things in it which certainly strike one as being a little bit odd. It is suggested that the Council is going to deal with questions affecting so-called profiteering. I would like to point out, first of all, that the inquiry which is to

  1255
  be made is to be a one-sided inquiry. It is to be brought about either from complaints made or from other information. As has been pointed out, that means that the tribunal which is going to inquire will inquire upon secret information and upon complaints which are put before them.
  Then they are going to summon certain people before them and ask for such information as they think fit, but inasmuch as there is a specific requirement that the people who inquire shall not be people who are interested in a business and therefore have no practical knowledge of the business, the inquiry is to be conducted by people who have no practical knowledge of the matter in which they are inquiring. Therefore, there is not the slightest guarantee that they will enter into all the phases of the matter. The man whose prices are being attacked does not in one sense even know his prices are being attacked, because he is merely called as a witness to give information, and there is no guarantee that the inquiries will be directed on the right matters or on all the matters which may affect the ultimate decision.
  You might say that would be all right if later on, when the price was going to be fixed, a trader had some right to be heard in connection with the matter; but he has nothing of the kind, because the Bill provides that the Council may report and then the Board of Trade, without making any further inquiry, may make such Order as it thinks fit. They first of all call to the notice of the persons affected the opinion of the Council. The persons to whom that notice is given have no idea whether the Council has taken into consideration the right things or not, and if they do not comply with the opinions which the Council has formed, probably on wholly inadequate material, the Board of Trade may make an order prohibiting a person of any particular class or description from charging any greater price than the price fixed in the order. The result, with the Bill as it now stands, is that prices may be fixed in any industry which have been fixed without any regard to the conditions affecting that industry or the sale and distribution of the things which it produces. That is an entirely vicious principle and, when in operation, is far more
  1256
  likely to be an engine of injustice than to be an engine of relief to any part of the community.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) said that the Liberal party would pay very great attention to Clause 5 because, he said, "You will have to restrict these inquisitions and put into Clause 5 some provision which will restrict them so that they are to be allowed only where there is some sort of prima facie case." Really, as a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman was starting a little late, because the inquisitions and the powers of inquisition are to be found in Clauses 2 and 3, where there is no limitation of any kind upon the conditions under which the council may start inquiries. Under Clause 3 there is no limitation of any kind as to the kind of question the council may ask of the persons whom they may summon before them.
  When one comes to Clause 5, anything more sloppy it would be impossible to find. First of all, Clause 5 suggests that the recommendations of the council shall be detailed and clear, and that they are to describe with precision the commodities to which their recommendation applies. It is not a matter free from difficulty in the case of a great many articles of food, such, for example, as margarine. Surely margarine as a compounded article would be extremely difficult to describe with precision, and yet, unless you can describe it with precision, it is an extremely difficult matter to fix a price which can be applied with justice. But notwithstanding the obligation to describe the matter with precision there is just this difficulty: If the council, having made a rash attempt at describing the article, see fit to apply the description to an article which is not of the description which they have laid down, the poor unfortunate tradesman has no defence at all under Clause 5, because he may not object on the ground that there is lack of precision in the description. Anything more sloppy, when you are inventing a criminal offence, it is impossible to imagine. After all, one has heard, quite rightly, from those benches protests against uncertain administration of the criminal law. Could anything be worse than a penal statute which is expressed in terms so indefinite as Clause 5 of this Bill?

  1257
  But the objections to the Bill do not rest upon any mere matters of detail of that kind. They rest upon this fact, that there is only one cure in the end for profiteering, and that is a cure which is largely unknown to a lot of Members opposite, unknown to some of the hon. Ladies who have spoken but known to their own mothers and wives, namely, in choosing the shop at which they deal. That is the only effective way in which profiteering can be stamped out. You cannot stamp it out by interfering with the reasonable flow of trade. You cannot stamp it out by inquisitorial inquiries. You cannot stamp it out by fixing prices which are bound to be wide of the mark. Any interference of this kind with the ordinary free flow of internal competition is bound to do very much more harm than it can do good, and the apportionment of cursing and blessing which the hon. Lady opposite made at the end of her speech will be found, if the Bill passes, to be rather the opposite to what she suggested, namely that the housewives will bless those who oppose the Bill and curse those who promote it.
  Lady CYNTHIA MOSLEY: The result of the Debate on my mind is that every speech I have heard from hon. Members opposite, with one exception, has made my enthusiasm for the Bill grow stronger and stronger. My respect for human nature, however, through the eyes of three Conservative speakers, has grown lower and lower, because it was suggested that, if we took the steps that are outlined in the Bill, and undue profits were somewhat reduced, the persons who control big private enterprises would manage to diddle the consumer by diluting goods and making them of poorer quality. To hear those arguments put up by Gentlemen who support the present system and say private enterprise is the only possible system rather surprised me. But I will not enter into a discussion with them. No doubt, they know the people who run the concerns a good deal better than I do. Another speaker implied that the housewife was so foolish a creature that, if prices were reduced and commodities were offered at a very much cheaper price, they would turn their backs on them and get the more expensive ones. The housewives they know may do that, but those in my constituency are not in a position to buy anything but the
  1258
  cheapest they can possibly find, and if they can buy a decent article at a cheap price, they will buy it.
  It seems to me it is high time some such method as this was introduced. The Food Council has been found to be inadequate and helpless. It has been flouted. Everyone has paid a tribute to what it has tried to do, but what it has tried to do has not been sufficient. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) said publicity was very valuable. It is valuable up to a point, but it is not enough. It is only a limited weapon and, unless there is power behind this Council, or any other body that is set up, it is futile and inadequate. We must be realists in these days. It is so like the Conservative party to pay lip service to waiting subjects and set up a Food Council to try to make the people believe they are thinking of their interests, but after all is said and done, they give their Food Council no powers and they object to our giving our Food Council any powers of any description. They would limit the effect that any Food Council might have and see that anything it could possibly do is null and void. They can get information, they can inform themselves, they can make recommendations, but they cannot do any more. The Conservative Amendment shows how they will go up to a point but will go no further. It says it is all right for an authoritative and independent tribunal to have adequate powers of investigation, to report on the prices of articles of food, but any further than that they are not to go.
  Of course, we on these benches want to go further. Under present circumstances with the shortage of markets and the difficulty that not only this country but other countries have found in getting markets for their goods, the charges for commodities of general consumption and the retail prices charged for them bear a very important relation to the larger economic problems. Look at all the efforts that have been made during the past eight or nine years to extend our markets. There has been a great deal of talk about combines and amalgamations and new processes of technical efficiency in an effort to extend our markets. Then there have been further efforts by the party opposite to extend our markets by reducing the wages of the workers. That was their panacea.

  1259
  All these great efforts have been made in order to reduce the cost of production. We all know the argument. If the cost of production is less, more goods will be sold and ultimately more men and women employed to make them. What has actually happened? I have here the figure that was given in the "Economist." Taking the figure in 1924 as 100, at the end of 1929 wholesale prices have fallen by 20 per cent. The latest figures given in the Ministry of Labour Gazette show that retail prices have only fallen 5 per cent. It does not matter what reasons are given. It does not matter what justification or arguments are advanced to try to make that difference understandable. There you have it. Wholesale prices have fallen 20 per cent. and retail prices have fallen 5 per cent.
  The late President of the Board of Trade said it would be more justifiable if we had introduced the Bill because there had been a shortage of commodities, but now with the glut in the market it was not understandable. To me it makes it very much worse that we have such a discrepancy between wholesale and retail prices when there is an actual glut of commodities, and there must be more reason than ever for introducing such a Bill as this. If all the efforts that have been made in the past few years to reduce the cost and to reduce the charges, are being eaten up by the people who come between the producer and the consumer, it is high time that something was done. There have been a good many different reasons advanced this evening why there is this great discrepancy. One reason given by an hon. Member below the Gangway opposite was that rates and taxes fell heavily upon the retailer. If they fall heavily upon the retailer they fall just as heavily upon everybody else; they fall heavily upon the producer, but it still leaves us with the figures of a 20 per cent. decrease in wholesale prices, and only a 5 per cent. decrease in retail prices. What interests me is what happens to the 15 per cent. that under present conditions gets dissipated between the producer and consumer. So far as the consumer is concerned, when we go to the shops to buy the goods we have had only an approximate drop of 5 per cent. in the last nine years.
  1260
  I am convinced that this Bill, contrary to the expectations on the other side of the House, is going to help the housewife, and that it is going enormously to improve the prosperity of this country. Retail prices can and must be reduced. Obviously, when the prices are reduced that will mean a great deal more consumption, and the more things that are bought the more goods will need to be made. The Food Council has been found to be inadequate without the further powers we are going to provide by this Bill. I do hope that those further powers will be fully used and that the consumers will feel that, on the whole, there is going to be a better certainty in the future that they will get the commodities of life which we all must have at a fair and reasonable price. I am convinced that the passage of this Bill will bring about that improvement, and I hope that events will prove that hon. Members opposite have been absolutely wrong in their contentions.
  Mr. WOMERSLEY: I rise to refer to certain matters that have been brought forward in this Debate. It is only fair and right that in regard to the fishermen some explanation should be given. I will deal, in the first place, with the statement made by the hon. Member for North Lanark (Miss Lee). She made a general sweeping statement against the fishing industry that it is a common practice to throw fish back into the sea, in order to get an increased price for the fish that is landed. I remarked that that was nonsense, and I repeat it now with greater emphasis. It is a libel upon a class of men who are the salt of the earth and the salt of the sea. What was the evidence upon which she brought forward that statement? It was based upon a quotation from a newspaper, which I understood her to say was the "Daily Chronicle." I do not deny that it appeared in that newspaper. Even if there was an isolated case reported by that newspaper, it did not state that that fish was thrown into the sea in order to cause the price of fish to rise on shore. I think I remember the incident referred to, and it happened because it was absolutely impossible to get the fish away to the inland towns; there was no transport at that particular place, and rather than the fish should become a menace to the health of the people it was sent back into the sea.

  1261
  Let us have a thorough understanding about this matter. It has been thoroughly investigated by a committee, and the evidence is not merely that of a newspaper report. The Imperial Economic Committee went into the question very thoroughly. A statement by the chairman of the committee, Sir Holford Mackinder, refers to this very matter and shows the absurdity of the charge which has been made again and again against the fishermen of this country.
  Miss LEE: I made a statement that it was not the fishermen who were to blame, but the middlemen. I said that my whole attitude to this Bill was one of measured support, and that much more had to be done to organise the whole industry in such a way as to give the fisherman a living that he is not getting at the present time.
  Mr. WOMERSLEY: The hon. Lady said nothing of the kind. I was here and I listened to every word she said. She is now trying to qualify a sweeping statement by an explanation which is no explanation at all. If she blames the middlemen, does she say that the middlemen ordered the fishermen to throw this fish into the sea? Is she aware that the fish has to be sold in open auction at the quay side, and that even the man who owns the boat has to go into the crowd and bid along with the rest? That is the custom of the trade. The hon. Member says, "Hear, hear," so she evidently knows about it. Does she mean to tell the House that the fishermen who are depending upon the sale of their fish for their living will throw their fish into the sea as a common practice? Let me quote from the chairman of the Imperial Economic Committee:
  "The fluctuations in wholesale prices at present"—
  He was referring to fish—
  "are enormous. It sometimes happens that cod from the North Sea will vary in price from 15s. to 40s. per cwt. in a few days. That is because the fish, when landed, must be sold at once. Gluts and scarcities govern the market. The whole of the United Kingdom is a single market for fish. Nobody dare hold up fish at Grimsby, for instance, lest there should be a glut of fish brought in, say at Aberdeen."
  How do the fishermen, when they are at sea, know whether there is going to be big supplies or poor supplies? The
  1262
  quotation which was read by the hon. Lady is the sort of thing that is published by the newspapers when there is nothing better to report. I resent very much the aspersion upon the men who man the fishing fleet.
  I should like to deal with a matter which was raised by the President of the Board of Trade. He was singularly unfortunate in the instance which he gave of a case which he considered was one of gross profiteering, and which justified the bringing forward of the Bill. I will take the point about fish. I interrupted him at the time, and I apologise, but I was startled that a man of his logical mind should make such a statement. He said that cod was landed from the boats and sold at the port of landing at 1.66d. per lb. and that the fish was marked in the shops at 8d. a pound. That may be perfectly true, but let us have the real explanation. The price quoted for cod landed at the port is a far different thing from the price quoted for prime cuts in the shops. There are four grades of cod.
  Mr. J. JONES: You are one of them.
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) cannot restrain himself, he must leave the House.
  Mr. JONES: If I have said anything wrong, I gladly apologise, but I am not a cod.
  Mr. WOMERSLEY: It is one thing for a statement to go out in the newspapers that there is profiteering in this line, but it is different when the statement is made here, because people receive the impression that fish is being sold dear and they say they would cease to buy fish and buy other things. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, if he had made inquiries or even if he had looked at the report of his own Food Council, would have got the explanation. There is fish of the best quality that is got from the North Sea; there is fish from the Faroes, fish from Iceland and from as far away as Greenland. That fish is divided into different qualities. A small price is got for the fish that is bought for salting, but for North Sea cod the price of the prime cut is considerably higher. You must remember that the price at the

  1263
  port is for the whole fish, head and tail and all the rest of it, and the 8d. per lb. you are charged is for the prime middle cut. Then there is cost of transport to London, the cost of packing, cost of ice and price of labour. You have to pay a man at Billingsgate a shilling to carry a small package. The people I represent are the people who catch the fish, and if the Bill would enable the catcher of the fish to get a better price, I believe I might be an enthusiastic supporter of it. But it does nothing of the kind.
  Inquiries under this Bill are to be extended to almost anything and everything. Powers are to be given to the Council to ask people to disclose trade secrets. It has been said that it is no hardship on the retailer, if he does not profiteer, to be called upon to disclose his books. But the small trader has his work cut out to earn a living without being harassed by inspectors. The charge of profiteering has never been substantiated. The hon. Lady who spoke last said that the Food Council had found people guilty time and time again. They did not do anything of the kind. The complaint against the Food Council by the Labour party is that it has not done so. It has been the judge who has heard the case and found the prisoner not guilty. It is because the retailers have been found not guilty that all this outcry is being made. How are you to fix prices for commodities like fish and meat when the prices fluctuate from day to day? The price of North Sea cod has fluctuated from 15s. to 40s. a cwt. in less than three days. You will have to get a report from the Consumers Council, which goes to the Board of Trade, and the Board of Trade will have to make an order fixing prices, and the order has to be laid on the Table of this House. How can you do that with prices fluctuating from day to day by such enormous amounts? The price fixed, as experience of the War shows, will be altogether to the disadvantage of the consumer.
  10.0 p.m.
  The prices fixed during the War gave people in certain branches of the fishing industry over 30 per cent., although they were glad before to work for 5 per cent. This Bill has been brought forward without any intention of putting it on the Statute Book. It is pure window-dressing, trying
  1264
  to placate a certain section of the community. Let me warn the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that they are getting up against an important section of the community which was beginning to think that the party opposite might be of some use—I refer to the small shopkeepers, who would suffer most under such a Bill. Instead of this being a popular Measure, it will prove one of the Measures that will be the undoing of the party opposite.
  Major NATHAN: The startling and, to my mind, sinister feature of the Debate, has been that the main burden of the argument from the Opposition benches above the Gangway has been devoted to the question of the fixation of prices, whereas the main emphasis of the Bill is not directed to the fixation of prices but to ascertaining whether a definite mischief exists, and providing a remedy for that mischief. Fixation of prices is merely the ultimate sanction, the weapon held in the background, in terrorem, over those who are unwilling to comply, if the mischief is found to exist, with the remedy prescribed. It looks very much as if right hon. and hon. Members above the Gangway were apprehensive that the inquiry contemplated by this Bill had only to be held and profiteering would be found to exist universally. I am not suggesting that profiteering is universal. I am not suggesting that unduly high prices are charged; but the whole contention of the Opposition above the Gangway is concentrated, not on making the case that the mischief does not exist, but that the sanction, which comes into operation only in the last resort, would make things worse than before and would be inoperative.
  When the people of the country read this Debate and note these speeches they will be filled with alarm. This Bill cannot affect any retailer or any wholesaler until it has been first proved, as a result of inquiry, that excessive profit is being made. The sanction in question will not come into operation unless the remedy which the Bill prescribes is ineffective, and that remedy is not the fixing of prices; the remedy prescribed is publicity, what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) described as pillorying the malefactor. Hon. Members above the Gangway talk as if we were living in a world of free

  1265
  competition. They deceive themselves very much who think that that is the case. Free competition is becoming less yearly, monthly, weekly, daily. You have the great vertical and horizontal trusts, and price rings, which are open to the public gaze, and the concealed trusts which can be found out only by such investigations as are contemplated by the Bill.
  There is much virtue in combines and trusts. I believe, and it is clear that the Lord Privy Seal and the Government also believe that it may easily be that in trusts and combines lies the best hope for the future of industry in this country. But I believe also that the public must have an appropriate weapon for limiting undue exploitation by such combines. This is a Bill which of all those that have come before the House during the present Session is warmly called for by the country. It is not a case of the Government forcing the Bill on the country, but rather of the country forcing the Bill on the Government. There is a growing demand arising out of a grave apprehension that things are not always what they seem. The hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord) suggested that if a housewife was not satisfied with the price asked for goods in one shop she should choose her own shop, and that was her best safeguard. I do not know whether it is 3,000 or 4,000 or 5,000 shops in this country that are under the control of the Meat Trust, but I do know that more than one shop under that control may be found even in the same street. In some cases those who are actually managing the shops themselves do not know in whose service they are, that they are indeed part of the great meat combine. [An HON. MEMBER: "Virtues of combination!"] There are great virtues in combination provided the facts are known and the public can defend itself by knowing that it is dealing with a trust or combine, and act in an apropriate way.
  I believe that this Bill contains the root remedy for high prices. That is not the fixing of prices, but publicity. It was because the late Tory Government withheld from the Food Council the power necessary to enable it to function fully that it was unable to do so. There is in to-day's "Times" a very significant letter from Sir Allan Powell, the Chairman of the Food Council. He says:
  1266
  "It must be admitted that the Council has been stronger or weaker, information has been supplied or withheld, the conclusions reached have been accepted or ignored, as the likelihood of further powers being given has advanced or receded."
  The tendency hitherto has been for the dealer to say that the proper price is the price the traffic will bear, and the public is now demanding that it shall know what that price really represents in profit to those who are selling. The new Consumers Council will have the power to obtain information, subpoena witnesses and call for books. I am glad, unlike the previous speaker, that the power will not be limited to foodstuffs, but may be applied to other commodities as well. In the case of the Food Council publicity was obtained only when those asked to disclose their books were willing to do so, but now the information can be obtained whether they wish to give it or not, and that is a great safeguard for the public.
  If I thought the price fixing provisions of this Bill were to be in continuous operation and that there was being established an inquisitorial system to investigate the books and transactions of every trader, retail or wholesale, small or great, I should say an intolerable burden was being placed on the business community which the public does not desire and certainly would not itself demand. I believe the threat of publicity will be effective and that the price-fixing powers entrusted to the Board of Trade will never come into operation, or only in the most flagrant and glaring instances. In fact by the nature of the case these powers can be used only in a very broad way, and in dealing with single articles in regard to the prices of which there is a genuine and vocal public feeling.
  In any event some pretty disturbing questions are raised by the price-fixing proposals, and it is no use blinking them. I shall be glad to know what the President of the Board of Trade considers a fair price. Fair to-day may not be fair to-morrow. The conditions of industry are not static but dynamic, and even during the time the inquiry is being conducted and the decision reached conditions may become entirely different. I believe the price-fixing proposals will be used only in the broadest sense, because every possible economic consideration

  1267
  must be taken into account, the conditions of supply ranging from glut at one end to scarcity at the other. There are other considerations. The wholesaler and manufacturer ought to reap some extra reward for having produced goods efficiently, for having had the forethought to calculate the trend of the market, for his skill in meeting the public taste. There are 101 reasons which have to be taken into consideration before a price can be fixed, and only as a last resort should that machinery be put into operation. It is necessary however, that the Government should have powers of that kind at the present stage of our industrial development. Let it not be forgotten that there is always an appeal to Parliament, before which even the powers of this terrible Council must bow.
  Obviously these powers must be carefully scrutinised in Committee. It may very well be that they must be pruned down where they appear to be overbearing, but the main point is that the Bill is an effort, and I believe it will be an effective effort, to protect the consumer against exploitation. It will do even more: it will enable him to ascertain whether or not he is being exploited. I believe that the growth of suspicion in the minds of people that they are not getting a fair deal, is the cause of much of our social unrest. It is not a question of paying a penny more here or there. It is a feeling that they are being cheated, that they are being done, and that they have no redress. The great virtue of this Bill is that it enables the ordinary people engaged in the everyday humdrum business of life who buy a loaf of bread, their meat for the family table, and all the rest of it, to make a protest against exploitation and to know that their protest can be made effective.
  Mr. PALMER: I welcome any legislation which has for its purpose the protection of the consumers. One has not to be in this House long to understand that the people for whom many Members speak in this House are not the consumers, but the profiteers. This Bill, if belated, is very necessary, because there is a class who want protection and need such a Council with powers to regulate prices as is provided under this Bill. A great deal has been said in the discussion on this Bill as to whether or
  1268
  not the Bill is really needed. If one thing has come out more than another in the discussion from the benches opposite, it is that they are concerned lest this Council should really be effective. I think that it is a very fair maxim for young Members of this House to take for their guidance that if a Measure is stoutly opposed by the Opposition they may be pretty sure that it is good for the common people of this country. One hon. Member said that in industry the two people to be considered primarily were the customer and the employé. I know how heterodox that philosophy is to the members of the Conservative party. This is a Measure, first and foremost, to consider the consumers.
  It has been argued that there was no need for this Bill because this country was not at the present time in a state of emergency. The previous Government at least set up the Food Council but that Council, in all its work, has suffered from one thing and one thing only—the lack of powers to deal with the problem for which it was formed. This Bill is an attempt to give that Council adequate powers to go into the question of prices. There have been three distinct periods in the history of this country. There was first of all the period of grab, when the early settlers took what they could lay their hands upon under the legal dictum that possession is nine points of the law. There is the second period of competition, a blessed work which in recent years has run riot, gone mad; and then there is the third period, in which it is essential if prices are to come down and the standard of living to go up that there must be a new spirit and a new co-operation in industry. That is the outstanding feature of the Coal Bill. There must be more co-ordination in all industry. Under this Bill the profiteer is not to be the first party to be considered in industry. Even Socialists will not deny him a profit, but it must be adjusted, and it certainly must not be emphasised and exaggerated and extended so that all enterprise is used for the one sole purpose of making profits.
  We want to arrive at the time when production will be more useful and profit, if there is any, will be appropriate profit and will fall into its correct place in the organisation of production. In these problems it is the practice of hon. Members opposite to forget all about the in-

  1269
  ordinate profits which are extracted from industry and they turn in every other direction in order to find excuses for bad trade and everything else. It is usual for them to talk about high wages as the great factor in prices. The greatest factor in prices in this country is profits. We were reminded by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day that in order to maintain profits at a certain level in the coal industry £25,000,000 had to be thrown in, not to bring wages up but to maintain profits at a certain level. This Bill sets out to protect the consuming public, the people who have to buy food, which is now taxed by the demands of the profiteer in a way in which it cannot be taxed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Everything that we eat and wear and use is inordinately taxed by the insatiable demand for profits and nothing but profits.
  I welcome the Bill because it is an attempt to put the highwayman and the marauder and the profiteer under control. In war time we experienced the necessity of placing these people under control, and I welcome any Bill which will help in that respect. There is of course much to be done by organising, by examination, by elimination of waste. Sometimes the retailer is blamed, sometimes the manufacturer is blamed, and sometimes the middleman is blamed in connection with high prices. This Council will have the power and the opportunities of finding out who is to blame in these matters, and they will be able to take steps to protect the consumer, particularly in regard to foodstuffs and the other essentials of life. I hope the Council's first job will be to tell the Board of Trade and, through the Board of Trade, to tell this House and the country, what is the explanation of the difference between the 20 per cent. reduction on wholesale prices and the 5 per cent. reduction on retail prices and where that margin of 15 per cent. has gone. If the Bill does that, it will do something towards bringing down prices and making the cost and the standard of living for the people of this country what they ought to be.
  Major TRYON: The President of the Board of Trade made a speech so moderate in its wording that the House may not have realised, owing to his careful expressions, how sweeping is the change
  1270
  which this Bill proposes to introduce into the trade of this country. The right hon. Gentleman at the very beginning made an interesting point. He told us about the distributing trades, and he alluded particularly to the commodities of coal, bread and milk. He went at some length into the course of distribution and proceeded to argue that he had made out a strong case for inquiry. On that, he asked for additional powers for the purpose of getting information. We are entirely in favour of helping the right hon. Gentleman to get information, but personally I am in strong agreement with the attitude taken up by the distributors in my own constituency, and, I understand, in other parts of the country, who suggest as a not entirely novel plan, that if there is going to be an inquiry, that inquiry ought to be concluded before legislation is introduced or carried through Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman is asking us to pass this Bill into law before the inquiry has even started.
  I propose to deal with one or two of the comparatively minor points in the Bill before coming to the main issue, which, of course, is contained in Clause 5. We are now setting up a considerable number of new offences, and people will be put in prison for things which were not against the law previous to this Measure. The people who seem to come worse out of the punishment scale in the Bill are the people who are to try to operate the Act. The members of the Council and their staffs will be liable to a punishment of a £50 fine or three months' imprisonment if they refuse to carry out or refuse to take the declaration of secrecy, but when they have taken the declaration, should they proceed to break it, the scale rises until the punishment is anything up to two years or a fine of £100. This does not apply to the traders but to the people who are endeavouring to work the Bill. I am sure that the advocate for equal citizenship will be glad to hear that two women are going to enjoy the labours and the perils of serving on the Consumers Council.
  Then we come to the traders, distributors and producers who are to be encouraged to an activity and success which are not at present available by the knowledge that at various points in their work they will be liable to a number of penalties to which they cannot at pre-

  1271
  sent attain. There will be first an offence for selling a thing at too high a price, for which, I gather, they are liable to a fine of £5 for each article. For a second offence the fine will be £10 and anything up to three months' imprisonment, or both. That seems to be a somewhat discouraging prospect before a struggling body of people who are already in some difficulties in carrying on the trade of the country, and who will have to devote a good deal of their time in studying the latest edition of the regulations which may come out at frequent intervals, lack of knowledge of which may land them not in any increased trading success, but in prison.
  I do not know how the two crimes instituted by the President of the Board of Trade—the one crime being selling coal in its early stages too cheap, and the second crime selling coal in its later stages too dear—will compare. At all events, it will be interesting for two persons in prison to have a talk as to how they got there. One may be able to say, "What I did was to sell coal in its earlier stages at the pithead too cheaply, and here I am in prison. What have you done? "The other one will say, "I was engaged in the coal trade at a later stage, and I am in prison for selling coal too dear." They will be able to say, during their period in prison, "We are, at any rate, getting Socialism in our time." These two gentlemen in prison will also have a further point to consider as to what is the Parliamentary authority behind their punishment, because some of the orders have to be put on the Table of the House for 21 days and can be cancelled, but the Board of Trade keeps in reserve the power to bring out emergency orders, which do not have to appear on the Table at all. Those that do appear on the Table can only be cancelled if both Houses within 21 days agree to cancel them. One House might be against the Order or the other House against the Order, but it could not be cancelled, however unpopular it might be, until both Houses agreed to cancel it and even after it had been cancelled the Board of Trade could still proceed against a person who broke the Order before it was cancelled, although both Houses of Parliament had said it
  1272
  was a bad one, and it had proved to be one that ought not to have been brought in at all.
  Passing from the constitutional question to the graver issue of what it is we are asked to embark on, I would allude first to the title of the Bill. It is called the Consumers Council Bill, a most innocent-looking title, but the real purpose of the Measure is to give authority to the Board of Trade—in emergency cases without any reference to this House—to fix prices. That is a tremendous departure from the trade practice of this country except in time of war, and I cannot help thinking the title of the Bill ought to have stated its main object much more frankly. Another thing which appears to me to be incongruous is the date of it, 1930, because this is the year in which the President of the Board of Trade set out for Geneva to ask all the other nations to have a tariff truce and to agree that Governments should no longer interfere with trade. Apparently the Free Trade views which he put forward so enthusiastically and skilfully at Geneva, though without much success, have evaporated, and he hurried back to Westminster to introduce a Measure which is not Protection in the political sense, but which is Socialism, State interference in its extreme form with commerce. This Bill and his Free Trade views at Geneva do not seem to go well together.
  The date is an odd one for other reasons. I should have thought that B.C. would have been a better period for the introduction of such a Bill. I believe the people who are now mummies in Egypt, who governed Egypt many thousands of years ago, made the attempt which the President, of the Board of Trade is making now. We had to-night, in a speech which I am sorry to say I missed, an allusion to Diocletian, who 1600 years ago brought in an Order attempting to fix prices. He did not have exactly the same schedule that we have here, because, as I told the House of Commons last July, the things of which Diocletian endeavoured to fix the price were orators and beer and schoolmasters. At all events, the attempt failed. I would also like to allude to a pleasing little, incident which happened to me after I made that speech.
  A political opponent in my constituency, who is an enthusiastic and

  1273
  logical Free Trader, and who would naturally be opposed to this Bill, sent me a pamphlet recounting an historic incident under one of the early kings of England. Inexperienced people, whether they are parties or kings, who have not had much training, are apt, when they get autocratic power, to try to use it. So it was with this English king. He tried to fix the prices of food. Amongst the items of food appeared a goose, the price of which he fixed at 4d. That was a considerable sum in those days, but it was regarded as too low, and as a result, as was the case with rabbits during the War, no geese came into the market. Eventually a few geese did arrive at market, but they were old and tough, and nobody would eat them. It became a question as to whether they were geese at all, and how was one to define a statutory goose. That is what we shall be up against.
  The President of the Board of Trade was exceedingly careful to leave out of this discussion what happened during the War. I should have thought that if you were going to discuss State control, the very thing we should have to consider was what happened within the lifetime of this generation when this plan was tried. It was tried under somewhat unusually favourable circumstances. During a war people will submit to a great deal of restrictions which are very irritating to those who believe in a Free Trade policy. Then there was a general acknowledgment that rationing was right, and that you must do everything you could to distribute fairly the very limited amount of supplies. We are now in a period of over-production, and surely that is not the moment to introduce restrictions on trade. If you are going to introduce legislation so closely allied to what happened during the War, surely it is necessary to consider what took place when that system was working during the War.
  I have been reading a history of what happened during the War, and there are a number of lessons which we learnt that are vital to the present issue. The first lesson we learnt during the War was that it never worked when you attempted to fix prices before you had obtained the control of supplies. That was the point made by the hon. Member for East Leicester. He, of course, did not oppose the Bill; in fact, he welcomed it because
  1274
  it was consistent with the Socialism which he advocates. The hon. Member for East Leicester was quite right when he said that this Bill can only lead to a far greater extension of State control and State management. But you cannot stop there. During the War the Government got control of supplies, and then had some success in controlling their distribution and the price. We had an economic union with our Allies, and we were able to control suppplies from America and other distant countries. Under this Bill you cannot control all our supplies, because they are not produced in this country.
  There were three notable cases in which the mistake of this Bill was made, that is to say, where the control of prices was attempted before the control of supplies was secured. The first was in the control of home-grown meat where certain orders, hastily made without proper provision for control, brought chaos into the meat trade. The second notorious case was the attempt to fix the price of rabbits at 2s. in January, 1918, without assuming the control of the rabbits, with the natural result that the rabbits disappeared, and there were no rabbits on the market. I am told that the defence set up by the Socialists was that it was spring time and the rabbits were engaged in the spring in that production which is part of the Socialist programme. We were told that there were no rabbits because they were multiplying, which is one of the things rabbits do, but the order was issued in January, so I do not think that the Socialist excuse was a sound one.
  The last case, and it is an extraordinarily interesting one, was that of milk. In the case of milk, during the War, an attempt was made to fix the price before control was obtained of the supplies, and from that we come to a number of points which bear vitally upon the operation of this plan. In the first place, it was found necessary, for fear of stopping the production of milk, to fix the price, not very low, but very high—[An HON. MEMBER: "Too high!"] The hon. Member says that it was too high, but it was fixed high because of State control—because the State was so afraid of stopping people from having more cows and producing more milk. The price was fixed at a high figure and we ultimately came to this extraordinary

  1275
  situation, that in the control of food—which I may remind the House lasted longer after the War than it did during the War—while the Ministry was doing its best to decontrol prices, some producers were trying to maintain the guaranteed prices and control, not because of cheapness, but because of the dearness which had been reached.
  There is also this further point with reference to milk, and I make it definitely on one issue, but it applies over the whole range of articles affected by this Bill. It is no use trying to force down the price of milk very low unless you do two things. In the first place, you must operate over all the alternative uses or products of milk, such as cheese; and, secondly, if you merely fix a low price for milk sold in the towns, that low price will come back to a low price for the producer, and in the end you may achieve, not large supplies of milk, but a milk famine through having put the price to the producer too low. If I may criticise a speech for the clearness of which I have so much admiration, I should like to say that I do not think the President of the Board of Trade, in the whole of his speech, took sufficient account of the importance of the producer's side of this question. There was a great deal about the consumer, and a great deal about the distributor, but very little about the producer; but, after all, the producer is absolutely essential before any of the other processes come in at all, and, throughout all this intervention of the State, the great danger is that you may so discourage production as to achieve in the end a shortage and higher prices.
  With reference to the actual items which have been scheduled, I find that they include articles of food of general consumption, wearing apparel, clothing material, fuels—with which we have already dealt—and any other article of common use. That is an enormous extension of the powers of the Board of Trade. I gather that this council will make its recommendations, and then the Board of Trade will be enabled to fix arbitrarily—on an emergency Order if it likes, and not subject to any control by either House of Parliament—the price of all these articles. Bearing in mind the invariable failure throughout history of the attempts of
  1276
  autocrats of all kinds to use their power to fix prices against the operation of economic laws, I cannot think that this Government, which, if I may say so, does not seem to be dealing very successfully with some of its other problems, is likely to be very successful with this one.
  There is this great danger in reference to prices, that you cannot presume wisdom or accuracy in the decision of the Board of Trade or of those who fix prices. It is true that they may fix the price at the right level, and I am sure they will do their best to do so, but they are trying to fix something which is essentially, in its nature, mutable. Better harvests, bad harvests, varying production, foreign trade, dumping of goods—all sorts of things bring their effects from day to day upon the prices of commodities, and, by the time that the Board of Trade has inquired and considered fully, as I know the right hon. Gentleman will, the price may be wrong almost before it is fixed, and, at the end of a few weeks, it will become hopelessly wrong. But there is another alternative which must not be lost sight of. It is conceivable that this Government may make mistakes, and, supposing that they fix prices too high, they will impose a wholly unnecessary charge on the consumer in whose interests they are endeavouring to act. Suppose that they fix the price too low, the price, through the various distributing machinery, comes back very rapidly on the producer and the result is a shortage in the commodity. You may do what you like, but if you produce a shortage of any commodity in the end you bring about a rise of prices and hardship to poor people.
  There are certain other points on which I should like to touch. For instance, what is going to, happen when the prices become obviously wrong? It is no part of my duty to protect this Government from errors, but suppose that this Government fixed the price of the loaf or of milk or a number of other essential commodities at a certain level, and then there was a bad harvest or a shortage of milk or some world-wide cause entirely outside the control of the Government. The Government has to go overseas to buy if it buys itself, just as the individual importer has. The Government cannot control prices in the long run, and a Government which has taught

  1277
  people to look upon prices as the act of the Government may find some day that people will say that the Government has put up the prices. It is not going to be very easy for the President of the Board of Trade, supposing a General Election comes along, and, because the price of corn has gone up, the price of bread is put up. Or is there going to be some sort of subsidy to carry them through the election?
  Suppose that the prices are going down. You get more difficulty. Retailers who may be endeavouring to carry on business will know that at any moment and without warning the Board of Trade may suddenly lower prices, and the people who have been buying stocks to supply the community may suddenly find that the retail price has been artificially lowered at short notice by the Board of Trade. Naturally the result will be that they will go very slowly in buying stocks, and you may run the risk of dislocating trade and creating all sorts of difficulties for the community by the very action of the Government which is seeking to avoid these dangers.
  Then we come to the position of the Liberal party. I can recall the days when there would have been no more determined opponents of this Bill than the Liberal party as a whole. I should like to know what some of the great leaders of the Liberal party would have thought of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). I am sorry that another Liberal leader, the right hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman), is not here, because some of us well remember the speeches that he made on this subject during the War. He made most convincing speeches against Government action, though they were followed by Government action on his part very shortly afterwards. They were extremely good speeches, and it does seem a very great pity that we have not had a really whole-hearted exposition of Liberal policy from the Liberal benches. If there is one thing to which all Liberals ought to have been opposed, it is the intervention of the State, on this colossal scale, in almost the whole trade of the country, and more particularly, in the essential food supplies and the necessaries of life, and the idea that the
  1278
  State can come in and overrule the laws of supply and demand.
  It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to laugh, but can the State intervene, say, in the harvest of America? It is perfectly obvious that you cannot fix the price of a thing which you import because that depends upon the price that you have to pay to the foreigner. It is also obvious that the hon. Member for East Leceister was right in saying that this was a half-measure of Socialism. I think it is beginning at the wrong end. If you are introducing Socialism you ought to begin by trying to get some control of supplies, and then you could make some attempt to control prices. But it is none the less Socialism, and the fact that the Socialism has been badly done only makes it the more dangerous.
  We have heard a good deal from hon. Members opposite in the way of attacks on the distributing trade. While the attack is obviously directed against the small shops and the great distributing shops, I hope they will be interested in the vote given by the Liberal party. I am afraid we shall see a great many Liberals definitely voting for the principle of State control of prices. While we hear speeches about the distributing trade, we must not forget that that does not limit the action of the Bill. I believe it is also going gravely to injure producer and consumer alike. It will injure the producers because it will discourage them. They will not know where they are under the Bill. They will be liable to have prices forced down by State action and, therefore, to have their production decreased, and at the other end will be the consumers, who may think they are going to get something from the Bill but who may find that, in the shortage and in the high prices which followed Government action during the War, all those evils will be reproduced in peace time under this Bill. I regard it as a reactionary Measure. It is an attempt to revive in peace time legislation which was possibly appropriate and necessary in war time. I do not think we want any more of these war-time regulations. Certainly we do not want them introduced in times of profound peace, and it is because I believe it will injure producers, consumers and distributors alike, that I hope the Bill will be rejected.
  11.0 p.m.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): Many of the speeches to which we have listened would seem to suggest that the issue we have been discussing is one that was entirely new and had never been before the House before. In fact, judging from some of the observations, it might be assumed that this issue had arisen out of some ill-conceived thoughts and ideas of the party on these benches. One Member went so far as to say it was produced out of spite and prejudice. It is very difficult to understand the attitude of hon. Members opposite towards the Bill. I suppose if there is one question which has been in the mind of the people of the country, and indeed before the House, both during and since the War, it is the question of prices from the point of view of their being higher than was felt to be justified. In fact this question has formed part of election campaigns, and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are not entirely unacquainted with this issue as part of the campaigns they have fought. I find that in 1924, in a Conservative manifesto published in the "Times" on 13th October, the cost of foodstuffs occupied rather a prominent part and it is stated that the problem is one that demands careful investigation by a Royal Commission. The importance of any reduction in these costs and the effect both directly upon the cost of living and indirectly upon our industrial position, is obvious. The late Prime Minister, speaking on 15th October, 1924, sought to make party capital out of the fact that the Government that was then going to the country—the Labour Government of 1924—had, somehow, failed in its purpose and object in dealing with this question of food prices. He said:
  "In spite of the promises made a year ago, in spite of the Election which was won on these promises, in spite of the tenure of office by the present Government, the price of foodstuffs to-day, after a considerable amount in duties has been taken off some of them, remains practically where that price was a year ago."
  He said that if returned he would investigate the causes, and added:
  "I do not pretend myself to know what these causes are. I am only determined that the causes shall be discovered, and if it be possible to deal with these causes, they shall be dealt with."
  1280
  It seems rather strange that right hon. and hon. Members opposite should to-day talk as if this was a new issue with which they as a party had had no relationship whatever. The late Prime Minister also said, in October, 1924, that investigation should take place and that steps, if possible, should be taken to stop a rise in prices. We have been told to-day that that is an impossible position to adopt. What is the cause of this change in the party opposite? This was part of their election programme. In 1924 they asked the country to return them to power so that they might deal with food prices and reduce them because of their bad effect upon the industrial life of the country. Further, in 1925, after the Food Commission had reported, the right hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin), referring to the Report of the Royal Commission, said:
  "The spirit animating that report is the desire that the committee (the Food Council) should have before it, accurate and continuing information as to supplies and prices and possess means of expression and investigation, and if all concerned will co-operate in that spirit, it may well be that they will require no compulsory powers, but if experience shows that compulsory powers are necessary, the Government will not hesitate to ask Parliament for any powers that may be required."
  That statement was made in a speech at Welbeck Abbey. The Food Commission which was appointed by the Government under the right hon. Gentleman made its report in 1925 and, as a result of that report, the Food Council was set up. I want to examine the situation that has arisen and has evolved from the setting up of that Food Council. It is perfectly clear, from the speeches I have quoted, that the Tory party, in the setting up of the Food Council, were firmly persuaded that this question of food prices could and should be dealt with. It is quite true that they did not give the Food Council any compulsory powers, although I see that the right hon. Gentleman the late President of the Board of Trade asked a question as to whether there was any authority for the position which we were now taking up, and read an extract from the report of the Food Commission to the effect that they were not in favour of compulsory powers. I should like to read to the right hon. Gentleman in that respect an extract from the Food Commission's Report, paragraph 342, page 139, in which reference

  1281
  is made to the position which the right hon. Gentleman was developing in regard to monopolies. This is what the Commission says:
  "Yet because of the power which such amalgamations and absorptions place in the hands of a few persons, it seems to us that the time has come to equip some body with power to deal with monopolies, trusts, and combines which charge unduly high prices for the services they render to the public or suppress competition merely in order to maintain or expand their profits. We doubt whether public apprehension will be set at rest until the State has armed itself with the necessary powers to deal with antisocial actions by monopolies, trusts and combines. But the danger of the abuse of monopolistic power is not confined to the food trades, and it would in our view be unwise to set up special machinery for dealing drastically, by the application of sanctions, with anti-social actions in these and not in other trades."
  So that, therefore, the Royal Commission on Food Prices did realise the dangers of the situation, and did express views very definitely in favour of the position that monopolistic trusts and combines would have to be dealt with. The justification for this Bill going beyond the question of food is also contained in that paragraph, when it states that it would be unwise and improper to limit these powers and sanctions merely to food and not to other commodities.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: And they reported against price fixing.
  Mr. SMITH: The right hon. Gentleman asked where there was any authority that could be quoted in regard to this Bill. He quoted the Royal Commission's Report to support his point of view; I am quoting that paragraph to show that in the evidence brought before the Royal Commission they did find sufficient to justify them in saying that the time was coming, if it had not arrived, for some such action to take place, and that when it did take place it should not be limited to food alone, but would have to deal with other articles.
  Let us consider the position that has developed since the Food Council was appointed. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken in very high terms of the Food Council; he has praised its work, and paid a very high tribute to the services it has rendered. Therefore, one is entitled to assume that everything they have reported upon, or any recommendations they have made, have been the result of careful investigation and close
  1282
  scrutiny. The right hon. Gentleman says the Royal Commission on Food Prices did not recommend fixing prices. I would like to put a question to him. Two questions of very great importance have arisen out of the work of the Food Council. The first concerns milk prices last year. The right hon. Gentleman says he is in favour of compulsory powers of investigation, although nearly every Member behind him has repudiated that point of view.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No.
  Mr. SMITH: Yes. Indeed the speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who preceded me to a very large extent argued against it.
  Major TRYON: I am in favour of every possible means of inquiry, including compulsory investigation.
  Mr. SMITH: I am sorry. I must have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman and I withdraw. I thought he was speaking against compulsory investigation; but, of course, I accept his word. But here is the situation that has arisen. The Food Council have investigated very thoroughly the question of the price of milk. The cost of the milk to the customer purchasing it day by day may not be much, but in the aggregate it reaches a very substantial sum of money for the year. They have not got compulsory powers now, but they discovered as a result of their examination that there was no justification in the facts relating to the cost for certain prices being charged for a certain month out of the 12. Suppose they had had compulsory powers of investigation, which my right hon. Friend is willing to give them, the situation would have been exactly the same.
  I want my right hon. Friend to tell me how he would meet that situation without power to deal with prices. That is the merit of the Bill; it is the central point of the Bill. Our contention is that all the resources of voluntary effort have been tried and they have failed. The Food Council themselves say that the position has become a farce. You can go through the whole of their work during the years they have been in existence and steadily and surely there has developed a situation which the Food Council themselves feel renders their work useless. This attitude is confirmed

  1283
  even up to this very day by a letter which the Chairman of that body has sent to the "Times." The concluding paragraph means, if it means anything, that whatever they do and however exact their examination may be, however valuable the results of their analysis, however big the offences in regard to charging unreasonable and unfair prices, they are hopeless and helpless and cannot deal with the situation.
  What I want to ask again is this: Take the question of bread, the other of the two classic cases in the experience of the Food Council. This question has been dealt with very carefully. I do not think it can be denied that as a result of the work of the Food Council the price of bread has been kept lower than it would otherwise have been. They have been able to fix a scale which determined what the price of bread should be at any given time according to the price of flour. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, in opening this Debate, said the price of flour might vary, and the price of bread might vary from 10d. down to 8d., according to the price of flour. That has worked very satisfactorily for several years. Two of the leading associations of master bakers in London decided that they would get out of that agreement or understanding with the Food Council. They altered the scale or range of prices of flour to their own advantage, and they flouted the Food Council. I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow (Major Salmon) is not in his place because he made a statement that they did not flout the Food Council, but gave the Food Council notice and offered to give reasons. This is the most remarkable thing about the matter. In the letter they sent to the Food Council, which was on the eve of the change in prices and conditions, they stated that they had been persuaded since 1929 that the decision was wrong. They considered this matter for 12 months, and after having considered it, altered the arrangement, notified the Food Council and then offered to give the information after they had altered the prices. The hon. Member for Harrow said they treated the Food Council with courtesy and offered the fullest explanation. There again is
  1284
  an illustration of the traders dealing with a very important commodity in the life of the people varying a condition to their own advantage and against the consuming public, and charging the public more than the price which had been determined by the Food Council to be reasonable and fair.
  I want again to take that case and the case of milk and to ask the right hon. Gentleman who believes in the Food Council, who says that it has done excellent work and who is prepared to give them compulsory powers of investigation, how, unless he gives them the power to limit or regulate prices, he is going to deal with cases like the two I have just quoted in order to protect the public?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Gentleman has asked that question three times. I did not want to interrupt his speech because I had addressed a long speech to the House in which I dealt specifically with those points. But I will, as he has asked for it, repeat my answer. In the first place, what you require, apparently, is further information. Certainly, that is what the Food Council said. They said they could not get from these master bakers the precise figures on which to give a decision, and that is the case for further inquiry. That is the first thing. Secondly, when you do get a well-informed public opinion, I am certain they will bring their weight to bear—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I have been asked by the Minister to give him an answer. I would ask hon. Members to listen. I confirm that by saying that an hon. Gentleman who addressed the House about an hour or so ago said he spoke for the co-operative societies who catered for half the population of this country. If the co-operative societies cater for half the population of this country and wish to increase their clientele, why cannot they come into competition by selling at the proper price. [An HON. MEMBER: "They have done!"] If they have done, there you have the answer, that when public opinion is informed you get a very much larger number of traders selling at the proper price, and that certainly is going to have its effect. In the third place, I am sure that if you control prices at all, you have to control them all through, and, as the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise) said, not only control

  1285
  prices, but undertake the business yourself.
  Mr. SMITH: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not given a more complete answer to my question. He is relying on the pressure of public opinion. Let us examine that. In 1929 on the milk issue the facts were clear and unmistakable. The right hon. Gentleman cannot say that the Food Council was wrong in their conclusions; and he has paid a tribute to their efficiency and the thoroughness of their work. They examined the matter and said that the price was too high. What about public opinion? The milk traders snapped their fingers at public opinion. They said, "We are going to raise the price of our milk as we said we would." The President of the Board of Trade had a consultation with them and pointed out the seriousness of the position and the possibility of a revulsion of public opinion against it. They said, "We do not care"—or that at least was the meaning of their attitude—"we are going to raise the price of milk as we said we would, and take the advantage to ourselves." If hon. Members opposite are prepared to give the Food Council compulsory powers for investigation they will have to go further. Plenty of instances might be given in regard to this matter. The Conservative Agricultural Committee of this House asked that the question of the difference in the wholesale and retail price of market garden produce should be investigated—an important question. I do not know a subject which will stand investigation with more profit to the general public. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Co-operative Society?"] I am sorry the hon. Member has not had the opportunity of addressing the House, as the House would then have had his views with regard to that society. The Food Council took up this investigation and they had to abandon it because they could get no information. They had to report back to the Conservative Agricultural Committee of this House who expressed astonishment that no information was forthcoming, and they decided, with regret, to let the matter drop.
  What is the use of pretending? Either this House intends to deal with this problem along the line that it is going to meet the public need or continue to trifle
  1286
  with it. Even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin) had to use his position and threaten traders with what would happen if they did not give information. In reply to a question, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley said in 1928:
  "The Government are prepared to give the Food Council all the support required to enable them to obtain essential information and they are so informing the Council. Unless, therefore, within a reasonable period, the requisite information is supplied to the Food Council by those traders who have so far failed to do so, the Government propose to ask Parliament to grant the necessary powers to the Council, by means of a Resolution under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th May. 1928; col. 1221, Vol. 217.]
  The Food Council found that that intimation had effect for a time, but then it fell away again, and the procedure was found entirely useless and unavailing in that respect. That is the kernel of the situation. There is plenty of evidence to show That voluntary effort and even compulsory powers of investigation will fail to achieve the desired result—a result which is desired by hon. Members opposite, according to the language which they have used. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley said that food prices must be kept down and that where prices were excessive they must be checked. Very well, if that be the objective, I suggest that this Bill is timely and that it is the natural consequence of the experience gained during the period covered by the Food Council.
  Sir DENNTS HERBERT: On a point of Order. Ts the hon. Gentleman in order in making a second speech and going far beyond answering the questions which have been put to him?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I did not know that the hon. Gentleman was making a second speech.
  Mr. W. R. SMITH: I am endeavouring to answer the various points which have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Wise) criticised the proposals in regard to secrecy, and said they would result in essential facts being suppressed. I suggest that the hon. Member has not properly gathered what is intended in the Bill, but if the situation is as he has interpreted it, that is a matter which can be more fully examined in Committee. It was not in-

  1287
  tended that the Bill should operate in the way suggested by the hon. Member, although we say clearly and unmistakeably that where secret information is obtained in regard to a specific business, that information should not be divulged to the detriment of that business. I do not know that I need deal with his other point as to the Bill being inadequate, because he partly answered his own criticism when he asked the Government to bring in further legislation—presumably because the points which he had in mind were rather beyond the scope of a Bill of this description and really belonged to legislation of another class. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) thought the Bill was rather too sweeping in the range of commodities which it covered but I ask him, how can you draw a line in this matter? The Bill must be widely drawn in order that the work of the council may be effective. The right hon. Gentleman's further point about the inquiry is also a matter for consideration in Committee, and I think he may be assured that it will be fully and sympathetically considered at that time. There is another point, arising out of the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow. He said that competition would settle
  this if we left competition alone. On the Royal Commission on Food Prices, of which I was a member, we had a case where a baker in South Wales was selling bread at a lower price than the other bakers, and the millers of the area combined and refused to sell him flour. As a result of the action of the Commission, that was stopped, but it has come up again. In the same district the same question has arisen, and the millers are refusing to sell a certain baker flour because he is selling bread at a lower price than other bakers in the district. Therefore, what is the use of talking about competition solving this problem of giving the people food at prices that are reasonable and fair when you have combinations and monopolies preventing supplies reaching the people? I hope that I have covered fairly and reasonably the points of criticism that have been raised against this Bill. I can only suggest now that the House might let us have the Second Reading, and that any points of difficulty that have been raised so far as the details are concerned can be amply dealt with when the Bill is in Committee.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 266; Noes, 202.

  Division No. 278.]

  AYES.

  [11.33 p.m.

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

  Caine, Derwent Hall-

  Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

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

  Cameron, A. G.

  Gill, T. H.

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Cape, Thomas

  Gillett, George M.

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

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

  Glassey, A. E.

  Alpass, J. H.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Gossling, A. G.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Chater, Daniel

  Gould, F.

  Arnott, John

  Church, Major A. G.

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

  Aske, Sir Robert

  Clarke, J. S.

  Gray, Milner

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Cluse, W. S.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

  Ayles, Walter

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

  Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

  Compton, Joseph

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Barnes, Alfred John

  Daggar, George

  Groves, Thomas E.

  Barr, James

  Dallas, George

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Batey, Joseph

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Bellamy, Albert

  Day, Harry

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

  Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

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

  Dickson, T.

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

  Benson, G.

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Hardie, George D.

  Bentham, Dr. Ethel

  Dukes, C.

  Harris, Percy A.

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Duncan, Charles

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Birkett, W. Norman

  Ede, James Chuter

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

  Edmunds, J. E.

  Haycock, A. W.

  Broad, Francis Alfred

  Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Egan, W. H.

  Hayes, John Henry

  Bromfield, William

  Foot, Isaac

  Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

  Bromley, J.

  Forgan, Dr. Robert

  Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

  Brooke, W.

  Freeman, Peter

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

  Brothers, M.

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

  Herriotts, J.

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

  Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

  Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Buchanan, G.

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Hoffman, P. C.

  Burgess, F. G.

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

  Hollins, A.

  Burgin, Dr. E. L.

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Hopkin, Daniel

  Horrabin, J. F.

  Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

  Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

  Mort, D. L.

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph

  Moses, J. J. H.

  Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

  Johnston, Thomas

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

  Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

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

  Muff, G.

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Muggeridge, H. T.

  Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Murnin, Hugh

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Nathan, Major H. L.

  Snell, Harry

  Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

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

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Kelly, W. T.

  Oldfield, J. R.

  Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

  Sorensen, R.

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

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

  Stamford, Thomas W.

  Kinley, J.

  Palin, John Henry.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Lang, Gordon

  Paling, Wilfrid

  Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Palmer, E. T.

  Strauss, G. R.

  Lathan, G.

  Perry, S. F.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Law, Albert (Bolton)

  Peters, Dr. Sidney John

  Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

  Law, A. (Rossendale)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

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

  Lawrence, Susan

  Phillips, Dr. Marion

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

  Lawson, John James

  Picton-Turbervill, Edith

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

  Pole, Major D. G.

  Tillett, Ben

  Leach, W.

  Potts, John S.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

  Price, M. P.

  Toole, Joseph

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Pybus, Percy John

  Tout, W. J.

  Lindley, Fred W.

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Townend, A. E.

  Lloyd, C. Ellis

  Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Turner, B.

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Raynes, W. R.

  Vaughan, D. J.

  Longden, F.

  Richards, R.

  Viant, S. P.

  Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Walkden, A. G.

  Lunn, William

  Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

  Walker, J.

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Watkins, F. C.

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

  Ritson, J.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

  Romeril, H. G.

  Wellock, Wilfred

  McElwee, A.

  Rosbotham, D. S. T.

  Welsh, James (Paisley)

  McEntee, V. L.

  Rowson, Guy

  Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

  McKinlay, A.

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  West, F. R.

  Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

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

  Westwood, Joseph

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Sanders, W. S.

  White, H. G.

  McShane, John James

  Sandham, E.

  Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

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

  Sawyer, G. F.

  Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

  Mander, Geoffrey le M.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Mansfield, W.

  Scurr, John

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Markham, S. F.

  Sexton, James

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Marley, J.

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Mathers, George

  Sherwood, G. H.

  Wilson, J. (Oldham)

  Maxton, James

  Shield, George William

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Melville, Sir James

  Shillaker, J. F.

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

  Messer, Fred

  Shinwell, E.

  Wise, E. F.

  Millar, J. D.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

  Mills, J. E.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

  Milner, Major J.

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

  Montague, Frederick

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Morley, Ralph

  Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

  Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

  Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

  Sinkinson, George

  Charles Edwards.

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

  Albery, Irving James

  Bullock, Captain Malcolm

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

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

  Butler, R. A.

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

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

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

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

  Castle Stewart, Earl of

  Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

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

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Atkinson, C.

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

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

  Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

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

  Balniel, Lord

  Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton

  Duckworth, G. A. V.

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

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

  Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

  Beaumont, M. W.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Batterton, Sir Henry B.

  Christie, J. A.

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

  Bird, Ernest Roy

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Cohen, Major J. Brunel

  Faile, Sir Bertram G.

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Colfox, Major William Philip

  Ferguson, Sir John

  Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Fermoy, Lord

  Boyce, H. L.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Fison, F. G. Clavering

  Bracken, B.

  Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

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

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Buchan, John

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  1290

  1291

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Long, Major Eric

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

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Lymington, Viscount

  Savery, S. S.

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

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Skelton, A. N.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Grace, John

  MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

  Margesson, Captain H. D.

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Marjoribanks, E. C.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

  Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Meller, R. J.

  Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

  Morden, Col. W. Grant

  Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

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

  Morris, Rhys Hopkins

  Thomson, Sir F.

  Hammersley, S. S.

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

  Tinne, J. A.

  Hanbury, C.

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Muirhead, A. J.

  Todd, Capt. A. J.

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

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

  Train, J.

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

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

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  O'Neill, Sir H.

  Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

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

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

  Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

  Peake, Captain Osbert

  Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Penny, Sir George

  Warrender, Sir Victor

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

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Wells, Sydney R.

  Iveagh, Countess of

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

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

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

  Reid, David D. (County Down)

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Remer, John R.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.

  Reynolds, Col. Sir James

  Withers, Sir John James

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)

  Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Womersley, W. J.

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

  Ross, Major Ronald D.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

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

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

  Salmon, Major I.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Llewellin, Major J. J.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Commander Sir B. Eyres Monsell

  Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  and Major Sir George Hennessy.

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

  Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

  Bill read a Second time.

  "Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be committed to a Com-
  mittee of the Whole House."—[Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister.]
  The House divided: Ayes, 184; Noes, 248.

  Division No. 279.]

  AYES.

  [11.44 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel.

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Albery, Irving James

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

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

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

  Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)

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

  Falie, Sir Bertram G.

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

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

  Ferguson, Sir John

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

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Fermoy, Lord

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Christie, J. A.

  Fison, F. G. Clavering

  Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Balniel, Lord

  Cohen, Major J. Brunei

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Colfox, Major William Philip

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Beaumont, M. W.

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Betterton, Sir Henry B.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

  Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

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

  Bird, Ernest Roy

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

  Grace, John

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

  Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Boyce, H. L.

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Bracken, B.

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

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

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Buchan, John

  Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

  Bullock, Captain Malcolm

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

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

  Butler, R. A.

  Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Carver, Major W. H.

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

  Hanbury, C.

  Castle Stewart, Earl of

  Duckworth, G. A. V.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

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

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Eden, Captain Anthony

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

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

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Muirhead, A. J.

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

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

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

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

  Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

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

  Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

  Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  O'Neill, Sir H.

  Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

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

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Thomson, Sir F.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Peake, Captain Osbert

  Tinne, J. A.

  Iveagh, Countess of

  Penny, Sir George

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

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

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Todd, Capt. A. J.

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

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

  Reid, David D. (County Down)

  Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Remer, John R.

  Wardlaw-Mline, J. S.

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Reynolds, Col. Sir James

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

  Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Llewellin, Major J. J.

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

  Ross, Major Ronald D.

  Wells, Sydney R.

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

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

  Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

  Lymington, Viscount

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

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

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Salmon, Major I.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

  Womersley, W. J.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

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

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Marjoribanks, E. C.

  Savery, S. S.

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Meller, R. J.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

  Smithers, Waldron

  Captain Margesson and Captain

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

  Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

  Wallace.

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  NOES.

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

  Ede, James Chuter

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

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

  Edmunds, J. E.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

  Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

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

  Egan, W. H.

  Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

  Alpass. J. H.

  Foot, Isaac

  Kelly, W. T.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Forgan, Dr. Robert

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Arnott, John

  Freeman, Peter

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

  Aske, Sir Robert

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

  Kinley, J.

  Ayles, Walter

  Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

  Lang, Gordon

  Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Lathan, G.

  Barnes, Alfred John

  Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)

  Law, Albert (Bolton)

  Barr, James

  Gill, T. H.

  Law, A. (Rosendale)

  Batey, Joseph

  Gillett, George M.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Bellamy, Albert

  Glassey, A. E.

  Lawson, John James

  Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

  Gossling, A. G.

  Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

  Benson, G.

  Gould, F.

  Leach, W.

  Bentham, Dr. Ethel

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

  Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Gray, Milner

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Birkett, W. Norman

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

  Lindley, Fred W.

  Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Lloyd, C. Ellis

  Broad, Francis Alfred

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Bromfield, William

  Groves, Thomas E.

  Longden, F.

  Bromley, J.

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

  Brooke, W.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Lunn, William

  Brothers, M.

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

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

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

  Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

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

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

  MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

  Buchanan, G.

  Hardie, George D.

  McElwee, A.

  Burgess, F. G.

  Harris, Percy A.

  McEntee, V. L.

  Burgin, Dr. E. L.

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

  Caine, Derwent Hall-

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Cameron, A. G.

  Haycock, A. W.

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Cape, Thomas

  Hayday, Arthur

  McShane, John James

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

  Hayes, John Henry

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

  Charleton, H. C.

  Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

  Mander, Geoffrey le M.

  Chater, Daniel

  Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

  Mansfield, W.

  Church, Major A. G.

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

  Markham, S. F.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Herriotts, J.

  Marley, J.

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

  Mathers, George

  Compton, Joseph

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Maxton, James

  Daggar, George

  Hoffman, P. C.

  Melville, Sir James

  Dallas, George

  Hollins, A.

  Messer, Fred

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Hopkin, Daniel

  Millar, J. D.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Horrabin, J. F.

  Milner, Major J.

  Dickson, T.

  Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

  Montague, Frederick

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph

  Morley, Ralph

  Dukes, C.

  Johnston, Thomas

  Morris, Rhys Hopkins

  Duncan, Charles

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

  Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

  1294

  1295

  Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

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

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Mort, D. L.

  Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

  Tillett, Ben

  Moses, J. J. H.

  Sanders, W. S.

  Tinker, John Joseph

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

  Sandham, E.

  Toole, Joseph

  Muff, G.

  Sawyer, G. F.

  Tout, W. J.

  Muggeridge, H. T.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Townend, A. E.

  Murnin, Hugh

  Scurr, John

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Nathan, Major H. L.

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Turner, B.

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

  Sherwood, G. H.

  Vaughan, D. J.

  Oldfield, J. R.

  Shield, George William

  Viant, S. P.

  Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

  Shillaker, J. F.

  Walkden, A. G.

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

  Shinwell, E.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Palin, John Henry

  Simmons, C. J.

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Paling, Wilfrid

  Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

  Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

  Perry, S. F.

  Sinkinson, George

  West, F. R.

  Peters, Dr. Sidney John

  Smith, Alfred (Sutherland)

  Westwood, Joseph

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Phillips, Dr. Marion

  Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

  White, H. G.

  Picton-Turbervill, Edith

  Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

  Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

  Potts, John S.

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

  Price, M. P.

  Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Pybus, Percy John

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Snell, Harry

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

  Wilson, J. (Oldham)

  Raynes, W. R.

  Sorensen, R.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Richards, R.

  Stamford, Thomas W.

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

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Wise, E. F.

  Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

  Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

  Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

  Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Strauss, G. R.

  Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

  Ritson, J.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Romeril, H. G.

  Taylor R. A. (Lincoln)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Rosbotham, D. S. T.

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

  Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

  Rowson, Guy

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

  Charles Edwards.

  Bill committed to a Standing Committee.

CONSUMERS' COUNCIL [EXPENSES].
Order for Committee read.
Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: At question time I made an appeal to the Prime Minister upon which he reserved his decision. It was that he should be content to take the Second Reading of the Bill which we have just disposed of and the other Order on the Paper which, as far as I know, he would get without any opposition, and that he should give us an opportunity before eleven o'clock on another day of considering the Financial Resolution. It is now very nearly 12 o'clock. The financial aspect of the Bill has scarcely been alluded to, much less discussed, in the course of the Debate that we have had. I therefore repeat my appeal to the Prime Minister with the expression of an urgent hope that he will have consideration for the general convenience of the House and the good conduct of business, and not press us further this evening.
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I was very anxious at four o'clock this afternoon to be reasonable on condition that business could be proceeded
1296
with, and I was hoping that some sort of accommodation might have been reached, but no such accommodation has been reached. It is absolutely impossible to give anything like, say, half a day to the discussion of this Financial Resolution. Therefore, I have to make up my mind whether, in asking the House to go on now with the Resolution I am doing anything that is unusual. I am not. I would recall to the memory of the right hon. Gentleman the procedure of his own Government only two years ago almost to the very day—9th May, 1928, when putting through the Second Reading of what was one of the major Bills of his Government, the Agricultural Credits Bill. He gave one day for the Second Reading and, immediately after the Second Reading, he proposed to put the Financial Resolution, although as a matter of fact there were no fewer than six amendments to it and it provided for a contemplated expenditure of £812,500, whereas this Resolution, which is purely for the mechanism of the Bill, provides for not more than £20,000. [Interruption.] The estimate has been put in after very careful examination, and it is not at all a token figure.
Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: In that case, I presume the right hon. Gentleman will accept an Amendment to put the £20,000 into the Resolution.
The PRIME MINISTER: No one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that when you estimate like that, you estimate quite honestly—
Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: You do not believe in it yourself.
The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly, I believe in it, so much so that I am prepared to say that the figure of £20,000 is as near an estimate as possible, and will be found not to be substantially exceeded or saved when the actual expenditure has been discovered. But, in that case, I am afraid it is quite impossible to provide further time on any day in view of the work that is in front of us between now and Whitsuntide, and I really must ask the House to take the Resolution.
Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.
[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]
Motion made, and Question proposed.
"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') to provide for the constitution of a Consumers' Council, to define the powers and duties of that Council, to enable the Board of Trade to regulate by order the prices to be charged for certain commodities and the charges to be made in respect of sales thereof, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

"(a) any expenses incurred by the Board of Trade in paying such remuneration (if any) and such travelling and subsistence allowances to the chairman, deputy-chairman, and members of the Council constituted by the said Act, such remuneration to accountants and other assistants employed by the Council, and such other expenses of the Council as the Board of Trade, with the approval of the Treasury, may determine; and

"(b) any other expenses incurred by the Board of Trade under the said Act."—[King's Recommendation signified.]

12 m.
Mr. W. GRAHAMI can explain the Resolution very briefly. As is indicated by the text of the Bill and the Financial Memorandum that accompanies it, there will be a certain expenditure in respect of a possible salary to the chairman of the Consumers' Council, and it may be to one other member, subsistence and travelling allowance, certain expenses in connection with chartered accountants' investigations and also, what will constitute the largest sum of all, an additional
1298
staff as compared with the existing staff of the Board of Trade responsible for the present Food Council work. A very great deal depends on the number of investigations which will have to be undertaken and on the general scope of the work of the Consumers' Council, but as far as we can judge at the present time the expenditure should not exceed £20,000 per year. The Finanical Resolution is drawn in the usual terms of a Financial Resolution, without a specific mention of that sum. I can give no further explanation to the Committee, because there are no other facts to divulge.
Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should like—[HOH. MEMBERS: "Agreed."] We shall not agree to this Resolution until we know a little more about it We are not going to part with the Resolution or to abrogate the right and duty of the Committee to have a proper explanation of the Resolution. The President of the Board of Trade has given us unusually little information. I am sure that he will comply with all reasonable requests for further information. Who is it that we are asked to pay in this Resolution? He says that we may pay the chairman, that we may pay the deputy chairman and that we may possibly pay other members of the Council. He told us a good deal in his Second Reading speech about the functions of this Council, but he did not say one single word in the whole of that hour's speech as to who this Council would be or what would be the qualifications of its members.
Is this Council to be the old Food Council under another name or does the right hon. Gentleman propose to substitute a wholly new set of people as the Consumers' Council? He paid a very just tribute to the Food Council to-day, a tribute which I wholeheartedly endorsed. The first question, therefore, that I ask him is: Does he propose to continue this body, to whom he has paid so deserved a tribute, or does he propose to substitute for the Food Council seven other people; and if so, why? In the second place, I ask him: If a new Council is to be different in its personnel from the Food Council, whom does he propose to ask to act? If he cannot give now the names, will he give them when we come to Clause I of the Bill in the Committee

1299
stage—that is, the clause which sets up this Council? If he is not in a position to give names to-night, at any rate, he must be in a position to tell us what will be the qualifications of this Council, what qualifications he looks for in people whom he is going to appoint, and if he proposes, in selecting the seven people who are to form this Council, to select them entirely himself by his own choice, or to invite any bodies, either to nominate members on to the Council or make suggestions for his approval. For example, are we to have an accountant upon it, are we to have a representative of the manufacturers, a representative of traders, a, representative of agriculture?
These seem to me to be very relevant questions. [Interruption.] I do not think we shall get through this business more quickly by irrelevant interruptions. I am asking questions which are always asked on an occasion like this and which really ought to be answered. What will be the qualifications of these members? There is a provision that they are to be removable by the President of the Board of Trade. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to explain just a little what that power means. There is further power for him to pay these officers and to nominate additional members of the Council, either for general work or for a special inquiry. What has he in his mind in that way, what type of people and what scale of remuneration? It is very relevant, from two points or view. It is the test of whether the estimate, which the Prime Minister says has been closely made, is a reasonable estimate. It is a very relevant question in order to see whether the remuneration which is proposed is going to be such as to command the services of men and women capable and experienced enough to discharge the very onerous and important duties which are proposed here. I cannot imagine any much more responsible duty than that of fixing prices and governing, as the right hon. Gentleman himself says, probably one-half of the consumptive power of this country. For a function such as that, men of the very highest experience will be required, and if they are to pursue investigations of the size, length and numbers which he adumbrates in his Bill, and, indeed, which he outlined in his speech, I imagine that the whole
1300
of their time is going to be taken up. If that be so, and if you are to have men of sufficient calibre to command the confidence of producers, traders and consumers, you will have to pay these men a very considerable salary indeed. You will have to remember one or two things. You may get, as in the case of the Food Council, men who will give their services gratuitously, and you may get men of great experience who will do so provided you do not make too great demands on their time. If that be so, I do not know why they are to be paid at all. I think all the Food Council have given their services, I do not think even the chairman receives a salary, and they are discharging their functions very effectively. But if we are paying, we certainly ought to be paying men of the calibre to discharge these responsibilities properly.
I ask, also, how is this estimate framed? How much is to go in salaries to the Council itself? How much in salaries to new officials? How much is attributable to costs of inquiry? The President of the Board of Trade places upon local authorities the responsibility of seeing that the provisions of this Bill are carried out. One knows from experience that if you give inspectors a duty of this kind, the duty of seeing whether maximum prices are being observed over whole areas in respect of articles of food of common consumption, that is going to be a very onerous task. Either it is going to be a very onerous, and therefore, a very expensive task for the local authorities, or else it is going to be neglected. Presumably it is intended that it should be effective, and they are to have the duties of inspection and of prosecution when they are undertaken. If you are placing these new duties on local authorities, whose inspecting staffs are already worked up to the hilt, and who, for this purpose, will have to engage an expert staff, are you going, out of £20,000 or whatever is the sum in your estimate, to give the local authorities any grant-in-aid to carry out the new duties under the Act? Lastly, if this estimate has been prepared with the great care which the Prime Minister says, I submit it would be reasonable to put a limit, if not at the exact sum the Prime Minister states, at any rate very near it, upon the expenditure which Parliament has to incur under this very experimental Measure. I shall

1301
be glad if the President of the Board of Trade will give us a little light on these points.
Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: Earlier this afternoon it was pointed out that the prices of the articles taken in this Bill, if added together, would amount to an expenditure considerably more than half the national expenditure. We are now asked to provide the money for the necessary machinery to do this price-fixing. It is, I think, a very good example of the levity with which Members of the Socialist party propose to spend other people's money, that we should be asked to take this Resolution in a hurry at this time of night. The Prime Minister said he could not contemplate the idea of giving half a day to its consideration, and he justified himself by the statement that the sum of £20,000 would not be exceeded. When it was suggested to him that a limit to that effect should be put in the Bill, he qualified the statement and said he could not be bound down to an exact figure. He went on to say most emphatically that it was not a token figure, but a figure arrived at after very careful examination. When the President of the Board of Trade rose to move the Financial Resolution I, like many other Members of the Committee, expected to be given an outline of this careful examination, instead of which the President of the Board of Trade failed to produce any figures to show how this £20,000 was arrived at.
It is not an unreasonable request to suggest to the Government that we should be told, at any rate, how many inquiries they imagine can be covered by the expenditure of a sum of £20,000! We have had the case of milk, the case of bread, the case of fish, and the case of other articles in common use as food referred to in detail, and we have had references to other commodities apart from food. If any widespread effect is to be produced by this Bill—I take it that, at any rate, supporters of the Government expect that a very important effect will he produced in the case of many commodities if this Bill becomes law—it can only be produced by a considerable number of inquiries into greatly varying trades. With all respect to the Prime Minister, it is ridiculous to tell this Commitee that all these inquiries can be covered by the sum
1302
of £20,000. We are certainly entitled, before we are asked to agree to the voting of this sum of money, to call for a statement as to how that figure has been arrived at.
Mr. J. JONES: I am very much interested to hear of the enormous amount of concern which is being shown in the expenditure of £20,000. It is estimated that the inquiries in connection with this Bill will cost £20,000. It is a most extraordinary thing that the people who have always over-estimated are the first to quarrel with the people who have underestimated. I have been in this House long enough to know that when the Conservative party introduced Estimates, they always exceeded them and that we have had to pay the bill; now they are the first to get on their legs and protest against any other body doing what they did. Everybody else has wandered from Dan to Beersheba. I am not an Empire Crusader but I do like to hear some of my comrades opposite talk. They say such silly things in such a gentlemanly manner. I have heard them speaking on the platform when they did not know I was listening. They have talked about the high prices of food and the cost of living but have never said a word about the cost of dying—which is a Tory monopoly. Why quarrel with us when we are trying to do what they said they were going to do, that is, to control the price of food—
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member started on the right tack. The constitution of the Council, its remuneration and expenses are the matters under discussion. He must confine himself to the question of the expenditure.
Mr. JONES: I apologise if I have transgressed. I am trying to suggest that hon. Members opposite, when they are talking about this expenditure of £20,000, might imagine the enormous amount of money that will be saved to the consumers of this country if we can control prices, as I hope we shall and as we ought to do. I went down yesterday into Essex—I live in Essex. A friend of mine took me down in his car—I have no car except the tram car, and I have a free pass on that. I went with him into a place down in Essex—he paid for it—
The CHAIRMAN: I must tell the hon. Member that that expenditure does not come within the terms of this Financial Resolution.
Mr. JONES: I am only explaining in a somewhat indirect way that my friend paid sixpence for a cauliflower, and I suggest that when one has to pay sixpence for a cauliflower one ought to know the cost of production. That cauliflower, I was told, cost one penny to produce and the farmer who grew it would be glad to get one penny for it but the people who bought it in order to eat it, had to pay sixpence for it. That is what we want to find out—the reason for the difference between the producer and the eater. I am one of the eaters—
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must pay attention to what I have said. We are dealing now with the financial proposals involved in the constitution of this Council and not with cauliflowers or anything of the kind.
Mr. JONES: Yes, and we shall deal with the cauliflowers when the Council has been established, and in the meantime I do not see why anybody should object to the expenditure of £20,000 adumbrated in this Resolution.
Mr. W. GRAHAM: In reply to the questions which were put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) and another hon. Member opposite, I propose to give a brief explanation to the Committee which will, I trust, meet the points raised on this Financial Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman asked a question regarding the existing Food Council and the nature of the change which is proposed in the establishment of the new body. The membership of the Food Council is, I think, nominally 12, but in any case, there have been 10 active members and the proposal in this legislation is that the Food Council should be replaced by a Consumers' Council of seven persons, of whom two will be women. In other words, the new body will be smaller than its predecessor, and it will be appointed by the Board of Trade, and constituted on the lines indicated in the Bill. All the existing members of the Food Council have given their services on a purely voluntary basis.
Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The right hon. Gentleman says it will be constituted
1304
by the Board of Trade, on the lines indicated in the Bill. I have read the Bill carefully and I cannot find that any lines are indicated in it.
Mr. GRAHAM: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I am endeavouring to give an explanation. I cannot say, to-night, a single word about the personnel of the new Consumers' Council, and it would be utterly wrong of me to do so, until I have heard the discussions in Committee and seen the Bill in its final form. The position in this respect is substantially the same as the position which existed when we were discussing amalgamation commissioners under the Coal Mines Bill. A very great deal depends on the form in which the legislation finally passes. But I can say at once to the Committee that the object is to get the services of seven people who will command the support and confidence of the public as a whole. They must be people with experience of business conditions. They must be familiar with social conditions, and I should like, if possible, to have one or more with a knowledge of price levels in this country. I cannot bind myself to-night either as regards the use of the existing personnel of the Food Council, or the appointment of the new Council. All I can say is that any service which is being rendered to the State in this connection will be borne in mind and taken carefully into account, and that an appropriate membership will be selected for this purpose. The members of the existing body, as I say, have given their services on purely voluntary lines and when, in the next place, the right hon. Gentleman asks me whether we propose to remunerate the Chairman, deputy-chairman and other members of the Council, I say at once that we are taking power under this Resolution for remuneration if it is required. It may be, as is the case with the amalgamation commissioners under the Coal Mines Bill, that we may have the offer of the services of very able people, thoroughly competent in every way, who do not expect any remuneration and would be content to have their out-of-pocket expenses covered, or some small honorarium or allowance of that description.
All Governments, irrespective of party, have been fortunate in getting the help of men and women so circumstanced that

1305
they were delighted to give their services to the State on these lines. But if the duties were to prove very heavy and I had to make appointments which plainly involved considerable financial sacrifice to the parties who took them up, and whose services it was desirable to retain, it would be singularly unfortunate if I could not get the help of those people. That must be a small part at best of the expenditure contemplated in this Resolution. It is, therefore, impossible for me to-night to pledge myself either to personnel or to any exact question of remuneration. I have indicated that that total will be small, and that by far the greater part of the £20,000, or less, because it may well be less, will be attributable to a necessary increase of staff at the Board of Trade, since the duties of the existing Food Council will be increased as regards the Departmental assistance. In a rough way, I should put down that expenditure at probably £8,000 to £10,000 per annum. That is an estimate, and it may be that I shall require to get professional or technical assistance by chartered accountants hitherto obtained on a purely voluntary basis for certain inquiries, and on their efficiency the inquiries will depend. I think, probably, £2,000 might be sufficient for that, but, there again, it is only an estimate and the best that we can give at the present moment.
I have, thus, accounted for perhaps £12,000 out of the £20,000 or less which will be required. I think that that is just as exact a statement as any human being can make when we are dealing with a very small Financial Resolution before the Committee stage of the Bill, in the course of which I will do my best to give all relevant information to hon. Members.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked me a question regarding the expenditure of the local authorities. It is contemplated in one of the later Clauses that any steps taken in the local districts may be taken by the Weights and Measures Authorities, in which case the burden falls on the local rates. But I imagine, as was disclosed in the Second Reading Debate, that any expenditure of that kind will be literally infinitesimal. The very threat of prosecution will, for all practical purposes, be sufficient. Even if there were, here and there, any expenditure
1306
on the part of local authorities in undertaking a prosecution they would be entitled to take the penalties recovered, with the distinction that in Scotland prosecutions are undertaken by the Procurator-Fiscal, in which case no burden falls on local funds. That is a simple and, I trust, clear explanation of this matter, and I hope that we can now get this Financial Resolution.
Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am sure we are very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the full reply that he has given to us. I only desire to recur to one point that was raised by my right hon. Friend. I quite appreciate the argument of the President of the Board of Trade that he cannot name the personnel of this new Council until he has a knowledge of the condition in which the Bill will emerge from its Parliamentary consideration in Committee. I do not, therefore, press the request that be should give us the names before Clause 1 is taken in Committee. I think the Committee stage will give him a good indication of the general line on which the Bill will be framed when it comes to Third Reading. I would ask if he could not undertake to give us the names at the opening of the Report stage. If he still feels that impossible, will he not definitely undertake to give us the names before Third Reading? That request has often been made in similar circumstances and I think has been generally complied with. I recognise the reasonableness of the right hon. Gentleman's plea that he cannot do it immediately, but I think he could reasonably do so before the House parts with its control of the Bill.
Major LLEWELLIN: As one of those members in the House—and I am sure there are many others, especially those who come from north of the Tweed—who never in my life have ever given a blank cheque to anyone for anything, I should like to say a few words on this Resolution. Under this Resolution we are giving a complete blank cheque to the President of the Board of Trade to expend any sum whatever, because this Financial Resolution is by no means limited, as the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade have both been careful to say in their speeches to-night. Looking at it, one

1307
sees that it provides for such other expenses of the Council as with the approval of the Board of Trade may be determined. A large class of expenses covered is not concerned with the salaries of the chairman, deputy chairman or other members of the Council, nor with additional members of the staff of the Board of Trade and the actions that they may see fit to bring. A large and an unlimited class of expenses is not covered by any explanation we have been given by the President of the Board of Trade. Indeed, when he was dealing with the extra cost falling on local authorities he did not tell us anything about what expenses will fall under Clause 6, Sub-section (2), of this Bill, under which the Board of Trade itself may institute and carry out proceedings in respect of an offence under this Act in any case, where the Board, having regard to the general importance of the case, consider it is desirable to do so.
We have, therefore, an unlimited range of expenses that may arise in criminal actions brought under this Bill. As far as I could hear from the speech of the President of the Board of Trade, no specific allowance is made for those expenses. We may very definitely, after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, ask who, or what members of the Council, are going to be paid, and what amounts? It seems to me that here we are setting up a council of people who may inquire into the very basis of the livelihood, small or large, of the traders of this country, and before whom not a single trader, not a single large producer or distributor in this country, has any right of appearance whatever. They merely get written evidence as to which there cannot be cross-examination. It seems to me that it is, from the point of view of the vast interests of these people, a completely novel institution. In the ordinary way in this country before our judges, who are not too highly paid, the person has a right to come before them to put his case. We want to know that the people who are to form the Council will be paid on a scale that will attract the best people obtainable.
We ought to know before we pass this Financial Resolution more about the amount that is to be paid to them. You must appoint people in whom the traders
1308
of this country will have real confidence. They should be paid at least as highly as the High Court Judges in this country, because whereas the High Court Judges merely decide as between two individuals in the dispute, the probability is that neither of the parties is handicapped for life. But in the case of this Bill you may take away the whole livelihood of one of the smaller men. The people appointed to these posts should be paid as highly as any judicial authority in this country, and if that is so, obviously this estimate of £20,000 is very far short of the mark. We, therefore, ought to know a little more of the intentions of the President of the Board of Trade as to their payment. If they have anything like the amount of work to do that is attributed to them, it will be a full-time job. If they are to decide these matters without the men coming before them, and to try them upon written evidence merely, you must get the best people. That is why I think we ought to know more as to what these people are to be paid. I do not think I have over-estimated the cost in the least.
I, therefore, ask the President of the Board of Trade to give a further explanation, and I think we ought to have, as they say in the law, further and better particulars before we pass this Resolution. I also ask the President of the Board of Trade to say that he will ensure that the right people are appointed to this Council if he is determined to set up such a Council. We need not have set up this Council at all, but if it is to be set up, we ought to see that the people who act on the Council have such authority in the country that everyone will have confidence in their decisions.
Mr. W. GRAHAM: Let me for only a minute reply to the question suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain). I find it very difficult indeed, and I do not think it is the practice of any Government, to indicate the precise names of members of a proposed body prior to legislation emerging from Parliament in its final form. My right hon. Friend suggests that I should do it in the Committee stage or at some later stage of the Bill in this House. After all, there is still another place to which the Bill has to go, and amendments might be

1309
made there and changes introduced which would materially alter the functions and duties of this Council. If that took place, I should be in a very difficult, if not a ludicrous position if I had named people at any stage in the House of Commons only to discover later that it was impossible to have their services or any of them. For these reasons, my right hon. Friend will probably not press the request. But I always believe in trying to tell the House or the Committee frankly what is in our minds. During the Committee stage, or the report stage or Third Reading, I shall try to indicate in the most precise terms the kind of people we have in view. But I would beg the House not to commit me to actual names on which I may have to go back, and it might embarrass people. I trust that I have satisfied the right hon. Gentleman.
Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, in line 14, at the end, to add the words:
"Provided that the total expenditure so incurred shall not exceed £20,000 in any one year."
There are many precedents for moving Amendments to a Financial Resolution. In the course of his speech the right hon. Gentleman gave us a sketch as to how he arrived at his estimate of £20,000. He left himself a substantial margin of £8,000 or £10,000 out of which to make possible remuneration of members of the Council. I should like a further explanation as to how he arrives at that sum of additional expenditure. We seem to spend no small amount of time in this House passing Resolutions for incurring additional expenditure. This makes any attempt at economy in national expenditure still more difficult, and we get no satisfactory explanation as to why these increases are necessary. What has the right hon. Gentleman got to justify the increase of £8,000 to £10,000? We all know the burdens of taxation, and everybody is trying to cut expenditure down, yet time after time we pass these Financial Resolutions and are told it is only for £20,000 or £30,000; then, when we turn up the Estimates, we find the £20,000 has become £80,000 or £90,000, and we are told that the expenditure has unavoidably increased. I think that we in this House should be very jealous of these unlimited Resolutions. If we have this limitation we are not likely to be
1310
met by these vast increases which ultimately occur.
Mr. OLIVER STANLEY: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to include this Amendment. If he has any doubt, his decision to do so must have been strengthened by the speech of the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones), who has proclaimed with all the weight of his position in this House and in the Labour movement that a Socialist estimate is always an over-estimate—a sort of perpetual one over the eight. Indeed from the right hon. Gentleman's own speech, it is quite clear that if this is an estimate at all, it is an over-estimate. In the course of the rather scanty details he gave us, he was only able to tot up some 60 per cent. of the total sum to which my hon. Friend is now asking him to limit the expenditure. If he presents that sum as any closely reasoned estimate of the expenditure to be incurred he can have no real objection to accepting the Amendment.
But the truth is that whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say, this is not an estimate—it is merely a token Vote. The amount of the items upon which this money can be spent are uncertain and indefinite. One item is the salary of the members of the Council. He does not know how many members of the Council there will be. Seven is the number mentioned, but he has power to add to them. Can he really doubt that if in fact this is to have effect, as he has led the members behind him to believe it will have, that number will have to be increased? He has given the Impression to hon. Members who have supported this that over the whole range of consumption there is this serious problem of profiteering—these too high prices from broccoli to cotton, by way of cod. Can five men and two women do this work which up to now has been done by 12, of whom at least 10 were active members? They have to assume a great deal more responsibility. I cannot really believe that if this whole range is to be covered, it can be done by seven. He does not know how many people in this number are to be paid.
Mr. EDMUNDS: I would suggest that the hon. Member is moving for an increase, and not for a reduction.
Mr. STANLEY: I was saying that if the right hon. Gentleman refuses to accept the limit we are laying down, it is clear proof that this is not an estimate at all, but merely a token Vote. That would be an additional reason for refusing to pass a Resolution in such an indefinite form. He has given us no indication at the moment who the members of the Council are to be. He quoted the analogy of the amalgamation Clause in the Coal Mines Bill. I have a faint recollection that when he introduced that Clause, he told us with some pride that that committee was to consist of a lawyer, an accountant and a mining engineer. He might give us as much indication of those who are to be on this Council. Equally indefinite is the number of inquiries this Council is to pursue. If this great problem does exist; if there is this widespread profiteering; if there is this great need to fix prices in every class of article, the inquiry is to be complicated and their task will be long. In these circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman is not really in a position to accept the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend, because the estimate exists only in his imagination, and we are asked to give him a blank cheque.
Mr. W. R. SMITH: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press this Amendment. He says that although this is not an unusual procedure, and that it would be difficult to find any precedent where a Financial Resolution in relation to a Bill of this description has had a limiting figure placed on it, there is a possibility of the work of the Committee growing as the years proceed. I would like to suggest that there is no difference of opinion between the two sides of the House on the main purposes of this Bill. Hon. Members believe that this investigation should take place, but it might not be effective if some limit were placed in the Financial Resolution in the way suggested. If one or two questions arose of great public importance they would be the first to regret that the work of investigation was rendered, if not impossible, at least very difficult because this limitation was placed in the Financial Resolution. I would assure my hon. Friends opposite that it is not a question of a token Vote. It is impossible to give an exact figure, but in
1312
so far as it is possible to calculate what may be the outside figure under this Bill, the figure mentioned is one considered reasonable in the circumstances. If the work does increase, then it would mean that the Bill was becoming effective for its purpose. There is agreement on the main parts of the Bill—inquiry and compulsory investigation—and it would be unreasonable and unfortunate if by placing this limit in the Resolution the work of this Council were jeopardised or opportunities to gather information were rendered largely abortive.
1.0 a.m.
Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know if the hon. Gentleman would undertake to confine the Bill to that part which he says is the most important? The hon. Gentleman, in his interesting and informative speech, has made it perfectly clear that the estimate is not worth the breath in which it is spoken or the paper on which it is printed. The Prime Minister could only assure the House that the estimate was the result of the most careful examination, and that if it was exceeded it would only be by some very modest sum. If the President of the Board of Trade wants a 5 per cent. margin for error I will not quarrel with him. I am anxious only to come to a friendly arrangement to save time and trouble and physical exercise, which has no particular attraction to me. I would make it 10 per cent. over his estimate. Will he accept that? No.
Mr. McSHANE: We get nothing for overtime.
Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; not in this House, nothing is paid for overtime to Ministers or even to the higher ranks of the Civil Service. But let us come back to the matters which we were discussing. Not only have the Government no confidence that they can keep within the £20,000, but they hope that they will greatly exceed it. The hon. Gentleman said it is wrong to call it a token Vote. But he says that if the Bill is successful, the £20,000 will be inadequate. It is, in fact, a token sum if we pass this Resolution in this form. The estimate is £20,000. But with whatever additions to the staff of the Board of Trade the President and the Treasury may choose to make, whatever number of paid inquiries and paid Commissioners

1313
the President of the Board of Trade and the Treasury think fit, it will appear as an increased Vote. As one of my hon. Friends said, we will then be told that it is an automatic growth which the Treasury is unable to control and to which the taxpayer must submit because Parliament has already so decreed. We shall certainly go to a Division on this subject unless the President of the Board of Trade will agree to put in some limitation to the expenditure to which he asks the House to agree.
Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Whatever may be the attitude of the President of the Board of Trade, he must accept my hon. Friend's Amendment as a great compliment to himself, because we have accepted his exact estimate of the sum likely to arise. In the face of that I cannot see that the President has any real answer to the Amendment. I again would like to refer to the convincing argument of the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones). He ended his peroration in a very convincing way with the word "adumbrated." That means merely foreshadowed, and the President of the Board of Trade has merely foreshadowed what the expenditure under this Bill is going to be. In his attempt to give particulars the President failed entirely to reach the sum of £20,000. That is a matter for suspicion. It shows that he has not considered the matter in detail at all.
Apart from the mere question of amount, there is another matter which arouses suspicion. He made a vague promise that there might be voluntary service as well as paid service on the Council. He did not specify how many would be paid and how many were to be voluntary workers, but I think we may fairly say that if anybody is going to serve on this very comprehensive Council, he must be a very skilled and very able person. I ask how it is likely, having regard to the nature of this proposal, that the President of the Board of Trade will be able to get as a volunteer a person of vast experience in this particular kind of matter? Of course he will not, or anybody who has any real skill or experience. He will have to fall back on people who agree with himself in these matters, and as they are to be appointed by himself, these must be regarded on this side of the House with very grave suspicion indeed. And even having regard to the paid members, can they be awarded sufficient
1314
remuneration to reward them for their services in the cause of the consumers? Of course, this £20,000 would in no way adequately reward skilled experts for their inquiries and investigations. Having regard to all the circumstances, readers in the country who read the Debate on this Amendment can only come to the one conclusion that the President of the Board of Trade in putting forward this estimate of the expense is really putting forward a token Vote and has not the courage to admit that it is a token Vote. He comes forward with this immense engine—or shall we call it a huge vessel?—to undertake a voyage on uncharted seas. But he does not provide the machinery to propel the vessel or the crew to man it.
Major COLFOX: It seems to me that the theory of financial control of the House of Commons is in a Resolution of this sort reduced almost, if not quite, to a farce, because we are asked to give an absolutely blank cheque to the Government to fill in to any amount they like and to use almost for any purpose they like. We have been discussing this afternoon the Second Reading of the Bill founded on this Resolution. We have noticed that that Bill is very widely drawn in its scope, and in the possibility of action which can be taken by the Government under it. If the Bill is in fact to be carried out in the way in which it has been recommended by the supporters of the Government, then it must be sufficiently obvious that the expenses incurred in administering the Bill will be very substantially more than the estimate of £20,000 which was put by the Prime Minister an hour or so ago. The fact that the Bill and the Resolution are so widely drawn, coupled with the very small estimate that is put upon the expenses of the administration, show, I should think sufficiently plainly, that the Government are not in any way in earnest, and have no intention of carrying out the Bill on the lines which they have been trying to make out the whole of to-day because—[Interruption.]—the irrelevant and ill-mannered intervention of members opposite will not prevent me from giving my opinion. As I was saying when I was rudely interrupted, it is quite sufficiently obvious that the Government's intentions are not in any

1315
sense those which they have been sketching to this House and to the public during the Debate this afternoon.
We all remember that about an hour ago the Prime Minister told us that the estimate of £20,000 was a close and accurate estimate and was unlikely to be exceeded. Of course, we take the word of the Prime Minister by believing that he thought on the information which he had received that that was the case, but the facts that have come to light to the Prime Minister have shown that he was misinformed, and that although he said that the estimate was a close and accurate estimate, it was in fact nothing of the kind, because clearly the administration of this most complicated Bill cannot be done at anything like that sum. I should like to know whether it is intended or expected that this Council, composed only of seven members, can possibly deal with all the vast and varied range of subjects which might, and possibly will be referred to it under this Bill. It seems to me that inevitably it will be necessary to set up a number of sub-Committees, sub-Councils or whatever you may like to call them, each dealing with a number of subjects and each reporting to the main Council. Therefore, obviously, the expenses in salaries alone are going to exceed very vastly the total amount of the estimate that is given.
We have to guide us the experience of the Ministry of Food during the War. We know that the Ministry of Food was a complicated organisation with a very large staff and a very costly list of salaries and of administrative expenses. But the size and complication of the Ministry of Food will be, as I think, nothing compared with the size and complication of an organisation set up to administer this Bill which deals with the subjects with which the Ministry of Food in its day had to contend, and in addition a great many other subjects. Although I do not know how many millions a year were spent on the Ministry of Food in those years, I feel confident that to work this Bill adequately and thoroughly will cost substantially more than the price paid for the Ministry of Food.
1316
But, from what we have heard, it is not the intention of the Government to administer this Bill in any detail whatever. They appear to suggest that two or three subjects only are likely to be referred to this Council. We have had that information since we started discussing the cost of the administration, but during the time that the Second Reading of the Bill was under discussion, we were led to believe that not only one subject would be referred to the Council, but every conceivable article in daily use of commerce would come under this Council. It is clear that the Government have no fixed idea of what their intentions are, and it seems to me ridiculous that we should be asked this evening, considerably after midnight, to discuss the finance of this proposal, and be asked to give an absolutely blank cheque. Therefore, I very much hope that this proposed limit of £20,000 will be insisted upon as being a reasonable estimate of the amount which the Government themselves think they are likely to want to spend.
Sir BASIL PETO: There are two reasons why I think it is absolutely essential that the Committee should accept the Amendment to this Financial Resolution which has been proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne). The first arises out of the debate we had this afternoon upon the Second Reading. We have now decided to refer the Bill to a Committee upstairs. The right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), intimated that his party were only going to vote for the Bill on the understanding that large and drastic Amendments will be required, particularly in regard to Clause 5. The President of the Board of Trade, I think it was in the second speech he made on the Financial Resolution, said that he could not possibly, or rather at this point, place any very definite limit upon the expenditure which he administrated for the reason that the expenditure might be exceeded, and he quoted the Coal Bill as an example. There is within the recollection of the Committee the financial results of the drastic Amendments on that Bill introduced by the Liberal party. The President of the Board of Trade had an estimate of, I think, £20,000, and when the Liberal

1317
party had finished with it, he passed a fresh Financial Resolution for £250,000. It is very desirable, if there is to be an estimate of £20,000, that it should be a definite and fixed sum of £20,000, and the country should know that these drastic Amendments are proposed by the Liberal party, and that they cost, if the analogy of the Coal Mines Bill be followed, another £32,000.
I believe in every herring hanging by its own neck. If the expenditure on this Bill is not to be altered, as it was altered by the Liberal party on the Coal Mines Bill, the Government will be sorry that they did not accept the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford, as they will get the discredit from the country for this great expenditure which ought to fall on the party for economy that site below the Gangway. As we have had it indicated to us that these great Amendments are going to be proposed, and the President of the Board of Trade is not able to give us any better reason for not limiting the financial provision to £20,000, which is either a token estimate or an accurate estimate, it is quite clear that we are bound to insist, as far as we can, on the £20,000 being definite. On the Bill as it now is, without these great Amendments, the Prime Minister has told us that, according to the best estimate, the Bill is going to cost only £20,000 to work. If that is so, let us fix it and let the country know what the alteration in the procedure of the Bill and in the scope of the Bill will cost. Up to the present we know that this is the closest estimate that can be made, and we ask that that estimate shall be made. We are entitled to say that the troubles of to-day, or rather of to-night, are sufficient for the hour, and that we ought to deal with the Bill as it now is and on the estimate that has been given to us, and has been adumbrated and have something definite and finite.
Major DUDGEON: I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will not accept this Amendment. The consuming public of this country have been anxiously
waiting for this Bill for the last eight or nine years, and I am sure there is great anxiety in the public mind that this Bill should not be cramped in its administrative functions by having a definite limit placed on the expenditure. I contemplate that the personnel of the Consumers' Council will be a personnel that will command the respect of the whole community, and I am rather hopeful that the President of the Board of Trade will be able to get the services of eminent men and women to serve on this Council on an honorary basis. I imagine that their duties will be very onerous. I would suggest that there be at least two members representing very important interests, one the producing—
The CHAIRMAN: At this stage, the Minister cannot say what particular class will be represented on the Council.
Major DUDGEON: I was only stressing this point, that this Consumers' Council will have to be a very commanding body, and therefore it will be necessary to have the services of very outstanding men and women, and, in my opinion, it will be necessary that they shall receive remuneration. In order to command the services of an eminent agriculturist—
The CHAIRMAN: We must leave that to the Committee stage.
Major DUDGEON: As I am not allowed to make this point in regard to personnel of the Consumers' Council, I should like just to stress this point. The money voted by this House for this purpose should not be limited, but should be such a sum as will allow the President of the Board of Trade to set up adequate machinery so as to give the benefit to the people of this country of a Consumers' Council that will give them the necessities of life at a reasonable measure of prices.
Question put, "That these words be there added."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 102; Noes, 179.

Division No. 280.]

AYES.

[1.28 a.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Bird, Ernest Roy

Butler, R. A.

Albery, Irving James

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Carver, Major W. H.

Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

Boyce, H. L.

Castle Stewart, Earl of

Balniel, Lord

Bracken, B.

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

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Braithwaite, Major A. N.

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

Beaumont, M. W.

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

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

Betterton, Sir Henry B.

Bullock, Captain Malcolm

Colfox, Major William Philip

Colman, N. C. D.

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

Salmon, Major I.

Cranborne, Viscount

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

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

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

Kindersley, Major G. M.

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

Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Knox, Sir Alfred

Skelton, A. N.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

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

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

Duckworth, G. A. V.

Llewellin, Major J. J.

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

Lymington, Viscount

Thomson, Sir F.

Eden, Captain Anthony

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Marjoribanks, E. C.

Turton, Robert Hugh

Ferguson, Sir John

Meller, R. J.

Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

Fermoy, Lord

Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

Fison, F. G. Clavering

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

Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

Ford, Sir P. J.

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

Warrender, Sir Victor

Galbraith, J. F. W.

Muirhead, A. J.

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Gower, Sir Robert

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Wayland, Sir William A.

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Wells, Sydney R.

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Ramsbotham, H.

Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Remer, John R.

Womersley, W. J.

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

Reynolds, Col. Sir James

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Hammersley, S. S.

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

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Ross, Major Ronald D.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Captain Margesson and Sir George

Penny.

NOES.

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

Gray, Milner

Mathers, George

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

Maxton, James

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

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Melville, Sir James

Ammon, Charles George

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

Messer, Fred

Arnott, John

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Milner, Major J.

Aske, Sir Robert

Grundy, Thomas W.

Morley, Ralph

Barnes, Alfred John

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Mort, D. L.

Barr, James

Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

Moses, J. J. H.

Batey, Joseph

Hardie, George D.

Muff, G.

Bellamy, Albert

Haycock, A. W.

Murnin, Hugh

Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

Hayday, Arthur

Nathan, Major H. L.

Benson, G.

Hayes, John Henry

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

Bentham, Dr. Ethel

Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

Oldfield, J. R.

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

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

Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

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

Palin, John Henry.

Broad, Francis Alfred

Harriotts, J.

Peters, Dr. Sidney John

Brockway, A. Fenner

Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Bromfield, William

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Phillips, Dr. Marion

Bromley, J.

Hoffman, P. C.

Potts, John S.

Brooke, W.

Hollins, A.

Price, M. P.

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

Horrabin, J. F.

Pybus, Percy John

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

Quibell, D. J. K.

Buchanan, G.

Hunter, Dr. Joseph

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

Burgess, F. G.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Rathbone, Eleanor

Caine, Derwent Hall-

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Raynes, W. R.

Cameron, A. G.

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Richards, R.

Cape, Thomas

Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

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

Kennedy, Thomas

Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Charleton, H. C.

Kinley, J.

Ritson, J.

Church, Major A. G.

Lang, Gordon

Romeril, H. G.

Cluse, W. S.

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Lathan, G.

Rowson, Guy

Compton, Joseph

Law, Albert (Bolton)

Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

Daggar, George

Law, A. (Rossendale)

Sanders, W. S.

Dallas, George

Lawrence, Susan

Sandham, E.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Lawson, John James

Sawyer, G. F.

Dudgeon, Major C. R.

Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

Scurr, John

Dukes, C.

Leach, W.

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Duncan, Charles

Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

Shield, George William

Ede, James Chuter

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Shillaker, J. F.

Edmunds, J. E.

Lindley, Fred W.

Simmons, C. J.

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Lloyd, C. Ellis

Sinkinson, George

Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

Logan, David Gilbert

Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

Egan, W. H.

Longden, F.

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Foot, Isaac

Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Freeman, Peter

Lunn, William

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

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

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

Gibbins, Joseph

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

Gill, T. H.

McElwee, A.

Stephen, Campbell

Glassey, A. E.

McEntee, V. L.

Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

Gossling, A. G.

McShane, John James

Sutton, J. E.

Gould, F.

Mansfield, W.

Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

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

Marley, J.

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

1320

1321

Thurtle, Ernest

Westwood, Joseph

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Tinker, John Joseph

White, H. G.

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

Tout, W. J.

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Wise, E. F.

Townend, A. E.

Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

Vaughan, D. J.

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Wellock, Wilfred

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Paling.

Main Question put:
The Committee divided: Ayes, 179; Noes, 99.

Division No. 281.]

AYES.

[1.38 a.m.

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

Haycock, A. W.

Peters, Dr. Sidney John

Addison, Rt. Mon. Dr. Christopher

Hayday, Arthur

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

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

Hayes, John Henry

Phillips, Dr. Marion

Ammon, Charles George

Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

Potts, John S.

Arnott, John

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

Price, M. P.

Aske, Sir Robert

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

Pybus, Percy John

Barnes, Alfred John

Herriotts, J.

Quibell, D. F. K.

Barr, James

Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

Batey, Joseph

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Rathbone, Eleanor

Bellamy, Albert

Hoffman, P. C.

Raynes, W. R.

Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

Hollins, A.

Richards, R.

Benson, G.

Horrabin, J. F.

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Bentham, Dr. Ethel

Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Hunter, Dr. Joseph

Ritson, J.

Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Romeril, H. G.

Broad, Francis Alfred

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Brockway, A. Fanner

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Rowson, Guy

Bromfield, William

Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

Bromley, J.

Kennedy, Thomas

Sanders, W. S.

Brooke, W.

Kinley, J.

Sandham, E.

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

Lang, Gordon

Sawyer, G. F.

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Scurr, John

Buchanan, G.

Lathan, G.

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Burgess, F. G.

Law, Albert (Bolton)

Shield, George William

Caine, Derwent Halt

Law, A. (Rossendale)

Shillaker, J. F.

Cameron, A. G.

Lawrence, Susan

Simmons, C. J.

Cape, Thomas

Lawson, John James

Sinkinson, George

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

Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

Charleton, H. C.

Leach, W.

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Church, Major A. G.

Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Cluse, W. S.

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Cocks, Frederick Seymour.

Lindley, Fred W.

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

Compton, Joseph

Lloyd, C. Ellis

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

Daggar, George

Logan, David Gilbert

Stephen, Campbell

Dallas, George

Longden, F.

Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

Sutton, J. E.

Dudgeon, Major C. R.

Lunn, William

Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

Dukes, C.

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

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

Duncan, Charles

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

Thurtle, Ernest

Ede, James Chuter

McElwee, A.

Tinker, John Joseph

Edmunds, J. E.

McEntee, V. L.

Tout, W. J.

Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

McShane, John James

Townend, A. E.

Egan, W. H.

Mansfield, W.

Vaughan, D. J.

Foot, Isaac

Marley, J.

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Freeman, Peter

Mathers, George

Wellock, Wilfred

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

Maxton, James

Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

Gibbins, Joseph

Melville, Sir James

Westwood, Joseph

Gill, T. H.

Messer, Fred

White, H. G.

Glassey, A. E.

Milner, Major J.

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Gossling, A. G.

Morley, Ralph

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Gould, F.

Mort, D. L.

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

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

Moses, J. J. H.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Gray, Milner

Muff, G.

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

Murnin, Hugh

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Nathan, Major H. L.

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

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

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

Wise E. F.

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth. Pontypool)

Oldfield, J. R.

Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

Grundy, Thomas W.

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

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Palin, John Henry

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

Paling, Wilfrid

Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

Hardie, George D.

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

William Whiteley.

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel.

Betterton, Sir Henry B.

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

Albery, Irving James

Bird, Ernest Roy

Bullock, Captain Malcolm

Balfour, Captain H. H. (I of Thanet)

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Butler, R. A.

Balniel, Lord

Boyce, H. L.

Carver, Major W. H.

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Bracken, B.

Castle Stewart, Earl of

Beaumont, M. W.

Braithwaite, Major A. N.

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

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

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

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

Salmon, Major I.

Colfox, Major William Philip

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

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Colman, N. C. D.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Cranborne, Viscount

Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

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

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

Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

Kindersley, Major G. M.

Skelton, A. N.

Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

Knox, Sir Alfred

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

Llewellin, Major J. J.

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

Lymington, Viscount

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Duckworth, G. A. V.

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

Turton, Robert Hugh

Eden, Captain Anthony

Marjoribanks, E. C.

Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Meller, R. J.

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

Ferguson, Sir John

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

Warrender, Sir Victor

Fermoy, Lord

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

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Fison, F. G. Clavering

Muirhead, A. J.

Wayland, Sir William A.

Ford, Sir P. J.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Wells, Sydney R.

Galbraith, J. F. W.

Penny, Sir George

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Gower, Sir Robert

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Womersley, W. J.

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Ramsbotham, H.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Reynolds, Col. Sir James

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

Ross, Major Ronald D.

Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain

Margesson.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') to provide for the constitution of a Consumers' Council, to define the powers and duties of that Council, to enable the Board of Trade to regulate by order the prices to be charged for certain commodities and the charges to be made in respect of sales thereof, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

"(a) any expenses incurred by the Board of Trade in paying such remuneration (if any) and such travelling and subsistence allowances to the chairman, deputy-chairman, and members of the Council constituted by the said Act, such remuneration to accountants and other assistants employed by the Council, and such other expenses of the Council as the Board of Trade with the approval of the Treasury, may determine; and

"(b) any other expenses incurred by the Board of Trade under the said Act."

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHEME (DEVON, CREDITON EXHIBITION FOUNDATION) CONFIRMATION BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

SHOP ASSISTANTS.
Ordered,
"That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report upon proposals for
1324
limiting the hours of work of shop assistants and improving the conditions of their employment, and for that purpose to inquire—

"(1) What are the hours at present usually worked in the various distributive trades, both retail and wholesale;

"(2) What would be the probable economic effects of a statutory 48-hours week (with a limited amount of overtime) upon the distributive trades as regards organisation of work, wages, employment, and prices; by what methods it could be applied to various kinds of trade; and what arrangements would be feasible for enforcing it;

"(3) Whether conditions of employment exist in any classes or descriptions of shops in respect of matters affecting the health and welfare of the assistants which make it desirable that powers of regulation and supervision should be given by statute:"

Ordered,
"That the Committee do consist of Eleven Members.
Major Braithwaite, Mi. Charles Buxton, Mr. Rhys Davies, Lieutenant-Colonel Gault, Mr. William Hirst, Sir Alfred Law, Mr. Philip Oliver, Sir Gervais Rentoul, Mr. James Stewart, Mr. Arthur Taylor, and Mr. Womersley, nominated Members of the Committee."
Ordered,
"That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Three be the quorum."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]
Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, to leave out the word "Three," and to insert instead thereof the word "Five."
May I ask for some explanation as to why we should have three for a quorum?

1325
It really does not seem adequate that with a Committee of 11 members the quorum should be only three. It seems a most disgraceful state of affairs. Would it not be possible to have some other figure such as five or seven which would be much nearer to what could fairly be considered a quorum for so large a Committee? I think I am entitled to raise this very important matter now, and to ask whether the Patronage Secretary could not accept my Amendment. Will the hon. Gentleman accept that?
Mr. BEAUMONT: I beg to second the Amendment.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. T. Kennedy): The number of three constituting a quorum is, I think, customary and I really do not see any reason for varying the number in this case. In the circumstances, I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed.
Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I honestly think that though it may not be customary, there is no reason why we should not improve on the custom. Some of my hon. Friends feel very much on this matter.
Mr. WOMERSLEY: As one of the members nominated to act, I should like to press the point that five would be better than three. If hon. Members will look at the terms of reference upon which this Committee has to act, they will find that they go far beyond the scope of the Bill originally introduced. I am referring to paragraph 3, which is a very important matter. It is going to affect a large number of people in this country if the Government decide to carry their recommendations into legislative effect, and I think that really on this matter there ought to be five members.
Captain AUSTIN HUDSON: The report may have a very vital bearing on a large number of people, and I hope that the Amendment will be pressed.
Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: I hope that the House will not accept this Amendment. A very considerable part of the time of the Committee will be taken up with detailed evidence from a number of traders' organisations. If the House will insist on a quorum as large as five, all that the opponents who do not desire the Committee to continue its work have to do is for five to stay away and it will be
1326
impossible for the Committee to carry on its work. Therefore, I suggest, in view of the nature of the work, that it is much better to allow the inquiry to cover a comprehensive field by being able to rely on three members being present.
Major LLEWELLIN: I think that the hon. Member was slightly wrong in his arithmetic. Five from 11, quite obviously, leaves six. I am sorry to burden the House at this late hour with that small detail, but it seems to me very important that when you get a Committee deciding on the important subject that this Committee has to decide, there should be a thoroughly representative report produced by the Committee. If one considers the names of the persons appointed to the Committee it seems likely that you are going to get at any rate five good-hearted men who will be able to be present to carry on the important work entrusted to the Committee. I am certain that if we look through the names we may be quite certain that whenever they can get there, the members of the Committee will be there. It is important to have in this case a larger quorum than three. There are some occasions when hon. Members who have other things to do than their work in this House find it impossible to attend these Committees, but it is important to us as a House to know that there has been a sufficient number of Members at the meetings of the Committee to give real authority to the opinion that may be given to us from that Committee. I hope that the Patronage Secretary will see fit to accept the Amendment, but if not, I hope that the Members who propose it will see fit to take the matter to a division.
Mr. MATHERS: There is a very important point that should be brought out in deciding whether or not a quorum should be three or five. If the quorum is five and there is not that number of persons present, the Committee would automatically require to suspend its work. If that work were the taking of evidence, it does not seem necessary to have a large number of Members present. When the report has to be submitted to the House, it will be done by all the Members, but the evidence that has been taken will be available for their consideration whether they were present when the evidence was taken or not.
Amendment negatived.
Ordered,
"That Three be the quorum.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
It being after half-past Eleven of the clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Two Minutes after Two o'Clock a.m.

  LAND VALUATION BILL.
  LAND VALUATION BILL.
  INCOME TAX.
  INCOME TAX.
TRANSPORT.
  RAILWAY LEVEL CROSSINGS.
  RAILWAY LEVEL CROSSINGS.
  CANAL COMPANIES (GRANTS).
  CANAL COMPANIES (GRANTS).
  SHOPS (HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT).
  SHOPS (HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT).
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  HOUSING (POST-WAR STATISTICS).
  HOUSING (POST-WAR STATISTICS).
  PSITTACOSIS.
  PSITTACOSIS.
  MATERNITY INSTITUTIONS (GRANTS).
  MATERNITY INSTITUTIONS (GRANTS).
  INDIA (INFANT DEATH RATE).
  INDIA (INFANT DEATH RATE).
POST OFFICE.
  WIRELESS RECEIVING LICENCES.
  WIRELESS RECEIVING LICENCES.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE, THORESWAY.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE, THORESWAY.
  AIR MAIL SERVICE (BELGIUM).
  AIR MAIL SERVICE (BELGIUM).
  PAISLEY POLICE FORCE DISMISSALS.
  PAISLEY POLICE FORCE DISMISSALS.
ROYAL NAVY.
  OFFICERS (MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE).
  OFFICERS (MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE).
  HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "WISHART."
  HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "WISHART."
  ROYAL ARSENAL, WOOLWICH.
  ROYAL ARSENAL, WOOLWICH.
EDUCATION.
  NON-PROVIDED SCHOOLS (RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION).
  NON-PROVIDED SCHOOLS (RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION).
  COMPULSORY SCHOOL ATTENDANCE.
  COMPULSORY SCHOOL ATTENDANCE.
  CHILDREN OVER AGE OF 11.
  CHILDREN OVER AGE OF 11.
  ASSISTANT INSPECTORS.
  ASSISTANT INSPECTORS.
  WOOD STREET COUNCIL SCHOOL, WOOLWICH.
  WOOD STREET COUNCIL SCHOOL, WOOLWICH.
  SAFEGUARDED INDUSTRIES (EMPLOYMENT).
  SAFEGUARDED INDUSTRIES (EMPLOYMENT).
  INSURANCE.
  INSURANCE.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  QUARRY WORKERS.
  QUARRY WORKERS.
  TRANSFER OF LABOUR.
  TRANSFER OF LABOUR.
  BENEFIT.
  BENEFIT.
  TRAINING CENTRES.
  TRAINING CENTRES.
  SEAMEN.
  SEAMEN.
  SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY.
  SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  PIG IRON IMPORTS.
  PIG IRON IMPORTS.
  MOST-FAVOURED-NATION TREATMENT.
  MOST-FAVOURED-NATION TREATMENT.
  TARIFFS (FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
  TARIFFS (FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
  POTATOES (IMPORTS).
  POTATOES (IMPORTS).
  WRAPPING PAPER.
  WRAPPING PAPER.
  PONIES (IMPORTS).
  PONIES (IMPORTS).
AGRICULTURE.
  WHEAT GROWING (LEGISLATION).
  WHEAT GROWING (LEGISLATION).
  AGRICULTURAL CONFERENCE.
  AGRICULTURAL CONFERENCE.
  ASPARAGUS (MARKETING).
  ASPARAGUS (MARKETING).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

NEGOTIATIONS WITH EGYPT.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, with your permission I desire to ask the Leader of the House if he can give us any information as to the negotiations with respect to the Egyptian Treaty.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I am in a position to read to the House what has been stated by the Foreign Secretary in another place. The statement, which was in answer to a Question by Captain Bennett, is as follows:—"The Foreign Secretary regrets to inform the House that, in spite of the most sincere and friendly efforts on both sides, the negotiations have failed, His Majesty's Government not having seen their way to meet the Egyptian Delegation in regard to the Sudan." The Foreign Secretary says, further, that he will very shortly lay before the House a White Paper dealing clearly with the negotiations.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, in view of that very serious announcement of the Government, I desire at once to ask the noble and learned Lord whether he will give facilities for a discussion upon the White Paper as soon as it is laid? I should like to know also how soon he hopes to lay the Paper. I should like to add that in our judgment, the negotiations having broken down, we revert to the Declaration of 1922, which remains in full force.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I desire to enter into no question of any kind. I do not say that I have any reason whatever for differing from what the noble Marquess has said; but I do not desire to make any declaration at the present moment. I cannot say how soon the White Paper will be laid, but I understand as soon as possible; that is to say, in the course of a day or so. As
434
soon as it is laid, I will certainly see that all facilities are given, particularly after what I stated to the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, the other day, for an immediate discussion if it is desired by the noble Marquess.

LIVERPOOL CORPORATION (No. 2) BILL.
Read 2a.
CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a.
LONDON ELECTRIC, METROPOLITAN, DISTRICT, CENTRAL LONDON AND CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL.
Read 2a.
NEWPORT CORPORATION (No. 2) BILL.
Read 2a.

ST. HELEN'S ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1930.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede I beg to move that the Motion on the Paper concerning the Aylesbury Electricity (Extension) Order and the St. Helen's Electricity (Extension) Order 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.

COQUET FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
SEA FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (BLANDFORD FORUM EXTENSION) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

THIRD PARTIES (RIGHTS AGAINST INSURERS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE FOR INDIA (EARL RUSSELL): My Lords, I do not propose to stand for more than a few moments between the House and the discussion of the Motion which follows. This Bill has been for some time in one form or another before Parliament. It was drafted, as a matter of fact, at the request of the late Home Secretary, the noble Viscount, and it was approved by the late Attorney-General. It has passed through its stages in another place and its object is shortly this. It has been held in Court to be the law that where a person has insured against an accident and a third party has recovered damages and would have those damages satisfied out of the insurance money, should the insurance money be paid to the insured person and should he go bankrupt before it reaches the person injured, then it becomes part of his general estate instead of being earmarked for the person who has been injured. The object of this Bill is to earmark it for that purpose.
The wording of the Bill is extremely long and complex, but that is its object. It has suffered one or two trifling alterations to which I will call the attention of your Lordships. In Clauses 1, 2 and 3 it is intended to secure that the position of the third party will be as nearly as possible the same where the person who has injured him dies insolvent as it would have been if he had become insolvent during life. A new subsection (3) in Clause 1 provides that parties cannot defeat the provisions in the Bill by a contract of insurance. Clause 2 contains the principal object at the end of it. It is to secure that any provision to the effect that the contract is to be void upon disclosure to the third party of the fact of insurance shall not operate so as to deprive the third party of his rights under the Bill. A good deal of debate took place as to the possibility of the
436
rights of the injured party being defeated by an arrangement between the insured and the insurer, and Amendments were adopted to prevent that happening. Then there were some further Amendments making the moment when the transfer of rights takes place the date of the winding-up order and Clause 2 was strengthened by the addition of subsections (2) and (3). The object of all these Amendments was to carry out the main purpose of the Bill, which was that the right of the person insured to recover the money should not be defeated by its going into the general pool of bankruptcy. It is possible some of your Lordships may be able to think of Amendments to move in Committee, but I am sure there is no objection to the general principle of the Bill, and I beg to move that it be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LONDON NAVAL TREATY.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN rose to call attention to the provisions of the Naval Treaty and its effect upon British policy of naval construction; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I venture to bring the subject of this Motion before the House this afternoon because it seems to me that a Treaty so complicated as that which has recently been arrived at by the Government does require explanation and discussion, and the effect of many of its provisions on our naval strength in the future sems to me so important that we ought to lose no time in ascertaining the views of the Government on the subject. A few days ago I had occasion to express some misgiving as to some of the provisions in the Treaty, and the First Lord of the Admiralty immediately fell heavily upon me when he, with some of his friends, went to the Fulham by-election two or three nights ago. He said that my action was very mischievous, and he wanted the electors of Fulham to realise that he wanted the vote of West Fulham in support of what the British Delegates had done. He also said that he would ask the electors of Fulham not to forget that

437
a vote for Sir Cyril Cobb was, in his judgment, vote against the policy of the Government in the Naval Conference.
It is not because of the result of that election that I am asking your Lordships to consider the Treaty this afternoon; but I must say I am a little surprised that in a matter of this importance anybody who ventures to criticise some parts of the Treaty should be accused of mischievous conduct. I should like to know, especially from this Government, who have expressed their great objection to secret diplomacy, when is the opportunity to be if not now after we have had plenty of time to read the Treaty? When are we going to have the chance of criticising it if not now? All of us most loyally abstained from criticism while the Conference was proceeding, but now that it is over and the Treaty is printed it seems to me legitimate for anybody to make what comments suggest themselves to him. To say that we are not to discuss it at all seems to me intolerable. "I am Sir Oracle and when I ope my mouth let no dog bark !" That is apparently the Attitude of the Government on this subject. The First Lord said what was not altogether unexpected, that my criticisms had the appearance of sour grapes. It had occurred to me that some profound thinker would evoke that rather trite proverb on this subject. All the same I am prepared to risk the terrible consequences, and I am obliged to say at once that I am not in the least jealous of anybody who has taken part in signing this Treaty. I should have been very reluctant to do it myself.
But I do not want to approach this question in any vituperative spirit. I know from experience what the difficulties of these Conferences are. I know what patience the Prime Minister has shown all through this Conference, and I realise that there were very great difficulties to meet. The most satisfactory outcome seems to me to be that all the Delegates representing the different countries showed the greatest good temper and friendliness. That rather suggests to me that even if no agreement had been reached there was not that awful danger of war which some people are perpetually harping upon. There are people who seem to think that unless you are signing an international agreement about once every six months war is certain to take
438
place. It is against that background that they are always asking us to look upon any agreement they make, and according to them you must have some agreement, however bad it is. I do not accept that view, and I think that the attitude of all the Delegates there shows that we need not be in the least alarmed, and it is better on the whole to try to let people go their own line. I believe that in the long run there will be no risk.
As far as the small portion of the Treaty which was signed by all the five Powers is concerned the important thing is prolongation of the life of capital ships. That was the term we gave it at our Geneva Conference in 1927, but here it is called a naval holiday, for the sake of more picturesqueness I suppose. It is, however, exactly the same thing as the late Government proposed at Geneva in 1927. At that time we proposed something that went a great deal further. I do not quarrel with the prolongation of the life of battleships. How could I? We proposed it ourselves. In the interim it is quite true we give up more newer and stronger battleships than the Americans do. I am not prepared to quarrel about that; but what I want to know is why they did not take that opportunity, as we tried to do in 1927, of getting the agreement of all five Powers to reduce the size of all battleships that would be built in the future.
I have every reason to suppose that certainly four Powers were in favour of that, and I do not believe the fifth would have required very much pressing. Why did not our Delegates press harder for that? They have made a great claim that they have done something to stop building competition, but it left out that part of the battleship arrangement. They have done nothing to stop building competition because they have done nothing to reduce the size that battleships may be in the future. So to my mind they have missed a great opportunity. It would have been an immense financial saving, far greater than anything they have done now. While the atmosphere was as good as it was, I should have thought that they could very easily have made an agreement that when replacement took place no ship should exceed a certain size, say 25,000 tons, or whatever figure you like to name—that is 10,000 tons less than before—with 12-

439
inch or 13.5-inch guns instead of 16-inch guns. Therefore I think they have missed a great opportunity.
Then with regard to destroyers and submarines, they have succeeded in getting some kind of categorical maximum for each type of ship. That is all to the good. They are very fond of contrasting their merits with those of our proposals at Geneva. I should like to say that our proposals at Geneva in every case suggested destroyers and leaders and submarines of at least 100 tons less than those that have been agreed to here. The First Lord has compared the reduction that has been effected with certain figures at Geneva, but it is not a very fair comparison because he takes the figures of the very last proposal we had at Geneva, and in it is 25 per cent. of old ships. He forgets entirely that that figure was raised because of the fact that the representatives of the United States insisted on having so many large 10,000 ton cruisers. Therefore the comparison would be much fairer if you took what we originally proposed at Geneva. Anyone comparing the two would see that if our original proposals had been accepted they would have effected a very much larger economy and would have done a great deal more to stop building competition than has been done under this Treaty. Before I leave the question of destroyers I should like just to say that I hope we shall have some information as to the replacement that is contemplated for destroyers. A very large number of our destroyers are over age, and unless we set to work at once to replace a good many of those over-age destroyers we shall be left with something very far short of what was agreed upon even by this Treaty.
Then with regard to the reservation by which we are empowered to increase our naval strength if any Power not signatory of the Three-Power Agreement builds to an extent which is threatening to us, that reservation seems to me to put us in a very invidious position as things now are. We have to consider not only the Atlantic and the Pacific but we have also to consider the Mediterranean and our position in Europe. Neither of the other two Powers in the Three-Power Agreement is concerned in that way. Therefore, if we find that it is necessary to ask for more shipbuilding we shall
440
have the odium of it and we shall have the appearance of being afraid of some European Power. That is not a very pleasant position in which to put this country. I am speaking, of course, without knowledge of what went on—what went on at the Conference has been very carefully kept secret—but I should have thought it would have been possible without even raising the difficult question of parity between France and Italy to have got them to say: "Well, anyhow, we neither of us are going to build snore than so-and-so and so-and-so in the next five years." That would have been a safeguard. We should have known that that would not be enough to endanger our position here as a European Power.
Now I come to what is to my mind much the most alarming part of the Treaty. That is the question of cruisers. Before the Conference began the Government made a sudden and gratuitous sacrifice of twenty cruisers. Up to then seventy had always been regarded by our naval advisers as our maximum. I remember the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, made a very great speech at Geneva in which he emphasised that point.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: You said "maximum". Do you not mean minimum?
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: Seventy was what we wanted as our largest requirement. We wanted to be allowed to build up to seventy. They are specially necessary for us because of our Imperial position and trade. There are some very remarkable figures which the French Naval Department got out in estimating the strengths of the five Powers. They took into consideration the area of each Power, the length of coast, the length of communications and the amount of sea-borne trade. The French Naval Department worked those figures out as follows: Taking Italy as a unit of one, Japan required 1.6, France 3, the United States 4.2 and the British Empire 10. Our requirements therefore, according to their calculation, were more than double that of any other Power. Yet it was in dealing with this particular phase of the problem—the defence of our trade by our cruisers—that before the Conference began twenty cruisers were gratuitously given away by our Government. I think it is quite clear from the answers

441
which have been given in the House of Commons that that was done against the advice of the Sea Lords. The Government have been asked questions two or three times and the First Lord said that the Government took the responsibility. I assume that that means that they acted against the advice of the Sea Lords. So against that advice and when every other country was asking that at any rate its own security might be assured, we began by risking the strength which our advisers considered necessary for our security.
There was one comfort which was given to us, and that was that the First Lord Said that those fifty would be dependent on adequate limitation of projected building programmes by other Powers. We thought that unless the other Powers produced some adequate limitation we should be exonerated from cutting down to fifty. That appears to have been a delusion. What other Powers have made any equivalent reduction? And yet we were to agree to this only if other Powers did so. The First Lord of the Admiralty made a speech at Sheffield in which he said:—
"I must emphasise that this figure is the least that we feel can be fixed to meet even peace conditions in present world circumstances."
And he added:—
"The proposed reduction in the number of cruisers to 50 is, of course, dependent upon agreement at the forthcoming Conference on adequate limitation of projected building programmes being made by other Powers."
Unfortunately those equivalent limitations have not been made, and yet by the Treaty we are kept to our fifty cruisers.
It seems to me that there is something worse than that. Are we going to have our fifty cruisers, even as matters stand? Sixteen years has been taken as the life of a pre-Armistice cruiser, and under Article 20 we are the only country of the three to be limited in our replacement tonnage to 91,000 tons. This figure appears, if you think of what it is meant to stand for in numbers of ships, to represent thirteen ships of 7,000 tons, or possibly fifteen of 6,000 tons or eighteen of 5,000 tons; but that does not give us a chance of getting anything like fifty at the end of 1936. In an answer in the House of Commons we were told that, of the three countries that had cruisers now over
442
ten years of age, which will then be over sixteen years of age, the British Empire had twenty-four, the United States four and Japan ten. Accordingly we have many more obsolescent cruisers than anybody else. Why is it, then, that we are the only country that is restricted from replacing them? We shall have only twenty-four that are not over sixteen years of age at the end of 1936. That will be the figure if we do not build at all, but if we build up to our full allowance of 91,000 tons we may have thirty-seven, thirty-nine or even forty-two if they are of only 5,000 tons displacement.
In any case, we cannot possibly get near to our 50 that we were promised as the essential, even in peace time, for our requirements. I do not understand why that has been done. The First Lord said that while special provision was made in the case of the United States for carrying out long-postponed cruiser construction (I do not know what that means) we were confined to 91,000 tons. That is to say, special provision is made in the case of the United States for carrying out long-postponed cruiser construction, and special provision is also made for preventing our doing so. I do hope that we shall be given some comfort on that subject. I hope it will be shown that I have missed some provision in the Treaty, and that we really are going to have the minimum of 50 cruisers at the end of 1936.
Three great claims are made of benefits that have been secured by this Treaty. One is that for the first time parity between us and the United States has been secured. It has been secured by putting one set of figures against another set of figures that are not really comparable, but I do not mind that. Parity has never been really in dispute for years, and parity is no measure whatever of our security. Our security depends upon totally different considerations. It is the protection of our commerce and of our very food and lives. So far as I am aware, no war plan has ever been made which contemplated a war with the United States of America, and all our plans have been based on the totally different consideration of our trade. I would far prefer to see America not only having parity but having everything she wants above it, provided that we get the minimum that we think is necessary

443
for our security. Amongst peaceful nations such as the United States and ourselves, and, indeed, the other participants in the Conference, I see no great danger in having the fleets which each country thinks adequate for its own protection.
It is also claimed that this Treaty puts an end to building competition. As I have already pointed out, it does not do so in the matter of capital ships, which is the most important thing of all. Building competition depends mainly upon having no upward limit for the size of ships that you may build. Before the War we were increasing the size of our ships from Dreadnought to Super-Dreadnought and so on, and Germany followed us because there was no limit at the top. The only way to stop building competition is to fix a limit, and to fix it as low as you can. Accordingly I say, when they claim to have put an end to building competition, that they certainly have not done so in the case of capital ships, though they had a great opportunity for doing so. Finally, we are told that this is a great step in disarmament. For whom is it a great step in disarmament? What country except our own has made a great step in disarmament? Some of them have more than they had before, some have about the same, and we have a great diminution, though our country has done more in the way of reduction in the years since the War than any other. Where is this great step in disarmament, except as concerns ourselves?
I hope that if I have misunderstood this Treaty I shall be told so by the noble Lord who is goring to reply, but, if I have not, I think I am justified in raising the subject to-day. At any rate the country ought to know what are the Government's intentions for the replacement of cruisers, destroyers and submarines before 1936. It is of vital importance to us. As it seems to me, there are provisions in the Treaty which prevent our getting our 50 cruisers by that time, and it seems that there is very little probability of our getting to our numbers in destroyers and submarines. I hope that the Government will take us a little more into their confidence and tell us what they propose in the way of replacement and what they consider to be a reasonable building programme
444
during the period for which the Treaty lasts. I beg to move.
LOAD CARSON: My Lords, I venture to ask your indulgence in making a few remarks upon this subject because at a critical period of the War I was myself First Lord of the Admiralty, and this Treaty as I read it has brought back to me many of the difficulties and emergencies through which the country passed at that time. I do not think the noble Viscount who has just spoken needs to make any apology at all for bringing forward this question. Surely, there never was a graver question for this country. Never has there been before an attempt to reduce the Navy of this country so as to take away from it the mastery of the seas, which hitherto has been always considered essential to the absolute existence and safety of this country. So far as I am concerned, I have not the least hesitation in saying that I think it is a great pity that this question has to be raised in the manner in which it is raised. If you are going to take away naval supremacy from this country, as you are doing, I think admittedly, by this Treaty—I think it is the object of this Treaty—it ought to have been done in the full sunlight of day, before the country, with the authority of the country behind it, and I do not believe for one moment that if to-morrow you were to submit to the country the question, Aye or No, are you prepared to give up your supremacy on the seas? there can be any doubt what the answer would be.
The truth of the matter is that this Treaty has been, I will not say entered into—it has not yet been entered into, I am glad to say—this Treaty has been negotiated with a view to bringing about better relations with America. Nobody can object to that so long as the price you pay is not too dear; but the whole thing depends upon that, and I object to being dictated to by America, or by any country, in what are the essentials which we require for the safety of our own country. There are two questions which arose in my time, on each of which I will say a word in a moment, and which go absolutely to the root of the existence of this country. One is the question of the food of our people, and the other is the question of defence from invasion. I would like to know, and we have a right

445
to know, who are the experts who have advised the Government that this Treaty, as it is at present before the House, will ensure to this country, in eventualities that may arise, a proper supply of food for the existence of our people and a proper defence in the event of an attempt at invasion? Surely that is the minimum of our requirements, and I would be perfectly satisfied if the Government would say that they were prepared to lay before any board of experts this Treaty, and ask them these two simple questions: (1), Does the Treaty ensure the bringing in of the food of our country in eventualities that may arise under existing conditions (2) Does it leave this country absolutely safe on the question of defence?
I remember well—I happened to be First Lord at the time—the intensive submarine warfare. Many and many a day of anxiety did we have as to whether the food supply of the people of this country could be kept up, and your Lordships will remember that to such a condition did we come that we had, at the expense of millions of pounds, to stabilise the price of flour, for which we are now paying. Many and many a day we were unable to say, from day to day, whether the food would arrive in safety, and when we adopted the convoy system there were grave dangers and grave difficulties which were eventually overcome, or to a large extent overcome. But when you come to consider the question of how many cruisers or how many destroyers you ought to have, how can that have any relation to what America has? Take this, for instance. I have read this Report through from beginning to end, and except as regards some observations upon submarine mine-laying I do not see anything in the whole of this Treaty, from beginning to end, to limit the power of mine-laying. When you are considering the number of ships which are to enable you to supply the country with food, supposing our ports are all protected from the entry of ships by the laying of mines, and you lose cruiser after cruiser, or destroyer after destroyer, or ship after ship of any kind, in your attempt to convoy, what has that got to do with America or with the problem before America?
The problem before you is the supplying of your people with food. The problem
446
before America, and it has given rise to the whole of this, was the desire of America for what they call the freedom of the seas during war, which meant that they were to be able to supply to belligerents on both sides as much food as ever they pleased. Ours is a question of feeding our people. Theirs was a question of feeding the belligerents and not being bound by the law of contraband. How are you to draw a comparison in a case of that kind? You may make all the formulas in the world. I think more disasters occurred during the War from formulas which were put forward to please various differing interests than from any other cause which I can recollect. The only possible rule that you can lay down —and it is what the people expect any Government. in this country to assure them of—is that under existing circumstances we should have a Navy which, should war unfortunately arise, will be able to protect our sea routes and enable us to bring in the necessary food for our people in this country.
The next question is the question of defence. Shall we have enough ships under this Treaty, and are you advised by your expert advisers that you will have enough, to defend the country from any such invasion as might be attempted under existing circumstances? I am not taking the circumstances before the War, or after the War; I am taking the circumstances now. That is your problem. During the War when we were hard pressed—at the time that I have mentioned I was at the Admiralty—I remember the Government asking us whether we could assure them that the country was absolutely free from any chance of invasion—whether we could guarantee that; because they wanted to send away troops that were here on the defence of the coasts and other defences. I remember well being present at the consideration of the subject, and listening to the whole question being discussed and thrashed out from beginning to end. And I remember the experts who were advising the Government, soldiers and sailors, jointly coming to the conclusion that it would be absolutely impossible to give such a guarantee to the Government. Certainly it might only be a short invasion, and those who were engaged in invading the country might be thoroughly annihilated in the long run; but what

447
would happen if the country were invaded, what the damage that would be done, both actually and morally, it would be impossible for anybody to say. And so we had to be prepared, and we prepared for the evacuation of the coasts for the purpose of the defence in the event of any such thing being attempted. Are we not now entitled to know, is not the nation now entitled to know, whether under this Treaty, if it is to be ratified, they can be perfectly satisfied on the best expert advice you can get, that the country is safe in the particulars that I have just gone into? I think that is the least we are entitled to.
I happened to be reading an article upon this Treaty in a great paper, the Engineer of April 25 last, and the article supports the Treaty. I am not going to quarrel with it. I suppose they have their own reasons, and they state them candidly. But why I am going to quote the article at all is that they state perfectly frankly what the result of the Treaty is. And this is what I want the people of the country to know, and what I think cannot be denied by the Government. First they go into the question of the saving. They say:—
"To the three Powers concerned this represents a saving …"
that is, the battleship holiday—
"of over £160,000,000, Great Britain's share being estimated at £70,000,000. To our over-burdened taxpayers this large reduction in our future commitments should bring some relief."
Well, whether it will or not it is not for me to say; it may be turned in another direction, for all I know. However, that is the case they make in favour of it. And they say further economies will be effected by the scrapping of five capital ships.
Now listen to what they state is the result:—
"America's long-cherished ambition to possess a fleet second to none is on the point of realisation, without involving that vast expenditure which would have been necessary had the element of competition continued to dominate ship-building programmes. Her future battle fleet will be slightly stronger than ours especially in gun-power;"
Does the country desire that?—
"her cruiser force will be superior in heavy ships and inferior in 6-inch gun vessels; but measured by the 'yardstick' formula it will be quite equal to the British cruiser establishment."
448
The journal also says:—
"It may not be ungracious to point out that the United States is very markedly the gainer by this arrangement, since she is so much less dependent than the British Empire on sea power as a vital instrument of national defence and existence."
And that is exactly why you cannot get a comparison which brings about a parity in these cases.
The article goes on:—
"When the strategic situation and requirements of each nation are analysed and compared it will be found that the United States, in gaining 'parity,' has actually gained supremacy."
Then it goes on to praise Japan—praise which, I have no doubt, is well deserved, because it says Japan has agreed to accept a measure of naval strength which its professional advisers declare to be inadequate. I want to know, have we done the same? And I ask that most specifically. Then it goes on:—
"The British Empire, it is true, had already made the same brave gesture,…."
—now listen to this—
"since no reasonable person supposes that our future fleet, as regulated by the new Treaty, will be strong enough to guard the 80,000 miles of trade routes which represent the arteries of the Empire …."
Is the country satisfied to have a fleet which will not be strong enough to guard the 80,000 miles of trade routes which represent the arteries of the Empire? All I can say is that if such had been the state of facts when the War broke out we should now be a German dependency.
Then it goes on to say:—
"We and Japan are accepting with open eyes those 'risks of peace' to which the Prime Minister referred on the eve of the Conference."
I have not had time or been able to find what the "risks of peace" were. I suppose the new motto will be: Si vis bellum para pacem. And then mark this statement—
"For, the first time in modern history we are cutting the Navy down to a point far below safety level. It is a grave decision to take, having regard to our unparalleled commitments, but it is one, we think, in which public opinion throughout the Empire will concur."
What an opinion of our Empire! I think better of it, and I think better of our people than to believe that for the first time in modern history they are satisfied to cut the Navy down to

449
a point far below the safety level. It is indeed "a grave decision to take having regard to our unparalleled commitments." I am quoting this because it is an article in favour of the Treaty, and as I have not the necessary technical knowledge nor the advantage which the noble Viscount has had of going into these things recently, I shall be delighted if the noble Lord who has to speak for the Government in this debate will assure your Lordships that they have behind them in this Treaty and in the defence which it offers to the safety of this country the expert opinion at the Admiralty. If he is able to tell us that it will go a long way to satisfy the people of this country. No one wants to do anything that is not generous or that will not bring about the very best of relations with America, but I should be very sorry out of deference to any country to run any risk to the safety of my own.
There is one other matter that I must mention. As I understand it, we are immediately to proceed to scrap five capital ships and to scale down the other ships. It is very amusing to read in this article some remarks on a matter about which they are peculiarly able to give a good opinion. Going into the questions of these cruisers which were built under the emergency War programme and otherwise, they say:—
"Although of considerable age, they are splendid ships, and, as we are able to testify from personal experience, first-class sea boats."
Yet we are to proceed to scrap them. Then the noble Viscount asks very rightly what are to be the replacements and when are those replacements to be begun. What estimates are to be gone into? We have been promised that there shall be no increase of taxation next year or something of that kind: what arrangement has been made for this?
But above and beyond all that I have spoken of there is a bigger question. It is this. How on earth can you decide a question which affects the very existence of this country without at the same time considering our other modes of defence—the Army and the Air? The sea is everything to us. It is a secondary consideration to other countries, especially to those not in Europe. When we are told that this is sufficient for our defence under existing exigencies—as I suppose will be
450
said—I want to know what consideration has been given to our Army. What Army of defence have we? Has it been increased? Even the Cadet Corps are being given up! Are we superior in the air to the other countries? Very interesting discussions have taken place in your Lordships' House recently upon that subject. I was, unfortunately, unable to be present, but I read the debates with great care and great interest. Any one who has ever had the responsibility during a war of trying to do his best to save his country will know what torture it is when he knows that the very existence of the people is at stake, as it always is in such cases. No one that I know of has assured us that we have that superiority in the air any more than in the Army.
What strikes me above all other things is this. Having been up to the present in a position of superiority on the sea, of which we have been so proud, and rightly proud, we are for the purpose of bringing about better relations to scrap that superiority. But what reductions are to be made by those who have Armies and can do by means of their Armies what we have to do by means of our Navy? What are they doing to please us? The truth of the matter is that this is the gravest case in recent times since the War that has come before your Lordships' House, and I hope it will soon be treated by the country as the gravest case that has come before them.
There is this further consideration which must be present to the mind of everyone who has ever had any experience in regard to naval construction. If you once dissipate and put an end to all those great artificers among whom the art and practice of shipbuilding has been handed on from father to son and from one generation to another, who have made shipbuilding in this country the wonderment of the world, you will never get them together again. That is something in which if you stop progress you will absolutely stunt any possible growth in the future. You may make soldiers by drilling them and teaching them to shoot, and by the natural courage of our race. You may even do it in a comparatively short time. But you cannot build ships, and you cannot get together the men who are able to build ships and have helped you to keep this island in the great position which

451
it occupies, having regard to its scattered Empire. That position has been maintained by means of steady progress from day to day under men who have given their whole lives to it and who often have succeeded those who did the same thing and have gone on steadily doing the work which is necessary for keeping up the greatness of your fleet.
It may be said, I dare say it will be said, that one ought not to talk in such a way of a Treaty which is at present before the Senate or some other body in America. I speak in no unfriendly spirit. If we are not allowed to discuss these things when they are put forward in this kind of way behind the backs of the people, and conclusions are come to with out the will of the people being ascertained in any way, when are we to discuss them? Surely, it is not for the Government to say, unless it has been a specific issue, whether we are to have a Navy large or small. This may, for all I know, be only the beginning of the reduction in our naval strength, but if they have the right to reduce so much then they have the right to reduce altogether without the country knowing anything about it. I hope we shall have specific assurances given us by the Government as to what all this means to this country, and, above all, that they will express their readiness to let us know, or, if necessary, submit to some board of experts—Imperial Defence or other experts—what it is proposed to do, so that people may be satisfied that the great maritime position which we have hitherto held is going to be maintained.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, we shall all agree with my noble and learned friend who has just spoken that the subject before your Lordships' House is one of extreme importance. We can never deal with reduction of armaments, particularly naval armaments, without being impressed with the importance that must attach to such questions. I agree with my noble and learned friend, and I am perfectly certain that every one of your Lordships will be of the same opinion, that the essential question before us in any such Treaty is whether sufficient care has been taken to protect this country against invasion, and to give it the security which it must have—in other words, to enable it to protect itself by
452
its naval forces against any attack that may be made upon it. There can be no division of opinion upon that. I assume that His Majesty's Government is just as conscious of the importance of the subject and must be as anxious as everyone in this House and elsewhere, to do nothing which will weaken the position of this country, to do nothing which will endanger the country, for if they did assuredly their end would soon come. No Government could stand which attempted to reduce this country to a position in which it could not take adequate means to ensure its supply of food, or its defence, or real security.
What has surprised me in my noble and learned friend's argument is that he seemed to take no account whatever of all that has happened since August, 1914. What he said is quite true, and many of your Lordships, having taken part in different ways during the War, have become as conscious as my noble friend of the difficulties we had to encounter, and of the perils which, fortunately, we managed to surmount, but we were then in a totally different position. Is it quite fair to put the case as if our supremacy were now threatened by Germany as in the past when we all knew that she was attempting to get a Navy equal or superior to ours?
LORD CARSON: Perhaps my noble friend will allow me to say that I thought I did emphasise that the assurance we asked for was as to whether the arrangements made in this Treaty were sufficient, in the view of those who are capable of judging, to meet any of the exigencies which can at present arise. I thought I made that clear.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I quite agree. I thought I had said that. I began by saying that I agreed with my noble and learned friend. My criticism, if it is criticism, of the observations he made was that so much stress was laid upon what happened during the War with the effect, as it seemed to me, of diverting our minds from the position in which we now stand. May I remind your Lordships that now the situation is entirely different, and we really must approach it from that standpoint? The German fleet has gone. We are now confronted with fleets of countries with which we are living in the greatest amity.

453
I am not suggesting that there never will be war. Far from it. I am as anxious as the noble Viscount who introduced this subject for discussion, and as my noble and learned friend, that there should be adequate protection, and also, I think, we must take account of this, that we are pledged—solemnly pledged—to a reduction of armaments, and that we have undertaken to reduce armaments.
For that purpose we have had Conferences. We had the Washington Conference. We had the Conference at which the noble Viscount was present and took so important a part. As a result we have now had a further Conference, and, presumably, we shall have another in 1935. All those are steps in a new direction, and I ask your Lordships to bear in mind that we must now envisage the case with regard to the Navy from the aspect of a nation desirous of securing peace, of having no wars, of trying to prevent wars in the future by any nation, and doing our utmost to make certain that the Treaties into which we have entered with other nations shall be duly performed in the future. That, I am sure, raises no question of controversy. I refer to it to remind your Lordships that when we are considering the present Treaty it must be in the light of those events, and that the Treaty must be regarded from the aspect of a nation which is already committed to a reduction of armaments in order to preserve peace.
That being the case, it does not dispose of the first proposition to which I referred, and in agreement with my noble and learned friend, that we must not reduce armaments at the risk of the proper defence of the country and of its ultimate security. Here, again, I do not expect that there can be any difference. The real question, as I understand it, is the extent of the reduction. In the main the questions put by the noble Viscount who opened the debate and also by my noble and learned friend come to this, whether, in fact, we have got adequate protection. The form in which, I understand, the question is put to His Majesty's Government is whether they have got the assent of the Admiralty experts to the reduction to which they have agreed.
454
I am not prepared myself to put that as the sole test, although I agree that it is a very important one. I would not for one moment suggest that we should disregard it. No responsible Government could. It is an impossibility. But equally Governments, whether they be Conservative or Liberal or Labour, have always taken the view that they must get the views of the experts in all the Forces, they must consider most carefully everything that is put forward by them, and then the Government must come to their own conclusions, take their own responsibility and must not seek to place it upon the backs of the experts. I have never heard a statement to the contrary. Again and again in another place and throughout the country First Lords of the Admiralty and Prime Ministers have asserted that that is the principle upon which we govern. I see two or three ex-First Lords here at the present moment, and I am perfectly sure that not one would controvert the proposition I have put before your Lordships. Therefore, it is not a question solely of what the experts have advised. The question is: Have the Government most carefully considered everything that the experts have put before them? It may be that some of the experts lean more strongly in favour of reduction than others. Have the Government viewed the whole aspect of the question?
I agree again with my noble and learned friend that we cannot leave out of consideration either the Army or the Air Force. The whole question must be considered for the purpose of the defence of the country. The Government have to remember the situation, the circumstances that confront them, what it is they reasonably have to fear, against what nation must they protect themselves, and what steps they ought to take in order to make quite sure that we are safe. When they have done that and come to their conclusions, having weighed it all, then I think the Government take the responsibility and must bear it and are conscientiously entitled to give effect to their views. Now it has been said that we are not to be dictated to by America. I have never heard it suggested yet that we should be.
LORD CARSON: I have.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Perhaps my noble and learned friend consorts with those with whom I have not had an opportunity of conversation on the subject. I have frequently heard it said that our policy must not be determined by reference to America solely, and perhaps that is what is meant by the observation of the noble and learned Lord. In that, of course, again I am in complete agreement, but that is very different from appearing in any way to resent what is called dictation. My noble and learned friend, of course, has most friendly feelings towards America and his reference to America and his objection to America having too great a say in the matter is not because it is America but because he stands for his own country. I am in complete accord again. I would only add, and I think it is important, that I would go a long way if I could be assured that by the action I was about to take I should secure the good will and co-operation of the people of the United States of America. Although I say that, I guard myself against the possible implication that that means that I would go beyond the limits that ought to give security. I have not the least thought of that in my mind, but I do think it is of the utmost value that we should try to work in friendship, the closest friendship, with them.
Now we have the advantage after very long protracted discussions at the Conference of an Agreement with America and Japan. Very unfortunately we were not able to get agreement with the other two Powers, France and Italy. It was not, I am convinced from what I have read—I know no more than any of your Lordships who have read the papers that have been published—that every attempt was not made most patiently and most carefully by the Government to seek some kind of agreement with France and with Italy. That they did not succeed was not the fault of His Majesty's Government, so far as I am aware, and I should not think of imputing it. At the present moment it is useless to discuss that part of the question. It is left, as I understand it, for future discussion. If I remember aright, according to the reports that were published it was M. Briand who said at the final plenary session of the
456
Conference, "The Conference is not at an end, it is adjourned in order that there may be further diplomatic discussion between the Powers so that we may seek again to arrive at a complete agreement."
What has been gained at the moment —and I think myself it is a most important gain which we should not seek to minimise, because for this country it is of great value—is that we have an agreement with America. I care little about parity with America and indeed, as I understand the argument both of the noble Viscount and my noble and learned friend, they care as little as I do. What they say is: "Let America have more ships if she likes." That may be, of course, an alternative which you might have reached if you had not had the Treaty, but is it desired? Is it the wish of this country that we should enter into competitive construction with America? We do not contemplate entering into competition with America in building. Then may I ask, if we are not seeking to arrive at an agreement with America why did we hold the Conference at Washington, why did we hold a Conference at Geneva? Why did my noble friend take such extreme care and devote himself to the best of his ability to arriving at an agreement?
The only difference between him and His Majesty's Government is that if he could have had his way on behalf of the country he would have had different terms in regard to several of the matters secured by this Treaty. But that is the only difference. He has been just as anxious. The Conservative Government strove rightly and patriotically to obtain agreement with America, and really it is idle to suggest that His Majesty's Government now in power should not make the same attempt. For my part I think that His Majesty's Government and the Prime Minister himself have every reason to congratulate themselves on having reached an agreement with America and Japan and having, as I think, sown the seeds of a future agreement with France and Italy.
Great care has been taken in the Treaty. Your Lordships may be aware—are aware, I am sure—of the most important clause that was introduced at the last, to which no objection was raised either by

457
America or Japan, which takes into account possible complications that may arise from building by other countries. We know perfectly well that France already has a number of destroyers constructed, a number that are being constructed and a programme of future construction until the year 1936 which is, from our point of view, a very great programme of building and which, of course, must make us consider, if it continues in that way, what steps we shall take in order that we may be able to put ourselves in a proper position with regard to it. That is the situation. All we can say about it at present is that, although on some minor matters agreement has been come to with them, on this important question nothing has been done. But that does not mean that nothing will be done. I believe that attempts will be made, and all one can say is that we may hope that these attempts will be successful.
If they are not, and if difficulties arise, then, according to the Article of the Treaty that was introduced at the end:—
"If …. the requirements of the national security of any High Contracting Party in respect of vessels of war limited by Part III of the present Treaty are in the opinion of that Party materially affected by new construction of any Power other than those who have joined in Part III of this Treaty"—
—that is, America and Japan—then the words that follow are worth noting:—
"that High Contracting Party will notify the other Parties to Part III as to the increase required to be made in its own tonnages within one or more of the categories of such vessels of war …."
That is to say that, if this happened, we should have to give notice to the other two Powers with which we are in complete agreement. As regards the Articles of this Treaty, we have the right, if the circumstances require it, to increase our tonnage, and then, of course, equally the other parties—that is, America and Japan—would be entitled to make a proportionate increase in the category or categories specified, and no doubt there would be negotiations and discussions through diplomatic channels. That seems to give us real security, assuming that in the final arrangements that have been made between America and Japan we are adequately protected.
For my part I think that we have taken a step which is historical in its importance. We have taken this vital step
458
because we are anxious to give true effect as quickly as we can to the wish which, I believe, is in the minds of every single, person in this country—namely, to secure and stabilise, if we possibly can, peace for the world. We have made Treaties, we have abandoned war as an instrument of policy according to the Kellogg Treaty, and we have made statements again and again on that point. This is a very important step, as I think, along the road which may ultimately lead to peace, and in which we, just because we have been the supreme nation on the sea, have taken a leading part and, I hope, have given an example which may be followed.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has pointed out very clearly the absolute dependence of this country upon the safety of our sea communications for our food supplies, and those of us who realise the absolute importance of the safety of our sea communications must ask ourselves, when naval reductions are proposed or are in progress, how far those reductions affect our security in the future. Especially must those of us who happen to have held positions of responsibility for the safety of our sea communications during the late War ask ourselves that question. Immense reductions have been made in our naval strength since the conclusion of peace, and no doubt those responsible for them have made them in consequence of two thoughts in their minds: because they know that at the moment there is no threat of any possible future war; and also because they have in mind, no doubt, the steps that have been taken since the conclusion of peace to ensure that future international disputes shall be settled, if possible, by agreement instead of by recourse to arms.
But we cannot be certain that attempts at agreement will succeed, and it is for that reason, presumably, that naval, military and air Forces are still kept in existence. I submit that, in view of what is being done in the Navies of other nations, we have now reached a position in which we cannot reduce our fleets any further with due regard to our future security. Indeed, I think one may say that the reductions that are now proposed go beyond the limit of security. The Naval Conferences that have been held, since the proclamation of peace,

459
at Washington and in London have effected reductions in our own Navy but, so far as I can see, they have not effected reductions in any other Navy in the world, except that the Washington Treaty resulted in the reduction of a certain number of American battleships.
The noble and learned Marquess who has just spoken has said that we are pledged to a reduction in armaments. It is true that we have effected that reduction in armaments; but have the other nations followed suit? Anybody who looks at the building programmes of other nations at the moment will see that, instead of reducing naval strength, they are actually increasing it, and nobody who holds a position of responsibility can lose sight of that fact. The position that has been before this last Conference and was before the Conference at Geneva was really the effort of the United States to obtain parity with us. As the noble Viscount said, that question was never in dispute at Geneva. It was perfectly clearly accepted by the British Delegates at Geneva that there was no objection whatever on our part to naval parity with the United States. Indeed, however much we might object to naval parity, it is out of our power to prevent it if the United States intend to build. In this country we have to consider not only the question of our relative strength in comparison with the United States but, owing to our geographical position in the world and the widespread nature of our Empire, the strength of the Navies of nations other than the United States.
In considering the Report of the Naval Conference, I propose to confine myself largely to remarks upon the question of cruiser strength and strength in smaller vessels, because I do not think any one will disagree with the halt that has been called in capital ship construction, although it is quite possible, as the noble Viscount says, that we should have preferred to see a limit placed upon the capital ship, as was admitted during the Geneva Conference. As regards the cruiser question, many of the difficulties which have arisen both at Geneva and in the London Conference come from the fact of the production at the Washington Conference of the 10,000-ton cruiser. There was no cruiser of that size in existence prior to the Washington Confer-
460
ence—no light cruiser—and the setting up of a 10,000-ton cruiser at once set up a standard which naturally every nation building cruisers had to act up to, otherwise they would be building cruisers inferior to those of their neighbours. Consequently, as other nations built 10,000-ton cruisers we had either to build the same size craft, and from the point of view of economy reduce our numbers, or else allow other nations to have vessels of the cruiser type more powerful than our own, and accept the situation by having an increase in our numbers.
We have always in this country in the past considered a large number of cruisers essential to the security of our sea communications. In 1904 we had 117 cruisers of 2,000 tons displacement and over, and a total of 157 cruisers, giving a total tonnage of 750,000 tons. In 1912, after the scrapping policy introduced by Lord Fisher, of the smaller vessels, we had 90 cruisers of over 2,000 tons displacement, and 12 building, and at the commencement of the War we had 114 cruisers, with a total tonnage of 720,000 tons. During the War our losses of vessels by surface attack—I am not now speaking of submarines—arose from two causes—first of all, from the depredations of the German cruisers at sea at the commencement of the War; and secondly, from armed raiders, disguised, which got oat from German ports. I would like to mention to the noble Lord who has just spoken that there were only nine German cruisers at sea during the early days of the War. Therefore our losses were due to those nine cruisers, and those losses totalled in the early days of the War 220,000 tons. It must be borne in mind when I speak of nine cruisers, that the great majority of those losses took place from the depredations of the two raiders, the "Emden" and the "Karlsruhe," and therefore when the noble Lordspoke of the threat being much minimised by the fact that we have no such powerful Navy against us as the Germany Navy in pre-War days, one must recollect that our losses were almost entirely due to those two cruisers. Subsequently the three German raiders which got out were responsible for the destruction of 250,000 tons of our shipping.
The German nation was in a very difficult position for getting their ships to sea for the purpose of commerce destruc-

461
tion. They were shut in almost by the North Sea. The English Channel was closed, and the North Sea has a comparatively narrow entrance of about 180 miles. Yet three out of the five German raiders which tried to get out succeeded in getting out in spite of the immensely powerful Grand Fleet guarding the approaches to the North Sea. If your Lordships will consider the case of some nation with a very long coastline—there are plenty of them—with numerous ports, and think of the difficulties that would confront the British Navy of the future in preventing the egress of disguised raiders or cruisers, you will realise the excessive difficulties with which the Navy would be faced in the event of a conflict with a foe possessing a very long coastline.
To cope with those German raiders which were at sea in 1914 we had, as I stated, 114 cruisers. That included, of course, those with the Grand Fleet. I do not think that I can possibly put the case of the difficulties facing the Navy more clearly than by quoting from a book on the World Crisis, 1911–14, written by the then First Lord of the Admiralty. In a note prepared by him to placate critics, on October 24, 1914, and issued to the Press, because as he said, "much discontent was making itself heard and felt owing to damage caused by a few German cruisers," the following statement was made:—
"Eight or nine German cruisers believed to be at large in Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans. Searching for these vessels and working in concert under the various Commanders-in-Chief are upwards of 70 British, Japanese, French and Russian cruisers, not including auxiliary cruisers. The vast expanses of sea and ocean, and the many thousand islands of the archipelagos, offer an almost infinite choice of movement to the enemy's ships."
No one could better describe the difficulties which faced our Navy in those days than does that paragraph. How quickly those difficulties seem to have been forgotten. In another place in the same book the following statement appears:—
"The strain upon the British naval resources in the outer seas, apart from the main theatre of naval operations, was now at its maximum …."
That was at the end of October, 1914. The quotation continues:—
"and may be partly appreciated from the following approximate enumerations: Combination against von Spee, 30 ships. In search of 'Emden' and 'Konigsberg', 8 ships. General protection of trade by other
462
than the above, 40 ships. Convoy duty in Indian Ocean, 8 ships. Blockade of Turko-German Fleet at Dardanelles, 3 ships. Defence of Egypt, 2 ships. Miscellaneous minor tasks, 11 ships."
It concludes by saying:—
"We literally could not lay our hands on another vessel of any sort or kind."
No words can put the case more strongly than that, and I would ask your Lordships to remember that only two cruisers were really causing that damage. If 114 vessels cannot stop the damage done by two cruisers, how are fifty cruisers going to prevent damage to our trade and secure the safety of our sea communications?
The Conference agreed to our having a total of 339,000 tons of cruisers, of which 146,000 tons are 8-inch cruisers. I may mention that nowhere in the Conference Report can I see that a total of fifty cruisers is aimed at. There is no mention anywhere in that Report of a total of fifty cruisers. It is merely a, question of tonnage everywhere. I cannot myself see how it is possible for us to attain a total of anything like fifty cruisers by December 31, 1936. Our cruisers go off at such a rate owing to the majority of them having been constructed during the War, and therefore their life being limited to sixteen years, that it is absolutely impossible, unless we had a building programme of five or six cruisers a year, to get our numbers to fifty by the end of 1936.
In destroyers the Treaty figure is 150,000 tons—provided, of course, that. France and Italy reduce their programmes. That means a total to us of about 110 destroyers. Now, it is a fact that under the age limit we need to lay down 80 destroyers in the years 1930–1934. If we are going to work up to 150,000 tons, which I have not the slightest doubt the other nations will do, that means a total of sixteen a year. The truth is, of course, that we have almost entirely neglected destroyer building since the War ceased. As regards submarines, we are limited to a total of 52,700 tons. Our present figure is about 45,000 tons, and it will need a total of about three submarines a year, totalling about 3,500 tons, to get up to our total of 52,700 by 1936. I would, therefore, stress to His Majesty's Government the imperative importance, if we are going to carry out even the terms of

463
the Treaty, of embarking upon a building programme of considerable size.
And there is one other point which I would like to mention to your Lordships and to His Majesty's Government, and that is the question of the personnel. These naval reductions are fatal to the future careers of naval officers and men. Entries into the Navy have to be made years and years ahead of the building of the ships, because it takes longer to train an officer or a man than it does to build a ship. And with constant naval reductions the effect must be that promotion is blocked and compulsory retirement is forced upon the Admiralty. Officers and men go to sea with the intention of devoting their lives to the service of His Majesty's Navy. They are thrown out at an age when they can get no other work to do. Their training does not fit them for work ashore. They are thrown out with a totally inadequate pension, and the result is disaster. I will take the case of reducing one battleship, just to point out what it means. To reduce a modern battleship means that one officer of captain's rank, four officers of commander's rank, twenty-eight officers of lieutenant-commander's rank and lieutenant's rank, three officers of sub-lieutenant's rank, twenty warrant officers and twenty midshipmen become redundant. What can it mean now after the immense reductions which have been effected since the War? The Admiralty know quite well the awful distress which has been caused among naval officers and lower deck personnel by the reductions, and I do think that some adequate compensation should be paid, both to officers and to men who become redundant as the result of reductions effected. I would appeal to His Majesty's Government to give that matter their consideration.
LORD WESTER WEMYSS: My Lords, much as I dislike the result of the Conference and fear its effects in the future, I must confess that what I dislike even more is the willingness which was shown on our side all through the negotiations to mortgage the future for an immediate but transient advantage or success. It is to my mind one of the most dangerous attitudes that I have seen for a very long time on the part of His Majesty's Government. Of the five Powers that entered into this Conference we appear
464
to be the only one who had no fixed ideas as to what the real strength of our defensive forces should be. The consequence was that we have given up largely—not only large numbers, but numbers greatly superior to what we should have done in the opinion of most people, to get— what? As far as I can see, nothing. For, certainly what the Conference did not succeed in doing, and what it set out to do, was to put a limitation to naval armaments. The Conference was of course the natural, and in fact even the inevitable, result of that held at Washington, when for the first time in our history we voluntarily abandoned our freedom of action in the question of armaments by taking into consideration the opinions of others. That may or may not be a good sentiment, but that it is a most dangerous precedent events have shown.
Now I am not going to go over the ground which has been covered so ably by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, with his undoubted and his unquestioned authority, but I would ask you to come with me back to those years that immediately followed the War, when we found ourselves after the Peace with a Navy much too large for our post-War needs, and one whose reduction was not only required, and evidently of advantage to us, but absolutely necessary from the financial point of view alone. But the reduction of a large organisation such as the Navy cannot be easily and well undertaken, unless it is to create chaos, owing to the many trades and crafts with which it is connected. Moreover, there must have been a great difficulty at that time to fix what the strength of our post-War Navy should be. Because that, of course, must depend upon a policy, and, indeed, it must have been difficult to fix a policy at that time in face of the state of Europe. So that I can well understand the satisfaction with which the invitation of the United States was received to take part in a Conference which had for its object a general all-round limitation, for I suppose the Government must have seen in that a possible way out of our difficulty. That some system of rationing was required was evident, and the United States led the way by their proposal of parity with us.
Now, it surely is a matter of thought—Why should the United States have required parity, or asked for it? Before

465
the War never when we were fixing our standard, when we came to the two-Power standard, did we take America into our consideration. She seemed so far from us, she was beyond the orbit of our politics; there was no reason why her Navy should be considered. What is the case now? Why should she want it, and why should we have accepted it? It seems to me that we should have been out of a great many difficulties if we had replied to her by saying, "We look upon your proposal as a most friendly gesture, and even a generous one in the circumstances, but we feel that to accept it would put us into large difficulties"—as it has done—"with the remainder of Europe. We shall never look upon any building that you take in hand as a menace, and we shall take no cognisance of it." Had we adopted some such policy as that we should not have been in any worse position than we are to-day. As we all know, the United States is rich enough to outbuild us or any other Power if she requires to do so. She has even intimated her intention of doing so if she finds it necessary. Why should we object? How can it affect our defensive policy and the number of our ships? We should have had a far freer hand, had we only to turn our eyes to Europe, than if we had to turn our eyes elsewhere.
What was the reason for it? Was it that the Government expected to get a reduction of armaments? What has happened since? No reduction except our own. Was it just one of those gestures which have been so frequent during the last ten years that it has become almost a custom with us to make a gesture vaguely towards peace? We have done all we can by word and deed to avoid war and to wipe it away from the possibilities of human nature. It is indeed an idealistic hope; but idealism to be practical must be based on reality, and the reality is that, whatever may have been the case in the past, war in the future, especially after the safeguards we have made, is not likely to break out either from Machiavellianism or from a desire to hurt, or even from ambition. The fact is that the causes of war are to be found in a combination of economic circumstances over which we have no control, the seeds of which are to be found in what was at the time a perfectly beneficent or per-
466
fectly innocent intention or action on the part of some person or Government, but which, in the changing circumstances of the world, alter their shape as they grow up—a shape that we cannot in any way help—and, with the altered circumstances that they may face, create just that situation which makes for war. I ask myself whether this undue weakening—for I maintain that it is an undue weakening—of our naval forces is not one of those seeds which may grow into such a malign plant.
It has been said that these inflated armaments make for war. I will not deny it. But if that is the case, may not undue weakness also lead to war? What was the position in 1914? Nobody will deny, I think, that if the awful panic which seized Europe had been checked in some way, the very strength of the British Fleet might possibly have restored the world and brought about peace. Had the Navy been weak it never could have done that, and war would have been inevitable. It is for those reasons that, I feel so strongly, as I think many must, these reductions of the Fleet.
As I said before, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has so ably placed the position before your Lordships that there seems from that point of view to be no more to be said; but there is something to be said as regards the responsibility for what has been done. The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, pointed out, very rightly, the constitutional duties of the naval advisers of a Government. He also pointed out that the responsibility for not taking their advice falls upon His Majesty's Government. I do not know, and I do not think any of your Lordships know, what the position is at this moment. The Government, of course, must take the responsibility, but I cannot help thinking that in such a case as this where it is, without exaggeration, a question of life or death to the Navy in the future, the public should be informed whether the naval representatives had anything to do with it.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD WESTER WEMYSS: I hope that we shall have that in the reply of His Majesty's Government. In many circles I have heard the question asked: "Is it possible that these reductions have been allowed to take place on the advice

467
of our naval advisers? "And I think your Lordshiups will agree with me that that question should be answered.
If I am not wearying your Lordships, I should like to say something about what is claimed to be the great success of this Conference—the saving of £70,000,000. Before I accept that figure I should very much like to know how it is worked out. It is a fact that of the sum which is expended upon building a battleship, nearly 90 per cent. goes to labour. That may be a high estimate, and it takes in many things, including the work of getting coal and so forth. If it is not 90 per cent. it must be 80 per cent. What is going to happen to the people who are thrown out of employment by this reduction? We know, alas, that they cannot be employed in the shipbuilding trade. How, then, is this figure of £70,000,000 arrived at? Unless you can employ those men, it seems to me that the saving will be about 80 per cent.
A NOBLE LORD: 20 per cent.
LORD WESTER WEMYSS: No, 80 per cent.—and think what we are paying for it. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, I think it was, pointed out so well and so clearly that the art of shipbuilding is not one which can be acquired in a short time. It goes on from generation to generation. I hold in my hand proof that the arts engendered and acquired in relation to shipbuilding are on the decrease, simply because the young men who are entering the profession of naval architects or engineers see nothing before them. There is one case of a young naval architect who, after four years at Greenwich, gave it up and actually took to being an Income Tax collector. Can you imagine anything more different? That those brains which had been trained for four years should come down to that! That is but one instance. But the serious thing for this country is that if we cannot find employment for our shipbuilders they will not only give up the profession and try to get others—God knows where they are to get them !—but they will leave the country and go to other places where shipbuilding is going on, and we shall be the poorer for the loss of such men.
I am sure nobody, not even in those quarters of the Press which are so ready
468
to seize upon anybody who even mentions a war as being warlike, will accuse me of desiring anything but peace. Like everybody else, even like the greatest pacifist, I desire peace, but unlike the pacifist I do not chase ideals like a will-o'-the-wisp. I do not chase a will-o'-the-wisp which cannot possibly take me on to the high ground of safety and peace, but will surely ultimately lead me into the quagmire of war. It is for that reason I have suggested the great danger that there is in the idealistic part that is being played in this large question of world disarmament. We all admire perhaps the courage with which the Government have made these efforts to obtain peace, but it seems to me they have done so at the risk of the safety of the country and the possibilities of feeding our people. It is a step which indeed involves a responsibility that few people could have the courage to accept.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I may assure the noble Lord who spoke last that the present Government have ample courage to bring forward and support the policy which he finds contained in the new Naval Conference Treaty. I must say that his speech and that of the noble Earl opposite. Lord Jellicoe, have satisfied me that, whatever the size of our Navy may he, whatever the conditions might be either as regards the number of ships, their equipment or the way they are used, we should come again to the position—which the noble Lord, Lord Jellicoe, has described so clearly—that we found at the commencement of the last War in making quite certain that there would be safety and security. Let me say one word on that, because I entirely agree with what the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, has said. It is the duty of any Government to ensure both safety and security. No one would question that for a moment, and, although I shall have to he a little long upon one or two points, I hope I shall convince your Lordships under those heads.
What is the position? I sympathise very much with a great deal that was said by the noble Viscount opposite, Lord Bridgeman. He represents, of course, a different Party from the one which is in power now, but I do not like to bring Party considerations into this question. He went to Geneva, and the basis of his

469
argument was that in order to secure safety and security we must have 70 cruisers. On that point, if I may say so, as he knows perfectly well, that Conference ultimately broke down. What does Lord Jellicoe say? He says that with 114 cruisers in 1914, when the War broke out, when there were only one or two German ships at large, there was no safety and security. There was also, as the noble Lord, Lord Carson, emphasized, a constant fear that the security and safety of this country and Empire were not sufficiently stabilised. There was a constant anxiety, and beyond that, as far as I can see, no real safety and security in the sense that I am going to use the term. I think this discussion has made it quite clear that if you are to rely on force—power, number and equipment of ships—you can never give what I may call real safety and security to the people of this country.
LORD CARSON: Why do you have any ships at all?
Loan PARMOOR: I should have thought that the noble and learned Viscount, who has a logical mind—
LORD CARSON: I am not a noble Viscount.
LORD PARMOOR: Let me apologise. I do not feel the difference between a Lord and a Viscount perhaps, but what I want to say is this. His view, as expressed, undoubtedly was that we would only get safety and security by paramount force, superiority, domination, or any other word you like to apply to it. What I am putting to Lord Carson is this, that what we have heard from the noble Lords, Lord Jellicoe and Lord Wester Wemyss, dispels for ever, it appears to me—I always thought it was unsound—the view that you can ever have, in our position in this country and Empire, if we depend on force and force alone, a sufficient force to give certainty of safety and security. Upon this point there was an absolute distinction as between the noble Viscount, Lord Bridge-man, on the one side and the three subsequent speakers to whom I have re-erred on the other side. Lord Bridge-man did not complain that we had gone too far in certain directions, but he seemed to wish that we had gone further in order to obtain agreement—which is
470
all important in my view—as between America and ourselves. He said: Why did you bargain with America on the question of the number of capital ships or cruisers, submarines or destroyers? He said: What does it matter? Let them have what they want?
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: That is not quite what I said.
Loan PARMOOR: I do not want to exaggerate in the least. I think it was the purport of what the noble Viscount said, and I should be the last person to wish to exaggerate it. Let them, he said, have what they want because the great point to us is peace. There I agree with the principle which the noble Viscount put forward. More than that, I can appeal to him on another point. He was present as one of the negotiators at the Geneva Conference in 1927. We know it was not successful, and his coadjutor Viscount Cecil ultimately resigned from the Government then in power. I do not want to go into that, but what I want to say is that no one made greater efforts than he did to arrive at an understanding with America. No one, I think, appreciated more fully than he did; and I presume the Government behind him, the great importance in the world's history of peace, of an understanding upon points of this kind between America and ourselves. It is useless to suggest under modern conditions that America is not a most potent factor in guaranteeing and assisting the peace of the whole world, and perhaps more particularly of this country.
On the question of disarmament they started the matter at the Washington Conference. After that you had the Conference, in 1927 at Geneva. That was a Conference in which a leading part was taken by the noble Viscount opposite. It was because no arrangement or agreement could be come to at that date that the late Naval Conference took place in this country. I ask the noble Viscount: Has he any argument whatever to advance adverse to the attitude of the present Government because they wanted the Conference to take place, and were determined to do all they could within their power to maintain a kindly and friendly attitude towards America? As against what has been said on the question of America I should like to read an

471
extract from what was said the other day by a great Englishman in America. I quote it because I endorse it in its entirety. He said—
"If Great Britain and America made a point of knowing what each other intimately required, of understanding each other and of going forward hand in hand"—
now this is what would result—
"future generations would realise the ideal of peace for all time."
Now, I believe in ideals. I believe in the ideal of peace, not for our time but for all time. I agree further that a great factor, and an important and vital factor, in ensuring world peace is to get a friendly spirit of co-operation and close coordinating action between the people of America and the people of this country. I should like to congratulate the noble Viscount on the advance which he made at Geneva in 1927, although no doubt he was not able to succeed at the time. But, before I answer the specific questions, may I refer to one other matter, upon which the noble and learned Marquess, Lord Reading, based his argument, namely, that a debt of honour, so far as we are concerned, is imposed upon us in Article 8 of the Covenant of the League? Whether we like it or not, it is a debt of honour that we should do all we can to push forward disarmament to a defensive level, subject only to carrying out any obligations which that Covenant or which the League as a whole may impose upon us. That is not a matter of choice. That is not a matter which we can decide one way or another. It is a positive obligation or debt of honour which we have undertaken in one of the most solemn Treaties ever made since the world's history began—namely, the Treaty between the signatories to the League of Nations at Geneva.
EARL STANHOPE: What about other nations?
LORD PARMOOR: I think they are in the same position. I do not think the noble Earl or anyone else would suggest that because another nation does not do what it ought to do, and what we should do with our sense of honour, we are to follow their example.
EARL STANHOPE: Does the noble Lord accuse every other nation of having no sense of honour?
LORD PARMOOR: No, I am sorry the noble Earl should have made such a suggestion. I say nothing of the kind. If it is a question of an obligation of honour on this country we decide it for ourselves, and I say in this case we ought to decide, and we must decide, to act in accordance with our obligation under the Covenant of the League. I must say that that sort of tu quoque argument has no weight with me.
The real question was admirably put by the noble and learned Marquess, Lord Reading, when he asked: What is our position in this matter, what do we desire as a nation? I say that we desire to fulfil the obligation we have undertaken. That is sufficient for my purpose to-day, and I recollect dealing with it before when I was at Geneva in 1924, and the same question was raised whether we would implement our obligations or not. I refused to discuss the question, and I refused to discuss it on the ground that I would not allow the honour of my country even to be questioned. When the country had undertaken a solemn international obligation it was a question which could not be further discussed. If it had been further discussed we should have taken no further part in the particular matter which was being considered. It is not only, of course, the obligation to disarm, but it is the distance to which that obligation has been carried. It has been carried a very long way, largely with the help of America and ourselves, as I shall have to point out presently on the question asked me by the noble Viscount (Lord Bridgeman) opposite. He asked whether there is a difference between the conditions now and the conditions when he was at Geneva in 1927. The obvious answer is that since that time, and since in August, 1928, America took the lead, practically all the great Powers interested in naval construction or in naval equipment have signed what is known as the Pact of Paris outlawing war.
As far as I could understand, the two Admirals who have spoken took no notice of the difference in position. They took their minds back to the conditions as they were in 1914, and they showed conclusively that under such conditions force gave neither safety nor security, whereas at the present time we have advanced a very long way in the direction of what

473
is, after all, the aim of all these various Conferences—some form of disarmament. I want to say that I believe the whole country desires a Treaty of Peace as between America and ourselves. I believe there is no doubt whatever in any quarter of the country upon that point. It would be indeed melancholy if there was any such doubt, because how could one contemplate a greater misfortune to this country, or a greater misfortune to the world at large than that doubts and difficulties, wars and suspicions should arise between us and our kinsmen on the other side of the Atlantic Now the Prime Minister, of course, has taken the leading part in carrying out this great policy. I thought that all his countrymen appreciated the results of his journey last autumn to America, and that all of them wished him well, and wished that he should carry out a friendly arrangement between the Americans and ourselves. Now we have got it, now we are discussing it. Apart from the speeches of the noble Viscount and the noble and learned Marquess, the discussion has gone back to the primitive conditions when, unfortunately, the War broke out in 1914, and the test that is taken is that we must have the same sort of false security as we had then, and as was found, in the time of trial, to be quite inadequate.
I should like now, as the hour is getting late, to answer directly the questions put to me by the noble Viscount. In answering those questions I think I shall cover any incidental point that has been raised in the course of debate. Let me at the outset thank the noble Viscount for writing me a letter indicating the three points on which he really wanted information. The first point concerned the number of cruisers and the reduction from seventy to fifty. The second point was that, as he read Article 20, the noble Viscount thought it would be impossible for us to have fifty cruisers of less than sixteen years of age in 1936. The noble Viscount's third question was: What was to be the building policy of the Government with a view to replacing obsolete destroyers and submarines? As regards the reduction from seventy to fifty, there is no doubt whatever that, when the noble Viscount was at Geneva, he was advised by the Board of Admiralty, of which he was the head, that seventy was the minimum of cruisers on which we could safely rely. He asks me why the
474
seventy has been reduced to fifty, and I will give him an answer to that question.
In the first place, conditions have altered as regards what I may call the general peace outlook in the world. He will be the first to admit that the Pact of Paris, for instance, has made a very great difference indeed. The second point is perhaps more important than anything else at the present moment. It is that the Government are acting conscientiously and carefully upon the advice that they have received from the Board of Admiralty. I will read in a moment the actual words that were used by the present First Lord of the Admiralty, but I want to be quite clear. It does not mean necessarily that we take every view that is expressed by our expert advisers; it means that we had that advice, we considered it, we acted upon it on our own responsibility, and I believe that our advisers were satisfied with what we did. The Board of Admiralty are prepared to agree to 50 cruisers as the minimum requirement of the Empire up to the next date for conference and revision, about the year 1936. I need not emphasise, in replying to the noble Viscount, that it is the Board of Admiralty —that is to say, our expert advisers upon this point—who are prepared to agree to 50 cruisers as the minimum requirement of the Empire, not for all time, but until the next date for conference and revision. I hope that this will satisfy the noble Viscount in reply to the question that he asked me upon that point.
I should also like to point out again, as was pointed out by the noble and learned Marquess, that, as part of the agreement in reference to which advice was given, we have Article 21, which allows for alteration under specific conditions and which, if different advice is given at some future time by the Board of Admiralty, leaves the Government open to alter its opinion. I do not think that I can give any further answer upon that point. My answer is: Yes, we have acted upon the advice of the Admiralty and we are satisfied that our national duty regarding safety and security has been amply safeguarded by the opinion that we have received. I can go no further than that assurance, nor could anybody.
I am not quite sure whether the noble Viscount asked me a question about the

475
8-inch-gun cruisers. These cruisers, as the noble Viscount is aware, were a source of difficulty at Geneva, but the point has been settled. So far as 8-inch-gun cruisers are concerned, there is to be parity between America and ourselves, and Japan is to have a slightly less number. The ratio will be 15:15:12. I am taking the 8-inch-gun 10,000-ton cruisers, which were a matter of dispute at one time. That difficulty has been settled on a basis which is satisfactory to this country, to America and to Japan, and I hope that future discussion and difficulties in that connection may be avoided. I must say a further word or two regarding the 6-inch-gun cruisers. The Treaty allowance, as it stands, is really for replacement only, except that in the case of the United States an allowance is made for the carrying out of long-postponed-cruiser construction to meet the demand for parity with this country. I think no one could possibly object to that, or think it anything but right. This is not a matter of concession but of friendliness and understanding with one another, each appreciating the position of the other in all these matters, and we have behind us the authority and advice of the Board of Admiralty.
The next question that the noble Viscount asked me concerned a technical point, but I am sure that he will understand my answer. Although my explanation may not be very clear, I will try to make it as clear as I can. He asked me: How can we have as many as fifty cruisers of less than sixteen years of age in 1936 when the additional replacement tonnage for cruisers that we are permitted to build under Article 20 of the Treaty is limited to 91,000 tons? The answer to that is that, if you accept those assumptions, we cannot; but the real facts to be considered are these: our life for cruisers, as laid down on many occasions and again the other day in the annual Report on the Navy, is twenty years, and the calculations that we have made are not on the basis of a life of sixteen years, but on the basis of a life of twenty years.
We have done that, not in the way of concession or anything of that kind, but because in the back details and figures of the Admiralty, so far as I have been able to go into them, the twenty years life has always been the basis on which cruisers and the replacement of cruisers
476
has been considered, and the only question about sixteen years is this. Japan, for the purpose of economy and employment, wanted to hasten the period when she would be allowed to replace, and that was hastened by allowing her to take a sixteen years life against a twenty years life; in other words, to replace after sixteen years instead of only after twenty years. That was the liberty they asked for and that was allowed them. It does not really affect the answer to the question which the noble Viscount asked me, which is this, that if you take a twenty years life and not a sixteen years life then the provision for replacement will, I think, be found to be satisfactory. It is necessary to do that. Of course if you take sixteen years as the period you obviously get a much earlier period within which replacement must take place. It is a mere matter of the life of a particular cruiser or the life of cruisers as a whole.
The next question which the noble Viscount asked me about was the construction programme of the future. Of course it is one thing to have liberty to build and replace under certain terms, it is another matter—a question of policy —what to do. So far as policy is concerned, I cannot say absolutely or distinctly what the Government is likely to do in the next six years. I do not think any one could. It depends upon the Estimates brought forward in the House of Commons, upon the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and upon the amount of the grants for the purposes of equipment and rebuilding that we can get from time to time. What I want to say upon that is this: it would be a mistake to suppose that in a country like ours you could delude yourselves by supposing you could make a certain prophecy as regards expenditure upon a matter of this kind. Our intention is, so far as we can look forward—I dare say the noble Viscount and his Party may be in power long before that time—
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I agree.
LORD PARMOOR: Supposing that is so, the responsibility will be with the noble Viscount and his Party. The responsibility will be with the Government in power for the time being. I can only say that so long as we are the Government in power, with the responsibility upon us, we intend 60 far as we

477
can to work up so that the replacement may be substantially at any rate provided for within the time contemplated in the agreement between the United States and ourselves.
If I may, I will in conclusion summarise what in our view is the general result of the Treaty. I understand that the noble Viscount was not quite sure what that would be. I am not speaking in antagonism to the noble Viscount. It seemed to me, particularly when I heard the speeches from other noble Lords, that the late First Lord of the Admiralty was on substantial points in agreement with us. I do not say that he was entirely in agreement, because as regards one ship and another no two people can possibly be in complete agreement, but in substance he was contented that in order to obtain agreement with America we should make these concessions, which we were asked to make and which we were willing to make, and which in my belief have been more than justified by the creation of friendly feeling between the two countries, which to my mind is infinitely more important than a ship here or a ship there.
Let me sum up what is the conclusion. As regards capital ships, which, after all, is a very important point, I do not think the noble Viscount raised any difficulty. All he asked was: "Why do not you at the same time reduce the size of capital ships, if they are to be built in the future?" The answer is that we could not, and as far as one can foresee it appears to me that by 1936 there will be a general world opinion that the capital ship is in the nature of an archaism, and not the sort of fighting machine wanted under the conditions which will then exist. My answer to the question is that we would have done it if we could, but we could not.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Americans would not agree.
LORD PARMOOR: The Americans would not agree. Would the noble Viscount have broken off negotiations, nine-tenths of which were satisfactory, because the one-tenth could not be obtained? Then there are two other questions which I think I must say a word about. First, the aircraft carriers. I am not sure whether the noble Viscount asked me about them.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: No.
LORD PARMOOR: Then I will certainly not go into that point, because I assume it is satisfactory to him. I have already dealt with cruisers as completely as I can, except that we are considering arrangements which I hope will be considered as a satisfactory compromise with the French, on the subject of the old controversies about limitation by categories or limitation by global tonnage. As to destroyers, I am not sure that the noble Viscount made any complaint about the provision with regard to them. These are limited for ourselves and the United States to 150,000 tons and for Japan to 103,500 tons, subject to revision under Article 20, to which I have referred. Lastly, as regards submarines, the three Powers are to be limited to 32,700 tons. This involves certain substantial reductions. There is to be a limit upon individual tonnage, and what is more important, there are rules agreed to by all the five Powers for the conduct of submarine warfare. The two noble Admirals who have spoken in this debate will at least realise that the danger of submarines has been diminished, not only as regards quantity but also as regards their use.
I think I have answered specifically all the questions which the noble Viscount asked me on general matters. I do not know whether he agrees with me or not, but I do feel this, that the Board of Admiralty under his control, and the Government which he represented, were far nearer to agreement with the policy of the present Government than they were with the policy outlined to-day by the two noble Admirals, and that of Lord Carson, who advocated nothing except trying to obtain security by force and numbers, which was found in the late War to be futile in the sense of giving real safety and security, which can be sought much better in the direction of peace and concord. In conclusion, let me say that the Government believe they have obtained two great results, safety and security for this country and a splendid friendliness between ourselves and America and Japan. As regards Italy and France, the transaction is not closed. It may be reopened, and I hope that all countries in the world may come in, and that the real nature of the obligations of the Articles of the Covenant may be carried out wholly and freely by all of them.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I cannot agree that the noble and learned Lord's description of my attitude as being nearer to that of the Government than that of my noble friends on this side is altogether accurate, and I am afraid he has not given me a great deal of comfort on the actual figures of the cruisers that we are going to have. As I understand it, the Sea Lords agreed to fifty, provided we can have fifty at the end of 1936. He then proceeded to show that we could not.
LORD PARMOOR: No.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: Yes—except by having a great many old ships while everybody else is allowed to have new ones.
LORD PARMOOR: No—twenty years' life.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: Then why should not the other countries have twenty years' life for cruisers? It has already been admitted that the Americans have far fewer old ships than we have, and the Japanese too. Why, then, give away our position by altering the life of cruisers to our disadvantage, the result of which would be—a result which I cannot believe is agreed to by the Sea Lords—that we shall have ever so many old ships incapable of equality with the more modern ships which the other countries are allowed to build. The noble and learned Lord has gone on the assumption the whole way through that if something was not agreed to there would be war with America.
LORD PARMOOR: No.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: The noble and learned Lord said that the result of this is a splendid friendliness between us and America and between us and Japan. It was splendid before, and there was no necessity to make enormous concessions in order to retain their friendship. But the noble and learned Lord's only idea is to paint a lurid picture of some imminent war, and to say that we are to give away everything rather than run the risk of that. That is the whole argument that is put before us. What is said, in effect, is that you must not ask anybody else to give anything. You must not ask America to agree with us about reducing the total
480
tonnage of battleships, but you must give up something to them if they ask you, and you must give up something to Japan if they ask you. That, I am afraid, is the attitude which he has revealed in his speech to-night. I still do not understand how we can possibly fulfil the demands of the Sea Lords that we should have fifty efficient cruisers—and the First Lord himself said that they were to be efficient—in 1936, if you compare them with the modern ships that other countries will have.
I should like to refer to the noble and learned Lord's argument against having 70 cruisers. What it amounted to was that it was not enough, and, therefore, as it was not enough, you had better have none at all.
LORD PARMOOR: I said that the acceptance of 70 was quite inconsistent with the arguments of the two noble Admirals, which is quite a different thing.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: The two noble Admirals referred to our having had 114 before the War. The noble and learned Lord said that that had proved to be of no use; but the result was that we won the War. I do not know whether that was of any use or not. At any rate, it was enough for us to win the War. It is surely better to have 70, or as many as you can get, than to take an unnecessary risk. When you want to insure your property, if you cannot afford to insure it for its full value you insure it for as much as you can. That is all we are asking in this respect. The noble and learned Lord's argument is that you do not insure at all, or that if you insure, you insure for much less than you can afford to insure for. I must say that I cannot follow that argument.
LORD PARMOOR: I should not like the noble Viscount to think that I said that. What I said was quite different. I said, on the responsibility of the Government, advised by the Board of Admiralty, that they thought they would get national safety and national security under these proposals.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: Yes, but what I do not understand is why, if we are told that 70 is not really enough, other countries should think it necessary to put forward their requirements for security. They evidently do not take

481
the same view as the noble and learned Lord. They say what they want for their security, but we apparently do not.
Then both the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, and the noble and learned Lord opposite said that we were pledged to disarmament. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, said that quite obviously we have kept that pledge. We have been disarming far more than any other country all the time. But who has ever said that we are pledged to be the only country out of the five Powers to disarm? The fault I find with the different parts of this agreement is that we have given away a great deal and got nothing in return from the other Powers, because our negotiators seemed to think it was necessary to get some agreement, and that if we could not get some agreement, however bad, there was some danger of war. I do not believe that a bit. I believe that all the five nations are as friendly as they ever were, and that it was unnecessary to make the surrender that we have made.
I do not know whether we can have some Papers to show what the building programme is to be. There do not seem to be any. The noble and learned Lord said: "We cannot tell what it is going to be until the Estimates; you can never tell." Surely, it is the business of the Government to prepare Estimates for this. They told us before the Conference that there would be further Estimates if we
482
were to have a building programme. How long are we to be kept before we know that? If I withdraw my Motion, I ask that we shall be told within some reasonable time what the building policy is, whether any Estimates will be brought in this year, and what they are going to be. I hope that we shall get at any rate that amount of information. I think the whole country wishes to know, and has the right to know it. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, might I make one explanation, which does not affect this country but might affect outside opinion? As regards the 10,000 ton cruisers I said that the ratios were 15:15:12. In the case of America there is power to build up to eighteen. I should not like any mistake to be made, or for it to be said outside that I had not stated it accurately.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: They can get sixteen by laying down the sixteenth in 1933, and the sixteenth is actually completed in 1936.
LORD PARMOOR: Yes.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: So it is not even fifteen.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past seven o'clock.

BRISTOL CORPORATION (No. 1) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
HASTINGS TRAMWAYS COMPANY (TROLLEY VEHICLES AND OMNIBUSES) BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The orders made on the 19th of February and the 9911 of April last discharged, and Bill committed.

TEES VALLEY WATER BILL.
LLANELLY DISTRICT TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
SOUTHPORT CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
READING OORPORATION BILL.
LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Sandys be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl of Eldon: Read, and agreed to.

LOCHABER WATER POWER BILL. [H.L.]

  NEWPORT CORPORATION (No. 1) BILL.
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl of Eldon be proposed to the House as a member of the Select
  484
  Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Sandys: Read, and agreed to.

  NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Lochaber Water Power Bill [H.L.] and other Bills do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the Nottingham Corporation Bill: Read, and agreed to: All petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.

  LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL.
  CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL.
  LONDON ELECTRIC, METROPOLITAN, DISTRICT, CENTRAL LONDON AND CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL.
  Committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

  COMMONS HOURS OF SITTING.
  Leave given to the Viscount Ullswater to attend the Select Committee of the House of Commons, pursuant to Message of Tuesday last, if he thinks fit, and his Lordship consenting thereto, a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.