Sitting of 24 February 1931

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
Birmingham Canal Bill.
Guildford Gas and Electricity Bill. Bills committed.

BRITISH MUSEUM.
Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: I have been asked by the trustees of the British Museum to present a petition which they have to submit to this House annually, explaining the financial position and praying for aid. The petition recites the funded income of the trustees, and points out that the establishment is necessarily attended with an expense far beyond the annual production of the abovementioned sums, and the Trust cannot with benefit to the public be carried on without the aid of Parliament. It concludes with the Prayer:
"Your petitioners therefore humbly pray your Honourable House to grant them such further support towards enabling them to carry on the execution of the Trust reposed in them by Parliament for the general benefit of learning and useful knowledge, as to your House shall seem meet."—[King's Recommendation signified.]
Referred to the Committee of Supply.

NEW WRIT.
For County of Fermanagh and Tyrone in the room of Thomas James Stanislaus Harbison, esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Delvin.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    INDUSTRIAL REORGANISATION.
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the President of the Board of Trade the steps the Government are taking generally in relation to industrial reorganisation, including the establishment of new industries in the heavy industrial areas?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): As regards industrial reorganisation generally, I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the statement which I made in Debate on the 5th November last, when I indicated the lines of policy which the Government are pursuing. I would also refer him to Command Paper 3746, issued in December last, which contains a statement of the steps which the Government are taking in regard to economic reorganisation. As regards the latter part of the question, the Government, through my Department, are in close co-operation with the efforts which are being made in certain industrial areas to attract new industrial development to those areas.
    Sir K. WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose at any time to make a statement to the House as to what has actually been achieved?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I indicated previously that no doubt, during some of our debates, either on the Estimates or on some other appropriate occasion, I shall be able to give to the House such information as is available.
    Mr. LOUIS SMITHasked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the problem of industrial reorganisation which has to be faced in the near future, he can state the particular industries which, in the view of the Government, require industrial reorganization?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: It is only in a minority of industries that substantial progress in rationalisation has been made. I fear I could not attempt to catalogue industries according to their need of reorganisation.
    Mr. SMITH: To what specific industries did the right hon. Gentleman refer when he recently made a statement that certain industries required reorganisation?
    Mr. GRAHAM: It is true, for example, of coal, cotton, iron and steel.

    TARIFFS.
    Vice-Admiral TAYLORasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any communication has been received from France in reply to the note from the British Government that the tariff on certain British imports into France should be lowered?
    Lieut.-Colonel. Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the President of the Board of Trade if any replies have yet been received to the communications sent to the Governments of Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Holland and Switzerland suggesting a reduction of 25 per cent. in tariffs on certain classes of British manufactured goods; and if he will state whether a favourable response to the proposal has been given by any of the countries in question?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: The communications in question were sent quite recently, and no replies have yet been received.
    Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: In the meantime, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of placing a tariff on imports from France, in order that we may have something to bargain with in negotiating with France?
    Mr. GRAHAM: No, Sir; I am afraid I could not promise that, even if it arose out of the questions on the Paper.
    Sir F. HALL: With regard to my question No. 25, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the Governments referred to have received with a certain amount of hilarity the suggestions which emanated from him?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAMasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he will make a statement as to the request of His Majesty's Government to the German Government to make a reduction in the German customs duty on certain British manufactured goods; and what compensation, if any, has been offered to the German Government in return for such a reduction;
    1926
    (2) whether he will make a statement as to the request of His Majesty's Government to the French Government to make a reduction in the French customs duty on certain British manufactures; and what inducement, if any, has been offered to the French Government to make such a reduction?
    Mr. GRAHAM: As regards the first part of each of these questions, I can add nothing to the replies given on Tuesday last to the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon), and on Wednesday to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) and the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass). As regards the second part of each question, no offer of compensation has been made to either Government. They have, however, been informed that His Majesty's Government will be prepared to consider such suggestions as they make have to make.
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any truth in the report that the compensation offered is a continuance of the present liberal British import system?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I have not heard of any statement to that effect.
    Mr. HANNON: Has the right hon. Gentleman had any indication through diplomatic channels that these proposals are being given serious consideration by the French and German Governments?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I have not the least doubt that they will be seriously considered by those Governments.
    Mr. HANNON: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any information?
    Mr. GRAHAM: They were only addressed to them a few days ago.

    IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the tonnage of iron and steel imported into this country during last year; and the tonnage of iron and steel exported from this country during the same period?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: As stated in the "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom" for December last, the total quantity of

    1927
    goods classed as "Iron and Steel and Manufactures thereof" imported into the United Kingdom during the year 1930 was 2,908,347 tons, while the quantity exported was 3,170,249 tons, of which 12,324 tons consisted of imported merchandise.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Do not the Government intend to do anything, in view of the large number of men who are out of employment in our steel industry, to prevent this £2,000,000 of British money from going abroad to give employment in Belgium and elsewhere?
    Mr. GRAHAM: It is quite impossible to deal with that matter in reply to a supplementary question, but a very large quantity of these imports consists of raw materials for other industries.
    Mr. HANNON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, during the later months of last year and the earlier months of this year, we were importing more steel and iron goods than we exported?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Speaking from memory, I think there was a period when that was true, but, taking the year 1930 as a whole, the exports exceeded the imports, and, of course, the value was very much greater. The exports were worth £51,500,000, as against a value of about £23,000,000 of imports.

    ITALY AND RUSSIA (TRADE AGREEMENT).
    Sir K. WOODasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to give any information concerning the trade agreement recently signed between Russia and Italy; and whether any of its terms provide that there shall be an exchange of goods between the two countries to an agreed amount?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: The text of the treaty has not yet been made public, and I am not, therefore, in a position to give any information on the subject.
    Sir K. WOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman made inquiries as to whether the treaty will be published?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Yes, Sir; I think I indicated, in reply to previous questions, that inquiry had been made; but this is really a matter for the two Govern-
    1928
    ments concerned, and, until the treaty is published, I cannot, of course, say anything about it.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean merely that he has no official information? Has he no information other than official information, seeing that this treaty was made months ago?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I am afraid I can only deal with the matter that is officially available from the Governments concerned.

    PILCHARDS (IMPORT DUTY, ITALY).
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade the result of his further inquiries with regard to the question of the Italian import duty on pilchards from this country?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I came to the conclusion that no useful purpose would be served by approaching the Italian Government on the subject at the time of the hon. Member's previous question. The matter has not been overlooked, however, and I will take advantage of any favourable opportunity to have the question raised with the Italian Government.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the very great importance of this question to a great Cornish industry?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Yes, Sir; that question has been before me previously, and I can only renew my promise to my hon. Friend to take this chance whenever I think it is right to approach the Italian Government.

    RUSSIA.
    Sir K. WOODasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now received any report from the Economic Committee of the League of Nations as to their investigations into dumping by Soviet Russia; and whether he has any information to give the House on the matter?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I am not aware of any investigation by the Economic Committee of the League into the specific question of dumping by Soviet Russia. The committee, I understand, were considering the general question of dumping, bounties and subsidies at a session

    1929
    last week, but I have not yet received any information in regard to the proceedings.
    Sir K. WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman be receiving some information on this matter?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I am not, of course, sure of that, but I imagine that we shall get details of what takes place.
    Major McKENZIE WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the last few days a considerable quantity of Scottish herrings was sold to Russia at considerably less than cost price?
    Mr. GRACEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that consignments of soap manufactured in Russia by slave labour have now reached this country and are being sold at prices which manufacturers in this country cannot compete with; and whether he is prepared to take any steps to assist this industry?
    Mr. MILLS: On a point of Order. May I ask whether this question does not contravene the Standing Orders of this House as regards the inaccuracies contained in it?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see anything out of order in it.
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: 34,339 cwts. of hard soap were registered as imported into the United Kingdom from the Soviet Union during the 12 months ended 31st December last. The declared value of this soap was £45,666, or an average of £1 6s. 7d. per cwt., but I have no information as to the actual price at which any of the soap was sold in this country. None has been imported during January last. As regards the second part of the question, I have nothing to add to the answer which was given to the question on this subject asked by the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) on 10th February.
    Mr. GRACE: When is the right hon. Gentleman going to wake up to realise the danger to the trade of the country?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Questions are put down to obtain information and for nothing else.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the statement contained in the question that this soap is produced by compulsory labour?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The point raised by the hon. Member has already been dealt with.
    >Mr. HAYCOCK: May I be allowed to put down a question concerning the products of other countries and make similar allegations and get the question passed at the Table?
    Mr. SPEAKER: When the hon. Member submits his question, we will see whether it is in order.
    Major COLVILLEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the quantity of soft fruit pulp imported from Russia during the years 1929 and 1930?
    Mr. GRAHAM: During the years 1929 and 1930 no imports of fruit pulp in syrup into the United Kingdom were registered as consigned from Russia. Fruit pulp of other kinds would be included under the general heading of fruit not liable to duty as such, preserved without sugar, other than canned or bottled. Under this head the imports from Russia during 1929 were 44,767 cwts., valued at £85,202 but how much of this was fruit pulp cannot be stated. The corresponding figures for 1930 are not available.
    Major COLVILLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to do anything to deal with this menace to the British fruit growing industry?
    Mr. GRAHAM: That question is like all the others. It suggests some embargo or restriction. My object is to promote trade and not to destroy it.
    Mr. PALMER: Who are the people responsible for purchasing these goods?
    Sir F. HALLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any timber has been imported into this country during the last 18 months from the following districts of Russia, namely, the Kola peninsula, including the Mrman coast, the Karelian northern areas of Russia, and Zyryani?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I regret that the desired information is not available as imports from different districts in the Soviet Union are not separately recorded.
    Sir F. HALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it will be possible to obtain this information in view of the fact that imports from these districts have been refused in the United States because of having been produced by convict labour?
    Mr. HAYCOCK: Before that question is answered, may I ask whether, after full investigation, the embargo has not been lifted?
    Mr. GRAHAM: In reply to the second supplementary question, I think that some time ago that embargo was lifted. As regards the third supplementary question, I feel that I cannot promise to try to separate the imports from any country into the different districts within that country. That would involve a very great deal of labour, and I do not think that it would be justified by the results.
    Mr. JAMES C. WELSH (Coatbridge)asked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity of maize starch imported into this country for the past three years from Russia; and if there is any evidence that it is being sold at a price below the cost of production?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: The total imports into the United Kingdom of maize starch, not for edible purposes, registered as consigned from the Soviet Union (Russia) amounted to 1,640 cwts. in 1928, 4 cwts. in 1929, and 24,245 cwts. in 1930, the average declared value in 1930 being 10s. 7d. per cwt. Provision was first made in 1930 for the separate enumeration in the trade returns of maize starch for edible purposes, and in that year the recorded imports from the Soviet Union amounted to 24,873 cwts. of an average declared value of 9s. 5d. per cwt. I have no information as to the cost of production of maize starch in the Soviet Union.
    Major The Marquess of TITCHFIELD: Arising out of that answer—[Interruption.] Mr. Speaker, on a point of Order. [Interruption.] I ask you, Sir, is it in order whenever I get up to ask a supplementary question for hon. Members to roar at me like that?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I thought the Noble Lord was being received with applause.
    Marquess of TITCHFIELD: Arising out of that answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman what has been the cost of this commodity in blood and misery?

    PRINTING MACHINES (EXPORTS).
    Mr. ALBERYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the declared value of newspaper, letterpress and lithographic machines, and parts thereof, exported from the United Kingdom during the last three years?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Sir G. Bowyer) of which I am sending him a copy.

    TRADE RETURNS.
    Major NATHANasked the President of the Board of Trade when Part II of the statistical tables relating to British and foreign trade and industry will be published?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: It is hoped to publish this volume before Easter.

    OIL MEASURING INSTRUMENTS.
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the President of the Board of Trade what reasons exist for the delay in the delivery of the standard measures required for the work of verifying petrol and oil measuring instruments; what steps have been taken to expedite delivery; and when it is anticipated that the work of verification can be commenced?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: The delay referred to was due to certain unexpected technical difficulties which arose. These have now been overcome and of the 1,540 standards submitted to the Department for verification 1,337 have been passed as correct.

    PATENTS.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HACKINGasked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to receive the report from the committee which has been considering the law relating to patents?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I understand that this committee expects to report in a few weeks' time.

    COTTON INDUSTRY.
    Mr. HACKINGasked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to resume his meetings with the various sections of the cotton industry in connection with the Government's proposals for the reorganisation of the industry?
    Mr. REMERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has been conducting any further negotiations with those interested in the cotton industry as to the reorganisation of that industry; and if he is prepared to state the nature of these negotiations?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: It was not felt that the discussions with the various sections of the cotton industry could be profitably pursued while the recent dispute was in progress. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have during the last week had a conference with representatives of the joint committee of Cotton Trade Organisations and discussed the position with them. The future course of action is now under consideration.
    Mr. HACKING: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken full advantage of the opportunity that has been presented to him during the last two hours to learn something more about the industry?
    Mr. GRAHAM: If by that the right hon. Gentleman means the honour of being presented to the "Cotton Queen," that is certainly true.
    Mr. HERBERT GIBSON: Can my right hon. Friend say what steps, if any, have been taken to eliminate the unnecessary number of middlemen from the cotton industry?
    Mr. GRAHAM: That is bound up with the discussions which we are having with the different sections of the trade, and I am afraid that it would be quite impossible, in reply to a supplementary question, to give details of the various plans.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: If in the course of the investigations it is found that they can do without the middlemen, and these middlemen are displaced, will the same treatment be meted out to them as is meted out to workmen displaced by disarmament and rationalisation?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I am afraid it is quite impossible to give my hon. Friend details of the proposals which are being made. It will require a very great deal of explanation which I cannot possibly attempt to give in reply to a supplementary question.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD rose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot go into details of this question now.

  CUNARD INSURANCE (AGREEMENT) ACT.
  Mr. ALBERYasked the President of the Board of Trade if the construction risk of the new Cunarder is still uninsured in the market; and whether the Treasury is now responsible for the whole or what portion of the risk?
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: The position is still the same as stated in the reply given to the hon. Member on Tuesday last by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade.
  Mr. ALBERY: Seeing that this keel was laid down some weeks ago, why are these risks of construction still uncovered?
  Mr. GRAHAM: That, of course, is really a matter for the Cunard Company and the builders. The Government only come into the picture when the market has been exhausted as regards the amount of insurance taken up. No application has yet been made to the Government.
  Sir F. HALL: May we take it that at present the Government have not accepted any risk in the event of any accident happening?
  Mr. GRAHAM: No, it is too early in the day for that. After all, the initial steps must be taken by the Cunard Company and the builders.
  Mr. ALBERY: Will this unusual delay in covering the risk affect the position of the Government eventually?
  Mr. GRAHAM: That would be very difficult to tell. To-day it seems very far off. It is still my hope that a very large part of this insurance will be effected in the ordinary way in the market.

  BREAD PRICES.
  Major NATHANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, though the price of wheat is now below the pre-War level, the price of bread is still considerably higher than the pre-War price; and whether the Food Council is investigating the matter?
  Mr. MORLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade what action his Department proposes to take in view of the threatened increase in the price of bread?
  Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to ascertain from the Food Council why the price of bread has been increased to 7d. per quartern loaf?
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: The price of bread does not depend solely on the price of wheat. Account must be taken, for example, of the costs of milling and baking which are higher than before 1914. The present rise in London follows an increase in the price of flour in accordance with the scale adopted by the London bakers in April last. The price is ½d. per 4 lb. loaf higher than it would have been on the scale previously adopted, which was approved by the Food Council. The Council are investigating the reasonableness of the new scale.

  ROYAL MAIL STEAM PACKET COMPANY.
  Mr. EDEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether accounts and balance sheets of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company were lodged at Somerset House for the years 1926 to 1929; and whether they were certified as correct by auditors?
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: This company is not registered under the Companies Acts but, in accordance with the provisions of its charters, it lodges annually with the Board of Trade particulars in the same form as those required from registered companies, including a copy of the balance sheet. The balance sheets for the years 1926 to 1929 were accompanied by auditor's reports in the customary form to the effect that, subject to the observations in the report, the balance sheet was in the auditors' opinion properly drawn up so as to exhibit a true
  1936
  and correct view of the state of the company's affairs as shown by the books of the company.
  Mr. EDE: Has my right hon. Friend any responsibility with regard to the correctness of these accounts and certificates? Ought he to take any action if they are proved not to have been certified?
  Mr. GRAHAM: No. This is not within the Companies Acts and I have no statutory powers. The remedy really lies with the shareholders, in view of the auditors' report.
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the accounts and balance sheets of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company and/or any of its associated concerns were lodged with the Trade Facilities Committee when applications for guarantees under the Trade Facilities Act were granted in 1923 and 1926 to any of such companies upon loans amounting to £5,400,000; and whether such accounts and balance sheets were certified as correct by auditors?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): I am informed that it was the practice of the Trade Facilities Committee to require to be furnished with the audited balance sheets and profit and loss accounts of companies applying for assistance under the Trade Facilities Acts; and this practice was followed on applications by the subsidiary and associated companies of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company. No direct loan was ever made under the Trade Facilities Acts to the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company; but in respect of loans of £1,135,886 made early in 1923 under the Trade Facilities Acts to the Royal Mail Steam Packet Meat Transports, Limited—a separate company, whose share capital is owned entirely by the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company—specific mortgages were taken on ships owned by the borrowing company and the specific security for the loan was supplemented by a guarantee as to principal and interest given by the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company. The balance sheets and profit and loss accounts of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company issued to the shareholders and reported on by the company's auditors were produced to the Committee to the 31st

  1937
  December, 1921, as well as an approximate balance sheet and profit and loss account to the 31st December, 1922, prepared by the company's officials. This is the only occasion when the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company assumed any obligation in connection with Trade Facilities Loans.
  Mr. LAMBERT: When these Trade Facilities advances are made to companies, do the Treasury keep track of the balance-sheets, and ascertain if those balance-sheets are properly prepared and presented?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The right hon. Gentleman must realise that the Trade Facilities arrangements have ceased—that no fresh arrangements are being made—but, of course, the Treasury keep carefully in touch with the situation as regards all those companies, in connection with which guarantees have been made in the past.
  Mr. SMITHERS: Can the hon. Gentleman say what has been the loss to the country in respect of this advance?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: There has been no loss to date in this matter.
  Mr. WISE: In view of the very great importance of this matter, industrially and financially, will the hon. Gentleman consider the appointment of a committee to examine into and report upon this example of private enterprise?

  RUSSIAN ARMY (STRENGTH).
  Mr. MARJORIBANKSasked the Secretary of State for War the present numerical strength of the Soviet Army, including reserves; and whether such strength has increased during the last year?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the League of Nations Armaments Year Book. As regards the second part, I have no information that the strength has increased during the last year.
  Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the figures from the book to which he refers?
  Captain EDEN: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman has referred to a book which is not available to Members of Parliament?
  Mr. SHAW: I understand that a copy of this book is in the Library, and further, it is the best work of reference in the War Office on the subject, and I try to give hon. Members the best information I can.
  Mr. MARJORIBANKS: On a point of Order. Am I to understand that I cannot get an answer to my question?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has had a full answer.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    BARRACKS (ALDERSEHOT COMMAND).
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEasked the Secretary of State for War how many barracks in the Aldershot Command are now condemned; and what is the minimum cubic feel allowance per man?
    Mr. SHAW: There are no barracks in the Aldershot Command which have been condemned. The minimum cubic space allowed for British troops at Home stations is 600 cubic feet a man.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Having in view the outbreak of cerebro-spinal meningitis, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the minimum space is adequate under modern conditions?
    Mr. SHAW: I am answering a question on cerebro-spinal meningitis later, but I have no information that this cubic space is not sufficient, or that it has any connection whatever with the disease mentioned.

    CEREBRO-SPINAL MENINGITIS.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEasked the Secretary of State for War what steps are being taken to combat the outbreak of cerebro-spinal meningitis in the Army; whether he is acting in concert with the civil authorities; and what investigations as to the cause of this disease are being made?
    Mr. SHAW: As regards the first part of the question, the usual precautions have been taken throughout the Army with regard to ventilation and prevention

    1939
    of overcrowding. Carriers are being searched for and immediate and remote contacts are being watched. In Aldershot, where rather special conditions obtain, special orders have been issued reducing indoor gatherings to a minimum. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part, the type of prevalent organism is studied in the laboratory by the Army pathologists, who work in cooperation with the pathologists of the Navy, Air Force and Ministry of Health.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEasked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the fact that the average percentage of cerebro-spinal meningitis is higher in the Army, than in the civil population; and if the question of the type of barrack-room is being investigated in this connection?
    Mr. SHAW: In the ease of England and Wales, as shown in the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member on 17th November last, the published figures for the civil population show a smaller ratio a thousand for this disease than is shown for the troops. As regards Scotland the reverse is the case. But I am not sure that the figures are on a strictly comparable basis, and for Scotland, so far as the civil population is concerned, they only apply to two counties and certain large towns. As regards the last part of the question, I am advised that the incidence of the disease is so spread that there are no grounds for connecting it with any particular type of barrack room.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Having in view the statement made by the Minister of Health that it is due to overcrowding, will the right hon. Gentleman pursue investigations on the terms of the last part of my question's?
    Mr. SHAW: I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I have taken his question into consideration, and I will pursue investigations.
    Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to the percentage in each rank which has been affected so as to show whether the sergeants, as compared with privates and corporals, are affected less than those in the more crowded parts of the barracks?
    Mr. SHAW: I am extremely anxious to get all the information possible on these matters, and I will also make inquiries with regard to that particular question.

    DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (CIVIL EMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. HACKINGasked the Secretary of State for War whether any, and, if so, what, steps are taken by the War Office to obtain employment for discharged soldiers when re-entering civil life?
    Mr. SHAW: The War Office is fully alive to the desirability of fitting the soldier for return to civil life and of helping him to secure employment when he does so. It is difficult to deal with this subject within the limits of an oral answer, but I am sending the right hon. Member a copy of the "Guide to Civil Employment for Regular Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen" and a pamphlet on "Army Vocational Training" which will show generally what is being done in the matter. I would add that I am personally keenly interested in the question and am always ready to consider suggestions for increasing the soldier's chances of civil employment. I hope also to refer to the subject in my speech on the introduction of Army Estimates.
    Mr. HACKING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not, when he is asking for recruits, the men are made aware of the fact that they will be helped to get civil employment when they leave the Army?
    Mr. SHAW: Yes. Full particulars are given in the recruiting documents and by the recruiters, as to what is taking place and what the possibilities are?
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Has the War Office information as to the employment that is found afterwards for the ex-Service men?
    Mr. SHAW: Yes. We have complete figures how the men are placed.

  SCOTLAND.

    EDUCATION (SCHOOL OF ART, DUNDEE).
    Mr. SCRYMGEOURasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Educational Endowment Commissioners have had submitted to them from

    1941
    the Duncan of Jordanstone Trustees a scheme for the erection of a school of art in Dundee?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): I understand that the Duncan of Jordan-stone Trustees have asked the Educational Endowment Commissioners to sanction the erection of the two north-most blocks of the school which they propose to build and that the commissioners have given their consent.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Have any representations been made as to the unsuitability of the site?
    Mr. ADAMSON: No.

    HOUSING.
    Miss LEEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) the number and percentage of the population of Lanarkshire living in one- or two-roomed houses;
    (2) the number and percentage of the population of Lanarkshire who in 1920 were living in one- or two-roomed houses?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Johnston): The only available information on this sub-

    Distribution of Population in One- and Two-roomed Houses in Lanarkshire.

    Lanarkshire (Year 1921).

    One-roomed Houses.

    Two-roomed Houses.

    Number of Persons.

    Percentage of Population.

    Number of Persons.

    Percentage of Population.

    Entire county (including City of Glasgow and all Burghs).

    219,291

    14·2

    765,926

    49·7

    Landward area (excluding City of Glasgow and all Burghs).

    46,615

    15·0

    145,978

    49·3

    Mr. BROOKEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has yet received from the county council of Dumbarton a copy of the survey required by the Housing Act if he will state how many houses are inhabited but unfit for human habitation; and how many houses the county council propose to build within the next three years to meet the deficiency?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: The statement required by Sub-section 2 of Section 22 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930, has
    1942
    ject is contained in the Census Returns and refers to the year 1921. I am circulating a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT giving this information. Comparative figures for the year 1931 will be available as a result of the forthcoming Census.
    Mr. BARR: Can the hon. Member give, in addition to the whole of Lanarkshire, some of the principal towns in Lanarkshire? I understand that the figures are available in the census.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: I will consider whether that is possible.
    Mr. TRAIN: May I ask if the figures include the two-room so-called houses built under the Wheatley Act, which have a kitchenette and a bathroom?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: No, Sir. The figures refer to the census of 1921.
    Mr. McKINLAY: Can the hon. Member give us the proportion of houses which are of the single type and the two-apartment house?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Speaking roughly, at a time of the last census two-thirds of the entire population of Lanarkshire were housed in houses of not more than two apartments.
    Following is the statement:
    been received from the county council of Dumbarton. The statement shows that the estimated number of houses required to replace houses that are unfit for human habitation is 320. As regards the last part of the question, I am informed that the county council have not yet definitely decided as to the total number of houses which they propose to build within the next three years to meet the requirements of their area. Meantime, they propose to proceed with the erection of 395 houses within that period,

    1943
    of which 276 are to replace houses that are unfit for human habitation, the remainder being to abate overcrowding.
    Sir PATRICK FORDasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the complaint lodged on 21st January, 1931, by the Scottish National Operative Plasterers' Federal Union, Edinburgh district, with the Secretary of the Department of Health for Scotland in Edinburgh, regarding the Edinburgh Corporation Niddrie Mains housing scheme; whether, seeing that this complaint avers in detail that the plaster work in general was not being done in a tradesmanlike manner nor in accordance with the specification issued by the town council and the general specification issued by the Department, and that this statement of complaint was furnished at the request of the Department, he will say when the complaint will receive attention; and whether any official action will in fact he taken?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: The complaint referred to was received on the 22nd January following a meeting on the 15th January between representatives of the union mentioned and of the Department of Health for Scotland. The Department communicated the terms of the complaint to the corporation and are now awaiting their observations thereon. On receipt of these observations the Department will consider what further action should be taken.
    Sir P. FORD: Can the hon. Member give us some indication when these people are likely to get a reply?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: The matter was before the Public Health Committee of the corporation in a discussion with their architect. I understand that they are awaiting a report from the architect, and they have promised to communicate then.

    FOREIGN TRAWLERS, MORAY FIRTH (COD-NETS).
    Major WOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that further great destruction has just been caused to cod-nets by foreign trawlers in the Moray Firth; whether he has made inquiries into the extent of the damage and the circumstances under which it was
    1944
    committed; and what steps he has taken or proposes to take to prevent the continual recurrence of such losses?
    Mr. ADAMSON: My attention has been drawn to this matter. Inquiries are in progress as to the extent of the damage, and as to the circumstances in which it occurred. All possible steps have been taken by the Departments concerned to deal with the matter. Some time ago the Belgian and Netherland Governments were asked to advise their trawlers to take precautions to avoid the cod-nets, and the Foreign Office have been informed that steps have been taken by the respective Governments for that purpose. As the hon. Member is aware, the Fishery Board for Scotland recently issued a special circular to the owners of all the cod-net vessels calling attention to the measures which they should take for reducing the risk of damage and for reporting particulars of any losses sustained. His Majesty's Ship "Spey" and the Fishery Board's cruisers have maintained a thorough patrol and have done everything possible to warn foreign trawlers as to the presence of cod-nets. I am expecting a full report on the recent complaints, and on its receipt I will consider what further steps can be taken. In the meantime an active patrol will be maintained, and I trust that the fishermen will co-operate by carrying out the Regulations as to the marking and lighting of the nets, which I am informed are not being adequately observed.
    Major WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very strong feeling all along the coast of the Moray Firth about this question, and will he see that steps are taken by international action so that something may be done to put an end to this thing, once for all?
    Mr. ADAMSON: I am well aware of the feeling, a feeling that has been there for many years, about this matter, and, as I stated in my answer, the Foreign Office is in communication with the Governments concerned.
    Mr. BOOTHBY rose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: We have only got to Question 36.
    Major WOOD: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House on the earliest possible occasion.

    FRUIT-CROWING INDUSTRY.
    Major COLVILLEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the serious position existing in the fruit-growing industry in Scotland owing to the importation of cheap foreign fruit pulp; and if he will state what steps he proposes to take to maintain the present standard of employment in this industry?
    Mr. W. ADAMSON: I have recently had an opportunity of meeting representatives of the fruit-growing industry and I am aware of the position. It is quite clear to me that the first necessity in this industry is that the Scottish growers should organise themselves and put their marketing arrangements on a sound basis, and I hope that the Marketing Bill will give them the opportunity to do so.
    Major COLVILLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that foreign fruit pulp was sold at less than half the cost of the production of the British article, and can he say in what way the Marketing Bill touches that question?
    Mr. ADAMSON: I discussed that aspect of the difficulty with a deputation from the fruit growers the other night, and I am well aware of it.

    LANDHOLDERS (LOANS).
    Mr. SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that by the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts certain moneys were placed at the disposal of the Department of Agriculture both from moneys annually voted by Parliament and from loans through the Public Works Loans Commissioners; that by these Acts the moneys were inter alia to be applied by the Department in providing assistance by way of loans to new landholders to enable them to acquire rights in the buildings on their holdings, which loans were payable by way of annuities; and that in many cases before the loans have been repaid the Department has relet these holdings to new tenants at equipped rents which make no provision for the repayment of the balance of the loans; and what steps it is proposed to take to secure repayment of the sums lent?
    Mr. W. ADAMSON: A landholder does not and cannot in law acquire or transfer right of property in the buildings but only acquires right of compensation for his improvements. As regards the sums borrowed by the Department from the Public Works Loans Commissioners the annuities in repayment of these borrowings are provided by revenues from the estates and where such revenues prove to be insufficient by the amount voted to the Department in terms of Sub-section 3 of Section 26 of the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act. 1919.
    Mr. SCOTT: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question on the Paper, namely, what steps it is proposed to take to secure repayment of the sums lent?
    Mr. ADAMSON: I have done my best, and I hope successfully, to answer the question. May I point out, further; that within the last fortnight we have had an opportunity of discussing all the legal complexities referred to in the hon. Member's question, and these are so great that it is impossible within the limits of question and answer to deal with them.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    ROYALTIES (LANARKSHIRE).
    Mr. SULLIVANasked the Secretary for Mines the amount paid by coal owners in Lanarkshire in mining royalties and rates for the five years ending December, 1930?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): I regret that the information in regard to royalties and local rates is not available by counties. During the five years 1925 and 1927–30, particulars for 1928 are not available, the estimated total amount of royalties paid by colliery owners in Scotland as a whole was nearly £4¼ millions, and the total amount of local rates approximately £945,000.

    EMPLOYMENT.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Secretary for Mines what is the number of persons representing the normal capacity for employment in the coal-mining industry at the present time or at any given period during the last 12 months; and by how many the number

    1947
    of persons nominally registered as employable in the industry exceeds this figure?
    Mr. SHINWELL: As I said in answer to a similar question by the hon. Member last week, the normal capacity for employment in the coal industry is a matter of opinion. The number of insured persons in the industry in July, 1930, which is the latest date for which a figure is available, was estimated to be 1,069,370. The number of wage earners on colliery books on the same date was 910,600. The two figures are not, however, strictly comparable as the former excludes all persons below the age of 16 and over the age of 64, while the latter includes wage earners of all ages. In addition some thousands of salaried persons are included in the first figure but not in the second.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: In view of the number of miners who cannot obtain employment in the industry, may I ask whether the Government have any plans to absorb then!, into the industry or to find them other employment?
    Mr. SHINWELL: That is an entirely different question.

    EXPLOSIONS.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Secretary for Mines, seeing that the explosions in mines and deaths through them were greater in 1930 than in the two previous years, whether he can say if the inquiries made into the causes found that any of the explosions were caused through inadequate ventilation?
    Mr. SHINWELL: Inquiries were made by His Majesty's inspectors into the causes of every one of these explosions. In two of them the ventilation was proved to have been inadequate through negligence on the part of the management, and those responsible were prosecuted and convicted of offences under the Coal Mines Act. In the other cases, although at the moment of the explosion and in the immediate neighbourhood of the source of ignition a dangerous concentration of fire-damp must have existed, there was no proof that the ventilation was inadequate through negligence and not through an accident or other causes against which it was impracticable to make provision.

    COLLIERY, TYNESIDE (SALARIES).
    Mr. SHIELDasked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that, at a colliery on Tyneside, over 48 per cent. of the total gross profits are absorbed in payment of salaries to persons not actually engaged in working operations and that the last balance sheet disclosed a loss; and whether he will deal with the matter by directing the notice of the reorganisation commissioners to the need for absorbing this colliery in other concerns?
    Mr. SHINWELL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. If my hon. Friend will give me the name of the colliery and any other particulars, I will consider whether the matter is one on which action can suitably be taken on the lines indicated in the last part of his question.
    Captain PEAKE: Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will not interfere with the work of the reorganisation commissioners in any way?
    Mr. SHINWELL: This question has nothing whatever to do with the work of the reorganisation commissioners. It is merely asking for information.

    PRICES.
    Miss LEEasked the Secretary for Mines if he will set up a committee of inquiry into the wide discrepancy between the retail price of coal and the price charged at the pithead?
    Mr. SHINWELL: I understand that representatives of the Coal Merchants' Federation and of coalowners are now discussing proposals which are designed to improve the methods and so reduce the costs of retail coal distribution. I propose to await the result of these negotiations. If they are unsuccessful I will give further consideration to the suggestion contained in my hon. Friend's question.

  PALESTINE.
  Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the change in the situation in Palestine created by his letter to Dr. Weizmann, he will give a day for the discussion of the new position in Palestine?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): The letter in question only covers points

  1949
  already covered by the Debate on the 17th November last, and the Prime Minister does not, therefore, propose to afford another special day for a discussion on the subject.
  Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is it not the case that this letter is, in fact, a complete reversal of the policy of the White Paper and brings us back to the position in 1929 before the riots took place?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Not at all. The hon. and gallant Member put a question last week to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave a categorical denial.

  UNEMPLOYMENT (RELIEF SCHEMES).
  Colonel BURTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the annual cost to the Exchequer and to the rates of the schemes already approved by the Unemployment Grants Committee?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Lawson): I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the recently published report of the Unemployment Grants Committee, Command 3744, in Appendix VI, of which is set out the latest available information as to the estimated annual Exchequer liability in respect of schemes approved for grant through the Committee. I have no information as to the annual cost to the rates entailed by these schemes.

  COMMERCIAL COMPANIES (SURTAX).
  Mr. SMITHERSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many bona fide commercial companies have had their undivided profits assessed for surtax by the Inland Revenue since 1st October, 1929, under Section 21 of the Finance Act, 1922, and Sections 31 and 33 of the Finance Act, 1927; and, in cases of appeal, how many appeals have been decided in favour of the company and how many in favour of the Inland Revenue?
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: As this answer is somewhat long and contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL. REPORT.
  Mr. SMITHERS: May I ask whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make it clear that the undivided profits of these companies will not be unduly attacked or depleted—
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a different question altogether.
  Following is the answer:
  The number of directions made under the Sections in question since 1st October, 1929, on all companies other than investment-holding companies and landed estate companies was 256. No appeal was lodged by the company in the ease of 82 of these directions, and appeals, which had been lodged, were subsequently withdrawn in the case of 34. In the case of a further 14, against which appeals had been lodged, the directions were discharged without a formal hearing on the receipt of further information from the company. Of the remaining 126 appeals, 56 are awaiting decision, 27 have been decided in favour of the Crown, 33 have been decided in favour of the company and 10 have been decided partly in favour of the Crown and partly in favour of the company.

  FINANCE AND INDUSTRY.
  Mr. HANNONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now in a position to state when the report of the Committee on Finance and Industry, presided over by Lord Macmillan, will present its report to the House and when it will be made available for Members?
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to an exactly similar question put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) last Thursday.
  Mr. HANNON: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate the time when he will be in a position to say when this report will be presented?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I have answered that question in the reply that I have given.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    Ex-SERVICE MEN.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the cost-of-living bonus com-

    1951
    pensation awarded to civil servants under the Civil Service Whitley Council cost-of-living agreement of 1920 was not extended to the same extent to ex-service men who joined His Majesty's Civil Service in a temporary capacity after the War and who are serving to-day as established, unestablished, or temporary officers, and of the dissatisfaction among these ex-service men concerning their existing remuneration, he will agree to suspend any further deduction in their existing salaries and wages on a cost-of-living basis until their existing remuneration has been placed upon a more satisfactory basis?
    Mr. P. SNOWDEN: No, Sir. I should not feel justified in exempting these clerks from the decision that the remuneration of civil servants must be revised, as from 1st March next, in accordance with the principle prescribed by the cost-of-living agreement. The principle then laid down is applicable to the unestablished clerks referred to in the hon. and gallant Member's question under the terms of agreed settlements dated 22nd May, 1924, and 7th May, 1929.
    Sir F. HALL: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he does not think that the pay and emoluments of competent ex-service men should be as high as those of the non-service men?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The hon. and gallant Member is raising a very important question. He refers to competent ex-service men. I have gone very carefully into this matter, and I am sure that the pay and emoluments for the kind of work they do compare very favourably with the pay in similar outside employment.
    Sir F. HALL: Is it not the case that these men have been working side by side with those who are in receipt of higher rates of pay and that they have been carrying out their duties perfectly satisfactorily?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I appeal to the hon. and gallant Member not to raise that point.

    STATIONERY OFFICE (TYPEWRITERS AND CALCULATING MACHINES).
    Mr. OSWALD LEWISasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether any typewriters of foreign
    1952
    manufacture have been purchased by the Stationery Office during the year 1930; and what was the total cost of such machines?
    Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: A limited number of typewriters of foreign manufacture have been purchased by the Stationery Office during the year 1930 at a cost of £2,002. These machines are special types for which no suitable British-made substitutes are at present available.
    Mr. LEWISasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether any calculating machines of foreign manufacture were purchased by the Stationery Office during the year 1930; and what was the cost of such machines?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: During the year 1930, £3,310 was spent by the Stationery Office on calculating machines wholly manufactured abroad and £6,637 on machines assembled in this country from parts manufactured abroad.
    Mr. LEWIS: Am I to understand that in this case no suitable British machines were available?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Yes, that is so.

    TREASURY (SOLICITORS' DEPARTMENT).
    Mr. DAYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of persons employed in the Solicitors' Department of the Treasury as at the last convenient date?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: At the present date the staff of the Treasury Solicitor's Department number 196.

  MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES (STANDING COMMISSION).
  Mr. MARKHAMasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he can now announce the composition of the proposed Standing Commission on Museums; and what will be its terms of reference?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries has been constituted as follows:

  The Right Hon. Viscount D'Abernon (Chairman),

  The Hon. Evan Edward Charteris,

  1953

  Sir Richard Tetley Glazebrook,

  The Right Hon. Lord Hanworth,

  The Earl of Harewood,

  Sir George MacDonald,

  Sir Henry Alexander Miers,

  Mr. Charles Reed Peers,

  The Right Hon. Sir Philip Sassoon, M.P., with

  Mr. J. B. Beresford, M.B.E., a Principal in His Majesty's Treasury, as Secretary.

  The terms of reference are:

  "(i) To advise generally on questions relevant to the most effective development of the National Institutions as a whole, and on any specific question which may be referred to them from time to time.

  (ii) To promote co-operation between the National Institutions themselves and between the National and Provincial Institutions.

  (iii) To stimulate the generosity and direct the efforts of those who aspire to become public benefactors."

  Mr. MARKHAM: May I ask why there is not a single representative of provincial museums on this Commission and whether the Financial Secretary will reconsider its constitution?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: These people were appointed on the recommendation of various National Gallery Committees.
  Mr. MARKHAM: Why is there no representative of provincial museums or art galleries on the Commission?
  Mr. GRIFFITHS: Why are you ignoring Wales?
  Mr. MARKHAM: In view of the lack of a response, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Elizabeth Leah Manning, for Borough of Islington (East Division).

EMPLOYMENT OF DISABLED EX- SERVICE MEN BILL,
"to make the employment of disabled ex-service men compulsory," presented by Mr. Longden; supported by Mr. Ernest Brown, Mr. Shillaker, Major-General Sir Robert Hutchison, Mr. Devlin, Mr. William Hirst, Mr. Sim-
1954
mons, Viscount Elmley, Mr. Mills, Colonel Clifton Brown, and Mr. Everard; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 13th March, and to be printed. [Bill 99.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the provisions of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, relating to the terms on which official arbitrators in Scotland shall hold office." [Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) (Scotland) Bill [Lords].]
ACQUISITION OF LAND (ASSESS- MENT OF COMPENSATION) (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 98.]
NAVY (EXCESSES, 1929).
Copy presented,—of Statement of the Sum required to be voted in order to make good Excesses of Navy Expenditure beyond the Grants for the year ended 31st March, 1930 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

CUMBERLAND MARKET (ST. PANCRAS) BILL (SELECT COM MITTEE).
Mr. Frederick Hall reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had nominated the following Two Members to serve on the Select Committee on the Cumberland Market (St. Pancras) Bill: Mr. Haslam and Mr. Longden.
Report to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]
  CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1930.

  SUPPLY.
    CLASS 1.

      HOUSE OF COMMONS.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £8,800, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for the Salaries and Expenses of the House of Commons."
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): This Vote has arisen owing to the fact that two items of the original Estimate have eventuated in larger amounts than was anticipated. The first of these items relates to the travelling expenses of Members of Parliament. The original Estimate in this respect was £35,500, and it is now anticipated that the sum required will be in the neighbourhood of £42,000, involving a difference of £6,600. Of that difference about £4,000 is due to the fact that the original Estimate was based on the figures of last year, and that last year there was a General Election occupying about four weeks. That meant a saving in expenditure on travelling expenses for Members of something like £4,000 in that year and that sum of £4,000 is therefore an additional expenditure under this head for the current year. Apart from that, there is a deficiency of about £2,600 extending over the whole of the 12 months, and I can account for that also to the satisfaction of the Committee. The £4,000 difference is due to the General Election, and the balance of about £2,600 is covered over the whole period—
      Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is the hon. Gentleman budgeting for a General Election this year?
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: We are basing the Estimate on the figure of the previous year. With reference to the £2,600, in the new Parliament a larger
      1978
      number of Members make use of the vouchers every week. The reason is that in the old Parliament a larger proportion of Members had town residences where they lived during the Session. In the new Parliament a larger number of Members go down to their constituencies, which are their homes, every week-end. Whereas in the last Parliament about 460 Members made use of vouchers, in this Parliament the number is about 500. For the purposes of this Estimate, the year runs from February to January, and last year's figures included February, March and April of the old Parliament, whereas in the present year's figures are included February, March and April of the present Parliament. When these two discrepancies are taken into account, nearly the whole of the £6,600 has been accounted for. The excess under the other sub-head is accounted for by a lump sum payment of £4,380, which was paid into the estate of the late Clerk of the House, Sir Lonsdale Webster. The reason why the full amount does not appear in the Supplementary Estimate is that it is offset by the cessation of pensions on the death of pensioners.
      Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: The Financial Secretary has given a delightful explanation for this increase in travelling expenses. Either he entirely forgot, in basing his Estimate on the 1929–30 figures, that there had been a General Election in May, 1929, or he expected a General Election in the year ending 31st March this year. We have been very near it once or twice, in which case the hon. Gentleman's figures would have come out much better, but it is very bad budgeting that, in estimating the figures for 12 months, the fact should be overlooked that in May, 1929, there were no Members of Parliament to have travel facilities. There are one or two points apart from this to which the attention of the Committee ought to be called. I happen to be one of the 115 Members who do not use these vouchers, my constituency being so near. Ten years ago, when this question was first debated, I was in favour of Members having free warrants for first-class tickets. Therefore, I have taken some interest in the question in the last 10 years, and I have noticed that the figure has been core tinually increasing. I have been into the matter on the Public Accounts Committee on more than one occasion.

      1979
      There has been a steady increase of £2,000 or £3,000 a year under this heading for a good many years. The General Election of 1929 altered the composition of the House, and it may be that some hon. Members in the last Parliament were railway directors, and in that capacity had free travel. If a railway director from the north of England were replaced by a Member who was not a railway director, it would make a difference of from £50 to £100 a year. Even allowing for that, there has been a steady increase of £2,000 or £3,000 a year. In these difficult times, an extra £2,000 a year is liable to be cavilled at by the public, who are very jealous of Parliament and of economics generally, and it is rather unfortunate that we should have a miscalculation of, £4,000 and this excess spending of £2,000 at this time. It is distinctly unhappy from a national point of view. Another point in connection with this question wants consideration. It has been considered on several occasions whether it would not be worth while for Members of Parliament to be given season tickets in place of the present system of warrants. At the time when this was gone into last by the Public Accounts Committee—
      The CHAIRMAN: This is not the occasion for arguing for or against season tickets as compared with the present system.
      Sir A. POWNALL: With all deference, this is a question of spending an extra sum of money, and I am trying to show a means by which such extra sum can be avoided in future.
      The CHAIRMAN: It should be raised on some other occasion. All we have to deal with to-day are the circumstances that have arisen to cause the increase. We cannot in this Committee alter the arrangements.
      Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I submit that there is nothing to prevent the Committee altering the arrangements. The Committee are asked to vote a sum of money for the travelling expenses of many Members between London and their constituencies. The Vote says nothing about vouchers, or prescribes in any way the manner in
      1980
      which the travelling expenses are to be incurred. The Executive is asking the House in Committee of Supply to vote a certain sum of money to pay the travelling expenses, and I submit that it is competent for the Committee to make known to the Government their desire that the payment should be made in some other fashion. If they do that, the change will be made next week or as soon as it can be brought into effect. There is nothing in the Vote which prescribes that the payment must be made in the way in which it is made at present.
      Mr. HANNON: Is it not open to the Committee to discuss whether, in relation to this increased Vote, some alternative method can be introduced in order to reduce that sum?
      Mr. DENMAN: These Estimates deal with the period ending March this year, and I suggest that any device that alters the method over a prolonged period cannot be discussed.
      The CHAIRMAN: The Estimate is for an additional sum of money to meet expenses. This Committee, in my estimation, cannot argue whether there should be season tickets or vouchers. That argument would lead us very far indeed, and if it is to be raised I think it should come up on the Treasury Vote.
      4.0 p.m.
      Mr. CULVERWELL: Is it not the purpose of this Committee to discuss whether the expenditure is justified or not, and if we can by our criticism suggest to the Government some means by which this payment may become unnecessary, surely that is within the scope of the discussion?
      The CHAIRMAN: The discussion might take the line of increased expenditure.
      Mr. MACLEAN: In discussing the matter of this Estimate and the additional sum that has to be found in order to cover the expenditure, we are not discussing policy, and I take it that it has been the custom on previous occasions of this kind to discuss or suggest methods whereby savings can be made. I think the suggestion of the hon. Member has been put in the form of a saving by another method, and in that sense it is not a question of policy at all but of bringing before the Committee a method of saving money.
      Mr. LEIF JONES: I understood that this Estimate of £35,500 was in respect of vouchers, and I take it that it is not open to us to discuss to-day whether the money is to be found by way of voucher or otherwise. We have only to decide whether the money provided is insufficient, and whether we should vote a further £6,600 for that purpose. That is really the only point before the Committee.
      Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Arising out of what the right hon. Member has just said, I say that the House decided nothing of the kind. It decided that £35,500 should be spent on travelling expenses. How it is done is a purely administrative method.
      Mr. MILLS: In view of the overwhelming desire of all parties in this House to deal with the situation, if you, Sir Robert, refuse to allow it to be discussed now, will you suggest where it can be discussed?
      The CHAIRMAN: The question does not arise here, but on the Treasury Vote, but I have this moment referred to the main Estimate and find the wording somewhat indefinite. I felt that a wide discussion on this matter should not take place for, as I say, we may have arguments for increased expenditure rather than reduced expenditure. However, I will see how the discussion goes.
      Sir A. POWNALL: My point is purely an administrative one. I do not want to spend more money; I want to spend less, it may be by a different means of administering the money which each year the House votes for this purpose. I therefore submit that in that way I can keep within the bounds of order, and have a chance of ventilating the subject. I will confine my remarks merely to saying that any hon. Member who wants information on this point can find it in a, recent report of the Public Accounts Committee, where it will be found that had the season ticket plan been adopted some years ago, it would have imposed an extra expenditure of £15,000 or £20,000. All I say now is that the expenditure has gone up so much each year, that the question might be reviewed, owing to the altered figures before us, because to many Members season tickets would be a great convenience. I admit that there are pros and cons with regard
      1982
      to it. Members may, in fact, never use warrants at all, but travel by road. The pros and cons, however, might again be studied, in view of the fact that no longer a saving of £20,000 would be effected, but only a very small saving, and many hon. Members would greatly prefer season tickets to the present voucher plan. That was my only reason for calling attention to the report of the Public Accounts Committee and to ask Members to bear it in mind.
      Mr. MILLS: Like the hon. Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall), I also was in the House at the time this question was discussed. I also represent a constituency which necessitates my having to pay a shilling to come up to London in order to travel down to my constituency, which is two miles further on. Therefore, I think I can speak on this matter with a certain amount of impartiality. The original intention of this House was to endeavour to revise the pre-War allowance to Members of Parliament, and I well remember the Select Committee being appointed and the evidence which was given. There were three Members of this House who were too poor to be assessable to Income Tax. One was Mr. Charles White, the Member at that time for North-East Derbyshire; the other was Mr. Myers, the then Member for Spen Valley; and the third was myself, and when all the investigations had been concluded, the Committee solemnly recommended that the £400 should be free of Income Tax, which left the three poorest Members of the House of Commons exactly where they were before.
      Following that, the question of railway passes for Members of Parliament arose, and we understood from the beginning that it would take the form of an identity card. Like many other hon. Members, I have been out of this country, and well know that the question of identity is difficult. Everyone can present a card, and it carries no one any further. Getting to this House on a day such as that of the marriage of Princess Mary, or the opening of Parliament, we cannot get through the crowd, and a policeman looks with an air of suspicion if you try to push through the people. It seems to me that the production of a season ticket carrying the photograph of the recipient, or some

      1983
      other form of identification which would be valid in every other country as well as here, would be something more in accord with the dignity of Parliament. In view of what has happened, I believe it is the unanimous desire of all parties in this House to substitute something for the vicious and wasteful system of vouchers. Evidence has been given of people who have scrapped at one time half-a-dozen return tickets from the North of England which they have never used. In circumstances like that, it is obvious that the question of a season ticket which is valid for the use of the Member himself and no other person, is one that cries out for consideration by the House.
      Commander SOUTHBY: I wish to offer only a brief observation in support of what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall), that surely the time has come to re-discuss this question of the season ticket as against the voucher system for Members of Parliament. The voucher system is open to obvious criticism, and it might be that if a system of season tickets were substituted, the necessity for a Supplementary Estimate would cease, because it would have the advantage that the exact amount would be known.
      Colonel ASHLEY: As the Minister in the late Government who had to submit the memoranda to the Treasury about the allowances to Members of this House, perhaps I may be permitted to say a few words on the subject. As regards the preference for vouchers, that is to say a ticket for each journey, or for season tickets, I must confess that, personally, I was overwhelmingly in favour of season tickets. It seemed to me a waste of energy always having to get tickets, and that if Parliament decided—I think, unfortunately—that travelling allowances were to be given to Members and tickets provided for them, then they ought to be given to Members in the most convenient form for them. I sent memoranda in that sense, but I was always met with the answer that that would cost more, and that the cheapest form was to oblige each Member to take out a ticket for each individual journey or return journey. My own case was
      1984
      always cited against me, because I travel comparatively seldom.
      I do not know that this is the time to defend increased expenditure. That, I think, must be left to the judgment of the House as a whole, but I will say that it is obviously more convenient to have season tickets. I, myself, am not quite convinced that the Treasury are correct that, taking the whole body of Members, it would cost more for season tickets. It is fortunate, I think, that this Vote has come before us, because it may bring about a re-examination of the whole question, and, perhaps, the hon. Gentleman will consider this later with a view to seeing that it does not cost any more. If that should be the case, Members should be given season tickets. It has been suggested that a reduction might be obtained by giving us third class tickets. I can dispose of that in one sentence. It would be ridiculous for a Minister to be given a third-class ticket when his private secretary or the head of his Department was travelling first-class on public duty.
      Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: He can pay the difference.
      Colonel ASHLEY: Why should a Minister be worthy of only a third-class fare, when his private secretary is worthy of a first-class fare?
      Sir G. HAMILTON: Because he can well afford to pay the difference.
      Colonel ASHLEY: If it is a question of what he can afford, it would mean an inquisition into every man's income. As we are dealing with the question, could not the Financial Secretary and the Minister of Transport consider whether it would not be an economy, and certainly it is a fair thing that the ticket should be from the place of residence of the Member to London, and not from the constituency to London? These allowances are given to enable a Member to carry out his duties at Westminster, not to enable him to visit his constituency, and it seems ridiculous at the present time that the ticket should only be given from the constituency to London and not from the place of residence of the Member.
      Mr. JAMES GARDNER: I rise to speak only because of the Public Accounts Committee's report on this subject. I understand that the contention that season tickets would cost more was based

      1985
      on ordinary season ticket rates. I have always understood that the railway companies when dealing with companies who put huge sums into their pockets attach special conditions to tickets for directors and managers of such companies. If that be so, I suggest that as the Government are the largest customer which the railways of this country have got—I may be wrong, but I think I am right—there is, for instance, the Post Office—the Financial Secretary might be asked to get quotations on the favourable terms which are now extended to private companies.
      Captain GUNSTON: With reference to the suggestion just made by the hon. Member that the Government might be able to obtain special terms from the railway companies for these tickets, I would remind the House that when a railway Bill came up for consideration individual Members might feel in such a case that they were under an obligation to the railway companies, and I think we ought to put the hon. Member's suggestion out of our minds. As to what the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills) said, I think we must agree that though it may be desirable, from his point of view, to spend money on the social services, we ought to be as economical as possible on this service. Each of us is apt, to consider his own case in this matter, and I may mention that I live in my Division and on the average travel up to the House once a week in the year. Where a season ticket is used only once a week it does not, I believe, pay to buy one; one would have to use the ticket more frequently than that if there were to be any saving as compared with the use of voucher tickets.
      A way out of the difficulty may be found, however, in the circumstance that the House is not sitting the whole year. Though season tickets for Members would probably cost more if they were available throughout the whole year, there might be a saving if they were available only while the House was sitting, and vouchers were supplied for the remainder of the year. I put that forward as a suggestion which might receive the consideration of the Treasury. Would there be any objection to going through the vouchers and seeing how many each Member has used—I am not suggesting that there has been anything wrong—in order to ascertain how many cases there are in which a saving would be effected by sub-
      1986
      stituting a season ticket for the vouchers? My own case, I believe, would be just on the border line. I am not suggesting that we should take any privileges away from Members, but there might be a saving in giving some Members a season ticket while the House was sitting and allowing them to get vouchers for any journeys when the House is not sitting.
      Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: I wish to direct attention to the figures given to us by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. In explaining the necessity for this Supplementary Estimate of £6,600 he sought to get rid of £4,000 of it by reminding us that there was a General Election in 1929, although the Department must have been cognisant of that fact when the original estimate was drawn up. I do not know what period of time the Financial Secretary reckoned in respect of the General Election. If, as I understood him to say, the loss of Parliamentary time was estimated at four weeks, then the amount allowed in respect of that period ought to be £3,000 and not £4,000. The original Estimate for the year was £35,500 and if we knock off a month that would mean a reduction of about one-twelfth, which would be somewhere about £3,000. Then the Financial Secretary said that whereas 460 Members had been in the habit of using vouchers, owing to the change in the composition of the House, the number had increased to 500. He used those 40 additional. Members to account for the balance of £2,600 of the increase. If we divide £2,600 by £40 we get a sum of £65. I do not know whether that corresponds approximately to the average cost per Member. If it does, then the £2,600 would fairly cover the amount, but personally I should think that £65 is rather a high figure, and that would leave some part of the supplementary sum still to be accounted for. I was struck by the remark from an hon. Member opposite that in some cases return tickets had been thrown away unused. If hon. Members are careless in taking a return ticket without being certain that they will require the use of the return half, and afterwards throw it away, they are throwing an unnecessary charge upon the State. I think the suggestion of season tickets worthy of examination.

      1987
      There is one other point. It should not be overlooked that we are examining this Supplementary Estimate at a time of extreme financial stringency, and it is much more difficult to justify measures which might be accepted in normal times. Reference has been made to the question whether the vouchers should be for first-class tickets or third class. It has been pointed out that there are Members who cannot afford the expense of the extra travel which membership of the House imposes upon them and that it would be unfair not to pay their expenses. Such Members, when travelling on their own private affairs, would undoubtedly travel third-class, and in such cases I cannot see that it is any hardship upon them to travel third-class when somebody else is paying if they would travel third class if they were paying for themselves. In the financial circumstances in which we find ourselves there is a good deal to be said for substituting third-class travel for first-class as a temporary measure, although under normal conditions a strong case could be made out for allowing first-class travel.
      I must confess that I was not impressed by the difficulty raised by the right hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest (Colonel Ashley) that a Minister might have to travel third-class while his private secretary rode first-class. Ministers could be dealt with separately when travelling on public business and have the privilege of a first-class voucher. That is a difficulty that could be got over in that way, or some other. In view of the speech on the national finances made the other day by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a strong case could be made out for us to set an example to the nation by showing that we are willing as a temporary measure to travel third-class.
      Mr. JAMES HUDSON: I gather from the remarks of the late Minister of Transport and other speakers that there is a desire to study the convenience of hon. Members as well as taking into account the cost. The late Minister of Transport took the view that the convenience of Members generally would be served if they were supplied with contract tickets instead of being given a separate ticket for each journey.
      Colonel ASHLEY: I said that that was subject to the overriding consideration of expense.
      Mr. HUDSON: I accept that; but the point I was proceeding to make was that in a great many cases it will not suit the convenience of Members to have a contract ticket. From many parts of the country hon. Members have the choice of travelling to London by two routes, and it is a great advantage to be able to select whichever route is more convenient in point of view of the train times on a particular occasion. A large number of Members will be greatly inconvenienced by contract tickets which bind them down to the use of one line only.
      Mr. PYBUS: Is not the question before us more or less one of arithmetic? One presumes that the country would like to save money, and if any particular Member can show, on the basis of the number of vouchers which has been issued to him in a year, that it would be a saving for him to have a season ticket, is there any reason why the Government should turn down an offer from him to take a season ticket in place of the vouchers? As the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. O. Lewis) said, in these times we must save all the money we, and if an hon. Member will go to the Fees Office and offer to have a season ticket and prove that it would be cheaper, it is difficult to understand how the Treasury could refuse to take advantage of such an offer. In addition, I would point out that most of the travelling by Members is done at the week-ends, and it is well known that persons travelling on these cheap week-end tickets have a greatly reduced claim against a railway company in a case of accident happening to them on the journey. Hon. Members who have wives and families dependent upon them therefore take ordinary return tickets at a very much higher cost because they are not prepared to sacrifice what would come to their dependants in the case of a fatal accident. I suggest that if I went to the Financial Secretary and proved to him that the State would save £10 or £15 by giving me a season ticket it would be very difficult in these stringent times to justify the refusal of such an offer.
      Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Those who were Members of the House when

      1989
      this question first came up will recall that I always said, frankly, that I was opposed to the institution of this privilege of free travel, but it is an accomplished fact, and, of course, we cannot go back upon it. I am sure, also, that it will be felt in all parts of the Committee that this is a time when this question should be looked into. It is fair to say that when this system of free travel was introduced the estimate of its cost was much higher than proved to be the case. I think the original estimate was for £75,000, whereas in point of fact the expenditure has been round about £30,000 or £34,000. The Financial Secretary did not mention the fact that last year the estimate was increased by £1,000, from £34,500 to £35,500. Now we have this increase of £6,600.
      An hon. Member has stated that this is largely a matter of arithmetic, but there are other circumstances which we have to take into account. We have to start with the fundamental assumption that whatever we do must not involve any extra charge upon the public funds. We are all agreed about that. I have been trying to work out some of the arithmetical points which have been put before the Committee, and I started by taking the question of first-class travel-Eng. On the basis of 2½d. per mile with 500 travelling Members the cost would be £42,000 and that represents about 8,000 miles per member per year or the very respectable total of 4,000,000 miles a year. On the basis of a Session of 35 weeks it works out at about 228 miles for each of the 500 Members, a figure which seems to me to be rather high. I agree that you have to take long distances into account, and it is precisely from that point of view that I urge the Government to go into this question. Let the Financial Secretary find out in what proportion tickets have been used for long-distance journeys, and how the number of long-distance journeys compares with the number of short-distance journeys. I was horrified by the suggestion that occasionally people scrap a considerable number of tickets; that appears to me to have no possible defence. Surely there must be some provision under which tickets not used can be returned to the railway companies, and I should be very surprised to hear
      1990
      that the scrapping of these tickets was at all general. If that has been the practice, then it is a bad practice.
      I would suggest that the Government might reconsider the question of travelling in the Recess. I always thought that these facilities in the Recess were rather illogical. I was always against this practice altogether, but I also took the position that, if you are going to have it, the practice was far more logical to have it between London and the Members' homes, as was first suggested, instead of between London and the Members' constituencies. It was eventually settled that the facilities should be granted between London and the Member's constituency, and, that having been settled, the logical basis of continuing it during the Recess goes. If the facilities were granted between London and the Member's home, then there would be something to be said for all-the-year-round facilities, but, when the House is not sitting, and the Member is not residing in his London home—an increasing number of hon. Members reside in their own constituency—there appears to be a strong argument for considering whether the Government should not suspend these travelling facilities except for one journey from London and one back again. If that were done, I think it would he found that the season ticket system would he cheaper than the existing basis of charges, and I am quite sure that it would he much more satisfactory and convenient for Members.
      I believe that such an arrangement would save money to the Exchequer. I do not know of any other country where Members enjoy these facilities during the Recess. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes, Germany."] But they do not enjoy the facilities all the year round in Germany. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I am only speaking from recollection, but I think it was found at the time when this question was first considered that in quite a number of countries the travelling facilities of Members of Parliament were only extended to the time when Parliament was sitting. At all events, it seems to me to be rather an illogical thing that we should have these facilities during the Recess. At a time when we are reconsidering this question, it is worth while the Government looking into the matter

      1991
      and telling us what the cost of season tickets would be all the year round on the assumption of a normal Parliament sitting for 25 weeks in the year; then we can see what is the difference, and we shall know exactly where we are. I submit to the Financial Secretary that the Committee are not satisfied that the present system is absolutely the best that can be devised for the convenience of Members or the saving of money, and I hope the matter will be reconsidered.
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Perhaps it will be convenient for me to reply now to the points which have been raised. I was very glad, Mr. Chairman, that you found yourself able to allow the discussion to proceed along these lines, because the House is very anxious to discuss this matter, and it is very important that we should have an opportunity of discussing it this afternoon. I am very glad to respond to the invitation of those hon. Members who have asked me to investigate this matter further to see whether any alternative method can be adopted in place of the system involved at the present time. There are other alternatives to that of season tickets. It has been suggested that Members should be provided with warrants instead of being able to exchange their vouchers at the booking office for an ordinary railway ticket, and it is claimed that that is what is done in other countries. I will consider whether that would not be an advantage over the present system.
      The main point which has been mentioned this afternoon is that of the alternative of the season ticket, as against the present system. I should like to inform the Committee that there are a good many points to be taken into account which do not seem to me to have been realised by hon. Members. In the first place, there is the very salient point to which the right hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson) has referred. What is going to be the position during the Recesses? Is it suggested that the season ticket should not apply to the Recess, and, if not, it is suggested that during the interval we should go back to the voucher or warrant system? Do hon. Members wish to adopt the suggestion put forward by the right hon. Member for South Croydon that we should refuse to give any travelling facili-
      1992
      ties during the Recess? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]. I am afraid that point his not been made quite clear.
      Another matter was raised by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson) who suggested that the vouchers should be available on two or more railways which are not in the same group. Under the present system, I sometimes travel on one railway and come back on the other, and I think the voucher we have issued to us at present is admirably suited for that purpose. If I attend a meeting during the week end, I endeavour to go by one line and come back by the same line, which avoids taking single tickets. In the ordinary way, season tickets are not inter-changeable on two lines.
      Sir G. HAMILTON: The ordinary traders' season ticket is available on any railway of any group when the railways run to the same town.
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am dealing with the ordinary season ticket, and that will only apply to a single railway and not to an alternative railway. I will come to traders' tickets later. Then there is the case which has been mentioned of the Member for a county constituency who wishes to, travel to several different points in his own constituency. Under the present system, the Member originally had to choose a single place in his constituency, and his voucher was made out for that place. During the last Parliament a further concession was given allowing a Member to travel to any place in his constituency on any particular day of the week. If we changed over to the season ticket system, it would involve considerable inconvenience and an increase in the cost.
      It is quite true, as was stated by the hon. Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall) that the cost has been steadily rising. With regard to that point, may I state that the figure for the Estimate of this year was based on the 1928–29 figure, which was a whole year without a General Election, and the total was in the neighbourhood of £35,000. It was assumed by those who made that Estimate that the effect of the General Election would have been to reduce the amount below the 1928 figure, and it appeared that that was going to be the case when the Estimates were weighed

      1993
      up. The amounts becoming due in the heavier months of December and January of the present Parliament have shown themselves in time to be taken into account in the main Estimates, and that is why the figure was put down at the old amount, and was not increased as it should have been when it was realised that the cost had increased. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Croydon suggested that if we cut the season tickets down to the bone by having no facilities in the Recess, and only a single place in the constituencies, we should actually save money by changing over from the present system to the season ticket system. That is not the case. The very lowest estimate that I have before me is for the sum of £46,000, which the Committee will see is about £4,000 above the actual increased figure for which we are asking at the moment.
      Mr. ALBERY: Is that for the same number of Members?
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I was coming to that point. That is the lowest estimate put forward. It is an estimate based upon the number who had travelled when the Estimate was prepared. We have several additions to make to it. First of all, there is the larger number of Members travelling at the present time. Then, if we are to give the same facilities in the Recess, we get to £58,000, and if to that we add travelling to various points in the constituency, the amount would probably exceed £60,000, and it might be as high as £70,000, to carry out the full provision of season tickets throughout the year.
      Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is that based on ordinary season ticket rates or traders' season ticket rates? There is a great difference.
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I was coming to that point also. That estimate is for season tickets at ordinary rates. A suggestion has been made in the. Debate that, instead of ordinary season tickets at the full rate, we should endeavour—I use the words in no discreditable sense—to strike a bargain with the railway companies by getting what might be traders' tickets or by taking some other means of reducing the cost of the tickets from the full season
      1994
      ticket amount. That suggestion was also considered when the original scheme was carried through, and it was then decided that it was not desirable for this House to make a bargain with the railway companies. I think there are obvious grounds for that objection. That is why the proposal fell through. Otherwise, I am quite aware that we could strike a bargain with the railway companies and probably get a reduction from the full amount. The Committee might take the view that that is the right thing to do, but the Government, following the lines of their predecessors all through the years, have taken the view that such a course is undesirable. Unless there is a very strong feeling to the contrary, I think we should adhere to that decision.
      A further suggestion was made in the Debate. Hon. Members have suggested a hybrid method of dealing with the question. They say "Let us give vouchers to Members of Parliament who use only a few vouchers, but season tickets to Members who use many vouchers, if that means a reduction of cost." I have had that suggestion in various forms put before me by individual Members during the time that I have been Financial Secretary to the Treasury. On looking into it, I find that it would be very difficult to adopt, and I think the Committee will see that it would not be a very satisfactory method of dealing with this question. It would be a very delicate matter and very difficult to operate. The same criticism applies to the proposal that we should adopt a hybrid system of another kind—season tickets during the Session and vouchers during the Recess. I think the Committee will realise that when we are dealing with this matter we have to deal with it in a broad way and to adopt one system throughout. We cannot pick and choose between one Member and another, any more than we can do so between one period and another. We must throughout use season tickets, or bargain with the railways, or use traders' tickets, or use vouchers. Whatever the system adopted, we must stick to it throughout.
      It will he open to the Committee to decide whether we should have tickets only during the Session, but the position that we have taken up to now is that

      1995
      the tickets should be available during the Recess, and short of an overwhelming expression of opinion to the contrary by the Committee the Government do not want to alter that arrangement. The right hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest (Colonel Ashley) made the suggestion that the tickets should be available between the House of Commons and the Member's residence instead of between the House of Commons and his constituency. I am afraid that it would not be in order to deal with that suggestion, because in the original Estimate it is specifically stated that the ticket is to be between the House of Commons and the constituency. Probably the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would not wish to press that point, as it is contrary to the original decision of the House in the matter. I have now dealt with most of the questions that have been put to me. I conclude by repeating what I said at the beginning. Up to the present I have made only a partial survey of this matter. I am quite willing to, and I gather that it is the wish of the Committee that I should, examine the question further, and to go into all the details, to see if I can suggest any method which, without costing inure, would be either more convenient to Members or in other ways more desirable, and in such an event I should recommend the change for the consideration of the Committee.
      Major GLYN: I am sure that the Committee has heard with great satisfaction that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is willing to consider this matter in all its aspects. I am certain that if he would consider the possibility of setting up a small committee to go into the method by which tickets are issued he would find that the railway companies would be only too anxious to co-operate with him. There is one aspect of the matter which has not been dealt with so far. I happened to be a member, in 1921, of the committee which considered this problem and came to the conclusion that it was right that, in addition to the £400 a year granted in 1911, hon. Members should have free travel facilities. There was great discussion then as between first class and third class. It was then considered right and proper that hon. Members journeying from their constituencies to London
      1996
      should have every facility for rest so as to be in good condition when they arrived at the House for business.
      There is no doubt that since those facilities have been given there has been an enormous amount of extra travelling. That, I think, is only right and proper in the case of hon. Members who represent constituencies in the north, as it puts them on all fours with hon. Members who represent constituencies near London. Before the Committee of which I was a member we had evidence from one who has now ceased to be a Member of the House, that he was never able to see his family throughout the Session because he could not afford the journey to his home, which happened to be in his constituency. I am certain that hon. Members will realise that it is not right that any hon. Member should be put in a position of disadvantage of that sort. Therefore, if we are all agreed that there shall be these travelling facilities, the next problem we have to face is that it shall be done with the minimum of cost to the country. If we are decided upon that, we shall be all equally decided that there should be no abuse of the privilege. I believe that the time has come when the method of the present voucher system should be revised.
      An hon. Member has said that he finds it is possible to convert the existing voucher into a warrant. I believe that that can be done. That would meet the objections of my right hon. Friend the Member for the New Forest (Colonel Ashley), who thinks that it takes a long time to exchange a voucher for a ticket. It also has the advantage that hon. Members can travel by any route they like. They would have to sign in each case the counterfoil of the warrant. Abroad, if you travel on a privilege ticket, you are asked by the collector to sign your name on the back of the voucher in order that he may ensure that the signature is the same as that of the person entitled to travel. That very small difficulty could be easily met by hon. Members themselves. There is the point about the difference between first and third class. I feel, and I have felt for a long time, that it is not right for hon. Members to travel in any discomfort, but I think we can say that since the privileges were granted the convenience and the advantages of the third class passenger have been very well looked after by the railway com-

      1997
      panies. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I shall stick to that point, because I believe it to be true.
      There is a further point. In the case of hon. Members who sit for Midland constituencies it may not matter so much whether they travel first or third class, but in the case of hon. Members who sit for northern constituencies it is very important that they should get a night's rest when travelling. That is a matter which weighed with me in the original discussions of the Committee referred to. There are so many aspects of this question that, if the Financial Secretary would consider the best means of dealing with it by consulting the usual channels, the railway companies and representatives in different parts of the House, I am sure that a system could be devised which would be to the advantage of the Exchequer and a personal convenience to all Members.
      5.0 p.m.
      Mr. LEIF JONES: Considering the millions that we handle it would seem that we are devoting ridiculous attention to this Vote of £40,000 for the travelling expenses of hon. Members. It shows how sensitive the Committee is when a matter appears to affect the interests of hon. Members themselves. This is a very small sum indeed compared with what we spend on other purposes. If we travel on public business to our constituencies we ought to travel in comfort. I have, therefore, always supported first-class travel for Members of Parliament, for I hold that if there is any class in the community which ought to have comfort in travelling it is the Members of this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] We nearly all of us do work in the trains when we are travelling, and, if we can get undisturbed room, without a crowd around us, we ought to have it. I am not very much in favour of any distinction being made between third and first-class, and, if the time comes for all travelling to be done at one class, I should still advocate separate corridors being reserved for Members of Parliament. I have not found the voucher system inconvenient. It is not much trouble 10 fill up the voucher. As to the Recess, that is a period when these tickets are most useful. Therefore, I do not think any case has been made out for doing away with the existing system.
      1998
      It is desirable that all Members should be treated alike; otherwise, I see no difficulty in giving season tickets to Members where it will pay to do so and of using the warrant system for others. There is not much in it. I agree that we should save what we can in view of the expenditure which is going on, but the House should not allow it to be supposed that we ought to approach this question in any shamefaced way as though we were asking for something to which we are not entitled. Against that attitude I want to enter my protest. We should get cheaper tickets where we can get them for our purposes, but, so far as the payment of Members is concerned, I think the part least requiring criticism is the expenditure devoted to travelling.
      Mr. HARDIE: As one who comes from a long distance I wish to say a few words on this question. I have always held that whatever form of pass was used it ought to be one which would in no way be transferable. That is a matter which forms an undercurrent to this Deba e, and I approach it quite straight forwardly. A statement was made by the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills)—I am sorry he is not in the House—which raised the question not only of his own honour but of the honour of all Members. I remember when I asked what world be done about the return half in the case of a Member taking a return ticket on going home, and the House going into Recess, I was told that he would put it in an envelope and send it back to the Treasury, who would get credit for it.
      I have here in my hand a document which is not affected in any way by the class you are travelling, the date on which you travel, nor where you are travelling. On it is a photograph in the front and your signature. When a Member goes to a station, he has to fill in his voucher and get a ticket in the ordinary way. I am trying to avoid the issue of a ticket. With this system I have here in my hand, all a Member does is to sign his name across two sections, the outward and the return, and give the date. This will allow him to pass the check of the collector on his journey to his constituency and will supply a check again on his return journey when completed. It affords a complete record of the Member's travelling, and there is no possibility of any other use

      1999
      being made of it. That, I submit, is a much handier system than the voucher system.
      Sir G. HAMILTON: What record would the company have of the journeys?
      Mr. HARDIE: On the railway journeys the railway company would tear off slips and they would have a record on their books. With regard to the question of the single journey, I would ask: Are there any single journeys in connection with Parliamentary duties? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Well, I am glad that this question has been raised. If circumstances are such in the case of some Members that they can come back by car. [HON. MEMBERS: "By omnibus."] Well, supposing you come back by boat. When I can travel by boat to Glasgow, I save about £3. Provision for this is made by the voucher. By boat or rail, as the Minister of Transport said, is the real basis of the arrangement.
      I hope that the Treasury when they consider this matter will take what I have suggested into account for it seems to me, apart altogether from the question of inconvenience of the voucher system, that the system I am recommending, with a photograph of the Member on the front part of it together with his signature, affords full guarantee as to who is travelling. If there is any fault in our present system which would tempt anyone to do anything that is wrong, then I say let us perfect it.
      Major LLEWELLIN: I rise to endorse what has been said by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. O. Lewis) and the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn). Personally, I am a little disappointed in the attitude that the Committee has taken this afternoon upon one point. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that economy is absolutely necessary. I suppose there is a large number of Members on these benches who talk about economy, and I suppose there are still a few Members on the Liberal benches who also mention that subject in the country. I should have liked the Committee to have determined that Members should travel third-class and not first-class.
      The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point before the Committee. The Committee is
      2000
      not called upon to say whether Members should travel first-class or third-class.
      Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: On that point of Order. If the Committee should decide upon third-class instead of first-class, that would obviate this additional sum.
      The CHAIRMAN: The question is not one of first-class or third-class tickets. The question before the Committee is that of an estimate.
      Major LLEWELLIN: Perhaps I might say, then, that Members should travel in such a way that this Estimate would be reduced by rather more than half. When we are discussing economy the first thing to do is to economise in small things and to start with economy at home, and that is why I should have liked the Committee to have made the gesture this afternoon. The case has been mentioned by the right hon. and gallant Member for New Forest (Colonel Ashley) of Members of Parliament or perhaps Ministers having to travel at a lower class than that travelled by private secretaries or members of a Department. Well, I should cut down the price of travel tickets to civil servants rather than cut down their pay. All that it seems necessary to ensure by this Vote is that Members of Parliament should be able to travel to and from their constituencies. The right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones) who spoke from the Liberal Benches said that if any class of the community needed to travel in comfort it was that of Members of Parliament. I would reply by saying that if there is any class in this country who should consider economy it is that of Members of Parliament. When I travel to Scotland, as I usually do in the Autumn, I invariably go third-class and on a third-class sleeper. The third-class sleepers which are now provided are extremely comfortable and are quite as much as any Member of this House can afford for himself, or at any rate that the majority of Members can afford, if paying for it out of their own money. If we travel in that way when we do so with our own money, then we ought to travel the same class when we do it out of public expenditure. [Interruption.] Indignation was expressed at the idea of a Member taking a week-end

      2001
      ticket, but I say that, if we take weekend tickets when we pay for them ourselves, we should do the same when they are paid for by the State.
      The only other point to which I want to refer is that of travelling during the Recess. There are some people, for instance Parliamentary private secretaries, who may naturally have to travel from a constituency back to London, but personally I would not allow an ordinary Member, unless he had a Parliamentary duty to perform, to travel during the Recess at the expense of the country.
      Mr. HARDIE: Suppose that you had someone living 300 or 400 miles away from London who did not come within the category mentioned by the hon. Member and suppose in connection with some matter which he is fighting in his constituency that he finds it necessary to come up to London to get in touch with one of the Departments, would you say that he has no right to be afforded travelling facilities or that such a matter does not come within the definition of Parliamentary duty?
      Major LLEWELLIN: If I were asked that question, I would say that, when it was right for him to come here in connection with any duty to his constituency, he should be allowed to travel at the expense of the State, but he should make some explanation to the Treasury saying that this was necessary for certain reasons. I would not, however, allow Members to travel from their constituency to London during the Recess for, say, a wedding.
      Mr. HARDIE: I resent that.
      The CHAIRMAN: Although the hon. Member may resent it, it is not out of order.
      Major LLEWELLIN: I was not suggesting that the hon. Member himself was going to use a warrant in that way, although, as the warrants are at present issued, he is perfectly entitled to do so.
      Mr. HARDIE: Nothing of the kind; I am not permitted to use it.
      Major LLEWELLIN: I am glad to hear that the hon. Member views his voucher in that light, and, apparently, therefore, agrees with the point I am
      2002
      making, namely, that hon. Members should not be allowed to use their vouchers except for strictly Parliamentary duties. As I understand the Resolution of this House, so long as they are travelling between London and their constituencies, they are allowed to use their warrants, and no one is entitled to ask them, "What have you travelled for?"
      Mr. HARDIE: Nobody travels 800 miles for fun.
      The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not continually interrupt.
      Major LLEWELLIN: The point that I was making, and I am glad that the hon. Member agrees with me, was that there should be some Resolution laid down that Members should not travel during the Recess unless in connection with some Parliamentary duty. Our primary duty, as Members of the House of Commons, is to be economical with the moneys of the State, and, especially, to be economical when our own convenience or comfort is concerned. We should examine this Vote strictly, and I personally had hoped that this afternoon it would have been decided that the Vote could have been reduced by laying it down that, from now until the 31st March next, we should travel third class instead of first.
      Mr. DENMAN: I am afraid that, on this Vote for money required before the end of March, I cannot persuade myself that the discussion of what is possible during the Recess can be in order, and so I will not follow the last speaker, or other speakers—
      The CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that that remark of his is a reflection on the Chair. I myself indicated that a wide discussion would be out of order, but I looked at the original Estimate and found that it was not very definite, and, therefore, I allowed a somewhat wider discussion when this suggestion was made to the Financial Secretary.
      Mr. DENMAN: I apologise if my remark could have been taken, by any construction at all, as a reflection on the Chair. It was not so intended; it was only to explain why I did not feel entitled to embark on that particular subject of

      2003
      discussion. The point that I want to make is a simple one. What I would submit is really in order on this Estimate is any suggestion that will combine any convenience for Members with increased economy in our Estimates. Any suggestion that would enable us to lessen the amount spent in travelling is, I submit, in order, and, therefore, I want to suggest to the Financial Secretary that he might allow a somewhat wider range of possibilities than he seemed to be inclined to accept. He suggested that we must have a rather cast-iron system of one type or another, but I submit that it is possible to effect considerable economies by allowing to Members a reasonable amount of choice. Why should not a Member choose a cheaper method if it happens to be more convenient to him? The use of a third-class ticket would frequently be most convenient. Take the case of Pullmans. The third-class Pullman is quicker and even more comfortable than the first-class, but we cannot use our vouchers—
      Mr. O'CONNOR: Yes; it is on the voucher.
      Mr. DENMAN: The Pullman ticket has to be paid for by oneself, and I suggest that it ought to be possible to allow a Member to adopt a method of travelling to his destination cheaper than his voucher indicates. For instance, as has already been mentioned, the third-class sleeper is cheaper than the first-class ordinary fare. The third-class "with trimmings" is really a preferable method, and in many cases is cheaper. Why should not a Member adopt that method?
      Mr. LEIF JONES: The State does not pay for the sleeper.
      Mr. DENMAN: I suggest that it is cheaper, and, therefore, while he gets greater comfort, there is an economy in the money spent by the State. Then, with regard to season tickets, why should not a third-class season ticket be allowed for anyone who wants it, instead of the first-class voucher system? That might be a convenience, and I submit it as a suggestion to the Financial Secretary. I do not see any reason why, if we want to make economies, we should not be allowed to do so.
      Captain CROOKSHANK: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £6,590.
      My object in moving this reduction is not to extinguish the Vote altogether because it still leaves in hand the normal token sum of 110 in case adjustment is required. I move it in order to call further attention to one point which has already been dealt with. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones) seemed to be a little surprised that the House should be so meticulously careful about this Estimate—[Interruption]—and he confirms that by saying, "Hear, hear!"; but the fact that the House has been fairly full, and that so many Members have taken part in the discussion, is due, I think, to what was said by the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie). I am sure he was right when he said that throughout this Debate there has been a sort of under-current, so many Members feeling that the honour of the House has been impugned by a certain misfortune, as we may call it, which recently occurred. That is quite correct. Last week I asked the Financial Secretary what would be the saving in the current year if the vouchers available for Members of the House had been third class instead of first class vouchers, and the estimate made by the Treasury under that head was £16,000. If we could adopt that arrangement forthwith, there would be no need for this Supplementary Estimate, and, therefore, the reduction which I am moving could be put into effect.
      It is obviously difficult at any time to work out exactly how much these estimates may be according to the system of vouchers, season tickets and so on, but the hon. Gentleman's own figures show that there would be a saving of £16,000 as between third class and first class fares. After what we have heard from the Treasury Bench, after we have been warned that every section of the community will have to put up with some sacrifice, when even the Cabinet is going to do something—not yet described—in that direction, when social services hvae to be checked, when possibly the "dole" will have to be reduced—[Interruption]—when the Civil Service is going to have large reductions in its salaries, I put it to this Committee that, on the first possible occasion when the House can do something in the way of sacrifice for the common good, it is incumbent upon us to do so. The right hon. Gentleman the

      2005
      Member for Camborne says that, if there were only one class of railway travelling in this country, Members of Parliament ought to have some special privileges. I hope that those privileges will not be arranged by the United Kingdom Alliance, but I am not at all sure that there is anything in the argument that Members of Parliament should be treated differently from ordinary passengers. It would probably do hon. Members opposite a lot of good to travel between London and their constituencies third class, and get into touch with some of their constituents and hear what they think about the attitude and activities of the present Government; and I am sure it would assist hon. Members of the Opposition to travel third class and hear what people have to say about the Government and get more ammunition for their speeches. I put it to this Committee that it is important that we should give a lead in this matter of economy. [Interruption.] At present we are dealing with travelling facilities for Members of the House and that is sufficient for the time being.
      The hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) really argued the case for me just now when he said that in many cases it was more comfortable to travel third class in a certain form than to travel first class. When a Socialist Member of the House says that, why should not we all agree and say that the amount paid by the State should be third-class fares, and that, if anyone wants any additional frills, they can get them at their own expense. The great bulk of the community travels third class, and Members of the House of Commons are only, roughly speaking, the same sort of average as the rest of the community. [Interruption.] It is a pity that in this House any effort for economy should be treated with derision by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I should think that many people in this country would be amazed to hear the kind of reception that is given by hon. Members opposite to a proposal that Members of Parliament should travel third class. I hope that the House may be given an opportunity to-day of registering an opinion by a free vote on this point. I would remind the Committee that this is the first time for, I think, seven years that this matter has come before the House in any shape or form. The last
      2006
      time, curiously enough, was when a Socialist administration was in office and when these privileges were granted. There has been no opportunity since that time—
      The CHAIRMAN: There will be an opportunity on the main Estimate. To enter into it now would be out of order.
      Captain CROOKSHANK: It is true, of course, that there is always an opportunity then, but the custom of the House is to take policy questions on main Estimates, and in actual fact there has been no expression of opinion on the matter in this House since 1924. In view of the parlous condition of the national finances, and of the fact that, although we have never yet reached the original Estimates for this charge, the cost has been going up year by year, I suggest that now is the time, seeing that we have the opportunity, when we should take a vote on the specific issue arising out of my proposed reduction, namely, as to whether in future it would not be adequate for Members to travel at the public expense third-class.
      Mr. J. JONES: I am very interested M economy, because I have had to practise it all my life. When I hear hon. Members opposite talking about saving £6,000, and at the same time voting for the continuance of things that are costing the nation £1,000,000 a day in interest alone, I wonder what they mean by economy. They remind me of the story of the Scotsman who used a wart on the back of his neck for a collar stud. The hon. Member opposite, a great apostle of economy, forgets the possibility of saving some money by buying caps instead of hats. I have not used a voucher yet in the 12 years that I have been a Member of the House, not because I should not like to have one but because my business engagements as a trade union official compel me to travel to another part of London and not to the House of Commons to begin with. I get no financial advantage by signing vouchers or forms.
      At the same time, I claim, as a public servant, that only the best is good enough for the people as a whole. I should like to see the abolition of all classes bar one, and that is the working class. We have only had these matters

      2007
      discussed since Labour became sufficiently strong to be important. All this talk about economy is at our expense. Those who go to their constituencies in their Rolls Royces forget about those of us who have only boiled rice. I can get to my constituency for 8d. at any time. Others are not so fortunately placed, and I am prepared to support them in getting the best possible facilities. If they travel all night, why should they not travel under comfortable conditions?
      I sometimes go across to the Continent as a trade union delegate, and I find that Members of Continental Parliaments have passes which take them not merely to their constituencies but all over the country. The difference, generally speaking, is that the railways are nationally owned. Some Members who talk about economy are railway directors, and they have a gold medal that enables them to travel where they like, and over other systems as well. They do not even pay for their food on the train. Everything is "buckshee." They are going to save this enormous amount of money, and I can see the National Debt dwindling to nothing. The hon. Member's name will go down to history as the man who saved England, in the time of her greatest financial difficulties, £6,000 per annum. It is enough to make an angel weep.
      First-class travelling, after all, is not as good as it should be, even when you are paying for it. In the picture paper that I sometimes read I see most luxurious aeroplanes. Why should not a Member be allowed to have an aeroplane ride through his constituency? Suppose that one of his constituents had consumption, or the doctor had given him up, why should he not be allowed to fly down to see how he is getting on? I have been told that a member of the diplomatic corps, if his wife has a pain in her big toe, can fly from Teheran to London at Government expense. But a Member of Parliament must travel third. It reminds me of a story about the great Prince Bismarck. When a friend met him at a railway station getting into a third-class carriage and asked him why, he said he was riding third because there was no fourth. He was an economist of the type that we have in this House.
      2008
      I am willing to travel on Shanks's pony if I cannot afford to pay the fare. The House of Commons is coming down to a very small thing when it is going to save the nation by reducing an Estimate by £6,000. It seems to me that the only object of this proposition is to give hon. Members opposite an opportunity of showing the "Daily Mail" and the "Daily Express" what a splendid knowledge they have of economy. I would undertake to say that to-night or some day this week they will spend more on one lunch than would pay for a Labour Member's railway fare to his consituency. I am sick and tired of it. I and some of my comrades have to pay out a lot more money than we can afford in expenses connected with being Members of this House. I do not think there are many Members who can represent their constituents for anything less than 15s. a day if they are going to do their duty at all. And we have this contemptible argument advanced that third-class is good enough for us. I say one class is good enough for all. We should get the best accommodation we can get, and the best you can get is what we are getting now. I do not get it, but I am not going to stop other people getting what I cannot have. I do not even begrudge the hon. and gallant Gentleman his top hat.
      It is easy to lecture other people about economy, but real economy can only begin when you realise that it can start right at the top of the tree. If I ever want to discover where to start saving, I start with things that are not necessary. There are things which are not necessary for the stability and safety of the country, and that is where we ought to start, where we should save £1,000,000 a day and not £6,000 a year. I only hope hon. Members opposite will learn economy and will begin by trying to live as some of us have had to live. We know more about economy than those who have moved this Amendment. We saw one of our own Members the other day with a white wand in his hand, wearing a uniform that must have cost at least £50. He came in to tell us that something had happened in the House of Lords and to thank us for a Resolution that we had carried.
      Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: On a point of Order. Is this relevant to the Vote for Members' travelling expenses?
      The CHAIRMAN: The comparison is not apropos to the subject matter under discussion, but I think the hon. Member has about finished.
      Mr. JONES: I have nearly finished, Sir. We can start economy in the right way and in the right place, but in this case it is simply putting a sticking-plaster on a wooden leg. The real issues have been left untouched. Hon. Members opposite will never tackle the real problem. This attack upon railway travelling is a contemptuous proposition mainly levelled at us. Hon. Members have had all the advantages of luxury in living generally, and they are the first to come forward with this proposition. They would not have thought of it in the days when they had a majority. For seven years they let it slide and we are going to let it slide for 700. When you want to cut down expenses, begin at the right end, and we will all walk into the Lobby behind you. But we know you will never start. You will never tackle the people who could really save the money.
      Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I think we all realise that this is a topic which is extraordinarily difficult to settle. I do not agree with my hon. Friend who contended that railways and vouchers should not be used in the Recess. To my mind, when anyone desires to undertake the obligations of a Member of Parliament he should live either in London or in his constituency, wherever he can best look after the interest of his constituents, and it is absurd in my opinion to say that during the Recess he should not be able to keep in close touch both with London and with his constituency. I could not afford houses in two places, and I had to select the one that seemed to offer the best opportunity of serving both the House of Commons and my constituency.
      There is one suggestion that I should like to make. Many of us who go to railway stations at night have some little difficulty because the man behind the grill asks, "Week-end or ordinary?" That depends, of course, on the period of the year. You can go on a Friday or a Saturday night or for the Whitsun holiday, but that conveys little or nothing to the man who is asking for a ticket. He does not know whether it means a
      2010
      saving or an expense and he says, "Give me the ordinary." Actually he is involving the State in £2 or £3 extra expense. There are a certain number of voucher users in the House and a certain number who never use them. London Members in districts served by tubes and the Underground never use them. Take the voucher users and find out exactly the amount that the vouchers come to annually. It might be several hundreds of pounds, or even run to a higher amount. This is a rough and ready suggestion which the hon. Member representing the Treasury might consider, and possibly whittle down to acceptable dimensions. Wash out the whole system of vouchers and tickets, whether first-class or third-class, and divide the money amongst the voucher users in addition to their £400 a. year. That would enable those who desired to travel first-class to do so, if they could afford it, and those who wanted to travel third-class could do so. They could use the money as they liked in visiting their constituents, or they need not visit their constituents at all, if they did not wish to do so. That would be a matter for their constituents and themselves. It would take away all the discussion on the question as to when a voucher should be used, and when a ticket was misused, and so on. It would be of further assistance to married Members of the House. There are occasions when Members travel to their constituencies with their wives and families, and they cannot afford a sufficient sum to enable their wives and families to go first-class, whereas they have a first-class ticket.
      Mr. CULVERWELL: Surely they can take a third-class ticket.
      Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: They go to the ticket office and hand in a voucher, and they are handed a first-class ticket, which they use, though they travel third-class with their wives and families. This is no doubt done in ignorance, but it means additional cost to the State. If we could wash out vouchers and tickets altogether and allow a Member to travel as he likes with a third-class ticket or a first-class ticket we should not add one penny to the cost. We should certainly, in my opinion, reduce it if we gave the right to Members to decide for themselves how they should travel, when they should travel and at what expense. This

      2011
      is only a rough-and-ready suggestion, but it might be devised into something really worth while.
      Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I rise to support the reduction of the Vote which was so ably moved by my hon. Friend, and at the outset I should like to say that I disagree with the suggestion made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore). It seems to me that he is getting away altogether from the original idea of free travel. What he is advocating is an increased allowance or an increased salary for certain Members of this House. He says that it is to give them the equivalent of railway travelling, but it does not necessarily follow at all.
      The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that the hon. and gallant Member should follow up the matter in that way. The hon. and gallant Member was making a suggestion to the Minister, and the hon. and gallant Member who is now addressing the Committee is not in order in replying to that suggestion.
      Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I bow to your Ruling at once, but I have always been under the impression that this Chamber was largely for the purposes of debate.
      HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!
      The CHAIRMAN: Certainly, it is for the purposes of debate. I said that discussion should only range over a very narrow field, but I agreed that suggestions might be made to the Minister, and the Minister has said he will consider the suggestions. I agreed to extend the discussion for that purpose, but not for the purpose of widening the discussion generally.
      Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: If the Chairman considers that I have said anything which casts a reflection upon his Ruling I will certainly withdraw without a moment's hesitation. That is a great deal more than has been done on the other side of the Committee. I really think that the Committee are entitled to an explanation of something which fell from the Financial Secretary early in the Debate when he was presenting the Supplementary Estimate.
      2012
      Giving one of his reasons for the increased cost of these travelling allowances, he used the words
      "Fewer Members have London houses, and consequently more travelling is done."
      The Financial Secretary will correct me if I am wrong, but I am distinctly under the impression that those were his exact words. It seems to indicate that the Financial Secretary is suggest-that Members use those vouchers to travel between Westminster and their homes. I cannot see that there is any other logical interpretation to be put upon that remark. It is definitely stated that that is not allowed; that vouchers are to be used for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is for the purpose of travelling between London and their constituencies. [An HON. MEMBER: "Their homes are there!"] There is the case of which the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn) spoke when he said that on one occasion a Member was unable to visit his wife and family during the whole of the long Session because prior to the introduction of travelling warrants he had not the wherewithal to enable him to pay his railway fare. He entirely omitted the position of the poor man of to-day who does not live in his constituency and who is not able to visit his family the whole of the Session because he has not the wherewithal, and legitimately speaking the voucher does not entitle him to go to his home.
      With regard to the mention made by the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills) of the case of a man who had destroyed at least half a dozen return tickets, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) said that this was a most iniquitous thing to do, and that the man ought to have known what to do. I would inform the hon. Member for Springburn that I should not have known what to do. It is possible that one might take a return ticket in London and that sometimes a friend, who might be better off, might give you a lift back to London in his car. You have the return ticket in your pocket and you may not visit your constituency for some time, and the ticket may become out-of-date. I admit that I should not know what to do with it. It would be contrary to the rules

      2013
      of the railway company to use it, and to throw it away would place an unnecessary burden upon the Treasury, and if you sent it back to the railway company and claimed a refund you would lay yourself open to the charge of taking the money—[An HON. MEMBER: "Return it to the Fees Office!"] Exactly. I know that perfectly well now that the hon. Member for Springburn has told us. I am quite sure that there are a large number of Members of the House who had no idea that the right thing to do was to return the ticket to the Fees Office.
      Mr. HARDIE: Is it in order for an hon. Member to use a phrase, perhaps unknowingly, which might be seized upon by the Press outside, who are always ready to attack people, that when certain people have a return ticket which they do not use they can go to a railway company and get money refunded?
      The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member knows that that is not a point of Order.
      Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I never made any suggestion of the kind, and the hon. Member knows perfectly well that I never intended to do so. I am going to suggest that in future a great deal of misunderstanding would be avoided if there was printed across the cover of the book of vouchers an instruction that if a. ticket was not used it must be returned to the Fees Office. That would tell everybody what ought to be done, and would not point the way to such misunderstandings as appear to have occurred.
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: May I now appeal to the Committee to bring this discussion to an end? We have had a very full discussion lasting for two hours, and there is a great deal of other business to get through. I have not made any attempt to curtail what has been a very general Debate, and I feel that it is now time to bring it to an end. May I refer to a remark of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward) and draw his attention to the fact that on the book of vouchers there are these words:
      "Should a Member not use the ticket issued in exchange for a voucher, he should immediately return the same to the Fees Office."
      Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I do not think that they are upon mine.
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It is quite plain, and I am glad to say that the point is already covered. The hon. and gallant Gentleman also took exception to something which I have said. He said I had pointed out that there was a considerable difference between the personnel of the last House of Commons and the present House of Commons, and that whereas in the last House of Commons many of the Members lived in London, at the present time there were many Members who had to travel every week, and he seemed to think that there is something peculiar about it. He forgets that a great many Members actually do reside in their constituencies, and that in the normal course of events they go back to their constituencies at the week-end. I was referring to the obvious fact that there was a difference, that whereas in the last Government a larger proportion of Members had houses in London, in the present case a larger proportion have their residences in the constituencies and go away from London every week-end. That fact is reflected in the Vote to which I have already referred. Whereas formerly the number using tickets was represented roughly as 460, it is represented more accurately now to be about 500. Since I spoke last several speeches have been made, and they have, nearly all of them, dealt with the one point of first or third-class.
      The hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) went as far as to move a reduction in the Vote of nearly the whole sum of £6,000 and he alleged that that could all be saved if henceforth travelling was third-class instead of first-class. Even if the Estimate dealt with travelling up to the end of March, that amount could not be saved in that time. The real fact is, that what comes into the financial year is the travelling up to the end of January, and as that is already past, no saving could be effected in the present year even if the system were changed. Therefore, the proposal to cut down the Estimate on the ground that the amount could be saved by travelling third-class is really quite contrary to the facts, because it could not be so at all.
      6.0 p.m.
      On the general question of substituting third-class for first-class. I would like

      2015
      to put this fact before the Committee. The larger commercial and business houses of this country recognise to-day that it is in the interests of their business that their principal commercial travellers should travel first-class, and they give their commercial travellers first-class tickets. The principal local authorities give their principal officials permission to travel first-class, and over a long period of time officials of the Civil Service travelling on behalf of the main Ministries have travelled first-class. It is really an absurd suggestion that we should give Members of Parliament third-class tickets. A great many Members have important work to do during their travelling, and it is only in accordance with the practice which is carried out by all these Departments to which I have referred that Members of Parliament should be given at least the same facilities as those bodies give to their servants. The time of a Member of Parliament ought not to be wasted when, for a comparatively small additional sum, he can be given the opportunity of really using his time to good advantage. The hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn) hoped that I would consult with Members of this House. We have had a good deal of consultation to-day, and I have heard a good many suggestions, all of which will be carefully considered. If there are any other suggestions which hon. Members wish to put before me, I shall be glad to consider them, and see what can be done, and, if the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon, knowing the position of the railway companies, chooses to bring forward any point, I shall be only too glad to pay full attention to anything that he may suggest. Now that we have had 2¼ hours of discussion, and we have a good deal of other business to get through, I hope that hon. Members will not think it necessary to continue the discussion.
      Mr. BOOTHBY: I do not want to detain the Committee, but it is about time that something was said from this side in favour of first-class travelling as against third-class travelling. The conditions imposed upon people who go into public life in this country are as near intolerable as possible, and, if you make
      2016
      things much more difficult for them, nobody will ever go into public life. There is nothing to be got out of being a Member of Parliament. Hon. Members on both aides will agree with me in that statement. We have very onerous duties to perform, and I do not believe there is any section of the population in this country who are more overworked and worse paid than politicians of all parties. We get all the kicks, none of the praise, and no thanks of any sort or kind for anything that we may do. We have the very severe and onerous constitutional duty imposed upon us of interpreting government of the democracy to the democracy in a democratic country, and the only people who have to do that are Members of Parliament. I sit for a Scottish constituency, and I can only say that while it is quite all right to take a twopenny tube down to a local London constituency—it does not matter whether you travel first-class or third-class there—anyone can tell the difference between travelling to Aberdeen first-class or third-class. Travelling first-class, it is quite all right, but travelling third-class for 12 hours to Aberdeen is the nearest approach to hell that can be imagined. I can only say this to hon. Members: if you make us travel third-class you will have to give us a Parliament in Edinburgh, because we will not come to London.
      Mr. O'CONNOR: I do not entirely agree with the reasoning of my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby). I rise chiefly in order to point out the implications of what the Financial Secretary said. He said that we ought to travel first-class because the Civil Service and the servants of municipal authorities travel first-class. I should have thought that one of the best ways of getting the Civil Service to cut down their already ponderous estimates, and to get the local authorities to cut down their estimates, is to set an example from this House. It is quite astonishing to hear the ribaldry and facetiousness with which any attempt at economy is received in this House. It is true that we are dealing only with a small sum to-day, just as we dealt with a very large sum yesterday, but it does not matter whether we deal with a large sum or a small sum, the facetiousness and ribaldry on the opposite benches is marked, and

      2017
      it is also marked by the taxpayers of this country.
      With much of what the hon. Member for East Aberdeen said I am in entire agreement. I do not think anybody ought to be asked to take the long journey to Scotland on public business as a third-class passenger. Third-class travelling is not comfortable enough for that distance, and persons would probably travel first-class even if it involved financial sacrifice at their own expense, but I think the Treasury ought to be able to make a distinction between people who have to take these long journeys and people who have only to take short journeys. [Interruption.] Why do hon. Members opposite get this superiority complex? I am proud of the fact that I am one of His Majesty's counsel, and in the exercise of my professional duties I have to travel very considerable distances all over the South and West of England, and I always travel third-class. I always do a good deal of professional work on the way up and down to my places, while travelling third-class, but when I go on public business, which is no more onerous and certainly no more taxing to those cerebral resources which I possess, I have the pleasure of travelling first-class, although I see people perhaps of greater enlightenment and perhaps doing better work than myself travelling third-class.
      Members of Parliament could do a service out of all proportion to the amount that we could save on this Vote by setting an example of a determination to accept the advice which was given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the need for ruthless and rigid economy. It is for that reason that I hope the Financial Secretary will not overlook the possibility of arranging that in cases where, for example, a night journey is to be taken, first-class facilities should still be afforded to Members of Parliament, but that in cases where there is no more than a few hours journey involved, third-class facilities, such as are enjoyed by the rest of the community, and taxpayers in particular, is all that a Member of Parliament ought to ask. [HON. MEMBERS: "You start it!"] Hon. Members suggest that I should start it. Possibly I am one of very few Members of this House who have this to his credit that I have, at least on one occasion, taken a third-class ticket with my first
      2018
      class voucher. I recommend that to hon. Members opposite. [HON. MEMBERS:" On one occasion!"] Yes. If one has it shoved under one's nose that one can have a first-class ticket for the asking, most of us are human enough to take what is offered.
      There are one or two other ways in which this Vote might be cut down, and I would recommend them to the Financial Secretary. He seemed to be unduly sniffy, if I may use a vulgarism, about any idea of bargaining with the railway companies. Why not bargain? Why not say to the railway company: "Mr. X last year travelled to Nottingham so many dozen times. If he had taken a season ticket for the year it would have been cheaper. Only charge for Mr. X the season ticket rate for the year." I can see nothing wrong in a bargain of that kind, made at the end of the year. In that way the Treasury would be limited to the amount that would be represented by the season ticket charge, as if the season ticket rate had been entered into in the first instance. That seems to be one way in which to control the expenditure to the extent of, at any rate, the cost of the season ticket.
      There is another way for saving money which is not possible under the present method. My home happens to be between my constituency and London. Although I may travel from London to my constituency I am not allowed to travel from my home to my constituency. That is a pure waste of money. As I have credited myself with some virtue in one respect I might as well admit that I have committed an apparent fraud in another respect, in that I have taken a ticket from London to my constituency, but only boarded the train half way to my constituency, because it was near my home, having journeyed to my home by car. In that way the taxpayers have been deprived of the value of the saving represented by the journey between one's home and London. That is a small matter, but there are many hon. Members who if the ticket were available between their homes and their constituency would be able to save small sums of money for the taxpayer. If this was a private business, and we were looking into this matter with a sincere desire to cut down expense, we should be able to do so in

      2019
      these ways, and I recommend them to the Financial Secretary. He need not be the least bit ashamed that the Committee have spent some time in discussing this matter, because it indicates a desire on the part of Members of Parliament that public money should not be wasted in travelling expenses.
      Mr. BRACKEN: I am one of those Members of Parliament who represents a London constituency and lives near my constituency and who, therefore, never uses a voucher. I do not want to deal with this question on party lines, but I do think that the case put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) deserves very careful consideration. I think the public who take any interest in the Debates in this House will feel that the proceedings this afternoon have been scandalous. The hon. Member for Silver-town (Mr. J. Jones) has made a number of his well-known jokes, and hon. Members opposite have indulged in a series of silly interjections—
      Mr. LEES: Get on with the case.
      Mr. BRACKEN: Hon. Members opposite have indulged in a series of silly interjections—[Interruption.] This is a very serious matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Take your hands out of your pockets!"] I shall do what I think fit. If I had such manners as hon. Members opposite, I would—[Interruption.] This is the way that a very considerable sum of public money is thrown away. Hon. Members opposite take the line that it is impossible for a man to do public work when travelling in a third-class carriage. I was travelling on the Great Western Railway the other day and I saw the Archbishop of York who, I presume, was doing public work, travelling in a third-class carriage. When the Financial Secretary tells us, quite seriously, that because a number of commercial firms allow their employés to travel first-class, and a number of municipalities follow their example, that is a, reason why the House of Commons should do likewise. It was a most extraordinary argument. Has not the House of Commons to set an example to these wasteful local authorities? Is the Financial Secretary so careless of his duties that he seriously gets up in the House of Commons and declares
      2020
      that because a number of wealthy private firms pay first-class fares for their employés, the House of Commons must not ask its Members to travel third-class.
      Before these vouchers were granted Members of all parties always travelled third-class. Yet hon. Members come to the House this afternoon and indulge in a long series of silly jokes about public money. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) told us, in a very agreeable speech, that we are charged with the duty of interpreting democracy to the people and that, therefore, we ought to travel in first-class carriages. I should have thought that we could interpret democracy better if we talked to them in third-class carriages. Every hon. Member who wishes to save public money ought to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Central Nottingham. I hope that hon. Members will vote for the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank—[Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may think this is a very funny subject—[Interruption.] The Financial Secretary asked us to get on with the business, but we are interrupted by the gruff guffaw of the Under-Secretary of State for Air who if he is not insulting Lady Houston is behaving like a yahoo. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!] I hope the Amendment will be pressed to a Division.
      Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: The speech to which we have just listened—
      Mr. MAXTON: On a point of Order, and as a matter of information, can you inform us Mr. Dunnico whether the word "yahoo" is disorderly or not?
      The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dunnico): The word "yahoo" is very vague and indefinite in its application.
      Mr. SKELTON: Is there not, a difference between saying that an hon. Member is behaving like a yahoo and that he is a yahoo?
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that the word "yahoo" is out of order unless it was intended to be offensive, but such expressions do not add to the tone of the Debate.
      Mr. BRACKEN: I rise to say that if the zoological description I used offended any hon. Member I withdraw it, but I

      2021
      would remind you Mr. Deputy-Chairman, that I was being grossly interrupted by hon. Members opposite.
      Mr. HARDIE: Should not an hon. Member who uses the word "yahoo" try to know exactly what it implies, because it is a word which refers to a certain animal who does certain things.
      The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
      Mr. WILLIAMS: After that slight interruption, may I congratulate the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) on his speech. However great the force of example may be I think we should realise that if this House of Commons, the greatest institution of its kind in the world, as the first act of economy decided to cut down its travelling allowance from first class to third class it would not be good business in any sense of the word so far as the outside world is concerned. I know of no great firm which would consider it good business, and I congratulate the hon. Member for East Aberdeen on getting a wider and more intelligent outlook on life. He may soon rise to the intelligence of an ordinary Englishman. I want to make one suggestion to the Financial Secretary. I do not understand why the Treasury should not come to some agreement with the railway companies. I should have thought it possible to take a block of hon. Members, say from Glasgow or Birmingham, and say to the railway companies that for a period of years so many hon. Members would be coming from Glasgow or Birmingham, practically from the same station, and issue something in the nature of an annual ticket which would take the hon. Member to and from his constituency, and that the ticket should be available over any line. There is no
      great harm in that and it could be easily done. It would be much more difficult in the case of hon. Members from large and scattered constituencies, like Ross and Cornwall, you have a different proposition to face there, but in the case of a' block of Members living in a comparatively small area something possible on these lines might be done.
      There is one point in the original Estimate which the Financial Secretary has twice tried to explain and has not yet succeeded in. explaining to the satisfaction of many hon. Members. That is the £4,000 which he forgot about in the original Estimate. He attributes this to the fact that there was a General Election at the time. He has entirely failed to explain why he made this gross omission, and this fact alone entitles us to vote for the reduction. The difference between the original Estimate and the new is £6,000, about one-sixth of the Estimate. That is so large a proportion that it is quite clear that the Treasury are not exercising the care they should or that something quite unexpected has happened. We have heard nothing to lead us to suppose that anything really unexpected has happened, and we are therefore led to the conclusion that the Treasury in administering their own Estimates are loose and slack. It is the clear duty of this Committee to vote for the reduction to show that we are determined that this kind of loose bad budgetting, typical of the Financial Secretary and his leader the Chancellor of the Exchequer, shall be stopped at the earliest possible moment.
      Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,210, be granted for the said Service."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 130; Noes, 258.

      Division No. 166.]

      AYES.

      [6.25 p.m.

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

      Campbell, E. T.

      Duckworth, G. A. V.

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

      Cautley, Sir Henry S.

      Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

      Balniel, Lord

      Christie, J. A.

      Eden, Captain Anthony

      Betterton, Sir Henry B.

      Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

      Edmondson, Major A. J,

      Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

      Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

      Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

      Colfox, Major William Philip

      Falle, Sir Bertram G.

      Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

      Colman, N. C. D.

      Ferguson, Sir John

      Bracken, B.

      Colville, Major D. J.

      Fermoy, Lord

      Brass, Captain Sir William

      Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

      Fielden, E. B.

      Briscoe, Richard George

      Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

      Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

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

      Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

      Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

      Buchan, John

      Dalkeith, Earl of

      Galbraith, J. F. W.

      Burton, Colonel H. W.

      Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

      Ganzonl, Sir John

      Butler, R. A.

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

      Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

      Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

      Dawson, Sir Philip

      Gower, Sir Robert

      Granville, E.

      Longden, F.

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

      Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

      Marjoribanks, Edward

      Smith-Carington, Neville W.

      Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

      Markham, S. F.

      Smithen, Waldron

      Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

      Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

      Southby, Commander A. R. J.

      Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

      Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

      Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

      Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

      Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

      Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

      Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

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

      Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

      Hammersley, S. S.

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

      Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.

      Hanbury, C.

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

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

      Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

      Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

      Hartington, Marquess of

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

      Todd, Capt. A. J.

      Haslam, Henry C.

      Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

      Train, J.

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

      Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

      Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

      Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

      Penny, Sir George

      Turton, Robert Hugh

      Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

      Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

      Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

      Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

      Power, Sir John Cecil

      Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

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

      Ramsbotham, H.

      Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

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

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

      Warrender, Sir Victor

      Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

      Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

      Waterhouse, Captain Charles

      Hurd, Percy A.

      Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

      Wayland, Sir William A.

      Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

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

      Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

      Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

      Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

      Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

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

      Salmon, Major I.

      Withers, Sir John James

      Lamb, Sir J. Q.

      Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

      Womersley, W. J.

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

      Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

      Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

      Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

      Savery, S. S.

      Leighton, Major B. E. P.

      Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

      Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

      Simms, Major-General J.

      Captain Crookshank and Captain

      Llewellin, Major J. J.

      Skelton, A. N.

      Cazalet.

      Locker-Lampion, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

      Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

      NOES.

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

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      Jenkins, Sir William

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

      Devlin, Joseph

      John, William (Rhondda, West)

      Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

      Dudgeon, Major C. R.

      Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

      Ammon, Charles George

      Dukes, C.

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

      Angell, Sir Norman

      Ede, James Chuter

      Jones, Rt. Hon Lell (Camborne)

      Arnott, John

      Edmunds, J. E.

      Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

      Atkinson, C.

      Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

      Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

      Attlee, Clement Richard

      Egan, W. H.

      Jowitt Sir W. A. (Preston)

      Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

      Eimley, Viscount

      Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

      Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

      Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

      Kelly, W. T.

      Barnes, Alfred John

      Foot, Isaac

      Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Barr, James

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

      Kinley, J.

      Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

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

      Kirkwood, D.

      Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

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

      Knight, Holford

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

      George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

      Lansbury, Rt. Hon, George

      Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

      Gibbins, Joseph

      Lathan, G.

      Benson, G.

      Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

      Law, Albert (Bolton)

      Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

      Gill, T. H.

      Law, A. (Rossendale)

      Boothby, R. J. G.

      Glassey, A. E.

      Lawrence, Susan

      Bowen, J. W.

      Gossling, A. G.

      Lawrle, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

      Broad, Francis Alfred

      Gray, Milner

      Lawson, John James

      Brockway, A. Fenner

      Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

      Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

      Bromfield, William

      Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

      Leach, W.

      Brooke, W.

      Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

      Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

      Brothers, M.

      Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

      Lees, J.

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

      Grundy, Thomas W.

      Lewis, T. (Southampton)

      Brown, Ernest (Leith)

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

      Lindley, Fred W.

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

      Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Lloyd, C. Ellis

      Buchanan, G.

      Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

      Logan, David Gilbert

      Burgess, F. G.

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

      Longbottom, A. W.

      Burgin, Dr. E. L.

      Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

      Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

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

      Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

      Lowth, Thomas

      Cameron, A. G.

      Harbord, A.

      Lunn, William

      Cape, Thomas

      Hardie, George D.

      Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

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

      Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

      Mac Donald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

      Charleton, H. C.

      Hastings, Dr. Somerville

      McElwee, A.

      Chater, Daniel

      Haycock, A. W.

      McEntee, V. L.

      Church, Major A. G.

      Hayday, Arthur

      McKinlay, A.

      Clarke, J. S.

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

      MacLaren, Andrew

      Cluse, W. S.

      Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

      Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

      Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

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

      McShane, John James

      Cocks, Frederick Seymour

      Herrlotts, J.

      Malone, C. L'Estrange (Nthampton)

      Cohen, Major J. Brunel

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

      Manning, E. L.

      Compton, Joseph

      Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

      March, S.

      Cove, William G.

      Hoffman, P. C.

      Marcus, M.

      Cowan, D. M.

      Hopkin, Daniel

      Marley, J.

      Cripps, Sir Stafford

      Hore-Belisha, Leslie

      Marshall, Fred

      Daggar, George

      Horrabin, J. F.

      Mathers, George

      Dallas, George

      Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

      Matters, L. W.

      Dalton, Hugh

      Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

      Maxton, James

      Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

      Isaacs, George

      Mills, J. E.

      2024

      2025

      Milner, Major J.

      Romeril, H. G.

      Taylor R. A. (Lincoln)

      Montague, Frederick

      Rosbotham, D. S. T.

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

      Morgan, Dr. H. B.

      Rowson, Guy

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

      Morley, Ralph

      Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West

      Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

      Morris, Rhys Hopkins

      Sanders, W. S.

      Thurtle, Ernest

      Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

      Sandham, E.

      Tinker, John Joseph

      Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

      Sawyer, G. F.

      Tools, Joseph

      Mort, D. L.

      Scott, James

      Tout, W. J.

      Muggerldge, H. T.

      Scrymgeour, E.

      Townend, A. E.

      Murnin, Hugh

      Scurr, John

      Vaughan, David

      Naylor, T. E.

      Sexton, Sir James

      Viant, S. P.

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

      Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

      Walkden, A. G.

      Noel Baker, P. J.

      Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

      Walker, J.

      Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

      Sherwood, G. H.

      Wallace, H. W.

      Oldfield, J. R.

      Shield, George William

      Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor

      Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

      Shiels, Dr. Drummond

      Watkins, F. C.

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

      Shillaker, J. F.

      Watson, W. M. (Dunfermling)

      Palin, John Henry

      Shinwell, E.

      Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

      Paling, Wilfrid

      Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

      Wellock, Wilfred

      Palmer, E. T.

      Simmons, C. J.

      Welsh, James (Paisley)

      Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

      Sitch, Charles H.

      Weish, James C. (Coatbridge)

      Perry, S. F.

      Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

      West, F. R.

      Peters, Dr. Sidney John

      Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

      Westwood, Joseph

      Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

      Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

      Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Lndywood)

      Phillips, Dr. Marion

      Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

      Williams, David (Swansea, East)

      Picton-Turbervill, Edith

      Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

      Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

      Pole, Major D. G.

      Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

      Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

      Potts, John S.

      Snell, Harry

      Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

      Price, M. P.

      Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

      Wilson, J. (Oldham)

      Pybus, Percy John

      Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

      Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

      Quibell, D. J. K.

      Sorensen, R.

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

      Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

      Stamford, Thomas W.

      Wise, E. F.

      Raynes, W. R.

      Stephen, Campbell

      Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

      Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

      Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

      Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

      Sullivan, J.

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

      Ritson, J.

      Sutton, J. E.

      Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.

      Question put, and agreed to.

      Mr. McSHANE: On a point of Order. I should like you, Mr. Dunnico, to give me some information upon this point. Is it still possible for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have voted for third-class tickets, to make a request to the Treasury that they shall be supplied with third-class tickets, and, if so, will that be done?
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that that is a point of Order. It is always open to an hon. Member to make any application to a Minister, and it is for the Minister either to grant that application or decline to do so.
      Mr. TOOLE: On a point of Order. May I call attention to the fact that the vouchers themselves stipulate that the Member applying for a ticket can apply for a first-class, third-class or week-end ticket?
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I can only give a Ruling upon a point of Order, but no point of Order arises here.
      Mr. WISE: I wish to put this point of Order, Mr. Dunnico. Is it not the case that under the Vote which we have just taken, if an hon. Member travels to his constituency third-class and on a third-class ticket, only third-class fare is
      2026
      charged up to the Treasury, and that therefore it is open to any hon. Member who desires to do so, to make that saving?
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: These are questions for the Minister and not for the Chair.
      Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order. Is it not the case that those who voted for third-class voted for third-class travelling for us, but travel first-class themselves—[Interruption].
      Colonel GRETTON: On a point of Order—[Interruption.]
      The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: The Chair is being appealed to on points of Order, and hon. Members must remain silent if I am to hear what are the points of Order. It is perfectly clear, however, that no point of Order can now be raised on the Vote which has already been taken. That matter is ended.
      Colonel GRETTON: My point of Order is quite different. I wish to ask if hon. Members who desire to raise this question again, will be able to so on the Report stage of the Vote?
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is always open to hon. Members to raise a question on the Report stage of a Vote if it is in order.

      GOVERNMENT HOSPITALITY.
      Motion made and Question proposed,
      "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £11,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for a Grant-in-Aid of the Government Hospitality Fund."
      The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): This Supplementary Estimate is made necessary by the fact that some of the delegations to the Imperial Conference were larger than anticipated, and also because of the fact that the expenses in connection with one of the delegations, which were not chargeable to the fund on the previous occasion, were so chargeable this year. In framing the original Estimate we were unable to take these matters into account because we did not know, first, that larger delegations were coming or, secondly, that these expenses which were not chargeable previously would be chargeable this time. That is as far as the Imperial Conference is concerned. Then, in relation to the visits of Royalties and Heads of States, we had no knowledge of those visits when the original Estimate was prepared. Those three causes account for the increase in expenditure which we are asking the Committee to sanction in this Supplementary Estimate. It has not been customary since the late Lord Harcourt was in charge of this Vote, to discuss the details of the expenditure, and I do not think the Committee, on this occasion, will require me to go into those details. Therefore, I think that no further explanation is necessary in regard to this expenditure.
      Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: We are indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation, and I do not wish to raise any point of detail on this Estimate. As a matter of fact, all these details come before the Comptroller and Auditor - General and the Public Accounts Committee and this Committee may be assured that a due and proper check is maintained on this expenditure. I would point out, however, that there is a very considerable increase in the total amount disbursed—in fact a larger increase than would appear at first sight, because the original Estimate showed a considerable increase over the Estimate
      2028
      of the previous year. The previous year's Estimate began in 1929 with a figure of £15,000. There was then a Supplementary Estimate of £9,000 making £24,000 in all for that year. The original Estimate this year, instead of being £24,000 was £36,000 and now we are asked for £11,000 on top of that. The Committee will agree that there is a substantial sum in question.
      Hon. Members will see if they look at the White Paper, that this is one of the services in connection with which any unexpended balance remaining on 31st March is not liable to surrender to the Exchequer. It is obvious, from the statement in the next paragraph to the effect that already a sum of £10,000 has been advanced to this Fund out of the Civil Contingencies Fund, that there will not be any large unexpended balance at the end of this year, but if there is any balance, I presume it is carried forward from year to year. I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman has any cash balance at his disposal, but I have come across a curious little fact in the report of the Public Accounts Committee from which it appears that the fund in fact contains a certain amount of commodity reserves—what we might perhaps call liquid reserves. I observe from a report made to the Public Accounts Committee on the fund, that the fund buys its own wines and cigars and apparently maintains a reserve of them for use at public functions. I assume that these are only stock reserves but I should like to know what balance, if any, the right hon. Gentleman anticipates will be left in the fund on 31st March. Otherwise, it is quite in keeping with the usual practice that we should not press the right hon. Gentleman too hard for details of expenditure on certain missions, but no doubt there may be some other questions which will arise on the Vote in general. I would only repeat, in case any hon. Members has any suspicion that the fund is not duly accounted for, that the Public Accounts Committee exercises a check on the fund, and the right hon. Gentleman's Department accounts to the Public Accounts Committee for it.
      Sir HILTON YOUNG: I should not question the policy which the right hon. Gentleman put forward that the actual objects of the hospitality under this fund

      2029
      should not be made a matter of debate in this Committee. It is generally recognised that the fund is a good institution, and that for such objects as the Imperial Conference it is inevitable that, whatever may be the position of national finance, there should be expenditure in the way of hospitality. Equally, under such conditions as the present, the Vote should not come before the Committee without some expression of opinion to indicate that the Committee are conscious of the extreme gravity of the national financial situation, and that a special standard of economy should be applied even to such a matter as national hospitality. It is very pleasant, and in accordance with the dignity of the nation, that in an ordinary year a wider view should be taken as to what can be done out of this fund, but it is equally in accordance with the spirit of the nation that at such a time as this the Committee should consider the expression of an opinion that a very special measure of economy should be observed, and that not a penny should be spent that is not inevitable for public purposes.
      I should like to press for an answer to the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson) in relation to the form of these Estimates. Is it not somewhat unusual that in a case where there is no surrender of the balance, the expenditure should be accounted for in detail to the Comptroller and Auditor-General? Where the expenditure is accounted for to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, are there any cases in which no surrender is made of the balance? I should have doubted whether that was so, and there certainly seems to be an extension, which is not desirable, of the ordinary forms of our financial control by, in such a case as this, the balance not being surrendered. What is the object in this case of having no surrender of the balance? That condition is commonly applied to Grants-in-Aid where the Grants are made under special conditions. The special conditions which lead to there being a waiving of the condition of surrender, are that the object or bodies to which the grant is made have a continuing purpose which goes on from year to year, and it is desirable that some
      2030
      reserve or fund should be accumulated. Surely this is not a case of that sort; it is not a case in which there is any single continuing purpose. It is a case of expenditure which ought quite definitely to be under the direct control from time to time of the Treasury and the House of Commons. It appears to me, therefore, that this is not at all an appropriate case for waiving the condition of surrender.
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Is the right hon. Gentleman dealing with something that arises on the Supplementary Estimate?
      Sir H. YOUNG: I am dealing with something that arises so directly on the Supplementary Estimates that it has been found necessary to print it on page 6 in order to explain the Supplementary Estimate to us. The rules of Order are that discussions on Supplementary Estimates are restricted, but I trust that we are not so restricted that we cannot discuss something which is put down in black and white on the Estimate.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the Minister in charge of this Supplementary Estimate thinks it necessary to print certain information on the Vote, I cannot prevent hon. Members discussing it.
      Sir H. YOUNG: This is really quite relevant because the fact that we are making an additional Vote this year might lead to there being a balance, and it is pertinent to discuss the distribution of the balance which we may be creating by our Vote to-day. The Financial Secretary will expect the inevitable questions which are always addressed to the Financial Secretary, and ought always to be addressed to him, whenever there is a borrowing from the Civil Contingencies Fund. It is a very convenient expedient, but it is apt to loosen the strings of control; and in order to prevent that loosening becoming too great, it is proper on these occasions to ask for reassurances on familiar topics, such as, for instance, whether there were any savings against which the present expenditure could be set.
      More particularly, I want to ask whether this is the earliest possible opportunity on which covering authority

      2031
      for the borrowing from the Civil Contingencies Fund could be obtained. To read between the lines of the Supplementary Estimate suggests that there has been a certain delay. Some of this expenditure was taken for the Imperial Conference, which was at a date which is not very proximate. Under these conditions, the inquiry is suggested as to whether the earliest possible opportunity has been taken for setting right the borrowing from the Civil Contingencies Fund. If it has not, the Financial Secretary will be the first to recognise that that is not in accordance with the most correct practice.
      Captain CAZALET: When distinguished foreigners come to this country, or when conferences are held here, a certain amount of hospitality must be given by the Government, and it would inappropriate to question in detail how the hospitality has been administered. I am certain that under the present Government it has been well done. In the past year there have been three large conferences—the Naval, the Imperial, and the Indian Conferences—and the question has been raised by many people whether the hotel expenses of the delegates have been paid by the Government. I should be glad if the Minister would answer that question, and so allay a certain amount of public anxiety in regard to the amount of money which the Government are spending in hospitality of one kind and another.
      Earl WINTERTON: I agree with the opening remarks of the Minister in introducing this Estimate, and as one who remembers the day when the late Lord Harcourt originated the Government Hospitality Fund, I am glad that whatever Government is in power, the admirable rule is adhered to, not only by the two Front Benches, but by the Back Benches, of not criticising in detail the manner in which the fund is spent. It would be very ungracious to criticise it, and it might be wounding to those whom we honour as our guests in this country. I do not object to the size of the Vote, but I agree with everything that has been said as to the method of its presentation. Two questions which I want to raise are concerned with the actual distribution of the money. The first relates to the question of the accommodation which is pro-
      2032
      vided for foreign guests at hotels. The Board of Trade are interesting themselves in the "Come to Britain" movement, one of the objects of which is to improve the accommodation available at London hotels. I suggest that the Government Hospitality Fund should work in with that policy by encouraging the newer hotels and sending some of the guests, who are provided for out of the fund, to those hotels.
      Information reached me from more than one quarter that some of the delegates at a certain conference last year were not wholly satisfied with the accommodation provided them through the fund at one of the hotels. I am not blaming the Department, but this is an imporant matter, for the way he is treated makes the whole difference sometimes whether a distinguished foreign visitor who comes here grants what we want him to grant. In addition to the admirable officer who is the head of the fund, and who allocates accommodation, I presume that there is someone well versed in the hotel world who is able to advise the officials of the fund whether such and such an hotel is giving value for the money which is spent. The other matter to which I wish to refer is the coldness of Lancaster House. It has been responsible among many distinguished visitors and Members of this House and of another place for many colds and influenza attacks. Lancaster House, I believe, is generously loaned by the London County Council—
      Mr. LANSBURY: It. is a Government building.
      Earl WINTERTON: Would it not be possible to warm the place III some way? I have heard some criticism of the chilly feeling due not only to the physical atmosphere, but to the fact that the building gives the impression of having been stripped of all its furniture. It is not a very liveable place. So far as the food, drink and cigars are concerned, the Hospitality Fund has every reason to congratulate itself, but the conditions at Lancaster House might be improved. All sides of the Committee will agree that it is important to impress our foreign guests with the way in which we "do" them when they come to this country.
      7.0 p.m.
      Major GLYN: May I draw attention to the extraordinary satisfaction which the officers of this fund give to many dis-

      2033
      tinguished guests when they are over here. It is not frequent that one can express this feeling, but I have heard from many delegates that the officers of the Department give the utmost satisfaction. It is noticeable to some of our Dominion guests that they are charged excessively high prices at some hotels for incidentals. A friend of mine from Canada was charged phenomenal sums for an apple which he found did not come from Canada. Little matters of that sort might well be dealt with by the Government Hospitality Fund, and an attempt made to include these incidental charges. It is these things charged to the private account, not the Government account, of an individual staying at one of these hotels which make it very expensive. I was told, on the authority of the head of one of the Delegations, that they were very dissatisfied at the very high amount charged for an extra breakfast, a whisky and soda, and matters of that sort. It is just those small things which make a great deal of difference. If the right hon. Gentleman would consult his officers who deal with these matters, I am sure the hotels in London would be ready to co-operate in getting over the difficulties.
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I will deal with the financial points which have been raised. Like any other grant-in-aid, these amounts are not surrendered to the Treasury at the end of the year. It is exactly the same with similar grants such as the Empire Marketing Board grant-in-aid, the Forestry Commission grant-in-aid, and the Smallholdings grant-in-aid. The right hon. Gentleman wants to know why they are accounted for to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I should have thought that that was the most natural course. Theo House of Commons does not take these accounts in detail, and it is natural that someone should do it, and it is done by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who reports to the Public Accounts Committee. As to his question about the Civil Contingencies Fund, this Estimate has been presented to the House of Commons at the first reasonable opportunity. It covers a number of small items, and the total of these items which it has been possible to reach has been
      2034
      presented. The balance at present may be estimated at something like £400.
      Mr. C. WILLIAMS: It will be seen that this refers to the Imperial Conference, visits of heads of States and foreign Ministers. I am not asking the right hon. Gentleman to separate the sum between these various heeds, but, when we are asked to find a very large sum of money like this, we might have his assurance that all the main items up to 31st March have been settled. Such an assurance would be satisfactory to the whole Committee. One big conference has been mentioned, and I would like to know if all the amounts incurred up to 31st January have been rendered and are covered by this Vote. I do not want to see very large expenses coming in in the last month or two of this year and charged to next year. I would like to know what actually happens to the balance of this sum of £10,000. There is a balance of £400, but the hon. Gentleman did not make clear what the proceedings are.
      I do not profess to be a financial expert, but when I find a grave difference of opinion between a real financial expert on this side of the Committee and a semi-financial expert on the other side of the Committee—[Interruption.] This is a large addition of nearly a third of the original Estimate, and we have nearly doubled the normal sum this year. It was £24,000 two years ago and is now £47,000, so that in a short time the Estimate has been practically doubled, which is a very serious position. Then there is the fact that some of this £10,000 is in the form of wines and cigars. One or two of my hon. Friends want to know where they are kept, and how they are stored.
      Mr. B. SMITH: And who has got the key.
      Mr. WILLIAMS: That is not the point. When the taxpayers' money has been invested in these goods, we are justified in trying to find out if they are properly stored. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Office of Works has them under his personal charge, they will be all right. I would like an assurance on that matter, as some of us have taken a great interest in it. Above all, I would like to know whether the accounts are up to date.
      Major-General Sir NEWTON MOORE: I agree it would be ungracious to criticise these Estimates in view of the hospitality which is always extended to Members of Parliament who go overseas. Some reference has been made to Lancaster House. That is the dreariest place to which to ask anyone. One might as well take the British Museum and give a reception there. It is cold and inhospitable, and the right hon. Gentleman should consult his advisers and see if he can find a home that will be more appreciated by the guests of the Government.
      Commander SOUTHBY: A point has been brought out which came rather as news to Members of this Committee, that part of the funds are invested in cigars and wine. I do not cavil at that. It is an excellent suggestion. Is the balance of £400 represented by stock?
      Mr. LANSBURY: No.
      Commander SOUTHBY: What is the value of the stock, and has any portion of this sum gone to replenish the stock and keep it up to the standard which the right hon. Gentleman considers proper?
      Mr. LANSBURY: On the question of wines and cigars, there is a very efficient committee which takes charge of that point. The key of the place where the stock is kept is not in my possession, although, as this Committee knows, it would be perfectly safe with me, because I am that very vicious person who neither drinks nor smokes. Perhaps I would be the right sort of person to have charge.
      Mr. LEIF JONES: Are they all Empire goods?
      Mr. LANSBURY: As far as possible, they are Empire goods, but only as far as possible. We expect that the money balance will be £400. I would like to assure the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) that the accounts are all up-to-date and that we have nothing hidden away. We are not dodging our creditors, but we are paying them on the nail, as most hotel bills are paid. As to the accommodation in hotels, I would like to say a word on behalf of one of
      2036
      the officials of my Department. Ministers often get a good deal of credit for work done by their Department with which they have not had much to do. This work may look easy on paper but it is not so easy, as anyone who has anything to do with it knows, and Major Crankshaw works extremely hard, is extremely careful and is extremely economical. He does his very best to get the best accommodation at the best terms. As to whether all the expenses are paid, there may be incidentals at the hotels which are not included in the arrangements that are made. With regard to accommodation at the hotels, Major Crankshaw is continually consulting and doing all he can to get the best and most economical accommodation.
      Earl WINTERTON: I did not realise that Major Crankshaw was in charge. If he is, then, with all his knowledge and experience, no question can arise.
      Mr. LANSBURY: As to Lancaster House and the cold there, one of the rulers of our country visited that House when it was occupied by one of the Peers of the Realm and it is on record that, when he arrived, he said, "I come from my cottage to visit your palace." I do not understand all this criticism of Lancaster House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Colds."] Well, I did not get my cold there. We are making improvements to the ventilation. [Interruption.] Ventilation is an important question where colds are concerned. It is possible to have a good draught, and yet not to have proper ventilation, and we are going to take care of people properly when they go there. We will look into the question of whether the place can he warmed and made bearable for the people who attend dinner parties or other functions there. I would only repeat that those who are doing the work for the Department give a great deal of attention to their duties.
      Mr. C. WILLIAMS: May I ask one more question? Does this expenditure cover the Indian Conference?
      Mr. LANSBURY: It does not cover the whole expenses of the Indian Conference, but certain expenses in connection with it.

      PUBLIC WORKS LOAN COMMISSION.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for the Salaries of the Establishment under the Public Works Loan Commission and the Expenses of the Commission."
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: This Supplementary Estimate for a token sum has been presented in order to obtain Parliamentary approval for the payment of travelling expenses to the members of the Public Works Loan Commission. We thought it desirable to make it clear to Parliament that money was being spent in this way.
      Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I would like to ask one question regarding the form of the Vote, because it is a little difficult to follow. It appears to be a Vote for £10, in addition to £10 asked for previously, making a total of £20, but the question is complicated by a note at the bottom of the page 7:
      "The sum of £50 has been advanced from the Civil Contingencies Fund and a corresponding amount is required to enable repayment to be made to that fund."
      At first sight, the Committee might be excused for wondering how an advance of £50 is to be repaid out of but I imagine it is brought forward in this form in order to enable a transfer to be made from sub-head A to sub-head B. I admit our expenditure has to be jealously guarded, but I suggest to the Financial Secretary that he might well consider whether, in a case of this kind, it would not be possible to have a general covering sanction which would enable the Department to make minor transfers of this kind without coming to Parliament for approval. This is a particularly interesting case, because the incidentals are set out in the most minutely particularised fashion. They are stated in the original Vote in a fashion which is quite unusual. They go into details about cab hire, telegrams and telephones, items which usually appear as incidental expenses. I think that in future some such action as I have suggested might be taken. I imagine the explanation I have given is the right explanation, but if there is any other, perhaps the hon. Member will tell us.
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The explanation is that we thought it desirable to obtain Parliamentary sanction for this expenditure. If the sum had been merely an addition to existing expenditure no such difficulty would have arisen, but owing to the fact that this is a new form of expenditure, we thought it right to get the sanction of the House of Commons.
      Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: This was, I thought, merely a case of the Government requiring some additional expenditure, but it now appears that this is an altogether new form of expenditure. The Financial Secretary has not, however, explained the reason for it. I had thought it was the same class of expenditure as is usually set out in incidental expenses, such as small travelling charges, in which case I imagined it was hardly necessary to go through all this form if there could have been a general covering sanction.
      Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: I thought I had made things clear, and I am sorry if I have not. Hitherto, nothing has been paid to the Public Works Loan Commissioners for travelling expenses. The Commissioners have been people who either lived in London or frequently had business in London, and the meetings were held at times when they could attend without difficulty. As the Committee knows, additional Members were recently appointed, and as they come from the provinces some of them have found it necessary to ask for payment of their travelling expenses and accommodation. It is not suggested that they are to have any emoluments for what they do. It is only payment of their out-of-pocket expenses for travelling and lodgings.
      Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am sure the Committee are obliged to the Financial Secretary. The only other question I have now to ask is whether he can tell us what the actual expenditure will be?
      Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: The amount is stated. It is £75.
      Sir H. YOUNG: It appears that we are introducing a new practice in connection with the work of the Public Works Loan Commissioners. Hitherto

      2039
      it has been unnecessary to provide for their travelling expenses, but it has become necessary owing to a change in the composition of the Commission. I do not think the occasion calls for more than one comment, and that is, that it is perhaps rather to be regretted that a Commission which formerly conducted the whole of its work in an entirely voluntary manner has now become to this small extent a charge on the public funds. I really do not know, indeed, why we should be called upon to vote this money, because is it not the case that the expenditure of the Public Works Loan Commission is, by Act of Parliament, to be defrayed out of the Local Loans Fund? If the Local Loan, Fund stands behind the expenses of the Commission, why should it be necessary to adopt this rather cumbrous procedure of making a payment out of the Civil Contingencies Fund and submitting this Supplementary Estimate? It may be that it is only possible to have recourse to the Local Loans Fund in the following year, and if that is so it may he an imperfection in that legislation which it may be worth while to consider on a future occasion, because the intention of the Act appeared to he that the Local Loans Fund should finance the work of the Public Works Loan Commission.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is really passing beyond the scope of this Vote. I understand that it is submitted for the special purpose of paying certain expenses of members of the Commission, and our discussion must be kept to that point.
      Sir HUGH O'NEILL: Will the Financial Secretary tell us whether any of the travelling expenses of the Public Works Loan Commissioners have been incurred in connection with lands and farms which may be held by the Commission under the Agricultural Credits Act, 1923?
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not know what connection that legislation has with this Supplementary Estimate.
      Sir H. O'NEILL: I was only asking whether any of the travelling expenses which we are now being asked to meet were incurred in connection with a particular service, and surely that is in order. Under the Agricultural Credits
      2040
      Act, 1923, power was given to the Public Works Loan Commissioners to advance on mortgage sums of money to agricultural associations.
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I can answer that question straight away. The answer is in the negative. This is simply expenditure incurred in attending meetings of the Commission.
      Mr. HARDIE: Is it in order for a Member from Northern Ireland to come here to raise these small points in view of the fact that only yesterday we voted a sum of money towards building the Law Courts in Northern Ireland?
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order. Any hon. Member of this House is entitled to ask a question on the business before us.
      Mr. HARDIE: Yes, but the right hon. Baronet should have some sense of proportion.
      Captain CAZALET: I am not certain whether this is quite so simple a matter as it would at first sight appear to be. We are told that certain members of the Public Works Loan Commission have asked for payment of out-of-pocket travelling expenses when attending meetings of the Commission, and that is a perfectly simple proposition, but when we refer to the more elaborate Civil Service Estimates and look into the details we find that the total expenses of this Vote will be met out of certain fees appropriated in aid of this Vote. In so far as these expenses are not met by that means, they will be met from the Local Loans Fund, and probably next year these expenses will be met out of that particular fund. In that case, I understand that this sum will be repaid next year, and I would like to know if I am correct in that assumption.
      Mr. C. WILLIAMS: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has told us that this is a very simple matter, but that is not so, because it is extremely complicated. How is it that on the present occasion, quite suddenly, we have these travelling expenses in connection with the Public Works Loan Commission, and why has there been such a colossal increase in the amount of their travelling expenses? We have been told that some of these Commissioners came from the country, but he did not say from which

      2041
      country they came. Is it a fact that some of them came from Scotland? [An HON. MEMBER: "Or Torquay!"] I do not mind whether they came from Torquay or anywhere else, but I want to know where they come from, and what they have been doing for this money.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: May I point out to the hon. Member that this Commission was appointed by the House?
      Mr. CULVERWELL: May I remind you, Mr. Dunnico, that when these Commissioners were appointed, there was no question of paying their expenses?
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am not concerned at this moment as to whether the Commissioners were to be paid their expenses or not. They were appointed by the House, and we cannot have a long discussion on the point raised by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) as to who they are and where they came from.
      Mr. WILLIAMS: I should never think of initiating anything in the nature of a long discussion on this point. It has already been pointed out that, for practical purposes, there was no necessity to bring forward this Estimate, and on this point the Financial Secretary seems to have hoodwinked my hon. Friends on the front Opposition Bench. It was quite needless to put down this Estimate. I feel convinced that this money is going astray. There has been a proportionately large addition to the original sum, and no reason has been given why the amount has been increased. I should like to have an assurance as to whether this great addition to the cost of travelling is in any way injuring the work of the Public Works Loan Commission, because I do not want anything to be done that would tend to hinder the excellent work of that body. Again and again we have had these little additions to items of this kind without any explanation being given, and it is most unfortunate that an Estimate of this kind should be brought forward in this way. There is no justification for it, and still less justification for the representatives of the Government knowing so very little about it.
      Commander SOUTHBY: I would like to ask whether it is the intention to pay the travelling expenses of all the members of the Public Works Loan Com-
      2042
      mission? Is it understood that now all the members of that body are in need of being paid for their services? I am not arguing that certain members of the Commission should not be paid their expenses when they come up to London to do public work, but I would like to know how many members of the Commission are being paid. I know it would be inconvenient to give their names, and I do not ask for them, but we ought to know how many members of the Commission are being paid out-of-pocket expenses, including hotel bills and travelling expenses. If that principle is going to be applied, obviously the Public Works Loan Commission is going to be a very expensive body to keep up. The sum of £75 is being asked for now, but that may be increased to a very much larger amount in the future. Is this Vote to be regarded as the thin edge of the wedge to secure payment for the whole of the members of the Commission? If certain members are to he paid, I do not see why other members should not receive payment for their services. I hope we shall have a satisfactory statement from the Financial Secretary on these points.
      Mr. CULVERWELL: This Vote is an entirely new departure, and the Financial Secretary appears to think that we ought to allow the Estimate to go through without asking any questions. I think that we are entitled to ask for more information than we have received. I agree with what has been said to the effect that this principle may lead to a very considerable expenditure in the future. I am not saying anything against the commissioners, but when they were established I understood that they were gentlemen who volunteered for this work, and that this body would not involve any charge on the Exchequer. Now we are told that within the last few months it has been found that members of this Commission cannot afford expenses which they were able to afford in the past. I would like to know whether the Vote we are discussing covers a period of 12 months, or whether it applies only to the last two or three months? If the incurring of these expenses goes on at the same rate, then the amount will be four times more next year than this year. We ought to be told what period this Estimate covers.

      2043
      In view of the discussion which has just taken place, I would also like to ask whether these commissioners travel first-class or third-class on the railway. We have a large number of voluntary workers on public bodies in this country, and I might quote the Economic Committee set up by the Prime Minister as an example. I know that I should be out of order in pursuing that point, but I think I shall be in order in suggesting that if the Public Works Loan Commission, which was set up as a voluntary body at no cost to the State, are to be allowed expenses to an indefinite amount for unknown reasons, then this House is setting a precedent which may lead to a very large expenditure of public money in the future. The same principle may be followed by other bodies which, up to the present, have given their services free. I know it is usual for councillors and aldermen who attend conferences in London on behalf of their corporations to receive their expenses, and very often the municipalities are prepared to pay those expenses in the interests of efficient service.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid we cannot discuss that larger point now. We must keep to the particular subject before the Committee raised in this Supplementary Estimate.
      Mr. CULVERWELL: It may very well be that next year, after this precedent has been established by means of this comparatively small sum for the Public Works Loan Commission, we may find other Departments just as deserving asking for payment for their services. For these reasons, I ask the hon. Gentleman to tell us, not details, not each taxi fare or hotel bill, but roughly the type of expenses covered by this Vote, whether we may expect increased demands, and whether the expenses of the whole of the commissioners are being paid or only the expenses of those who are impecunious.
      Major COLFOX: Will the Financial Secretary tell us whether Lord Hunsdon is still the chairman of this body, whether he is going to share in this £10 for travelling expenses, and, if he is still chairman, whether the travelling expenses have been granted with his consent or against his advice. It seems
      2044
      to me that this is introducing a new principle and marks a very definite step backwards in the public service of this country. Here we have a body of public servants who have always had the right to pride themselves on the fact that they did this service gratuitously. Now, under a Socialist Government, these public servants have been reduced to the level of—shall we say?—trade union officials or Members of Parliament or other inferior people, who are compelled to accept remuneration for their services entirely contrary to the custom of former years. What is meant by the words in the Estimate:
      "Additional sum required to pay travelling expenses on the usual scale"?
      I thought that the whole point of this Estimate was that there was no usual scale at all, that up to now the scale had been nil, because these public servants had paid their own expenses. It seems a bit odd that these words should have been inserted in the Estimate. They require some explanation.
      Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being present—
      Mr. GILL: I welcome this Supplementary Estimate because of the explanation given of the reason for the money being required. I certainly support the payment of reasonable travelling expenses to the members of the Public Works Loan Commission for two reasons: firstly, because I believe that under that procedure and a further expansion of it we are likely to get more disinterested members on various commissions; and, secondly, because I believe that it will widen the choice of the people who are available to take these positions. I certainly feel that the question whether an individual can or cannot afford to pay his own travelling expenses ought not to be a determining issue in any circumstances. This Commission is not a body which is a charge on the Exchequer; it is a body that is making money for the Exchequer, and the least that can be done is to pay the reasonable expenses of those who form the Commission.
      Commander SOUTHBY: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £5.
      Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: I beg to support the Amendment. Having

      2045
      listened to this Debate throughout I have seen looming up, as other Members have seen looming up, a matter of grave public principle, namely, whether in future we are to give money for out-of-pocket expenses to those who are voluntarily giving their services to the State. That is a principle which depends on this Supplementary Estimate. It is a principle which has very nearly got through by the back door, and it would have slipped through but for the vigilance of seine hon. Members on this side of the Committee. Another point is the very serious charge which the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Gill) made against the gentlemen with whom we are dealing here. It is a cowardly thing to say that if people are paid out-of-pocket expenses we shall obtain more disinterested service by having a wider range of people from whom to make a selection.
      Captain CAZALET: May I have an answer to my question? When I raised it the learned Attorney-General nodded, but I do not know whether it was a positive nod or a negative nod. Perhaps it was a nod in slumber as a result of my speech. Would this expenditure, whatever it may be, come under the words in the Estimate, that the total expense "will be recovered in the following year from the Local Loans Fund?"
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It is only a token Vote. The money is found already and there is no need for it to be carried over into the following year. The suggestion has been made that this is an entirely new departure for people who give voluntary service. As a matter of fact all Royal Commissions and committees have their out-of-pocket expenses paid in this way, and the only thing that is new is that it is being done, with regard to these Loan Commissioners, so far as their attending meetings in London are concerned. It is a very small point, and we have come before the Committee in order to regularise the proceedings.
      Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I quite agree that the formal point is small, but the question of principle is not small. On the question of form I repeat the question which the Financial Secretary has unfortunately omitted to answer, namely, how long has this practice been going on? I rather gathered from what he said that it was
      2046
      decided early in the financial year that this practice should be followed, and that £75 represents a considerable portion of the year. Why did not the Financial Secretary come here before? Why did he use the Civil Contingencies Fund? The Public Accounts Committee has over and over again impressed on the House hat this is a wrongful use of the Civil Contingencies Fund. How many months provision is represented by this £75?
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Since the summer. What we have done is to come to the House to get sanction for the payment, and for the precise reason that the right hon. Gentleman has stated.
      Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Really the Financial Secretary ought to be here in a white sheet. It is true that the amount is small but the principle is not small. The principle involved is that money is not to be advanced from the Civil Contingencies Fund without repayment being made at the earliest possible moment. That is a perfectly well-known principle. The truth is that it was not convenient to the Government to bring forward this regularisation before. They wanted to get on with their own business in the early part of the Session, and so the financial regularisation which ought to have taken place has not in fact taken place.
      8.0 p.m.
      Commander SOUTHBY: I think the Committee, as well as myself, are entitled to an answer to the question which I put courteously to the Front Bench. The Financial Secretary has used the expression, "We could have got round it." There are members of the Committee who look with a good deal of suspicion on an expression of that kind coming from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The course of the Debate would seem to show there has been some attempt to get round it. Although questions have been put to the Financial Secretary, he has tried to gent round them by not answering them. How many members of this Commission have, in fact, had their travelling and incidental expenses paid, and is it or is it not understood by the Government that the payment of travelling and incidental expenses to members of this Commission, who are supposed to give their services voluntarily, is to be accepted as an established principle and

      2047
      to be extended to members of other Commissions? There is no doubt it is the thin end of the wedge. These people are supposed to give their services voluntarily.
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: They are given voluntarily.
      Commander SOUTH BY: It appears that their services are given voluntarily, but that they are paid at the same time.
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The hon. and gallant Member must really not asperse responsible people in this way. There is nothing inconsistent in members giving voluntary service and being paid out-of-pocket and travelling expenses. I am quite sure the hon. and gallant Member does not wish to cast aspersions on the Commission. All members of Royal Commissions and other committees who give their services voluntarily are and have been entitled to their expenses when they come specially to London on business. I hope the hon. and gallant Member will not press his point.
      Commander SOUTHBY: I have no desire to asperse for one moment the members of this Commission. I have pointed out that I think the country is very grateful for what they are doing. But when the Commission was appointed there was no word whatever that the members were going to be paid expenses. I would not have it go out that there have been any aspersions from this side. If it is necessary to pay these expenses, the Committee is quite willing to do so, but what we want to know is whether in fact it is now the principle that there shall be payment of travelling and incidental expenses to all the members of this Commission; if not to all members, to how many; and for what reason? That is a perfectly plain question, and I think we are entitled to a plain answer.
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The answer is simple. In all ordinary circumstances in a body of this kind there is provision entitling, the members of the Commission to be paid such expenses. In this particular case, no such words were originally there, and now they are being placed there with the result that anyone who desires his travelling expenses to he paid can in future have
      2048
      them paid. In fact, as I have explained, the bulk of these people are members living in London and are not put to any expense in attending its sittings, but there are members who come from the provinces, and we are now enabled to pay them.
      Mr. CULVERWELL: I think the hon. Gentleman is getting deeper and deeper into the mire. He apologised just now for his honesty in not concealing this Vote, but it transpires that there is a very definite departure from policy. He now informs us, after a long period of cross-questioning, that by voting in support of this item we are really voting in support of altering the terms under which the Commission was set up. That is what I understood from the last remark of the hon. Gentleman. It seems to me that this token Vote is a Vote which may be justified—I am not discussing its merits, and I do not think that any Member on this side has cast any reflection on the Commissioners—hut when we are asked to alter the terms on which they were set up we are entitled to he informed of the facts and to discuss whether the Committee should alter those terms. I am supported in that opinion by the speech of the hon. Member below the Gangway, who made an outrageous reflection on the Public Works Loan Commissioners. No one on this side has criticised the work that they have been doing during many years. We have always realised that they carry out a useful function and give their services voluntarily to the State, and this House has a right to thank them and not cast slurs upon them as the hon. Gentleman opposite has done. He realised even quicker than we did that there was a great change being brought about by this token Vote, for he stressed the fact that the Financial Secretary was really by this Vote improving the standing and status of the type of man who was in future to be among the Public Works Loan Commissioners. He was suggesting that until you remunerate or pay the expenses of these Commissioners you will have the same effete, ineffective members that you have now.
      Mr. GILL: I suggested nothing of the kind. I suggested that you would widen the choice of the people available by meeting their reasonable travelling ex-

      2049
      penses. That will not bear the interpretation the hon. Member is now trying to place on my remarks.
      Mr. CULVERWELL: I do not want to misinterpret the hon. Member, but I distinctly heard him say that in future the Commissioners would be more disinterested than they are now. I do not know what he meant by that if he did not mean to cast a reflection on the Commission.
      Mr. GILL: My remarks had no reference whatever to the present Commissioners.
      Mr. CULVERWELL: In that case, the remarks of the hon. Gentleman, like so many that come from the benches opposite, really meant nothing at all. If I have misinterpreted him, I accept his explanation, but at the same time I ask him to read the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow and consider whether his words can bear the interpretation he now places on them. As he has remarked, there is a very vital change being made in the status of the Commissioners, and we have the right at the outset and not at the end to be told where we are being led and what has induced this change on the part of the Government. I can only express my hope that when the Financial Secretary introduces the next Vote he will be a little more candid or clear in his explanation than he was in introducing this Vote.
      Major COLFOX: It is true, of course, that a certain amount of information has been wrung from the Financial Secretary, who has been a very unwilling witness in the friendly cross-examination which has been going on from this side. But he has not even attempted to answer any of the questions which I put to him a short while ago concerning Lord Hunsdon—whether he is still chairman of this Commission, whether or not he is receiving or going to receive any of these expenses himself, and whether or not this new system has been entered into with his advice or against it? I hope very much the hon. Member will have the courtesy to answer these very reasonable questions.
      Mr. C. WILLIAMS: The hon. Gentleman in charge of this Estimate referred to the travelling expenses to and from London of certain people who lived outside. I am not objecting to that, but I want to know if all or only part of this
      2050
      sum is used for the expenses of those people coming to London from their home. I would be much more willing to grant him the whole of it if part of the sum were used on their work. I would like to know whether these people get help when they go off to Aberdeen to see a fishing harbour, or anything of that kind. On the other point, I would be content if he would promise to write to me. It is an important financial point. The amount of money in the Estimate is very small, but, as I understand it, we are now taking a certain amount of money out of the Loan Fund and handing it over in travelling expenses. If that is going on year after year, this Loan Fund will contract, and we shall be placed in a very difficult position. I think we ought to be informed on this point quite clearly. I take a special interest in it, because I know the Commissioners and the fund are very valuable when they can come forward and help our fishing villages in the west of England. Nothing would induce me to vote for the reduction if I thought that that reduction would take any money from our harbours in the west of England. If the Financial Secretary could answer the two points that I have put, and would oblige my hon. Friends behind me, I feel we could possibly consider withdrawing this Amendment for a reduction. They are quite fair questions, and I feel sure the Financial Secretary will do his best to answer them, as they are vitally important to us before we can decide fairly and honestly whether we should vote for the whole or only part of this Estimate.
      Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: I want to put one point to the Financial Secretary which he has not answered, and that is as to the length of time during which these payments have been going on? [Interruption.]
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I will answer the right hon. Gentleman's question again. I said that it was since the summer.
      Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If it was since the summer, might I point out that that is one of the longest times during which such payments have ever been made out of the Civil Contingencies Fund? [Interruption.] Is there any reason why the period has been so long? It is all very well for the Financial Secretary to suggest that it is nothing

      2051
      at all, but, according to the old-fashioned practice, whenever these sums have been borrowed from the Civil Contingencies Fund, they have been repaid as quickly as possible. We shall certainly divide against the hon. Gentleman on this Vote, because he has given us no reason, although I can imagine what the reason is. He has told us the length of the
      period, but he has not given us any explanation as to why there has been a delay far beyond what is the usual practice in matters of this kind.
      Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £5, be granted for the said Service."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 69; Noes, 230.

      Division No. 167.]

      AYES.

      [8.18 p.m.

      Albery, Irving James

      Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

      Penny, Sir George

      Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

      Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

      Ramsbotham, H.

      Balfour, George (Hampstead)

      Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

      Remer, John R.

      Beaumont, M. W.

      Greene, W. P. Crawford

      Ross, Ronald D.

      Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

      Gunston, Captain D. W.

      Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

      Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

      Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

      Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

      Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

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

      Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

      Bracken, B.

      Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

      Simms, Major-General J.

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

      Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

      Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

      Buchan, John

      Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

      Smith-Carington, Neville W.

      Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

      Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

      Smithers, Waldron

      Chapman, Sir S.

      Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

      Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

      Clydesdale, Marquess of

      Hurd, Percy A.

      Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.

      Cohen, Major J, Brunel

      Lamb, Sir J. Q.

      Todd, Capt. A. J.

      Colfox, Major William Philip

      Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

      Train, J.

      Colville, Major D. J.

      Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

      Turton, Robert Hugh

      Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

      Llewellin, Major J. J.

      Wallace, Cant. D. E. (Hornsey)

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

      Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

      Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

      Dawson, Sir Philip

      Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

      Wayland, Sir William A.

      Duckworth, G. A. V.

      Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

      Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

      Edmondson, Major A. J.

      Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

      Womersley, W. J.

      Elliot, Major Walter E.

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

      Everard, W. Lindsay

      Muirhead, A. J.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.

      Ford, Sir P. J.

      Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

      Commander Southby and Captain Balfour.

      NOES.

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

      Daggar, George

      Hardie, George D.

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

      Dallas, George

      Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

      Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

      Dalton, Hugh

      Hastings, Dr. Somerville

      Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

      Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

      Haycock, A. W.

      Alpass, J. H.

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      Hayes, John Henry

      Ammon, Charles George

      Devlin, Joseph

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

      Angell, Sir Norman

      Dudgeon, Major C. R,

      Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

      Arnott, John

      Dukes, C.

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

      Aske, Sir Robert

      Ede, James Chuter

      Herriotts, J.

      Attlee, Clement Richard

      Edmunds, J. E.

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

      Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

      Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

      Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

      Barnes, Alfred John

      Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

      Hoffman, P. C.

      Barr, James

      Egan, W. H.

      Hollins, A.

      Batey, Joseph

      Elmley, Viscount

      Hopkin, Daniel

      Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

      Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

      Horrabin, J. F.

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

      Foot, Isaac

      Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

      Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

      Freeman, Peter

      Isaacs, George

      Benson, G.

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

      Jenkins, Sir William

      Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

      George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

      John, William (Rhondda, West)

      Birkett, W. Norman

      Gibbins, Joseph

      Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

      Brockway, A. Fenner

      Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)

      Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

      Bromfield, William

      Gill, T. H.

      Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

      Brothers, M.

      Gillett, George M.

      Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

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

      Glassey, A. E.

      Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

      Brown, Ernest (Leith)

      Gossling, A. G.

      Kedward R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

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

      Graham, D. M. (Lanark. Hamilton)

      Kelly, W. T.

      Buchanan, G.

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

      Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Burgess, F. G.

      Granville, E.

      Kirk wood D.

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

      Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

      Knight, Holford

      Caine, Derwent Hall.

      Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

      Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

      Cameron, A. G.

      Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

      Lathan, G.

      Cape, Thomas

      Groves, Thomas E.

      Law, Albert (Bolton)

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

      Grundy, Thomas W.

      Lawrence, Susan

      Clarke, J. S.

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

      Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

      Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

      Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

      Cocks, Frederick Seymour

      Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

      Leach, W.

      Cove, William G.

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

      Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

      Cowan, D. M.

      Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

      Lees, J.

      Cripps, Sir Stafford

      Harbord, A.

      Lewis, T. (Southampton)

      Lindley, Fred W.

      Perry, S. F.

      Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

      Lloyd, C. Ellis

      Peters, Dr. Sidney John

      Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

      Logan, David Gilbert

      Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

      Sorensen, R.

      Longden, F.

      Phillips, Dr. Marlon

      Stamford, Thomas W.

      Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

      Pole, Major D. G.

      Stephen, Campbell

      Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

      Potts, John S.

      Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

      MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

      Price, M. P.

      Sullivan, J.

      McElwee, A.

      Quibell, D. J. K.

      Sutton, J. E.

      McEntee, V. L.

      Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

      Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

      McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shattleston)

      Rathbone, Eleanor

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

      MacLaren, Andrew

      Raynes, W. R.

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

      Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

      Richards, R.

      Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

      McShane, John James

      Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

      Tinker, John Joseph

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

      Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

      Tout, W. J.

      Marcus, M.

      Ritson, J,

      Townend, A. E.

      Markham, S. F.

      Rosbotham, D. S. T.

      Vaughan, David

      Marley, J.

      Rowson, Guy

      Viant, S. P.

      Marshall, Fred

      Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

      Walkden, A. G.

      Mathers, George

      Sanders, W. S.

      Walker, J.

      Matters, L. W.

      Sandham, E.

      Watkins, F. C.

      Maxton, James

      Sawyer, G. F.

      Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

      Melville, Sir James

      Scott, James

      Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

      Mills, J. E.

      Scrymgeour, E.

      Wellock, Wilfred

      Milner, Major J.

      Sexton, Sir James

      Welsh James (Paisley)

      Morgan, Dr. H. B.

      Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

      Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

      Morley, Ralph

      Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

      Westwood, Joseph

      Morris, Rhys Hopkins

      Sherwood, G. H

      Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

      Mort, D. L.

      Shield, George William

      Wilkinson, Ellen C.

      Muggeridgs, H. T.

      Shiels, Dr. Drummond

      Williams, David (Swansea, East)

      Murnin, Hugh

      Shillaker, J. F.

      Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

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

      Shinwell, E.

      Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

      Noel Baker, P. J.

      Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

      Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

      Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

      Simmons, C. J.

      Wilson, J. (Oldham)

      Oldfield, J. R.

      Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

      Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

      Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

      Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

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

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

      Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

      Palin, John Henry

      Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

      Paling, Wilfrid

      Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

      Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

      Palmer, E. T.

      Snell, Harry

      Thurtle.

      Question put, and agreed to.

    CLASS III.

      LAW CHARGES.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for the Salaries of the Law Officers' Department, the Salaries and Expenses of the Departments of His Majesty's Procurator-General and of the Solicitor for the Affairs of His Majesty's Treasury, and of the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions; the Costs of Prosecutions, of other Legal Proceedings, and of Parliamentary Agency."
      Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: This Vote arises from the cost of litigation concerned with de-rating appeals, which is heavier than was anticipated. The De-rating Act provided for appeals from the decision of assessment committees to Quarter Sessions. The decisions of the latter are subject to review by the Divisional Court, the Court of Appeal, and, ultimately, the House of Lords, and the expenditure on these appeals proved more heavy than was expected when the Estimate was taken, and on that account some additional £22,000 is required. But
      2054
      against that there has been a certain saving by means of additional Appropriations-in-Aid in connection with criminal prosecutions which has amounted to something like £16,000. This necessitates us asking for this Vote for a sum of £6,000.
      Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: I see in the Appropriation-in-Aid an item of £4,500 under Letter I for the Crown Nominees Costs.
      The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman has the Estimate in his hand, and he will see what the £6,000 is for. £22,000 is for civil proceedings and there is an appropriation of £16,000. That is all that we have to deal with.
      Mr. SAMUEL: I see in the original and revised Estimates sums of £32,000 and £48,000.
      The CHAIRMAN: In any case, with reference to Appropriations-in-Aid, he can only ask how they are made up, but the explanation given in the details of the Estimate seems to me to give the answer the hon. Gentleman requires.
      Mr. SAMUEL: I propose to ask how they have been saved. Will the Law

      2055
      Officers tell me how they have saved that £16,000. Also, perhaps, they will tell us in detail what makes up the £22,000. Is it the fees of the Law Officers? I do not want to touch on delicate ground, but how is the amount arrived at which makes the additional sum required under letter E?
      The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir William Jowitt): The £22,000 represents costs for solicitors' fees, counsels' fees, etc., in respect of de-rating matters. I cannot split the sum up, but the position is simply that the amount exceeds what it was estimated would be incurred by this sum of £22,000. So far as the Appropriations-in-Aid are concerned, that simply results in this way. When the Crown is successful in litigation, it is entitled to recover from the unsuccessful litigants costs in the ordinary way, and the costs which have been recovered exceed the estimate of the costs that were expected to be recovered by £16,000. On the one hand, we are down by £22,000, and on the other we are up by £16,000.
      Sir BOYD MERRIMAN: Are the costs recovered mostly in de-rating cases?
      The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Largely. First of all £2,000 was paid in connection with some litigation with the London and North Eastern Railway Company and £1,200 in respect of another matter.
      Mr. BATEY: Can the Financial Secretary tell us in connection with the De-rating Act whether the expenditure was worth while?
      The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that if the hon. Member were allowed to ask the question, and I was perhaps careless enough to allow it to be answered, it would open up a wide discussion. It does not arise on this Vote.
      Mr. BATEY: There is another point I should like to raise, seeing that it is a legal Estimate. I should like to know whether I might be allowed to raise the question of working men magistrates.
      The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member has not studied the Supplementary Estimate. If he had, he would not have raised such a question.
      Sir GEORGE PENNY: We are obliged to the Attorney-General for telling us about the additional sum required in
      2056
      respect of de-rating matters. Seeing that the sum is £22,000–66 per cent. of the estimated figure—I think we should have a more detailed account of how it is arrived at.
      The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: In the English Courts unfortunately we do not follow the Scottish practice. In Scotland you merely go before the assessment committee, there is one appeal to the Land Valuation Court, and that ends the matter. In the Courts of England you go, first of all, before the assessment committee, then to Quarter Sessions, then to the Divisional Court, then to the Court of Appeal, and finally to the Rouse of Lords. Owing to the fact that this was a new Act, there has been the most remarkable difference of opinion between the Courts of Scotland and those of England, and between all the Courts in England. The hon. Gentleman would perhaps like to know the number of appeals that have been lodged with Quarter Sessions. It is 1,849, of which 1,593 were as to whether the hereditaments in question were or were not entitled to de-rating, and 256 were on the question of value only. They all concerned collieries, with regard to which very difficult questions arose. The majority of the 1,593 appeals were brought by the Revenue Officer to Quarter Sessions. The cases that have now been disposed of number 1,081; 641 have been decided in favour of the Revenue Officer, and 400 against him, so that we have a very considerable balance there.
      We take the cases, and we select, as far as we can to bring to the Courts test cases—as, of course, we could not bring anything like that number—representative of the variety of cases up and down the country. The Divisional Courts took a view which was in our favour on the whole. We won 32 cases and lost 25, and we have awaiting hearing somewhere about 40 to 50 cases. The Court of Appeal, however, reversed the decision of the Divisional Courts, taking a different view in the large majority of cases. In the Court of Appeal we won two and lost 15 cases. Those 15 cases have been almost all cases in which the Court of Appeal have taken a different view from the Judges of the Divisional Court who heard the cases. We have appealed to the Rouse of Lords, and only two cases have been disposed of—the first two main cases—and they

      2057
      have been lost. But eight cases have been heard and are now awaiting decision. Of course, it would be disrespectful of me to say what I think the result is going to be, but perhaps, without any disrespect, I may say that from the indications I had during the course of the arguments, I am very hopeful their Lordships will take a view, in a considerable number of cases, which is favourable to our line and that they are going to reverse the Court of Appeal. Of course, I cannot say more than that, as hon. Members will realise.
      Mr. ALBERY: Taking the cases the Attorney-General has brought altogether, and the cases which have been decided against him in the first Court and subsequently in the second, can he give us the figures of the present results?
      The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I gave the figures in the Divisional Courts—32 cases won, 25 cases lost and 50 cases, I think, awaiting hearing. As far as the Court of Appeal is concerned, two cases were won and 15 cases lost. As far as the House of Lords are concerned, the two cases which have been heard, and in which judgment has been given, were lost. There are eight cases now awaiting judgment, and it was with regard to those cases that my remarks of great hopes were expressed. That, I think, is the correct position.
      Sir G. PENNY: The Committee, I think, are very much indebted to the learned Attorney-General for the very full statement he has made to us. In regard to the cases where he said the Crown has, in the majority of cases, been successful in the appeals which have been made, I should like to know whether the Law Officers of the Crown presented those cases personally before the court, and, if so, can he tell us the fees which these representatives entailed to the country and whether they were included in the additional sum required?
      The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am afraid I cannot state particular fees. They have not been fixed as yet, but the whole thing is included in the £22,000. In view of the importance of these cases—they almost all govern a large block of cases—the hon. Member will see that I felt it necessary myself to present them.
      Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I am not a lawyer, and, therefore, I should be hopelessly outclassed in attempting to debate a question like this with the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I am sure he will be kind to me and answer a question which I wish to put for the purpose of obtaining information. I want to know who is responsible for the final decision as to whether a case is to be fought or not, and who is responsible for the final decision as to whether a case is to be taken to the Court of Appeal and to the House of Lords? Has the hon. and learned Gentleman the final say in the matter? If he has, if I may say so without any disrespect, I do not think that he has shown the consideration which one might hope the Law Officers of the Crown might have displayed.
      The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: Of course, the sole responsibility rests upon me, but in practice the hon. and gallant Member will realise that I am advised. I do not shelter behind anybody else. The tasks of this sort which I have to do are so multifarious that it is hardly possible for me to bring my mind to bear upon any particular case. In practice, what would happen would be, that the Solicitor to the Treasury or the very experienced Junior Treasury Counsel would say, "We have such and such a case, and I think that it ought to go up." If they are in doubt with regard to a particular case they come to me. Where they told me that it was clear I should not think of going into the facts. I should accept their opinion. I think that it is desirable to have decisions in cases of complexity and difficulty where the Scottish courts differ from the English courts. It was very undesirable that we should have derating extended to places in Scotland. or vice versa, and not to places in England under the same Act. Therefore, wherever I found a case of importance where there was a difference between the English courts and the Scottish courts, I thought it right to take the case up.
      Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I am very much obliged to the Attorney-General for the kind way in which he has answered my question.
      Mr. TURTON: I would remind the Committee that when the Supplementary

      2059
      Estimate was brought in last year, the amount was £12,000. This year the extra expenditure involved is £22,000, and if we have a Socialist Government next year it will be £32,000 at that rate of progression. The point to which I really want to draw the attention of the learned Attorney-General is the way in which his Department have conducted the appeals under the Rating and Valuation Act. In the present economic crisis we ought to practise the greatest economy possible, and for that reason these appeals ought to be carried out in an economic manner. I am not talking about the appeals in town. The Attorney-General, quite rightly, takes those cases himself. But in regard to appeals in the country, a junior counsel is sent from London to argue the cases. Therefore, the country will have to pay not only for his very great skill in arguing the cases, but a considerable cost in railway fares and also incidental costs which are entailed owing to the etiquette of the legal profession.
      If the learned Attorney-General will bear with me, I will put forward a hypothetical appeal case, say, at Newcastle. If there is a de-rating case at Newcastle the Attorney-General will send up revenue counsel from London, and the cost in railway fares alone will be £5. If the case is at a closed session, as they all are, he will have to pay, in addition, a special fee to that revenue counsel. If that counsel, as is nearly always the case, is not a member of that circuit, the Attorney-General is obliged to employ another junior counsel to assist in the case. I speak with diffidence, because I am a member of the same profession. The difficulty with me is to reconcile my duty to my profession and my duty to my constituents as regards economy.
      I am, however, certain that we could have conducted these appeals in a more economical manner. At Newcastle there is a local Bar, and while I would not in any way underrate the abilities of the admirable young counsel sent by the Attorney-General to Newcastle, I would point out that there are in Newcastle as competent men to argue the case as those sent up from London at such expense. [Interruption.] I believe the hon. Member who interrupted me does
      2060
      not come from Newcastle, but from Durham, which has not a local Bar. I suggest to the Attorney-General that from now, in face of the grave economic crisis, when any further de-rating appeals are brought forward they should be conducted either by barristers practising upon the circuit or in the most economical manner by members of the local Bar in the various industrial towns where the cases are heard.
      I come to the question of appeals from decisions of the Courts of Quarter Sessions. Last year we had a discussion upon this point. The Attorney-General has given us a recital of the appeals and the result of the appeals. When I heard his recital I visualised how in one part of the battle he had won and in another part his enemies, the derating hereditaments, had gained a minor advantage. All the way through I asked myself who, really, had been wounded. If the Attorney-General won, then the poor industry concerned, the coal industry or the de-rated textile industry, had to pay the costs. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury spoke with great joy of the sum of £16,000 Appropriation-in-Aid which had been recovered from the would-be de-rated industries that could not be de-rated. When the Attorney-General lost, then the taxpayer had to pay.
      We are not getting great advantage by having these costly and numerous appeals from the Courts of Quarter Session right up to the House of Lords. Last year a point was made that these cases need not be taken up to the Appeal Court. The hon. Member for Bridgwater said that it was quite unnecessary to employ revenue counsel in these cases, or to take them up to the Appeal Court. He said that it was merely a question of fact. The Attorney-General is an acknowledged authority on the splitting of questions of fact from questions of law. We have had considerable experience upstairs in another committee of his great skill in splitting the hair that lies between a question of fact and a question of law. He replied last year that it was impossible to say in these cases that they were purely questions of fact, but I would point out that in the two cases that the House of Lords have decided they decided that it was purely a question of fact for the court of first instance to determine.
      The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: That is not right. In the last eight cases they have said specifically that it is not a question of fact. Of course, the hon. Member could not know that, but he can take it from me that they expressed their dissent from the view expressed by one of the Judges in the Court of Appeal that it was a question of fact.
      Mr. TURTON: I accept that statement, because I could not possibly know what has happened in the eight cases. I have no intention of delving into the minds of House of Lords, but I do hope that we shall not have so many of these de-rating cases. It is a very large sum to ask the House to vote £22,000. That is the sum which has been spent in extra law charges under this one Act. I agree that it is an important Act and that we should select a few cases in order that certain points may be determined, but I do not agree with the Attorney-General that we have selected as few as we might have done. Take the garage cases. He selected three cases, all of which appeared to bear on the one point as to whether the garage was or was not an industrial hereditament. We could have had one case to decide that question and could have spared the expenditure of public money and also the expenditure of the private money of the owners of these small industrial hereditaments. The Attorney-General has told us that there have been 1,081 appeals on this one question, and we are still throwing our money away and continuing these appeals through the various courts up to the House of Lords. I do ask the Attorney-General that during the coming year he should try to keep down the appeals under the Rating and Valuation Act.
      Mr. HARDIE: In listening to the hon. Member who has just resumed his seat one would think that the present Government are responsible for the Act under which these appeals have been taken. He seems to forget that all the difficulties of which he has been speaking and all this stupid expenditure is due to the fact that a Conservative Government passed a De-rating Act. I am surprised that anyone with any knowledge of law should have spoken as the hon. Member did on that point. Much is said about economy by hon. Members opposite, but in their eagerness they forget the cause of the expenditure. The hon. Member pointed
      2062
      out that last year we had £12,000 to pay and that this year the amount is £22,000. All this expenditure has been caused by points of stupidity raised by the law called the De-rating Act. That Act could not be put upon the Statute Book without containing all this stupidity on what are said to be questions of law. We were told that that Act would wipe out unemployment and do ever so much for industry, but the only industry that is improving under it is the law industry, if that can be called an industry. There has been an expenditure of £22,000 this year in law charges under the Act, and there are cases pending. When these cases are finished we are only at the beginning in regard to these so-called points of law. In the Scottish courts and in the English courts cases are going on. There is hair splitting as to the difference between law and fact. Gentlemen are receiving fees for pointing out where the hair is, but it is not good for the business of this country and it is useless expenditure. Can the Attorney-General tell us why the Estimate which was £12,000 last year is £22,000 this year, and the amount in which we are likely to be mulcted before we have finished?
      The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: As we have to take these cases to the House of Lords in order to get definite principles established we have to pay through the nose, but these principles of law have to be dealt with and there is no finality until you get that tribunal because there is a difference between England and Scotland. The trouble with regard to the garage cases was that the garage proprietors declined to agree a test case, and consequently we had to go three times instead of once.
      Major ELLIOT: The hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) seems to think that this Estimate indicates a lack of prevision in the authors of the De-rating Act. Surely he is not ignorant of the fact that he and his friends declared that the De-rating Act would be totally unworkable, but we find that it has come into operation with the comparatively small difference indicated in the Estimate of the Law Officers of the Crown. Everyone knows that it has worked successfully, and, indeed, so successfully that the President of the Board of Trade in connection with the Coal Mines Act said that

      2063
      the whole of the money he proposed to give in relief to the coal industry was derived from the Tory De-rating Act.
      Mr. BATEY: May I be allowed to come in now?
      Major ELLIOT: The hon. Member will have an opportunity of making his point. I am quoting the remarks of his own Minister at the Board of Trade. If the hon. Member proposes to disown his own Minister it is not a new thing, so far as a Socialist Government is concerned; indeed, it is the normal procedure. All the facts show that the De-rating Act is being administered with a minimum of trouble.
      Mr. HARDIE: How is it that under the De-rating Act the arrangements for the allocation of counsel in Lanarkshire is still unsettled?
      The CHAIRMAN: We cannot go into these details of the administration of the De-rating Act on this Estimate.
      Major ELLIOT: The Attorney-General may have called an unnecessary number of cases; I am not concerned with that. He is the responsible Law Officer and must be the best judge in these matters, and also as to the way of approaching finality. The House of Lords has given a series of rulings which it has been found possible to apply generally to the country. I am pointing out that the hon. Member for Springburn and his friends vehemently disclaimed against the whole ideas upon which the Act was based and said that they would immediately repeal it when they came into office.
      The CHAIRMAN: We cannot discuss the merits of the De-rating Act now.
      9.0 p.m.
      Major ELLIOT: I do not wish to go into the merits of the Act, but as this expenditure arises out of it it follows that if it had been repealed none of this expenditure would have arisen. Hon. Members opposite did not repeal the De-rating Act because they thought it was a useful Measure and because they were frightened. The fact of the matter is that they are able to work the Act and derive great benefit from it. They themselves are the chief defenders of the Measure—
      The CHAIRMAN: The only question raised by hon. Members on the Government side of the House was that as a result of this Act this expenditure has occurred and that statement does not entitle the hon. and gallant Member to go into the merits of the De-rating Act.
      Major ELLIOT: The speech of the hon. Member for Springburn was entirely devoted to a denigration of the De-rating Act, and I was only replying to him. For myself, I am in accord with the Attorney-General. I do not think this is an excessive Estimate having in mind the enormous sums affected. The principles of the Act are being adjudicated upon, the Measure is being brought into action, and I am heartily in accord with the Attorney-General in asking for this Estimate and I shall be prepared to support him in the Division Lobby.
      Mr. BUCHANAN: I imagine that I should be out of order if I raised those points which I desire to raise upon this Vote. There is the question of the allocation of counsel. Part of this £22,000 is to be paid to counsel employed in various parts of the country. I do not wish to challenge now the present method of allocating counsel, but I am not sure how far the question of patronage enters into the employment of counsel. I feel sure that patronage does exist, that friendship does exist and does, apart from capacity and other considerations, enter into the make up of these Estimates. If I went into the broad question I should probably be out of order, but there is no doubt non counsel has been employed when local counsel could have been secured in the area where the case arose instead of sending up a man to conduct the case. Some big principle might involve the employment of a fashionable lawyer. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who is he?"] The high-priced lawyer—if we were discussing football it would be the Hughie Gallachers of the profession, the high priced players. I think the State should employ local men when no great principle is involved. They could be engaged at less expense. I hope on a future occasion to raise the general question of the employment of counsel and the growing system of patronage in connection with this work.

      2065
      As regards the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) as to the smooth working of the Derating Act, may I suggest that it has worked so smoothly that there are now 2,500,000 unemployed as against 1,000,000 before it came into operation. He said that we had not repealed that Act, but neither did his party repeal the Wheatley Act, so I think that we are quits in that respect. I view with apprehension the increase in expenditure under this head. I think much of it might have been avoided by employment of local counsel, and I hope that the system of appointing, not only counsel but judges and semi-judges throughout the country will be faced by the House of Commons and thrashed out on some future occasion.
      Mr. ALBERY: The detailed figures given by the Attorney-General seem to a layman to disclose a rather serious state of affairs as regards public litigation. I gather that of the cases appealed, some 15 went against the Department and only two were in favour of the Department. Taking the cases brought in the first court in which there were appeals against the Department it would appear that the Department were losers in about eight and winners in about seven. In ordinary circumstances that would be a very alarming state of things. The Attorney-General however explained that he had to bring a great number of these cases in order to settle certain questions of law. I was therefore disappointed at his reply to the question addressed to him just now by an hon. Member opposite as to whether there was any likelihood of a reduction in the number of these cases in the future. The Attorney-General seemed to be unable to give a satisfactory reply but, surely, since so many cases have been brought to determine points of law, we should be able to look for a substantial reduction in the future.
      Mr. DIXEY: It seems very serious that this extra sum should be required under this head, inasmuch as everybody who has had anything to do with Government litigation knows that the costs in these cases do not follow the ordinary course of practice, and that in many cases of appeals against the Government costs are given to the Government even though
      2066
      the appellant is successful. It is also extraordinary that this additional Estimate should be required having regard to the fact that so much of this litigation is only undertaken after the expert opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown have been taken upon it. I do not know why, at this juncture, we should be called upon to vote such a large additional sum in this respect. I had not the privilege of hearing the Attorney-General's speech but I hope I may be allowed to put forward certain points. Speaking for the lower branch of the legal profession it seems to us that a large number of appeal cases are carried forward by the Government without any proper reason or justification for the expense incurred.
      We are told that in a large number of these cases questions of principle are involved. I do not know what the principle involved may be in any particular case, but, no doubt, the Treasury has the thick end of the stick and a number of unfortunate people who are concerned in this litigation are compelled to consider whether or not they can afford to fight the Treasury, even in cases where they are sure of their facts. They know that the Treasury have the power of money behind them, and I suggest that a number of these cases are taken to the Appeal Court without real justification in law. I am not suggesting that this remark applies only to the Department as run by the Attorney-General. I suggest that this procedure has been going on for a number of years, and that in many cases the humble appellant is compelled to make a settlement because he knows that the full force of the Treasury is against him. I heard with great interest the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) who made a very proper complaint in regard to the employment of counsel.
      The CHAIRMAN: I am sorry that the hon. Member was not here earlier in this discussion, otherwise he would know that we are having the same arguments repeated over and over again. There is a rule against repetition, and the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) was not the first to raise that point. The hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. Dixey) cannot go into it again.
      Mr. DIXEY: I should be the last to disagree with a Ruling from the Chair,

      2067
      but when this Committee is called upon to vote such a large additional sum for law costs, I think I am entitled to raise the question of the emoluments of counsel. This sum includes the fees paid to counsel.
      The CHAIRMAN: I know it does, but the point which the hon. Member is raising has already been raised several times, and there is a rule against the repetition either of one's own arguments, or of other people's arguments in these discussions.
      Mr. DIXEY: I am not putting this point in any factious way, but because I think it a relevant point. I am submitting that this Estimate is increased far more than is necessary because very expensive counsel are employed.
      The CHAIRMAN: That is the very point to which I am objecting. The hon. Member is repeating an argument which has already been used, and that is contrary to the rule.
      Mr. DIXEY: I bow to your Ruling, Sir Robert, and I conclude by saying that at a time of great financial crisis, when even comparatively small sums might well be appropriated to dealing with some of the very important unemployment problems confronting us, the Treasury ought to exercise the utmost care over expenditure on legal costs. I wish for some assurance from the Attorney-General that his department is scrutinising every penny of such expenditure.
      Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I had the advantage of hearing the Attorney-General's opening speech, and I hope I shall not break the rule against repetition. The Attorney-General gave certain figures as to the cases in which he had been successful, and those in which he had been unsuccessful, and, according to my recollection, he said he had won 39 and lost 40. That is not the sort of record which will get him into a cup final. The point which I wish to raise is as regards the costs of the unfortunate private individual who is an unsuccessful litigant in these cases.
      The CHAIRMAN: That does not arise here. We are concerned in this Supplementary Estimate with the legal costs of the Government.
      Sir G. PENNY: If it cost the individual a certain sum, would the Government not have to meet less in regard to costs?
      Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I will go to a, point which I hope will be in order. The litigant normally has no option against the Attorney-General if he takes him to the House of Lords. In many instances, the case is settled in the Court of first instance and the matter goes no further, but in other instances the litigant has no option when the case is taken to the House of Lords for the benefit of the nation. I want to know how in these cases the Crown deals with the private individual in the matter of costs, because great unfairness may result if the unfortunate private individual is taken to the House of Lords and left to bear the burden of the costs.
      The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The cases which I take are all test cases, and I do not think that any de-rating case has gone to the House of Lords unless there has been a trade association on the other side. It frequently happens that the Crown are successful and consent to pay the costs on the other side, but such a question has not arisen in de-rating cases.
      Mr. ERNEST BROWN: It is very awkward when Members raise issues of this kind involving litigation and find that the Treasury holds one view and the Member holds another. He is at a tremendous disadvantage, as I was last Session in the matter of the taxation of unemployment grants. I was told that I was wrong and in the end a small dock company had to take it to the Court of Appeal, and it was found that the private Member was right and the Treasury was wrong. A small body of taxpayers are at a great disadvantage with the Crown, especially when a test case is decided as it has been in these de-rating questions, and the man who has comparatively limited resources is called upon to pay the costs of settling a case which affects a large number of other people, who are thereby released from any obligation to go forward with their case. That is constantly arising, and very often Members of this House have to attack the Treasury one way and another, and in the end cases cannot go to the final court because those whom Members are trying to represent have not the right

      2069
      of appeal, and have to bow to departmental Rulings, so that they are hopelessly handicapped.

    CLASS VII.

      RATES ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.
      Motion made and Question proposed,
      "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £70,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for Rates and Contributions in lieu of Rates, etc., in respect of Property in the occupation of the Crown for the Public Service, and for Rates on Buildings occupied by Representatives of British Dominions and of Foreign Powers; and to pay the Salaries and Expenses of the Rating of Government Property Department, and a Grant-in-Aid of the Expenses of the London Fire Brigade."
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The additional amount which is being asked for under sub-head C is £70,000, and it arises from two causes. In the first place, the poundage of the local authorities has increased more than was anticipated when the Estimate was brought up. The Committee will appreciate that the Estimate has to be drawn up at the beginning of the year, and the local authorities fix their poundage afterwards, so that it is impossible for those preparing the Estimates to arrive with certainty at the amount of the rates. In the Metropolitan boroughs alone that has involved an additional expenditure on rates of about £25,000. There has also been an additional poundage in some of the provincial local authorities, counterbalanced by reductions in others, and the total additional expenditure on account of alterations in poundage is, roughly speaking, £22,000. That includes both the Metropolitan and the provincial local authorities.
      The second item is due to the alteration in valuations. Crown property is not valued in the same way as private property. The Crown valuation is based on the private property valuation, and we endeavour to pay a reasonable sum comparable to what is paid by the private person. Owing to the revaluation in 1925, which took some time to carry through, there was a revision of the value of Government property. That revision could not be undertaken until after the valuation of private property was, in many cases, complete, and it was
      2070
      decided that when the revision of the amount of valuation of Government property took place, it should go back to the same date that applied to private property. In most cases, that was from the 1st April, 1929, but in 10 county boroughs it went back to the 1st April, 1928, so that we had to meet not merely the increased charge owing to the increased valuation during the current year, but to pay arrears going back in some cases one year, and in some cases two years. These arrears and the extra on the current year amount altogether to £78,000, but it was already estimated that some increase would be required, and the additional increase over what was estimated on this account amounts to about £48,000. That amount arising out of the increased valuation, together with the £22,000 arising out of the increased poundage, gives us the figure of £70,000, for which we are obliged to come to the Committee.
      Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Perhaps on this Estimate I may make use of an expression of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made use on two occasions, namely, "Turn about and wheel about." We see from the accounts that last year there was an Estimate of £1,711,825, as against an Estimate of £1,754,000. They turned about and took that amount off the Estimate based on the figures when Ii held the hon. Gentleman's office. They took off £42,000 and have now wheeled about again and added £70,000. It is not a very difficult thing to estimate.
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It is quite impossible to estimate.
      Mr. SAMUEL: I take exception to that view with all due deference. In dealing with the estimated rates on Crown property, the figures are settled by the Treasury themselves. The Crown makes the estimate on the figures in front of it, and does not wait for the local assessors. The Crown takes the existing figures and makes its own estimate of what it ought to pay in lieu of rates. The Financial Secretary says it is impossible to know what it will be, but I do not see how he can defend that statement. It has the figures in front of it, and the Crown makes its own estimate. We are asked to put back an additional sum of £70,000 after the Treasury had removed £42,000 previously. They turn

      2071
      round and wheel about. Why they show such vacillation, I do not know. Has this difference first of £42,000 taken off and £70,000 put on anything to do with the contribution of Northern Ireland? I know Northern Ireland does make some contribution. There are the reserved services, and a certain amount has to be recovered from Northern Ireland. It is very unsatisfactory to find that the figures changed about. I cannot see how it is impossible to find out what the amount should be when the, Treasury themselves, to my certain knowledge, are the authorities who fix the figure. We ought to hear a good deal more from the Financial Secretary as to the reason for this.
      Captain BOURNE: This is rather an unsatisfactory form of Supplementary Estimate. For some reason or another, the Government's Estimate for the current year was £42,000 below the estimate of the year before. I quite agree that it is difficult to foresee at the time the Estimates are made whether in certain parts of the country there will be a rise in the actual poundage on the part of the local authority. The Estimate is made somewhere in November and December, and finally settled in February. The hon. Gentleman has said that only £22,000 of the Estimate is accounted for by a rise in the rate, and the rest is on account of revaluation of Government property which he says is due to the valuaion lists under the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925. The valuation list under that Act had to be made up either by 1st April, 1929, or 1st April, 1929. That is now nearly two years ago. I quite agree that these matters are settled by negotiation between the Treasury and the local authority, but surely the negotiations must have been contemplated at the time the last Estimates were made up? The rise in the assessment had to take place by that date, and surely that information must have been available to the Treasury at least a year ago? If that was the case, there did not seem reason for an arbitrary decrease in the Estimate by £42,000 at a, time when, in view of the reassessment, we all know in various parts of the country that would result in a rise.
      Surely the Treasury might have had the imagination to foresee that, and they must have had the information by this
      2072
      time last year giving an indication of a certain rise in the poundage rates I cannot see what justification there is for cutting the Estimate by £42,000 and then coming for a Supplementary Estimate afterwards. It has been said by more than one high financial authority that Supplementary Estimates are a very bad form of finance. They are justified on two suppositions only, namely, a new service or an unforeseen expenditure arising that could not possibly have been foreseen at the time of the original Estimate. I agree that the sum could not have been accurately foreseen, but as regards the possibility that owing to our own Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, in certain localities the amount that they might be reasonably asked to contribute is a thing they might reasonably have foreseen, they should have made provision for it in the original Estimate.
      Captain GUNSTON: I should like to ask a few questions about the Estimate. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the Royal Palaces. Do the House of Lords and the House of Commons come under the Royal Palaces, because the Estimates allow for a slight increase in the rates of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. I should have thought that they would have known whether there was likely to be an increase in rates for these two buildings. A small increase is shown on the original Estimate, and I should like to ask if it has worked fairly well? Another interesting item about which we are entitled to ask is that of rents. In the original Estimate for 1929 the amount was £4,375, and in the Estimate for 1930 it is £1,760, which is a very considerable saving. It seemed to us at the time that the saving was rather over-estimated, and I am rather inclined to think, perhaps either through a mistake in poundage or because they did not quite realise what the rateable value would be, they have gone rather wrong under that head. Another interesting thing is the Estimate in regard to London. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman expected to save £50 on the Home Office and to pay another £1,000 on the Broadmoor Lunatic Asylum. Did the Estimate work out correctly to that amount? Then he expected to have a small saving on the Registrar-General's Office.
      The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is dealing now with the original Estimate. He has been long enough in this House to know that on this occasion we are dealing with Supplementary Estimates, and that he must confine himself to the Supplementary Estimate. It is not in order to go over all the details of the original Estimate, though he may ask for explanations.
      Captain CUNSTON: As we have an increase in the Estimate in respect of rates, surely I am entitled to ask where the increase is to be found under the heads of the original Vote?
      The CHAIRMAN: I do not object to that, but the hon. and gallant Member is going through all these separate items on the assumption that one particular item is responsible for the increase.
      Captain GUNSTON: I bow to your Ruling, Sir, but while I have been a Member of the House I have paid a great deal of attention to the question of rates and took a great interest in the Rating and Valuation Bill, and I was anxious to know how the estimates of the Department had worked out. However, I will not pursue that subject, and I will go on to ask the Financial Secretary a question in regard to the royal parks. I see that the right hon. Gentleman who has the chief responsibility for looking after the pelicans is seated near him, and perhaps we may have a little information as to whether the rates on the royal parks have gone up owing to the activities of the right hon. Gentleman in making them more alluring to the public.
      Mr. CULVERWELL: If I understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, £22,000 of this money is in respect of increased poundage and £48,000 in respect of increased valuation. With these additions the rates now amount to more than they did in 1930, although with the De-rating Act in operation we might have expected a lower charge for rates. It is an alarming sign of the times and of the growth of municipal expenditure that instead of the charge for rates being reduced by the De-rating Act the expenditure is some £25,000 more. I should be out of order, however, in dwelling on that point, and I will pass to another question to which I attach some importance. I
      2074
      notice that among the Government buildings for which rates have to be paid are the Stationery and Printing Office buildings. How much of the increased expenditure is the result of increased valuation following the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925? I ask that because the Stationery and Printing Office is a trading Department of the Government. When that Act was enforced a certain municipal corporation's electricity department found its valuation trebled as the result of reassessment, and then, instead of being able to contribute some £16,000 in relief of the rates of the city and boast, as hon. Members opposite would, of what a wonderful success they had made of their electricity undertaking, they found its operations involved them in a loss—because of the fair and proper valuation. I always believe that trading departments, whether they belong to a local authority or to the Government, should be made to stand upon their own legs, because when a trading department is being subsidised to a certain extent by the Government it is easy for hon. Members opposite to point out what a wonderful success it is.
      The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is getting very far away from the Estimate.
      Mr. CULVERWELL: I quoted that instance to show the necessity of finding out whether a correct valuation had been placed on these buildings. I wish to know how much of this £48,000 which is attributable to increased valuation relates o the offices and buildings of the Stationery and Printing Department, because I have not the least doubt that hon. Members opposite take a delight in pointing to that undertaking as an example of collective enterprise. It is far more important, therefore, to know that this trading Department has every expense attributed to it which it should justly bear than to know the facts about Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum and our picture galleries and the various Government offices in Whitehall. If it is to be assumed that there has been an increase owing to a previous under valuation of the Stationery and Printing Department, then the expenses of that Department will present a very different picture in the future. I hope, for the sake of the Department, that the increase

      2075
      attributable to any increased valuation in respect of it will not be so great as, perhaps, I had anticipated.
      Mr. DIXEY: Knowing the close relations which exists between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary, one feels sure that the Financial Secretary will have realised that he has a peculiar responsibility to see that every penny of this money is property spent. I pay him the credit of acknowledging his loyalty and the great service he has rendered to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the economic campaign which is being waged inside the party. Nevertheless, I have a question to ask as to how these assessments are arrived at. As I understand it, they are more or less settled between the rating authority for the area in which the premises are situated and the Treasury, and I take it that they are arrived at in all cases by agreement. If I am correct in that, I would like to know what proportion of this £70,000 is expended on paying the salaries and expenses of the Rating of Government Property Department. Are any fees payable for valuation expenses, or are there no salaries outside the ordinary departmental salaries? Is this the best we can expect, in spite of the De-rating Bill? Are we to understand that this increased expenditure must be expected from year to year, or have we reached the maximum in rating values?
      Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I should like to ask if any of this £70,000 is to be spent in Northern Ireland. This Vote is required to cover:
      "Rates on Buildings occupied by Representatives of British Dominions and of Foreign Powers."
      I should like to know whether any of that sum is to be used for Northern Ireland. I do not quite understand what is meant by the words "occupied by Representatives of Foreign Powers." Does that mean, as regards the embassies in England, that a contribution is given in lieu of rates on those buildings. In other words, does the English Government give a contribution to the local authorities in those cases.
      Mr. ALBERY: The £22,000 is required to meet the rise in the poundage of rates and the £48,000 is for the increased
      2076
      valuations. I want to know what relation there is between these two amounts and the actual totals of the additional poundage on rates and the increased valuation, on the basis of the original Estimates.
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I think I can answer all the points which have been put to me very shortly. The hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward) has asked me if any amount of the £70,000 is to be used in Northern Ireland, and the answer to that question is "No." With regard to the question put to me about the rating of the Stationery Office, the answer is that there is no extra money asked for that purpose in this Supplementary Vote. I would also like to point out on the question of salaries that they do not come under Sub-head (C), but under Sub-head (A). With reference to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne), in regard to the rise in the poundage of rates, I understand that the Committee has generally accepted my explanation. With regard to the other point of the charge on valuation raised by him, this matter was put very strongly by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel), who said that nothing of the sort had happened in his time. But as I explained in my opening remarks, this increase has been brought about by the Re-valuation Act of 1925. We have not now the wise and guiding hand of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Farnham at the Treasury, and since his departure, the time has come when the valuations have to be made. The Treasury foresaw that there would be an increase in this respect and they put down a sum of £30,000 to meet it. Instead of this, the sum has amounted to £78,000. I have already explained that this sum does not relate to a single year. After all, £48,000 is a serious item, but it represents an expenditure over several years, and is not a large percentage of the total Vote. In view of the uncertainty with which these valuations often work out, I do not think that any serious charge can be made against those who have made the Estimate. It is for more than one year, and I do not think the total shows that there has has been any carelessness on the part of the valuation department.
      Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £48,000.
      I have taken great interest in the Financial Secretary's reply upon the amounts and I do not like what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has called the Jim Crow policy of jumping about from figure to figure, first a reduction in the original Estimate and now an addition. I agree that the poundage explanation given about the increase of £22,000 is a good reason, but as regards the £48,000 I do not agree that it has been sufficiently justified, and, for that reason, I move a reduction of the Vote.
      Mr. ALBERY: I am sorry to have to trespass on the Committee's time again. When the Financial Secretary got up to reply just now he assured the Committee that he could easily answer all the questions put to him, and he did answer with great ease and great courtesy for the most part, but he forgot to answer my question as to the relationship between the two amounts of this Supplementary Estimate and the actual total increase which has taken place under these two heads.
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am sorry that I did not answer the hon. Member, but I confess that it was difficult for me to understand his difficulty. Clearly, when one is making rates everything depends on two facts—first of all upon the valuation on which the rate is made, and, secondly, upon the rate in the pound which one has to pay. I have explained that owing to the change in the rate in the pound which one has to pay £22,000 additional is required, and that owing to the change in the valuation £48,000 is required. Added together, those figures make £70,000.
      Mr. ALBERY: The Financial Secretary has still not seized my point. I understand that the £22,000 is on account of extra poundage and that £48,000 is on account of extra valuation. There was an original Estimate, and presumably it allowed for some increase or no increase—I am not clear which. Was some increase in poundage allowed for? As regards valuation, I am not clear whether there was some increase or no increase allowed for. Can the Financial Secretary give us some idea of what was the total extra charge in poundage owing
      2078
      to increased rates, and what was the total extra charge on valuation owing to increased valuation?
      10.0 p.m.
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I have to explain the difference between the revised Estimate and the original Estimate. All that I am concerned about is to show why, having secured that Vote for the original Estimate, I now have to come to the Committee and ask for a revised Estimate. So far as poundage is concerned you have to take the country as a whole. In some cases poundages are higher, and in some cases they are lower. All that I can be called upon to say is that, taking the poundage as a whole throughout the country, the reason why we have to ask for £22,000 more is the change or difference in poundage between what was anticipated and what it is to-day. With regard to the alteration in valuation, I have explained that £30,000 was allowed for, but owing to re-valuation the amount is larger than was anticipated; it is £78,000 instead of £30,000, and that means an additional £48,000.
      Mr. ALBERY: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is trying to answer. What I am trying to ascertain is what the Treasury anticipated. To what extent was there any real need for having this Supplementary Estimate?
      Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I think I can answer the question of my hon. Friend. There has been an increase in this poundage because the rates have gone up, and the rates have gone up because we have a Socialist Government.
      Mr. REMER: Everyone will agree that the Financial Secretary has failed to make the Estimates clear in any way. A few nights ago I said that there was a lack of scrutiny in all these Estimates. It is obvious that the hon. Gentleman has come here with an Estimate which he has seen for the first time, and that he has no real knowledge of it at all. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Royal Mint, and said that there had been a saving of the rates paid in that case because it was a productive industry. Surely, the proper way to have presented the Estimate would have been to have shown the extra rates where more have been paid, and under the various subheads to show the savings where there have been savings. Then we could have

      2079
      understood quite clearly where the extra expenditure or savings were. In the case of the Royal Mint, what is the saving?
      Mr. DIXEY: I cannot think it is a pleasurable sensation for the hon. Gentleman to hear very serious allegations made against him for coming to the Committee with an improperly prepared Supplementary Estimate. If I know anything of his character and general esteem in this House, he will see there is reason for our complaints and do his best to remedy them. Very serious charges have been made that he does not quite appreciate the importance of his own Estimate. I would ask the Minister to reconsider this Estimate and represent it in the proper form, so that hon. Members on this side of the Committee and on the other side—[Interruption]. In the whole of these Supplementary Estimates we have not had one speech from the other side of the Committee. Yes, just one. We are voting large sums of money on improperly prepared Estimates, and, quite frankly, as far as I can see, the hon. Gentleman does not understand portions of his own Estimates. Members opposite are ignorant—
      The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member will confine himself to the Estimates.
      Mr. DIXEY: I am only expressing natural indignation.
      Mr. R. RICHARDSON: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Gentleman not displaying his own ignorance by asking the questions that he is asking?
      The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.
      Major COLFOX: On a point of Order. Is there no way in which hon. Members opposite can be prevented from submitting bogus points of Order?
      Mr. DIXEY rose—
      The CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. Gentleman finishing his speech?
      Mr. DIXEY: No, I am not. I am putting a very definite and pertinent point to the hon. Gentleman, with no bitterness and with proper respect to
      2080
      yourself and the Committee. A very critical Estimate such as this, embracing large expenditure, comes before the Committee and very vital information is missing. I would strongly press the hon. Gentleman, whatever may be the position of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at this stage for his own benefit and the benefit of his Government to withdraw the Estimate and re-introduce it with the proper information.
      Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: May I ask your advice on this point, Sir Robert? As there is such a discrepancy of opinion about the righteousness and propriety of this Estimate, would it be in order if I were to propose to report Progress, so that the Estimate might be withdrawn and revised?
      The CHAIRMAN: It would be in order, but it is not necessary for the Chairman to accept it.
      Mr. CULVERWELL: May we assume from the fact that no Supplementary Estimate is brought in in the case of Scotland or Northern Ireland—
      The CHAIRMAN: That is the fault of hon. Members not being in the Committee and not paying attention to the Estimate. If the hon. Member will look at the Estimate, he will find that neither Ireland, Scotland nor other parts of the original Estimate is included. It is confined to "C."
      Mr. CULVERWELL: With great respect that is what I said.
      The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Gentleman would look at the Estimate he would know that it is not included.
      Mr. CULVERWELL: I was asking why, if a correct Estimate can be made in the case of Scotland and Northern Ireland, it cannot be made in the case of England.
      Mr. REMER: My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith (Mr. Dixey) said that no speeches on these Estimates had been made on the other side. I would remind him that three times hon. Members on the other side have risen to speak but on each occasion a Whip from the Front Bench has gone to speak to them.
      Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £22,000, be granted for the said Service."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 67; Noes, 224.

      Division No. 168.]

      AYES.

      [10.13 p.m.

      Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

      Ganzoni, Sir John

      Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

      Albery, Irving James

      Gault, Lieut.-Cot. A. Hamilton

      Penny, Sir George

      Balfour, George (Hampstead)

      Greene, W. P. Crawford

      Ramsbotham, H.

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

      Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

      Remer, John R.

      Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

      Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

      Ross, Ronald D.

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

      Gunston, Captain D. W.

      Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

      Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T,

      Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

      Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

      Clydesdale, Marquess of

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

      Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

      Colfox, Major William Philip

      Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

      Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

      Colman, N. C. D.

      Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

      Somerset, Thomas

      Colville, Major D. J.

      Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

      Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

      Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

      Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

      Southby, Commander A. R. J.

      Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

      Lamb, Sir J. Q.

      Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

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

      Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

      Thomson, Sir F.

      Dawson, Sir Philip

      Llewellin, Major J. J.

      Todd, Capt. A. J.

      Dixey, A. C.

      Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

      Train, J.

      Edmondson, Major A. J.

      Margesson, Captain H. D.

      Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

      Elliot, Major Walter E.

      Marjoribanks, Edward

      Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

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

      Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

      Womersley, W. J.

      Everard, W. Lindsay

      Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

      Ferguson, Sir John

      Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

      Ford, Sir P. J.

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

      Captain Sir George Bowyer and

      Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

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

      Captain Wallace.

      Fremuntle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

      Muirhead, A. J.

      NOES.

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

      Foot, Isaac

      Lathan, G.

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

      Freeman, Peter

      Law, Albert (Bolton)

      Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

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

      Lawrence, Susan

      Alpass, J. H.

      George, Megan Lloyd (Anglessa)

      Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

      Ammon, Charles George

      Gibbins, Joseph

      Lawson, John James

      Angell, Sir Norman

      Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)

      Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

      Arnott, John

      Gill, T. H.

      Leach, W.

      Aske, Sir Robert

      Gillett, George M.

      Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

      Attlee, Clement Richard

      Glassey, A. E.

      Lees, J.

      Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

      Gossling, A. G.

      Lewis, T. (Southampton)

      Barr, James

      Gould, F.

      Lindley, Fred W.

      Batey, Joseph

      Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

      Lloyd, C. Ellis

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

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

      Logan, David Gilbert

      Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

      Gray, Milner

      Longbottom, A. W.

      Benson, G.

      Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

      Longden, F.

      Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

      Groves, Thomas E.

      Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

      Birkett, W. Norman

      Grundy, Thomas W.

      Lunn, William

      Brockway, A. Fenner

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

      Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

      Bromfield, William

      Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

      Brothers, M.

      Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

      Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

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

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

      McElwee, A.

      Brown, Ernest (Leith)

      Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

      McEntee, V. L.

      Burgess, F. G.

      Hardie, George D.

      McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)

      Burgln, Dr. E. L.

      Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

      MacLaren, Andrew

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

      Hastings, Dr. Somerville

      Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

      Calne, Derwent Hall.

      Haycock, A. W.

      McShane, John James

      Cameron, A. G.

      Hayday, Arthur

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

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

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

      Manning, E. L.

      Charleton, H. C.

      Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

      Marcus, M.

      Clarke, J. S.

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

      Markham, S. F.

      Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

      Herrlotts, J.

      Marley, J.

      Cocks, Frederick Seymour

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

      Marshall, Fred

      Compton, Joseph

      Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

      Mathers, George

      Cove, William G.

      Hoffman, P. C.

      Matters, L. W.

      Cowan, D. M.

      Hollins, A.

      Melville, Sir James

      Cripps, Sir Stafford

      Hopkin, Daniel

      Middleton, G.

      Daggar, George

      Horrabin, J. F.

      Milner, Major J.

      Dallas, George

      Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

      Montague, Frederick

      Dalton, Hugh

      Isaacs, George

      Morley, Ralph

      Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

      Jenkins, Sir William

      Morris, Rhys Hopkins

      Devlin, Joseph

      John, William (Rhondda, West)

      Mort, D. L.

      Dukes, C.

      Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

      Muggeridge, H. T.

      Duncan, Charles

      Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

      Murnin, Hugh

      Ede, James Chuter

      Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

      Naylor, T. E.

      Edmunds, J. E.

      Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

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

      Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

      Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

      Noel Baker, P. J.

      Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

      Kelly, W. T.

      Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

      Egan, W. H.

      Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Oldfield, J. R.

      Elmley, Viscount

      Kirkwood, D.

      Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

      Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

      Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

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

      Palin, John Henry

      Sexton, Sir James

      Tout, W. J.

      Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

      Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

      Townend, A. E.

      Peters, Dr. Sidney John

      Shaw Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

      Viant, S. P.

      Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

      Sherwood, G. H.

      Walkden, A. G.

      Phillips, Dr. Marion

      Shield, George William

      Walker, J.

      Picton-Turbervill, Edith

      Shiels, Dr. Drummond

      Watkins, F. C.

      Pole, Major D. G.

      Shillaker, J. F.

      Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

      Potts, John S.

      Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

      Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda).

      Price, M. P.

      Simmons, C. J.

      Wellock, Wilfred

      Quibell, D. J. K.

      Sitch, Charles H.

      Welsh, James (Paisley)

      Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

      Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

      Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

      Rathbone, Eleanor

      Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

      Westwood, Joseph

      Raynes, W. R.

      Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

      White, H. G.

      Richards, R.

      Snell, Harry

      Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

      Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

      Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

      Wilkinson, Ellen C.

      Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

      Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

      Williams, David (Swansea, East)

      Ritson, J.

      Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

      Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

      Romeril, H. G.

      Strauss, G. R.

      Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

      Rosbotham, D. S. T.

      Sullivan, J.

      Wilson, J. (Oldham)

      Rowson, Guy

      Sutton, J. E.

      Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)

      Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

      Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

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

      Sanders, W. S.

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

      Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

      Sandham, E.

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

      Sawyer, G. F.

      Thurtle, Ernest

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

      Scott, James

      Tillett, Ben

      Mr. Hayes and Mr. Paling.

      Scrymgeour, E.

      Tinker, John Joseph

      Original Question put, and agreed to.

    CLASS VIII.

      ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY PENSIONS, ETC.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for the Expenses of Pensions, Compensation Allowances and Gratuities awarded to retired and disbanded members and staff of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and to widows and children of such members, including annuities to the National Debt Commissioners in respect of commutation of Compensation Allowances and certain extra-Statutory Payments."
      Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: I do not think that we can allow this Estimate to go without some explanation from the representative of the Government. I think that a statement should, first of all, be made by the representative of the Government, and I respectfully ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to make a statement.
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: This item of £4,000 is owing to a remarkable fact relating to the Estimate for pensions, compensation allowances and gratuities payable to retired members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, their wives, and their children. The original Estimate was prepared with the assistance of the Government Actuary, but there are some unavoidable uncertainties in all such Estimates, in particular the rate of death of the persons concerned. This year the death-rate of pensioners
      2084
      has fallen to a slight extent below the rate upon which the Estimate was made, which was in accordance with the experience of previous years. As a result of that—the amount is only one-fifth of 1 per cent. of the total Estimate—it is necessary to bring forward the Supplementary Estimate. I am sure hon. Members will realise that it would have been improper to have some to the Committee with the original Estimate based on a larger expectation of life than usual. It is because the estimate of the Government Actuary has not been fulfilled that it is necessary to come to the Committee on this occasion.
      Mr. ROSS: There are several points upon which I should like to make some inquiries in connection with this Vote. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has told us in a short explanation, which. I think, he seemed a little reluctant to give, that this was something it was impossible to foresee and that the Supplementary Estimate which we are now asked to vote was due to an abnormally low percentage of death rate among pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary. There are two classes of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and I have recently had occasion to come into touch with a good many old members of that distinguished corps. I can assure the Financial Secretary that, from such experience as I have had of them, their death rate was not abnormally low, but very high. I have known many of these old men who have passed away this year. It must be remembered that there are two classes of

      2085
      pensioners. There is one class consisting of very much older men, on a very much lower scale of pension, the pre-War Royal Irish Constabulary pensioner, and there is the post-War pensioner. Is it possible for the Financial Secretary to give me some information as to the death rate among the pre-War pensioners, and the percentage of the death rate among those who were pensioned on the post-War terms? Those classes are quite distinct. I should also like to know what was the general average of the percentage of death that was predicted by the Government actuary.
      If I call the Government actuary into question, I shall be following the example which has been set to me from another part of the House. I do not propose to treat the Government actuary as sacrosanct. I do not think he is infallible, and I am all the less inclined to think he is infallible when I cast my mind back to a year ago. Then, we had precisely the same state of affairs. We had the time of the House being taken up on a Vote of this kind, owing to a miscalculation by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, owing no doubt to wrong advice which he received from the Government actuary. I had hoped that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury might be tempted to profit by his experience, but I misjudged him. We find the situation almost exactly the same to-day, except with one important difference. I would remind the Financial Secretary of what he said when he was producing the almost identical Supplementary Estimate a year ago. On the present occasion he says that it was impossible to foresee that any such additional sum would be required, whereas last year he said that there was very close Budgeting in the Estimate of the previous year.
      That would appear to be a rather covert sneer—perhaps, I should not say a sneer—or a criticism of his predecessor in office. If his predecessor in office was out by about the same amount, he had the excuse that he had not the experience of the previous year, whereas the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has had that experience. He thinks that the pensioners die faster than they do, and he budgets accordingly. There are few more serious faults in the financial
      2086
      control of this country than that we should have erroneous budgeting and wrong estimates year after year, although they may be on trivial amounts and minor points which might be easily avoided, and which would have been avoided if the Financial Secretary had noticed the situation that occurred a year before. I would press him to give some particulars, which he was good enough to give last year, as to what the Government actuary advised as the likely number of pensioners to die, on which the Estimate was based, and what relation that bears to the number who have died. It is a pity that such trivial mistakes should be made and that it should be necessary to take up the time of the House in passing Supplementary Estimates of this kind.
      Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I certainly do not look at this Estimate from any quibbling point of view. It deals with a section of men who are highly respected and honoured. May I compliment the Financial Secretary very sincerely indeed—being a rare compliment it will I expect be even more appreciated—on the close estimate he has made on this Vote. It is roughly within one-fifth of 1 per cent. of the total amount. [An HON. MEMBER "No, four-fifths."] My hon. Friend will be able to explain the position in due course, but I think this is a close estimate and we ought not to pass it without making that comment. We have been told that this Vote covers men and children, I am not sure whether it covers their wives and widows. I see at the bottom of the page it says:
      "The death rate amongst pensioners during the present financial year has been abnormally low."
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must remember that this is a Supplementary Estimate and that the questions which he is asking are covered in the main Estimate.
      Mr. WILLIAMS: I was quoting from the Supplementary Estimate. The word "pensioners," apparently, includes men and children, but if my request as regards widows and wives is out of order the Financial Secretary will, of course, he unable to give me a reply.
      Mr. MacLAREN: Is there any defence against this kind of boredom?
      An HON. MEMBER: Go somewhere else!
      Mr. WILLIAMS: There are some people who have only one idea in their mind and they are consequently additionally wearisome. I want to know the cause for this Supplementary Estimate of £4,000. In the original Estimate there is a figure of £564,000 and a revised Estimate of £568,000, an addition of 24,000; but there is an addition of £4,000, apparently, to an Estimate of £675,000. It seems that the sum of £4,000 has been added twice and finally we get a sum of £679,000. I cannot make out how the difference between the £675,000 and the £564,000 arises. There is a gap between these figures about which I should like some explanation. It is a financial gap which appears to appeal to hon. Members. The matter is a little complicated, but I am sure the Financial Secretary will be enabled to enlighten me on the point.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the hon. Member that this Supplementary Estimate relates to Subhead A of the original Estimate, and if he looks up Sub-head A of the original Estimate I think he will find it very clearly indicated that this sum relates to members of the Force.
      Mr. WILLIAMS: I accept that position, and I am hopeful that on this occasion I may be able to vote for the hon. Gentleman if he will give me an answer to my points.
      Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I do not think that anyone who knows the conditions under which these men live will object to the Supplementary Estimate. I have spent most of my life in Ireland, and I was stationed in Ireland during the troubles which involved the laying down of the lives of many people such as those for whom we are voting this money to-night. I travelled all over the country and came into touch with many of the old Royal Irish Constabulary, and I know their devotion, their zeal, and their loyalty on every occasion under conditions which made life almost unbearable. I saw their wives and families persecuted by people who did not believe in the British Government. That is a matter which I am not going to enter into to-night, but I saw for myself what
      2088
      life meant to these people in those days and I feel that the Committee ought to unite joyfully in voting anything in the nature of the pensions or amenities which this Supplementary Estimate represents. There are, however, one or two points on which the Financial Secretary has left us uninformed. I take it that in drawing up an Estimate of this kind some regard is paid to humanitarian considerations, and I would draw attention to the note at the bottom of the Estimate in the White Paper which says in very cynical words that the death rate regrettably—that is the implication—during the present financial year has been abnormally low.
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The word "regrettably" does not occur anywhere in this document, and the hon. and gallant Member has no right to put a word of that character into our mouths in this connection.
      HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!
      Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I certainly withdraw, but I did not use the word "regrettably"; I said that the word was implied in that bald statement The words are:
      "The death rate …. has been abnormally low."
      Does not that infer that it would have been a better state of affairs had it been normally low? Had they said that the death-rate had been happily low, that would have been an indication of the real spirit felt in this Committee towards those who died in the country's service. Why has the death-rate been abnormally low? Has the Financial Secretary taken any steps to find out? Has he taken any steps to find out in what particular parts of Ireland it is lower than others? Is it lower in Ulster than in the Free State? Is it lower in the West than in the East? Ireland depends a good deal on its tourist traffic, and if we can prove that in Ulster the death-rate is lower—I see you rising, Mr. Dunnico, and I yield in advance to your call of "order." The South of Ireland is still an important part of the Empire—
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is obvious that if the amount asked for is only one-fifth of 1 per cent of the main Estimate, it is not appropriate to go into these details on a Supplementary Estimate so small as the one before us.
      Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I accept your advice, and will not go against the feeling of the Committee or the Ruling of the Chair, but, as one interested in Ireland, it seems to me that these are points which it would be an advantage to have explained to us. I ask the Financial Secretary when he is framing Estimates that appeal to some of us to give us the information which we regard as vitally important. It would settle any antagonism or questioning in anticipation.
      Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I waited before getting up, because I wondered if the Financial Secretary would give us some of the information that has been asked for. Perhaps we may appeal to him to do so, but there are one or two points I should like to put. Having examined the Estimate with great care, I could not understand what you, Mr. Dunnico, said about it being only one-fifth of 1 per cent. I cannot reconcile that in the least with the figures. It is 24,000 out of a total of a little under £000,000, or two-thirds of 1 per cent. [An HON. MEMBER: "£300,000 for beet-sugar to-morrow!"] Beet-sugar is not grown on land in places like this. It does seem rather an absurdity when we are dealing with a point of this kind to adopt this procedure, and that, just according as it happens to be a little above or below the ordinary expected death-rate, there should either be an unnecessary surplus or that the time of this Committee should be taken up with a Supplementary Estimate which could be avoided.
      The normal practice of any insurance company would be to average out the death rates, and in better years, when the death rate was happily low, to advance the money needed from any reserve that was created, and, when unhappily the death rate was higher and consequently there was a, greater saving, it would be perfectly possible to put the amount so saved to reserve. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why did you not do it?"] That is the sort of interruption one gets from hon. Gentlemen opposite. When it comes to a matter of criticism, they seem to think it is sufficient to point to us on this side and ask why we did not do it, as though all they had to do was to follow us in every respect. I quite agree with hon. Gentlemen opposite that they have not improved on their predecessors. This is a matter of ordinary accounting, and
      2090
      would it not be possible in future to-introduce a system like that in insurance companies? There is one more point. It is really surprising that the Financial Secretary has not replied, but perhaps I may be allowed to clear up the difficulty mentioned by an hon. Member who did not quite realise the difference between the figures of £564,000 and £675,000. Speaking on behalf of the Financial Secretary, if the hon. Gentleman will refer to the original Estimate, he will clear up the difficulty. He will find that the item of £554,000 is the first of a series of items in Vote A—
      Mr. ALBERY: Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to give a reply on behalf of the Financial Secretary?
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not recollect any Standing Order which prevents any hon. Member from replying to another.
      Mr. KIRKWOOD: For our guidance for the future I would like to ask whether it is in order for a back bencher to give a reproof to a front bencher?
      Mr. C. WILLIAMS: As I believe I have been referred to may I take the answer of the right hon. Gentleman as more authoritative than that of the hon. Member opposite?
      Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am perfectly ready to accept a correction from a back bencher, and I am sure it will be realised that quite distinguished precedents for it have been produced in the case of the Prime Minister and some of the rebukes administered to him by the hon. Baronet the Member for Smethwick (Sir 0. Mosley).
      Mr. KIRKWOOD: The hon. Baronet the Member for Smethwick (Sir O. Mosley) was a front bencher and an ex-Cabinet Minister.
      Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Reverting to what I was saying, if the hon. Member takes the total of the additional £564,000, on the next page, it adds up to £1,800,000. If we put in the other sub-heads under this Vote and take into account the Appropriation-in-Aid and take the one from the other we get the total for which the hon. Member asks. But the point really is this, why do they need a Supplementary Estimate of £4,000

      2091
      in the case of pensions and gratuities to members of the Force enlisted in Ireland when we find that so far as superannuation allowances in England are concerned there is no extra allowance?
      Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: The right hon. Gentleman has asked me to consider whether we could not make a sort of system of—
      Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Equalisation reserves.
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I will look into that point. I am a little doubtful whether it would be appropriate to our method of accounting, but if I find that it can be worked conveniently in that way, I will arrange for it to be done, because I can see that it will avoid
      these Supplementary Estimates. On the other point raised, the two figures are really one. First there is the figure of the increase in the gross figure of the single sub-head, and, secondly, in small type there is the net figure for the whole Vote. One shows the effect of adding £4,000 to the single sub-head. The other figure is the effect of deducting £4,000 from the whole net Vote.
      Mr. DIXEY rose—
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. T. Kennedy)The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. T. Kennedy) rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
      Question put, "That the Question be now put."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 214; Noes, 64.

      Division No. 169.]

      AYES.

      [11.0 p.m.

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

      Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)

      Lewis, T. (Southampton)

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

      Gill, T. H.

      Lindley, Fred W.

      Alpass, J. H.

      Glassey, A. E.

      Lloyd, C. Ellis

      Ammon, Charles George

      Gossling, A. G.

      Logan, David Gilbert

      Angell, Sir Norman

      Gould, F.

      Longbottom, A. W.

      Arnott, John

      Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

      Longden, F.

      Aske, sir Robert

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

      Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

      Attlee, Clement Richard

      Gray, Milner

      Lunn, William

      Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

      Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

      Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

      Barr, James

      Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

      MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

      Batey, Joseph

      Grundy, Thomas W.

      McElwee, A.

      Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

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

      McEntee, V. L.

      Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

      Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)

      Benson, G.

      Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

      McKinlay, A.

      Birkett, W. Norman

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

      MacLaren, Andrew

      Bowen, J. W.

      Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

      Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

      Broad, Francis Alfred

      Hardie, George D.

      McShane, John James

      Brockway, A. Fenner

      Harris, Percy A.

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

      Bromfield, William

      Hastings, Dr. Somerville

      Manning, E. L.

      Brothers, M.

      Haycock, A. W.

      Marcus, M.

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

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

      Markham, S. F.

      Brown, Ernest (Leith)

      Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

      Marley, J.

      Burgess, F. G.

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

      Marshall, Fred

      Burgin, Dr. E. L.

      Herriotts, J.

      Mathers, George

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

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

      Matters, L. W.

      Caine, Derwent Hall.

      Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

      Melville, Sir James

      Cameron, A. G.

      Hoffman, P. C.

      Middleton, G.

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

      Hollins, A.

      Millar, J. D.

      Charleton, H. C.

      Hopkin, Daniel

      Milner, Major J.

      Clarke, J. S.

      Horrabin, J. F.

      Morgan, Dr. H. B.

      Cocks. Frederick Seymour

      Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

      Morley, Ralph

      Compton, Joseph

      Jenkins, Sir William

      Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

      Cripps, Sir Stafford

      John. William (Rhondda, West)

      Mort, D. L.

      Daggar, George

      Johnston, Thomas

      Muggeridge, H. T.

      Dallas, George

      Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

      Murnin, Hugh

      Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

      Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

      Naylor, T. E.

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

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

      Devlin, Joseph

      Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

      Noel Baker, P. J.

      Dukes, C.

      Kelly, W. T.

      Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

      Duncan, Charles

      Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

      Ede, James Chuter

      Kirkwood, D.

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

      Edmunds, J. E.

      Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

      Palin, John Henry

      Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

      Latham G.

      Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

      Egan, W. H.

      Law, Albert (Bolton)

      Peters, Dr. Sidney John

      Elmley, Viscount

      Lawrence, Susan

      Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

      Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

      Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

      Picton-Turbervill, Edith

      Foot, Isaac

      Lawson, John James

      Pole, Major D. G.

      Freeman, Peter

      Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

      Potts, John S.

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

      Leach, W.

      Price, M. P.

      George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

      Let, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

      Quibell, D. J. K.

      Gibbins, Joseph

      Lees, J.

      Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

      Raynes, W. R.

      Simmons, C. J.

      Wallace, H. W.

      Richards, R.

      Sitch, Charles H.

      Watkins, F. C.

      Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

      Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

      Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

      Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

      Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

      Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

      Ritson, J.

      Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

      Wellock, Wilfred

      Romeril, H. G.

      Sorensen, R.

      Welsh, James (Paisley)

      Rosbotham, D. S. T.

      Stamford, Thomas W.

      Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

      Rowson, Guy

      Strauss, G. R.

      Westwood, Joseph

      Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

      Sullivan, J.

      White, H. G.

      Sanders, W. S.

      Sutton, J. E.

      Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

      Sandham, E.

      Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

      Wilkinson, Ellen C.

      Sawyer, G. F.

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

      Williams, David (Swansea, East)

      Scrymgeour, E.

      Thurtle, Ernest

      Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

      Sexton, Sir James

      Tillett, Ben

      Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

      Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

      Tinker, John Joseph

      Wilson, J. (Oldham)

      Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

      Toole, Joseph

      Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

      Sherwood, G. H.

      Tout, W. J.

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

      Shield, George William

      Townend, A. E.

      Wise, E. F.

      Shiels, Dr. Drummond

      Viant, S. P.

      Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

      Shillaker, J. F.

      Walkden, A. G.

      Short, Alfred (Wednetbury)

      Walker, J.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

      Mr. Hayes and Mr. Paling,

      NOES.

      Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

      Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

      Ramsbotham, H.

      Albery, Irving James

      Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

      Remer, John R.

      Boothby, R. J. G.

      Ganzonl, Sir John

      Ross, Ronald D.

      Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

      Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

      Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

      Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

      Greene, W. P. Crawford

      Salmon, Major I.

      Bracken, B.

      Grotton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

      Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

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

      Gunston, Captain D. W.

      Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

      Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

      Hanbury, C.

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

      Colfox, Major William Philip

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

      Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

      Colman, N. C. D.

      Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

      Somerset, Thomas

      Colville, Major D. J.

      Hennesay, Major Sir G. R. J.

      Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

      Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

      Hills, Major Rt. Hon John Walter

      Southby, Commander A. R. J.

      Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

      Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

      Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

      Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

      Lamb, Sir J. Q.

      Todd, Capt. A. J.

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

      Little, Sir Ernest Graham-

      Train, J.

      Dawson, Sir Philip

      Llewellin, Major J. J.

      Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

      Dixey, A. C.

      Marjorlbanks, Edward

      Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

      Edmondson, Major A. J.

      Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

      Womersley, W. J.

      Elliot, Major Walter E.

      Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

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

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

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

      Everard, W. Lindsay

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

      Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain

      Ferguson, Sir John

      Muirhead, A. J.

      Wallace.

      Ford, Sir P. J.

      Penny, Sir George

      Question put accordingly, and agreed to.

      Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.
      The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  MORAY FIRTH (FOREIGN TRAWLERS).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]
  Major McKENZIE WOOD: I wish to take the opportunity on the Motion for the Adjournment to raise a question regarding which I put a question to the Secretary of State for Scotland earlier to-day, namely, the grave damage that has been suffered in the last few days by fishermen in the Moray Firth from foreign trawlers. Feeling along the
  2094
  Moray Firth is running high at the present time, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will understand that it is highly desirable, not only that something should be done to stop the damage, but also to reassure the fishermen that something is being done to help them to carry on their peaceful avocation.
  The fishermen who have been affected are the cod-net fishermen. Cod-net fishing in the Moray Firth is of comparatively recent growth. It is a method or fishing carried out by the setting up of a long fence of nets fixed to the bottom of the sea, and those nets may stretch, on occasion, to something like two miles. The fishing has become very valuable of recent years, and it is highly desirable that everything possible should be done to enable the fishermen to go on with it and to develop it, particularly at this time of the year when other forms of fishing are not available to them. The great difficulty is the trawling that goes

  2095
  on in the Moray Firth. Nearly the whole of my lifetime I have heard of the troubles of fishermen in the Moray Firth, and I can remember the time when the law was passed to prohibit trawling altogether.
  That law has not been effective against foreigners. It is true that on one occasion a foreign skipper was put in gaol, but he was immediately released at the instance of the Foreign Office, and the present position is that, while British trawlers may not trawl in the Moray Firth, foreign trawlers are allowed to roam at will, and I am sorry to say that they do a great deal of damage. This has happened year after year, and I have raised it in this House before now. Last year, particularly, a great deal of damage was done, and a promise was made by the Scottish Office that they would make a special effort to try to prevent damage during this present season. I am glad to say that the Scottish Office did really make an effort to put matters on a better footing this year than was the case before and I myself was present at a conference at which efforts were made to warn the foreign trawlers as to the position, and to see if by that means the damage could be kept within bounds, if not entirely stopped. I also did my own part in trying to prevail upon the fishermen along the Moray Firth to mark their nets properly. However, in spite of all that has been done, last week-end a number of trawlers came along, and they have done enormous damage to the nets of these fishermen.
  It has been said that the fishermen do not always mark their nets as they ought to do, and on that point I would make two observations. In the first place, I doubt if the method of marking is really as effective as it is supposed to be, because, if you have a stretch of nets two miles long, lights or buoys one at each end and one at the middle do not seem to be a very effective marking; but that is what the fishermen are called upon to do; that is the marking which by law they are supposed to carry out. In any case, the great number of fishermen allege that marking has the very opposite effect that is intended, inasmuch as it attracts the foreign trawlers and shows them where the fish are. Apart from that, my information is that a number
  2096
  of fishermen who on this occasion undoubtedly marked their nets with lights and in other ways have been among the chief sufferers, and, as I have said, enormous damage has been done, a week ago particularly, and I believe it has been going on since.
  There are three questions that I want the Government to answer. The first is, what means are they taking to stop the damage that is being done at the present time? Secondly, what means are being taken to ensure that the fishermen may be able to get compensation for damage which they are able to prove, as I believe some of them may be able to prove, by individual trawlers? Lastly, there is the larger question, what are the Government doing to ensure that, by some sort of international action, some proper system will be devised whereby the foreigners will not be able to come into the Firth and have privileges which are not open to our own trawlers? It is an intolerable situation, as everyone must admit, that foreign trawlers should be enabled to do what British trawlers are not allowed to do. For at least 10 years, within my own knowledge, this question has been raised, and the Government have been pressed to take the matter up with the League of Nations. I cannot but believe that if the British Government had pressed the matter as strongly as they ought to have done, we should have been able, by this time, to report some real progress. It is really time that some solid progress was made, because the feeling among the fishermen is running very high indeed, and it is difficult to say what may happen unless they have some assurance that the Government at last are going to do something.
  Mr. BOOTHBY: I would like to put one point to the Secretary of State. He knows as well as I do that this question of trawling by foreign trawlers in the Moray Firth has been a running sore for 10 years. I do not believe, however many cruisers he sends, that he will get down to the root of this problem, it will be left over, until he can persuade the foreigners to ratify the treaties under which foreign trawlers are permitted to trawl in the Moray Firth, whereas our own trawlers are not allowed to do so. I hope he will tell us whether there is any hope of bringing these treaties under

  2097
  review, because until and unless we can do that there is no hope of solving the problem.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): It is a, pity that we have such a short time at our disposal for this very important question, but I will attempt to deal with some aspects of the difficulty. To begin with, I am well aware of the large amount of feeling that has been engendered in the Moray Firth in regard to this question. On the other hand, the question raises difficulties of an international character which are not easily disposed of. The Government are not responsible for the difficulties. They have inherited them from previous Governments of the parties to which both hon. Members belong. However anxious we may be to review them, we have to consider what the reflex action of their removal would mean in other directions. The Government fully recognise the difficulty that arises in connection with fishing in the Moray Firth, and will do all in their power to prevent or to reduce the damage to the fishermen's gear. This fishing is conducted during the early part of each year at a considerable distance from the shore and, I understand, well outside the three mile limit. The practice of the fishermen is to shoot the nets and leave them unattended in the sea for one or more nights. They then return and haul the nets and go to port with their catch. At this point, I should like to put in this remark—that to leave the nets unattended for one or more nights seems rather risky. The trouble which has arisen during recent years is due to the fact that foreign trawlers visit the Moray Firth at the same period for the purpose of catching the spawning cod, and the complaint is that some of these trawlers destroy the nets by working the ground where the nets are laid. It is the case that in recent years considerable damage has been done to the nets and the gear of the cod net fishermen, and it appears that damage to a considerable amount has been done during the past fortnight or so. Foreign trawlers in present circumstances without reference to international arrangements cannot be prevented from working in the waters of the Moray Firth outside the three-mile
  2098
  limit. Therefore, if the fishermen leave their cod nets in these waters they have only the same rights of protection as they would have in any other part of the North Sea outside the three-mile limit.
  We have been asked what we have been doing with regard to this matter. First let me say that as the North Sea Convention has rather a restricted application to this matter, the Government have made efforts to procure additional protection for the cod net fishermen by seeking the good offices of the Governments of the countries from which these trawlers come, namely, Belgium and Holland. Each year, before the commencement of the cod fishing season, the Foreign Office, at the request of my Department, have asked the Netherlands and Belgian Governments to advise their trawlers to take precautions to avoid the cod nets if possible. Each year there has been a favourable response, but on several occasions it has been pointed out by these foreign Governments that if the cod nets are left unattended without proper marks and lights, it is impossible for the foreign trawlers to avoid them. In addition to the steps that have been taken with foreign Governments, we have issued regulations for the cod net fishermen to marks the buoys and to light their nets, so that the foreign trawlers can see them and avoid them. If I had time I could tell hon. Members what has occurred in regard to the regulations that we have attempted to get the fishermen to observe.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: What about the question of compensation?
  Mr. ADAMSON: I have not time to go into that question now. In addition to these two very important things we have been doing, we are closely examining what has occurred within recent days with a view to having this question fully discussed from the point of view of more precautions being taken by foreign trawlers and also from the point of view of seeing whether it is not possible for us to secure compensation—
  It being half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

SCOTLAND.
  PIERS AND HARBOURS (INTER-DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE'S REPORT).
  PIERS AND HARBOURS (INTER-DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE'S REPORT).
  HOUSING, LANARKSHIRE.
  HOUSING, LANARKSHIRE.
  FRUIT SUPPLY.
  FRUIT SUPPLY.
AFRICA.
  TANGANYIKA (NATIVE TRIBES).
  TANGANYIKA (NATIVE TRIBES).
  BASUTOLAND.
  BASUTOLAND.
  OFFICIALS, LEAVE.
  OFFICIALS, LEAVE.
  POOR LAW (CASUALS, DETENTION).
  POOR LAW (CASUALS, DETENTION).
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  HOUSING (STATISTICS).
  HOUSING (STATISTICS).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  DUTIABLE IMPORTS.
  DUTIABLE IMPORTS.
  GLOVE INDUSTRY.
  GLOVE INDUSTRY.
  COMMERCIAL TREATIES.
  COMMERCIAL TREATIES.
  WHEAT (IMPORT).
  WHEAT (IMPORT).
  TRADE FACILITIES' ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
  TRADE FACILITIES' ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
  COST OF LIVING AND WHOLESALE PRICES.
  COST OF LIVING AND WHOLESALE PRICES.
  IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.
  IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.
  EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD.
  EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD.
COAL INDUSTRY.
  CHEAP SUPPLIES, SOUTH WALES WORICERS.
  CHEAP SUPPLIES, SOUTH WALES WORICERS.
  ROYALTIES AND WAYLEAVES.
  ROYALTIES AND WAYLEAVES.
  PRODUCTION, NORTHUMBERLAND.
  PRODUCTION, NORTHUMBERLAND.
  SCANDINAVIA (BRITISH DELEGATION).
  SCANDINAVIA (BRITISH DELEGATION).
  PIT-HEAD BATHS.
  PIT-HEAD BATHS.
  EMPLOYMENT.
  EMPLOYMENT.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  QUOTA SYSTEM.
  QUOTA SYSTEM.
  WAGES AND OUTPUT, SOMERSET.
  WAGES AND OUTPUT, SOMERSET.
BRITISH ARMY.
  CEREBRO-SPINAL MENINGITIS, ALDERSHOT.
  CEREBRO-SPINAL MENINGITIS, ALDERSHOT.
  LIGHT HORSES (PURCHASE).
  LIGHT HORSES (PURCHASE).
  ROYAL COMMISSION ON LICENSING.
  ROYAL COMMISSION ON LICENSING.
POST OFFICE.
  AUTOMATIC STAMP-VENDING MACHINES, LONDON.
  AUTOMATIC STAMP-VENDING MACHINES, LONDON.
  PENNY POST.
  PENNY POST.
  TELEPHONE CALL BOXES, KENSINGTON.
  TELEPHONE CALL BOXES, KENSINGTON.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE, LONDON.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE, LONDON.
  GRAND OPERA (GOVERNMENT GRANT).
  GRAND OPERA (GOVERNMENT GRANT).
  ROAD SCHEMES, BRECON AND RADNOR.
  ROAD SCHEMES, BRECON AND RADNOR.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (COST-OF-LIVING BONUS).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (COST-OF-LIVING BONUS).
  SMUGGLING.
  SMUGGLING.
  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
  ROYAL MINT.
  ROYAL MINT.
  UNEMPLOYMENT (WORK SCHEMES, WEST RIDING).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (WORK SCHEMES, WEST RIDING).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
CARNEGIE HERO FUND TRUST BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.

AGRICULTURAL LAND (UTILISATION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, in moving that this Bill be read a second time I fully realise that I am placing before the House a Bill that has excited the greatest controversy. It very often occurs to me that in dealing with matters of very great controversy it is always worth while looking first into the subject in order to see if there is not some common ground—not because it is either possible or desirable to attempt to evade a conflict where if genuinely exists, but because it does then give us an opportunity of seeing that the conflict is about realities, and
2
not merely vague general principles. Principles are all very well in their way, in their right time and right place; but when they prevent us from doing something that is practically necessary, or when they drive us to actions that are not practically desirable, then I suggest that they are merely a form of mental indolence, which this country cannot afford at the present moment. We are all of us agreed that the policy of neglect of agriculture which was pursued during the last century in this country can no longer be tolerated; that the proportion of agriculturists to townsmen in this country of 7 per cent., as compared with 26 per cent. in America, 31 per cent. in Germany and 41 per cent. in France, represents a distribution of the population which none of us can feel to be healthy; and, further, that the continued loss of no fewer than 100,000 men and more to the countryside during the last ten years is really nothing less than a national tragedy.
So far I think we are agreed. The conflict arises when we begin to search for remedies with which to meet the situation. Now, there are really two schools. There are those who say that it is quite useless to settle men artificially on the land, that it is only necessary to create conditions of prosperity for the sale of agricultural produce and that then there will be an automatic drift back to the land without the necessity of public

3
effort. On the other hand, there are those who believe that it is only necessary for all who desire it, to be given what is called access to land, and that then all their troubles will be for ever finished, and that every townsman whom urban industry can no longer support should be cast back upon this hitherto despised countryside. The Government take neither of these extreme views. It is for that reason that I suggest to your Lordships that a great deal of the controversy about this Bill is unreal. It has become what we call a political Bill, which means a Bill around which politicians weave their particular theories and fancies, about which the man-in-the-street cares very little, being simply concerned with what is to be done to help him in time of need.
We recognise as a Government the importance of the market and the price to the producer in any scheme of agricultural development. As our contribution to that side of the problem your Lordships will shortly be asked to consider the Agricultural Marketing Bill. Your Lordships may contend that that Bill will not go far enough. That is a point which can be discussed at a later stage; but it is at least a beginning, and a very important beginning. But to recognise the importance of a market and a price for agricultural produce does not mean that there is nothing else that requires to be done. Nor does the fact that the Government do not accept the old cry of "Three acres and a cow" as a universal panacea mean that we necessarily accept the proposition that nothing can be done immediately with regard to settlement of new blood on the land, either on small holdings or by some other means.
This Bill can be divided into two parts. Clauses 1 to 4 deal with the better utilisation of land; that is Part I. Part II deals with allotments and small holdings. I assume that we need not spend very much time on allotments, as I think there is a fairly general agreement on that particular portion of the Bill. Clause 1 provides for the setting up of a Corporation which shall carry out experiments of a size which neither private enterprise nor the existing research and education establishments are in a position to carry out. There is also this point, which is a point in common with the powers under Clause 2, that it adopts a somewhat new
4
attitude towards research in that it deals rather with the investigation of commercial possibilities than the technical possibilities which are at the present moment dealt with by existing establishments. This Corporation will be composed of the best business and agricultural brains we can obtain; it will be free from Departmental interference, and it will have a million pounds of capital at its back. It has been suggested that this is an extravagant proposal. Some have gone further and have attempted to divorce the discussion of this proposal from its merits by raising the bogey cry of Socialism. The setting up of large-scale State farms was first recommended in 1918 by a Committee presided over by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, of which Lord Ailwyn, Mr. Edward Strutt and Sir Daniel Hall were members. I need not remind your Lordships that the first two that I mentioned were on the Committee as being Conservative representatives of agriculture.
In 1919 Colonel Weigall, now Sir Archibald Weigall, in company with Mr. Castell Wrey, published a pamphlet entitled "A Large State Farm" which suggested a State farm of 10,000 acres. It has been recently suggested again by Mr. Orwin, who is in charge of agricultural economic research at Oxford University. Whatever the merits of the case, I think it can hardly be fairly stated that all these authorities, including two Conservative Ministers of Agriculture, a Conservative Member of Parliament and the late Mr. Edward Strutt, are mere theoretical Socialists. You have only to look at the finance of the scheme to see that it is an experiment. You have only to look at the authorities in favour of the scheme to see that the experiment is well justified. Moreover, if the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, in 1918, was in favour of such an experiment, surely, if we give a moment's thought to the question, we shall see how much more important it is to-day. I know perfectly well that Lord Selborne attached certain conditions to his recommendation at that time; he attached certain conditions as to corn prices. But we do not for a moment expect that this experiment should be limited in its operation simply to arable farming. There are tremendous large-scale developments in other directions. But if it was necessary in 1918 to experiment with new methods of arable farming, how much more necessary is it to-day.

5
What is the position? We are told on all sides that there is a vast area of agricultural England that cannot continue without assistance running into millions of pounds a year. Last year one branch of arable farming received a subsidy from the State which amounted in all to over £6,000,000. This year it may be as much as £3,000,000. I refer to sugar beet farming. We are told by agricultural authorities all over the country, and I am not personally prepared at the moment to dispute the statement, that it may be necessary so go even further and to give some form of assistance at the expense either of the taxpayer or the consumer to cereal growing. It may be desirable that this great expenditure every year should be made to assist arable farming, but that does not say that we are to sit back and accept as a fact that the situation is unalterable. Can any one seriously contend that it is extravagant for the Government to invest £1,000,000 of capital in an effort to discover new and alternative methods, when we are told on all hands that the existing system has broken down and cannot function? I should say that the Government would be shirking its elementary duty and deserving of the gravest censure both from the taxpayer and the consumer if they took no such step. To invest £1,000,000 of capital in an experiment, to save many millions of pounds a year is the duty of any Government, whatever its political complexion and whatever its theories may be as to the relative merits of State or private enterprise.
Let us consider the types of saving that might be made. There are possibilities of saving in overhead charges and costs of management and of a more efficient functioning of management. It has been said that the 100-acre, the 200-acre, and the 300-acre farm is too large for a man to work with his hands, and too small for him to work with his brain, and that a larger unit can provide greater promise for brain and capital and greater direction for brains without capital, thus attracting new blood to the industry and new intelligence—new blood and intelligence for which there is not enough demand to-day. Then there are possibilities of economies in buying and selling, and last, but by no means least, greater opportunities of mechanisation. These are some of the advantages which it has been said can be obtained. The Govern-
6
ment do not commit themselves to the idea—it would not be an experiment if we did—but I repeat it is our bounden duty, in face of the breakdown of the existing system of arable farming, to investigate any and every proposal which promises as much as does this proposal, and is supported by such eminent agricultural authorities. So much for the moment for large-scale farming.
Let us pass to the consideration of Clause 3 of the Bill. Clause 2, I think, with the exception of a point to which I have already referred, really introduces no very new principle. Clause 3 can be divided into two parts—subsection (1) and subsection (2). Subsection (1) deals with land where the execution of reclamation, by drainage or other work, is necessary in order to enable the land to be satisfactorily used for agricultural purposes. It will be observed that the proposals dealt with in subsection (1) with regard to the acquisition of land, depend on voluntary agreement with the owner as to acquisition and as to the basis of acquisition. The power to acquire such land voluntarily, with a view to the execution of the necessary work to enable the land to be let, sold or otherwise disposed of, will apply where the landlord is either unable or unwilling, for various reasons, to invest further capital in his agricultural land. It is not intended under this clause to embark on extravagant or rash schemes such as the reclamation of the Wash, or to attempt to turn heath or marsh into garden, but it is anticipated that there will be a number of cases where, for various reasons, the owner is willing to hand over his land for a reasonable consideration to the State in order that the State, by judicious expenditure, may put it in a condition in which the ordinary occupier has some prospect of cultivating it and gaining a reasonable return.
In addition to the advantage to the tenant, I do not think we should forget the fact that a great deal of this work—drainage, erection and repair of buildings, fencing, etc.—will provide a great deal of employment. That is a point which at the present moment I think your Lordships will agree that we certainly should not overlook. I believe that there are a great number of

7
farmers who should welcome this provision. There is certainly nothing more depressing than trying to carry on a farm whose permanent equipment is neglected and out-of-date. I myself believe that there are a great number of landowners who regret, for a variety of reasons not relevant to this Bill, that they are unable to bring the equipment of their land up to a certain state of efficiency. I cannot think that there are a number of landlords in this country whose love of the land is not sufficient to make them prefer to see it put into a proper state of equipment for the tenants by the State, rather than see it deteriorate in their own hands for reasons over which they may not have control.
Turning to subsection (2) we come to a different class of land altogether—land which has been so grossly neglected that it is not in a fit state to be used for purposes of cultivation at all. The action here proposed is to require the owner to execute the necessary work. If he fails to do so within a reasonable time—and the time laid down in the Bill is six months—and if on appeal to an independent arbitrator it is established that the allegations of the Ministry are well founded, then the Minister is entrusted with powers for the compulsory acquisition of the land in order that the necessary work may be executed, and the land either let or sold to tenants who are prepared to make use of it. There is no proposal here to dragoon the occupier into adopting a particular type of cultivation, or to interfere with the conduct of the business of the occupier, or of the responsibly-minded landlord, but this subsection does give power to the State to take over land that is in a gross state of neglect. Let me give you an example of how necessary this power is. There is an estate at the present moment in Hampshire—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
EARL DE LA WARR: Your Lordships know it. I am only sorry your Lordships should cheer such a disgraceful example of lack of responsibility. But, seriously, this land is in a condition that no one who supports any system whatsoever of the ownership and control of land could possibly allow to go on. I think I
8
gather from your Lordships applause that you know the case; therefore, doubtless, you are aware that for a number of years the County Council has been attempting to deal with this situation, and has been quite unable to do so. I suggest to your Lordships that this is a state of affairs which no nation can possibly afford to tolerate, and which, I am quite sure, not a single member of your Lordships' House would desire to defend. I suggest that such neglect of its capital resources must bring ruin to any nation, and that it would bring about the destruction of any system that permitted it to continue. If your Lordships feel that this is a very tyrannic power, no doubt we can discuss the matter in Committee, but I shall hope to be able to convince your Lordships that it is impossible to deal with a situation such as this without the powers that we have included in the Bill.
Let us turn for a moment to Part II—the provision of small holdings and allotments. There are two classes of small holdings to be provided. One is for the normal applicant for whom the county council is usually responsible. His case is dealt with in Clause 10 of the Bill. At the present moment there are actually over 5,000 unsatisfied applicants for this kind of holding, of whom 2,000 have been approved as suitable and 3,000 are still waiting. The actual number of potential applicants is probably far greater, because there are undoubtedly a great number who are tired of making application and have gradually drifted off. Let me give your Lordships an example of that. We have actually one county whose returns inform us that there is no proved outstanding demand for small holdings, and fifteen applicants are stated to be waiting interviews. This county has just provided twelve small holdings. There were 125 applicants of whom thirty-five have been approved as suitable and in the other cases they are waiting for further investigation. In considering a situation such as this in the country as a whole, we have to discuss whether we should take the ordinary normal powers of default, which means that we can either dragoon a county into carrying out its responsibilities or else do the work ourselves and charge them, or whether it would be better to take concurrent powers.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Do nothing at all.
EARL DE LA WARR: I have no doubt the noble Lord would do nothing at all, but that is not our view.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: It ought to be.
EARL DE LA WARR: In view of the financial position of many of the counties we felt that the better course was the taking of concurrent powers. The power of default is always unpleasant to operate and is almost impossible to operate without implying the charge of neglect which might in this case be quite unjust, because, no doubt, a great number of counties at the present moment are not in a financial position, however desirable the scheme might be, to carry it out.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
EARL DE LA WARR: I am glad noble Lords approve that because, no doubt, they will approve of the methods we have taken to deal with the position. I hope the counties will appreciate that in taking concurrent powers, which means that while we can carry out a scheme we have no power to charge the county council, we have adopted that course in a spirit of friendliness to the county councils and in recognition of their difficulties. I hope they will also notice Clause 12 of the Bill which gives to the Minister power to make arrangements with local authorities to enter into co-operation with him in running these schemes. The only criticism I have hoard of the taking of concurrent powers by the Ministry is that it may kill initiative in the counties. That criticism, I think, is fairly easily met by informing your Lordships that since this power was first spoken of the number of applications for schemes from the county councils has almost doubled. I can give your Lordships the figures. During the last winter there were twenty-five schemes submitted to us for 115 holdings, whereas during the winter before there were eight schemes for sixty-four holdings. That means that during the period when this Bill was going through the House of Commons, so far from the county councils saying: "Oh well, if the Ministry is going to do the work we will
10
do nothing more," they have actually nearly doubled their schemes. I think, therefore, it shows that we have not done anything to decrease initiative in the counties, but actually the way we are working has increased it.
Then I come to holdings for the unemployed and your Lordships will see that that is dealt with in Clause 6. Clause 7 extends a similar provision to agricultural workers so that agricultural workers would be in the same position as the unemployed. That Amendment was inserted, I think, with the agreement of all Parties in another place. The conditions relating to unemployed men are all set out clearly in Clause 6. I think I am right in saying that this is perhaps the part of the Bill which has most appealed to the public imagination, in that it is an attempt to harness the possibility of the development of our capital resources in land and the enormous consuming capacity of the towns to the ever increasing need for providing work for the unemployed. Our belief is that work is better than maintenance and that those who are willing to work and are willing to attempt a fresh start in life should be given the opportunity to do so. We realise that we have taken on a very hard task, but I do not believe there is a single one of your Lordships who would—I will not use the word "dare," but who would wish to challenge or to contest that.
Therefore we come down simply to the consideration of how far such a policy is practicable. A great deal has been said about placing townspeople on the land when countrymen are failing. But if we consider the matter for a moment we shall remember that there are in the towns at the present moment well over 100,000 men who have only very lately left the land and a great number of whom, probably, being unskilled as urban workers, are out of work. There are many others who live on the fringe of the towns and know the elements (shall we say?) of poultry keeping—and when we deal with the type of holding that is intended to be set up, your Lordships will realise the importance of this—from keeping poultry on a patch of land or possibly even in a backyard. In mining areas which have only lately been opened up we know that the mines draw their labour from the agricultural labourers in the district, and

11
a great number of these at the present moment, according to our information, are out of work.
Then we have Clause 7 dealing with agricultural labourers. Your Lordships will therefore see that there is a tremendous number of men not strange to the countryside—far larger, I suggest, than are likely to be settled for a great number of years. Add to this the fact that the experience of those who have had to do with emigration to and settlement in the Dominions and Colonies is that even townsmen frequently make good if they are given the right chance to be started on the land, and I think it is fair to say that the numbers that are likely to apply will give us full opportunity for most rigorous selection of the most suitable tenants. In that we are hoping to receive assistance from local committees, although, of course, the last word will have to be with the Ministry official or whoever is appointed to be responsible for the actual settlement.
For at least two years after starting a settlement or a group of settlements it will be necessary, I think, to have the closest supervision from possibly a whole-time adviser, and there is power given in Clause 8, if a settlement is large enough to justify it, to provide a demonstration holding in the centre of the settlement. After the first two years I think it will be agreed that they ought to get on with the normal provision, which is very considerable, for advisory work which every county makes at the present time. Clause 6 (2) (b) gives power to make a loan for stock and even power to purchase the stock itself. I think your Lordships will agree that that is a very valuable power to have when the importance of foundation stock is remembered. It is only necessary for a settler at the beginning to be got hold of by a dealer of greater business acumen than honesty for him to be literally committed from the beginning to failure, through starting off with the wrong foundation stock. Your Lordships will also see, in Clause 6, that there is power to make provision for maintenance not exceeding 30 s. a week or £50 a year for the first year. A certain amount of criticism has been raised that this provides subsidised competition with existing smallholders. I dare say that there may be something in that point, but I
12
think it can be easily exaggerated when you realise that these men, who have been out of work possibly for years, have absolutely nothing at their back and also, as we all know—
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: They will have less still afterwards.
EARL DE LA WARR: The noble Lord can make his speech later. We must realise also that it will take a considerable time before they get a return from any agricultural undertaking, and for the first year, therefore, it is, I think, essential that we should give these men a chance of success. If the choice, supervision and assistance of the individual is important, I think that next in importance comes the demand for what is going to be produced. Although the production of eggs in this country has a little more than doubled since the War, we still import more than £20,000,000 worth, at least three-quarters of which should be produced in this country. Another £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 worth may be passed over as being a very much cheaper trade than possibly our producers would care to interest themselves in.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Will the noble Earl tell me whether they will get the "dole" as well as the £50 a year?
EARL DE LA WARR: No, they will not. If the noble Lord had read the Bill he would have seen that. In addition to the demand for eggs and poultry in this country, there is a certain opening, though not nearly so great, for market garden produce in certain areas round industrial towns. I realise that care must be taken not to flood the existing market for market garden produce, but with care I think there is some scope for some development in this direction in certain limited areas.
A very much bigger development of market gardening can take place in relation to canning produce. In the last year there was an actual shortage, amounting to three or four thousand tons, of fruit required for the canning factories. The canning industry is one that is making enormous strides. Four years ago their turnover was £250,000, and now it is £1,000,000, and I am informed that three or four factories are in process of going up in time for next season. Here is a most hopeful develop-

13
ment. It means a steadily growing market for first-grade produce. I should remind your Lordships that, although they have grown from £250,000 to £1,000,000, imports of canned produce to the value of £6,000,000 still come into this country, a great deal of which we should be able to capture and which, I understand, the industry has every confidence of being able to capture. Add to this that over 50 per cent. of the industry is already working under the National Mark, and we have a very strong guarantee against the danger of imported gluts of fruit, since none of these imported gluts are used by canners if they use the National Mark. At the risk of having to delay your Lordships for rather a long time, I mention these points in order to show you that there is no intention of throwing these men into a new industry without prior knowledge of the countryside, without skill of their own or skilled advice from others, and leaving them to sink or swim in general farming.
Let us compare these conditions of selection, expert assistance and direction into the right markets, cost of capital equipment and interest charges with the immediately post-War scheme. Men who returned scarred from the War were frequently chosen (quite naturally then) on grounds of needs and War deserts and left to their own devices, many producing commodities which belonged to large-scale production and having to fare the period of almost the greatest fall in prices that this country has ever known, with the cost of capital equipment far higher than it is at present; and even so the percentage of failures in that scheme was only fifteen. Let us now consider for a moment a scheme that is really more fairly comparable to that which we are discussing. I refer to the pre-War scheme which, at the present moment, is imposing practically no charge, and never has imposed any heavy charge, on the ratepayer or the taxpayer. It has very nearly paid its way. Naturally, as the men were settled with no expert supervision, there were failures, and yet these amounted to barely 5 per cent.
Let us admit the worst. We know perfectly well that we are asking these men to adopt a hard and wearisome life.
14
We recognise this and admit it. Let us go further and admit for the purpose of argument (I do not admit it in fact) that we may even have as high a proportion of failures in this scheme as we had in the post-War scheme. What is the position? Instead of 100 men standing at the street corner, rotting away with nothing to do, you have fifteen, and the other eighty-five are turned into self-supporting and self-respecting citizens. I submit to your Lordships that you have there a saving, not only in economy and in the finance of the Unemployment Insurance Fund, but in the moral fibre of the whole nation. I suggest to your Lordships that this is an investment, not an expenditure, and an investment that will pay us again and again.
Now I will turn for a moment from the subject of smallholdings to the subject of allotments. During the last two or three years work has been going on, run by voluntary agencies, to provide allotments for the unemployed. The work was started by the Society of Friends, and was then supported by the Mansion House Fund. Under this scheme they have been able to provide close on 100,000 allotments for the unemployed. The success of this work was brought to our notice, and it appeared to us that it had been so considerable that it really ought to have further financial support from the Government. Therefore we have taken powers in the Bill to extend this scheme all over the country, working, of course, as far as possible through local agencies. We shall, no doubt, work mainly through the local authorities, chiefly the municipal and borough authorities, and where it is found that it is not possible, to persuade them to work the scheme we have power to use what agencies we like. Of course, one of the agencies that will be used will be the Society of Friends, and others, those societies that have been running voluntary schemes. What is in the Bill is that the Ministry should defray all the expenses of the local authorities who are responsible for the scheme, and it will be the duty of the authorities to provide allotments, make what arrangements they can about rent—it may be even rent free: they have to make out their case to us. They also have powers to provide seeds and tools

15
on a financial basis for the unemployed, in order to give them a start.
I think this is a scheme upon which we can all agree, and I am glad to say that we were able to get the late Lord Mayor to undertake the Chairmanship of the Committee. A member of your Lordships' House, Lord Plymouth, has also graciously consented to serve on this Committee. As it was necessary to get the sowing done at once a supplementary estimate was introduced in the House of Commons, and actually we are getting on with the financing of the existing scheme, although, of course, we cannot deal with the provision of new allotments until the Bill has passed.
Perhaps I might deal with one last general point before sitting down, and that is the question of finance. Great criticism has been made, against this Bill on the ground not only of the size of the finance that is required, but also its general indefiniteness. Let us for a moment analyse that charge. In Part I, Clause 1 sets up a Corporation with certain duties assigned to it, for which it is provided with £1,000,000 of capital. Clause 2 deals with a smaller commercial demonstration fund, and Clause 3 deals with what we generally call reclamation. That expenditure is limited to £5,000,000. The only expenditure that is not limited is the expenditure in connection with small holdings. Surely, that is reasonable. If we believe in a scheme, if we believe that it is a really economic scheme, surely it is right for us, and we claim that right, to say that we are going to push ahead with it as fast as we can.
It is impossible to state at the present moment how fast that will be, or how quickly we can obtain possession of the land, or how quickly we can deal with applicants, or how quickly we will be able to erect all the necessary equipment; but it was made very clear in the Financial Resolutions before the House of Commons, and in the Notes on those Financial Resolutions, what was the contemplated expenditure. We showed that on schemes under the clause which has reference to the normal form of small holdings provided under county councils, we anticipated an expenditure of just over £1,000,000 for a thousand holdings and that on schemes for unemployed, dealing with rather smaller holdings, for poultry
16
and market gardening, we estimated an expenditure of £640,000 or £650,000 for a thousand holdings. We also contemplate a return of 3 per cent. on schemes for the normal class of holdings, and a return of 2½ per cent. on schemes for the unemployed. Your Lordships will, therefore, see that even though we were to establish a number of holdings that would exceed all our wildest hopes, the annual loss on these schemes will virtually only amount to thousands of pounds. Thus a scheme for a thousand normal smallholdings, costing just over £1,000,000, and involving interest amounting to £50,000, would return £30,000 at 3 per cent., leaving a loss on a thousand holdings of approximately £20,000, with a very much smaller sum for the holdings for unemployed, which are established at a less capital cost.
I say to your Lordships then that when schemes of subsidy are supported and suggested from your Lordships' side of the House, lasting only a short time and amounting to many millions of pounds a year, to charge us with extravagance for suggesting a scheme running only into thousands a year for interest charges is a little unfair to the Government. If we consider for a moment what we are going to get out of this scheme, if we consider the economic effect on this country of producing a greater proportion of our foodstuffs, and the moral effect on the men we settle, then your Lordships must admit, as I have contended, that this is the finest investment ever undertaken by a nation which is prepared to spend millions on subsidising other forms of agriculture. For a country which is granting in respect of unemployment insurance £95,000,000 a year to turn down such an investment on the ground of economy would be the greatest folly and hypocrisy we can perpetrate. I recognise that a great many parts of the Bill may be unwelcome to many of us, whose interests and habits of thought may lead us in other directions, but I do believe that the very sense of responsibility and trusteeship which has enabled the landlord system to exist for so long in this country and has been the foundation of the landlord system, and the intense devotion to the land which is in all our hearts, must convince us that this Bill gives to agriculture an opportunity of

17
making its contribution to the national crisis through which we are passing, and makes a real contribution to the health, happiness and prosperity of this nation at the present moment. For that reason I commend the Bill to your Lordships as worthy of a Second Reading in this House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD TREOWEN LORD TREOWEN had given Notice that on the Motion for the Second Reading he would move, that the Bill be read 2a this day six months. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper. I do so in compliance with a request which I received from the executive of the Central Landowners' Association, which, as you know, includes landowners of all classes, not only large landowners who may be in your Lordships' House, but a large number of those owner-occupiers who have risen owing to the breaking up of so many large estates. It is encouraging to me, in rising, to feel that I have the support of every organisation in this country which is directly and closely connected with agriculture—the Central Chamber of Agriculture, the National Farmers' Union, the Farmers' Club, the Council of Agriculture of England. I have here the resolutions of all these bodies which have been sent to me, but I do not propose to read them, since they have all been published. But they all indicate a doubt as to whether the cost of implementing the provisions of this Bill should be undertaken at the present time, even for objects directly of benefit to agriculture, in view of the serious warning that has been given to the whole country by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to our present financial position. The right hon. gentleman, as your Lordships will remember, laid it down that schemes involving heavy expenditure, however desirable in themselves, must await the return of prosperity. I believe that we shall only return to prosperity by the road of economy.
In addition to those resolutions which I have received we have seen recently in The Times a joint considered opinion of the three great institutions which have most to do with the land in this country, the Chartered Surveyors' Institution, the Chartered Land Agents' Society, and the
18
Auctioneers' and Land Agents' Institute. Those are all very important bodies in connection with land. It might be said that possibly the passing of this Bill might be of advantage to some of them, and that that might influence their opinion. But what is their opinion? They are, according to a letter sent by the presidents of these institutions, unanimously of opinion that the Bill contains no proposals having for their object the restoration of prosperity to agriculture or the better utilisation of agricultural land, while the financial burden that would be added to that already borne by the taxpayers would not be justified by any practical advantages to the agricultural community. I think one could not have a very much stronger opinion than that. This is no time to indulge in the extravagance which is proposed by this Bill. There we have before us a very formidable array of expert technical opinion against this Bill, opinion which is not influenced by political Parties, or by Party bias, or any such influence. The opinion of all those authorities is practically the same, that the Bill as it stands would do no good to agriculture or the agricultural industry, and that the extravagant demands it will make on the taxpayer should not be incurred at the present time in view of the very serious financial condition of the country.
Before passing to a review of the structure and scope of this Bill, I think it might be useful to examine for a moment its genesis. How did it ever come to be drafted? I should be very sorry indeed to ascribe the parenthood of this Bill to the Minister of Agriculture. I think it has upon it the very plain features of a dual parenthood, and I am inclined to believe that it is the outcome of that entente cordiale or tactical arrangement which prevails between sections of the House of Commons. It is for that reason that we have this combination of totally irrelevant questions. Part I deals more directly with agriculture than Part II. Part II is a part of the Bill with which, if the proposals were reasonable, your Lordships would probably feel much sympathy. It is directed to the alleviation of that condition of unemployment which at the present moment is pressing so terribly on the country. The proposals which find a place in these two Parts of the Bill betray that

19
the Party in power, which is faced with differences within its ranks, and which has failed to carry out the pledges in regard to unemployment given at the last General Election, is bound to bring out something to try and show that it is endeavouring to relieve that situation. On the other side we find a re-hash of old, crude ideas that were embodied in what was pompously called the Liberal Land Policy. It was much paraded before the last General Election and at the last General Election, but it failed at that time to induce any support, and has not been heard of since. There we have Part I based on the Liberal Land Policy, defunct; and Part II, a proposal to deal with unemployment.
Let us look for a moment at Part I. The noble Earl has given us a sketch of its provisions; but the difficulty about a sketch is, of course, that you may get entirely different aspects by making your sketch from different points of view. I have also tried to make a sketch of the effects that would be produced by putting into force Part I of this Bill. The first thing about it is that the Minister is given great powers and sets himself to work to create a new universe. He begins by setting up an Agricultural Land Corporation. This is to act in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Scotland—I hope Scotland will make itself heard upon this question—and with the concurrence of the Treasury. That, as all your Lordships know, means that the Treasury will provide the moneys necessary for financing this undertaking from the pockets of the taxpayers and, although it may have the concurrence of the Treasury, I doubt whether it will have the concurrence of the taxpayers. The Minister will then appoint not more than nine or less than five directors and will certainly see that they are adequately remunerated. Who will foot the bill? The money for that purpose will likewise be provided by the taxpayers. He will thereafter, and I ask your Lordships to note this, define the particular objects of the Corporation which at present are withdrawn from the purview of Parliament. There will be an Agricultural Land Fund provided with money in the same way and administered and controlled by the directors, who will also have power to borrow money upon security given by the Treasury; that is, on the security of the taxpayers' money. There is an in-
20
teresting provision as to repayment to the Treasury of the surplus profits of this Corporation; but we are left entirely to conjecture what will happen if, as is not impossible, expenditure exceeds income.
The Minister will then proceed to acquire land; by agreement if possible, if not, by compulsion. This land will be vested in the Corporation for the purposes, as the noble Earl has told us, of large-scale farming operations and the reconditioning of certain land. He did not tell us much about large-scale farming operations, but he did touch on the question of reconditioning. I must say, with all respect to him, that I regret that he should have allowed himself to be led away into referring to a case which everybody has heard of, which everybody condemns, for which there is no defence whatever and which has been used especially by those who were working up the so-called Liberal Land Policy.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, if the noble Lord objects to my having referred to that, perhaps he will just tell us how he would deal with the situation.
LORD TREOWEN: My Lords, if the noble Earl will only wait, he will hear all my opinions very fully, perhaps more fully than he may wish. I say that I regret that he should have brought this up again and so lowered the tone of his otherwise very admirable address to the level of that very inferior form of advertisement which was given, I regret to say, under the name of the Liberal Land Policy. Everyone has heard of it. It has now been so advertised and used so much for political purposes that—what is the effect?—the belief is that it is unique, that it is not merely an exception but a unique case which has been discovered for the benefit of the publication to which I have referred. I know from my own personal inquiries that the case is such as it has been represented to be and that there is no defence for it; but you cannot base general legislation upon an exception, still less on what is now believed to be a unique case. Those who made so much of this case, never took the trouble to go into any of those estates not far off, where they could have seen that in spite of the pressure upon landowners in the last ten years, great strides have been made in improving the

21
condition of the estates, and in bringing them up to date and up to the requirements of legislation which has been passed, very properly, especially with regard to dairies and so forth. I have allowed myself, perhaps, to be carried somewhat away from the subject I was discussing, but I could not refrain from making some answer to something which I very much regret. I think, if the noble Earl will permit me to say so, he hardly did himself justice in bringing it forward.
What is the effect of this Part of the Bill? It means that the control of the Minister, the functions and the importance both of the Minister and the Department, will be widely extended. It will be no longer a Department charged with the general supervision of the interests of the agricultural industry and community, but it will be a Department charged with the administration of a very large estate—an estate combining properties of varied condition and capital. There will be the large farms, which are to be cultivated on the most modern principles. There will also be the demonstration farms, which are to be taken over and controlled, belonging to various institutions at present, such as county councils and Universities. These will all come under the control of the Department. The noble Ear] (Earl De La Warr) shakes his head, but I think I can refer him to the Bill as showing that it is so. I have certainly read it so in the Bill, and if I am mistaken perhaps I shall be corrected, but it undoubtedly gives the Minister control in the sense that the managers of these institutions will be the agent of the Minister. I should certainly have said that meant control. The fact is that this is a vast estate to manage. We know that all estates require money for their management and their development. The Ministry of Agriculture will be turned into a great spending Department. Moreover, a, great step will be taken towards nationalisation, as it is called, of all agricultural land, which is, I believe, the ideal of those political theorists who have no belief in the individual exertions that have made the prosperity of this country in the past.
22
There is another aspect of this matter at which we must look. The Ministry will, in fact, be undertaking technical and commercial control of a great agricultural concern, winch possibly the noble Earl has hopes may in some long distant period produce revenue for the country. But I think it is better, instead of looking to the distant future for revenue from farms which are not yet in existence, that the Government should set its mind to remedying those evils which are preventing at present the possibility almost of making farming pay. The noble Earl asked me a short time ago for my opinion of something. I will give him my opinion straightly on this. I believe it would pay the country much better to bring in measures for the relief of agriculture as it is at present than go to an enormous expenditure for a possible future development, and the remote possibility of a revenue coming into the country from that, expenditure. This Corporation will be, I assume, the largest part of the Ministry of Agriculture. It will be a large and important concern.
That makes me think of the lines of commercial development generally. The question whether large farms or small farms are better, or whether a large farm administered by a corporation is more likely to produce a good balance sheet than a farm of the same kind administered by a capable owner or occupier, is for the moment outside the question. The question is, who is going to pay? I put this test. If this Corporation were a company launched by the noble Earl or any of his friends in the open market as a commercial concern, what would be the probability of the requisite capital being subscribed for its operations, especially in conditions which the public would know would all militate against productive agriculture? He would be a very sanguine speculator who invested any money in the noble Earl's company, and I think, if I may be permitted to say so with all respect, that the company would require a much more astute promoter than the noble Earl to make it palatable to the public.
I pass on to Part II of the Bill, which, as the noble Earl has pointed out, deals with the provision of small holdings and allotments and matters pertaining thereto. From what I have said your Lordships will realise that Part II deals with something different from that which I have

23
been trying to describe to your Lordships. At any rate it has this merit, that there is no speculative business in it, except such speculation as there is in the curious way in which the probable costs are estimated. In this Part of the Bill, again, I think there is a great defect in constituting the Minister the supreme authority. The concentration and centralisation of all power in the Minister is apt to lessen the benefit that might arise from what is attempted in this Part of the Bill. In former measures for dealing with small holdings and allotments wide scope was given to the local authorities, and I believe in using local authorities, especially in these matters. I think it is far better for them to have control, because they are in closer touch with the people who are actually concerned and interested in the locality, than that the final decision should always he made by Whitehall. Under bureaucratic control, unfortunately, many attempts at useful legislation have come to grief.
Great confusion is apt to arise in dealing with the provision of these small holdings such as have been described, owing to the different classes of prospective tenants for the various holdings. There is, first, the man whom we may call the genuine agricultural smallholder, a man who has lived all his life in the country, who knows all about agricultural operations, and is accustomed to the care of animals and so forth. As a matter of fact men of that kind, who are becoming rarer every day, do not find any great difficulty in being suited with a small holding. Where such a man may be out of a small holding I think we have already means of satisfying his demand. At any rate it may be satisfied without having a Bill of these dimensions. Then we have—and here I think I am referring to the same class that the noble Earl very accurately described—those hundreds of thousands of people who have drifted into the towns and now have an idea that they would like to get back to the country. It is often very difficult to place them. The consequence of a long period of town life makes even people who were born in the country lose all touch with it and makes their requirements much more numerous and much more elaborate.
Then there are those who form what I consider the most pathetic element in the
24
population at present and they, I think, require some special mention when we are considering how they may be helped. I refer to the highly skilled mechanic with a family whom the general trade depression has thrown out of work. There are thousands of them in the country. Most of them have always lived in a town or in urban conditions. They have reached the limit of their savings and they are on the "dole." To dump a man of that kind into the middle of the country, even if you give him £50 and a spade, will not do him much good. I have seen such cases and I know that it is very easy for the skilled hand, the intelligent brain, the quick wits of this class of highly skilled man to become sterilised and rapidly to deteriorate in uncongenial surroundings, in surroundings that neither he nor his wife nor his family understand.
I would ask the noble Earl to give his kind consideration to what I am now about to say because I do not wish to appear only destructive. What I think has been a great mistake, as I have said before, is to mix up this Bill with other things which are quite different. I should like to see when this wretched Bill has been rejected, as I hope it will be, another Bill brought in—a Housing Bill, not dealing with schemes with which the present Minister of Agriculture was connected some years ago, but a town and country planning scheme which will make provision for colonies for industrial workers, especially for such as I mentioned just now, sufficiently near to the centre of their occupation so that they can easily get backwards and forwards to that occupation, with such amenities of garden and of further garden allotments as may be necessary, and an extension in the country of villages of a character which would be suitable to agricultural workers and which would help to maintain the amenities of country life for the whole country. I am not speaking of a vague Utopia because it happens that circumstances have led me to attempt these schemes, to initiate and to carry them out., to form these colonies within the reach of the daily work of workers in the Welsh coal mines—village development in the country to attract those people who have not been in the habit of living in the country or have lost touch with the country, and who

25
will there meet the real inhabitants of the country and possibly become assimilated. But that is a matter of time. You cannot rush it through in a sort of omnibus Bill like this which is going to set up a financial Corporation to-morrow and deal with small holdings the day after. It is a matter which has to be done thoughtfully and carefully and, if I may put it so, as an individual duty of the Government.
I fear I have been making a very heavy demand upon your Lordships' attention but I think the financial provisions of this Bill do require a few words from me. I have found it very difficult to arrive at any definite estimate of the expenditure which will be entailed by the provisions of this Bill. I have examined very carefully the Financial Memorandum that was issued with the Bill when it was first published and, after making every calculation, I cannot put the expenditure required for Part I of the Bill at a less figure than £15,000,000 to begin with. That takes no account of the expenditure that will be annually incurred through the fact that, the proposed large farms having been created and unproductive areas having been taken in hand for reconditioning, some years must elapse before any sufficient return can be made to carry on the work that has been begun. Many of your Lordships will remember from your own experience what it means when you take up a farm for reconditioning. You do not get much out of it for a couple of years.
The difficulty of estimating the cost of the Bill is still greater when we get to Part II of the Bill, by reason of the proportional estimates that are given us to consider. Expenditure is calculated for units of 1,000. We have units of 1,000 small holdings, of 1,000 small holdings for unemployed persons, advance of capital per 1,000 persons, maintenance allowance per 1,000 persons, construction of buildings, training centres and so forth on the same basis. I have given some little time and trouble, so far as my intelligence would allow me, in trying to make out what will be the cost of producing any effect on the mass of the unemployed by these means. I find that the total cost of establishing 1,000 men on the lines of this Bill must exceed £2,000,000. The noble Earl shakes his head, as I knew he would, but he seems to have a
26
doubt in his own mind. This must be multiplied by 100 if the army of the unemployed is to be touched on its merest fringe. For 100,000 men you want over £200,000,000. That is a very small return for a very large expenditure. But it does not end there. It is nothing to employ 100,000 men when we have 2,000,000 unemployed to deal with. Are we going to do this thoroughly and go right on to the end of them or not? If we are, we shall get into thousands of millions. Is this the time for undertaking this work on what seems to be a very extravagant basis and one which will not leave much permanent good behind? for the industrial population which is now out of work will infallibly, when good times return, drift back to the towns. You must be prepared for that. I strongly advise the noble Earl to give careful consideration to my suggestions for a different Bill. Let us get rid of this Bill altogether.
I have only one point more with which I wish to deal, and that is to answer one question which, I am sure, must be in the minds of many of your Lordships. Is the Bill capable of amendment? So far as I have been able to judge, I say emphatically that it is not. I say so for this reason. I am not an expert in the drafting of Bills, but in the last twenty years or so I have had to read a good many of them and make the best sense that I could out of them. This Bill seems to me to be drafted in a manner that leaves the legislative parts of it so mixed up and intertwined with the financial provisions that it is almost impossible for your Lordships to deal with it. That is my opinion. I have taken the opinion of others who are better qualified to speak on the knotty point of Commons Privilege, and my belief is that, if you begin to try and amend this Bill, you will not get very far before you find yourselves up against financial provisions, and behind them the Privilege of the House of Commons and the Parliament Act. This Bill has not come to your Lordships certified as a Money Bill. Treat it, as you can, drastically, but do not send it back again, with the very great probability of its returning to you in the form of a Money Bill, when you will have to take it whether you like it or not.

27
I have finished. I have endeavoured to place before your Lordships the views that I take of the proposals of this Bill. I have approached the consideration of it with a perfectly unprejudiced mind. I am absolutely independent of Party ties and I am under no political influence, though I adhere to the principles in which I was brought up. Nothing that concerns agriculture can fail to interest me, and the provision of dwellings for the industrial and rural workers is a question that for many years has enlisted my warm and, I hope, practical sympathy. Whether the persons to be provided for are, in the present disastrous condition of the country, classed as employed or unemployed, I have sufficient confidence in the future of the country to believe that that spectre of unemployment will pass away when recovery comes with better times. Such recovery can be brought about, but it will only be brought about by a system of economy, of sound finance, and a resolution to face the difficulties with which every industry has to contend in this world upheaval. It is because this Bill does nothing to help that recovery that I trust your Lordships will reject it.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and at end of the Motion insert ("this day six months").—(Lord Treowen.)
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, you have listened with considerable attention to the weighty speech just delivered by Lord Treowen, and we have also had the advantage of listening to a speech from the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of the Bill. I think your Lordships will desire me to say, if he will allow me to do so, how much we congratulate him upon the clear and able way in which he brought the Bill before the House. He must not, however, con-chide from that that we entirely agree with all the statements which he made. He skated, with considerable delicacy, over a difficult Bill, and although we regret to see that he would be unable physically to accomplish such an effort, at any rate the mental effort was done with grace and considerable power of avoiding obstacles.
There are a great many obstacles in this Bill. In the first place, it contradicts itself even in principle, because in the first clause it displaces a number of
28
men employed on the land, and in the second part it proposes to put more on to it. It places almost uncontrolled power in the hands of the Minister, to whom I believe there are more than a hundred references in the Bill. It enables him to spend vast sums of money subject to no other control than the Estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture. I am one of those who did not have the privilege of sitting in another place, but many of your Lordships have done so and you know, without any reminder from me, that when the Estimates of any Department come before another place a large number of subjects have to be considered, so that there is little opportunity on that one annual occasion of going into the finance of such a vast scheme as this. I should have thought that after the warning given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Government would have gone out of their way on an occasion such as this to see that every penny spent on new schemes was spent with great care, and that the control of the finances of any new scheme would be kept very carefully under control. As it is, it is left to the almost unfettered discretion of the Minister to spend what he likes and how he likes, and the best thing I can say about the present Minister of Agriculture is that at any rate his previous record does not give much cause to think that economy and financial ability are his strongest points.
The noble Earl in speaking of the Bill seemed to take an optimistic view which some of us who are a little older in years fail to maintain. He seemed to take the line that when you have bought a car and paid the bill that is an end to the expenditure. Many of us have discovered that that is only where the expenditure begins. Let us take Clause 1, which provides for a Land Corporation for the purpose of conducting large-scale farming operations. They may be given £1,000,000 of capital. Suppose the operations are unsuccessful and expensive: the taxpayer has to make up the difference. That is by no means a new supposition, because already the Ministry of Agriculture have had farming under their control in the past. There is the example of the Patrington Estate in Yorkshire of 2,300 acres, on which in ten years the Ministry lost over £82,000. There is also the Wantage farm, on which the losses

29
were £36,000. And if you want to go outside the Ministry—and I am not blaming the Ministry because it is inherent in this system of large-scale farming—if you turn to the Co-operative Wholesale Society, in 1930 they had a farm acreage of 20,625 acres, and on that acreage they lost £34,011 in a single year.
What is the advantage of all these experiments? Surely when you do large farming experiments of this kind the idea is that you should use a very large amount of machinery—mechanise your farming. Some of your Lordships will remember the very eloquent speech to which we listened from Lord Ernle, in describing large mechanised farms in Russia, which involved a very large reduction in the number of men employed on farms. That is the whole essence of mechanisation. You use more machinery and fewer men. Is this the time, when our unemployed are running up to the third million, to introduce mechanism or to sanction a scheme for reducing the number of men on the land? The noble Earl quoted to us an opinion of Lord Selborne's Committee. Many of us know that Report, but that Report was issued in 1918. We were in a very different situation in 1918 from that which we are in to-day. We had not then got 2,600,000 unemployed, we were not in great financial difficulties, and the whole situation with regard to expenditure by the State, and of reducing slightly, or I should say largely, the number of men on the land, was a very different question then from what it is to-day. Surely, in regard to these experiments, we all know private individuals who are farming on a large scale, and if the Ministry desire to see experiments they have only to arrange it with these individuals. Possibly, if assisted financially to a much cheaper extent than the cost under this Bill, these persons would be prepared to carry out experiments on behalf of the Ministry.
Let me turn to the demonstration farms, on which the noble Earl said very little. There are already twelve demonstration farms attached to the Universities, and twenty-one farm schools and farm institutes. How many are we going to have? Why go and spend more money on demonstration farms? If you want to show farmers the best way to farm, put them in motor cars or chars-a-bancs and take them round to successful farmers
30
and let them see all that those successful farmers are doing. I am sure that those successful farmers, in most cases, would be only too glad to explain their methods and give their costs. That is better than establishing more demonstration farms.
Then I come to the proposal that the Minister should be empowered to take over land which requires drainage or is seriously neglected, and to spend what he likes to restore that land to prosperity. I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Treowen, said in regard to bringing in legislation in order to deal with one isolated case. But let me go into the question of why an owner does neglect his laud. There are perhaps three causes. The first is the exceptional and perhaps unique case that we know of. The second is where an owner has not sufficient capital to undertake work that requires to be done. The third is that of the owner who has capital, but realises that under present farming conditions it would be uneconomic to spend that capital, because he would have no chance of getting any adequate return from it. The third class is obviously the largest, and what you have really to do is to ensure that fanning shall improve and shall become remunerative. Then you will very rapidly find the owner and the occupier, or more probably the two in combination working together, willing to make that expenditure, because the return would he adequate, and would make the trouble and expense worth while.
As to the second case, that of the owner who has not sufficient capital, if the return is really remunerative he will in most cases find very little difficulty in getting the money from one of the improvement companies which exist. Under the Bill the Minister is authorised to spend money whether there is any return on it or not, and I suggest, if your Lordships intend to proceed to the further stages of this Bill, you will wish that the Minister's powers in this regard should be severely limited, and that he should only be authorised to take over land where the work required to be done can be shown to be economically remunerative. That, I think your Lordships will agree, is an amendment which, in the present situation of the country, is one which is essential.
I pass to Part II. We hear a great deal of nonsense talked about small

31
holdings and allotments. I should like to give your Lordships a few figures which came before my notice the other day. In England and Wales in 1909 there were 197,606 small holdings of from 5 to 50 acres. In 1919 that number had dropped to 191,375; and in 1929 the number had dropped considerably more, to 184,145. That was a reduction in twenty years of 13,461. But that is not the whole of the story. Because, apart from the holdings that were then in existence local authorities purchased land and set up holdings to the number of 27,521. Therefore, adding those new holdings to those previously in existence, your Lordships will find that in the past twenty years there has been a reduction of 40,000 holdings; and, for every three holdings set up by local authorities, four smallholders have gone out of the business.
Why has that happened? It has happened in some cases, of course, because the smallholder has been badly chosen, or is incapable, or something of that kind. But in the large majority of cases it has happened because the smallholder has been unable to sell what he produces at a price which will enable him to gain his living. In 1927 the noble Earl opposite, who was then in a position of less responsibility, stated in this House:—
"I do not suggest that we should pass Settlement Bills and Small Holdings Bills, such as the Government are responsible for, to force men back to the land artificially."
I think he rather repeated that statement to-day; but that is not what the Minister said in another place, because the Minister there said:—
"The small holding experiment is a modest experiment at present, and I am hoping to see an immense enlargement."
Now, what is the policy of the Government? Do they propose to put unemployed men, after very short training, upon the land, when men are failing in all directions who have had very long experience of farming and small holding management? They made a pledge that farming should be made to pay. The farmer has been made to pay, and he is paying heavily out of his pocket to an increasing extent week by week. But that is not the way the pledge was interpreted at the last Election.
How is farming to be made to pay? The noble Earl will no doubt tell us that
32
the Agricultural Marketing Bill will do it. I cannot refrain from again reminding him of the same speech. In 1927 he said this:—
"It therefore comes to this, that, however you organise the farmer in this country, if you get the whole of his meat and the whole of his wheat into great producing pools you are still not going to be able to control the price in that way, because you are not going to be able to touch the importer."
That is an opinion that many of us hold. But where are the proposals of the Government to control the importer and to control the price? What is the policy of His Majesty's Government in this matter? Do the Government propose that these smallholders should make a living with no capital behind them, and with no accumulated savings?
It has been suggested that your Lordships should adjourn this debate until His Majesty's Government have put the whole of their agricultural policy before us, because it is maintained in a good many directions that it is unfair to place men on the land sinless there is a chance of their making a living. It is also maintained that your Lordships are not really in a position to deal with this Bill until you know what chance of success there is. I submit that a proposal of that kind may place this House in some difficulty. It is quite true that we have been waiting for many, many months for the Government to produce their agricultural policy, and I see very little hope that that policy is likely to be produced in the next few weeks, in a time within which your Lordships would wish to postpone further debate on this Part of the Bill. But, supposing that the Government succeeded in producing a policy. How could it be a policy which would deal with farming as a whole? The small holdings will consist of a very large number of different kinds. There will be the poultry farms, there will be the fruit farms, there will be the mixed farms, and so on. And therefore, if the Government are to be asked to produce a policy which will deal with the whole of those farms, I think we may have very long to wait.
Moreover, we might find ourselves in the position of deciding that we must go on with this Bill, and then implying that we are in agreement with all the remainder of the policy which has been

33
put forward. Therefore I think that that would not be a wise thing for your Lordships to do. But I suggest that your Lordships can do a great deal in this Bill to make it more workable and to make it less of a sham than it appears to be at the present moment. A noble Lord opposite who is a recent arrival in this House, speaking last week, stated that there was a great deal of humbug which he had to listen to in this House. I would remark that I do not think that is the fault of your Lordships. It seems to me much more often to be due to the legislation with which your Lordships have to deal.
What is meant by this proposal of putting a large number of men on to the land and of doing the thing, as Mr. Lloyd George said, on the largest possible scale? I think it will surprise your Lordships to find, on examining the Bill, that the Minister has to satisfy himself in regard to various conditions before he can provide a small holding, but the one thing that he has not to satisfy himself about is that the place selected for the small holding is a place where a man has a reasonable chance of earning his livelihood. There is nothing whatever in the Bill as to that, and yet your Lordships know very well that there are many parts of this country where smallholders, even with great experience, and very hard working, steady men, are failing to make both ends meet. On the other hand, there are some places where, as we all agree, the smallholder, perhaps with difficulty, has succeeded in holding his own.
I submit that it is essential that before instituting a new group of small holdings the Minister should satisfy himself, on the best advice obtainable—and that does not mean the advice only of his officers, but local advice as well—that a man should have the best chance of earning his livelihood in the place selected. I can conceive of nothing more cruel than selecting a man from the unemployed queue, giving him his training, placing him upon the land, encouraging him to work very hard indeed, as he will have to work, and then letting him fail. Moreover, the noble Earl will remember that there are many smallholders scattered about the country. When this man comes on the land full of hope and walks to a farm which is just across the road, think-
34
ing that he sees a chance of getting on, he may find a man who has been there for many years, who has accumulated savings and has quite a small amount of capital, but who only succeeds in keeping himself going by dipping steadily into that capital year by year. Your Lordships might call a Bill which enables a man to be placed upon the land in those conditions humbug, but I call it the greatest cruelty that can be designed.
Let us see what happens. You take a man off the "dole" and place him on the land. You grant him a maintenance allowance for thirty-three weeks at thirty shillings a week. Then what happens? You leave him to his own resources, and he has no alternative but to be put on to poor relief. Yet the county councils have no say in this matter. The local authorities are not called in, and are not consulted as to whether a man can make a success of a holding in that part of the world or not. The man may become a charge and remain a charge. Apart from and far worse than that, you break the man's heart. I submit, therefore, that if your Lordships pass the small holdings part of the Bill it is essential that you should insist that the Minister should have to satisfy himself that a man has a reasonable chance of earning his living before he is put on to a small holding and expenditure is incurred in that direction.
I turn now to the question of allotments, and may I say that I am an unrepentant believer in allotments. I was a member of the Departmental Committee set up many years ago by the Ministry of Agriculture to consider the question of allotments. Like most of your Lordships, I am an owner of allotments and I support the London Allotment Society. I admit that allotments are very ugly things on the landscape, and that they are not popular with town planning societies. But in these days of rush and noise, I believe it to be of untold benefit that the man who works in a great city should be able to go and dig on the land. It also provides him with fresh food. Above all, it teaches the man who lives in the town something about what the countryman has to deal with and what the farmer has to face. I think that a very large number of townsmen feel that the only thing an agriculturist has to do is to broadcast

35
the seed with a fine gesture and then sit still and smoke his pipe until nature has done the rest, when he goes out and gathers his crop. The townsman's idea is that the countryman then sells that crop at such a price as is found in the best retail shops. Unfortunately, that is not the way that agriculture is worked.
We all know, particularly in these times, that a man can only get his living out of the land by the sweat of his brow. The more we can teach the man who lives in the town, even if you only give him a small plot of land and let him dig with his spade and fork, that it means hard work, that a late frost may destroy all his efforts, that fly and disease may come and that the profit which appears to be so certain is very problematical, the more support we shall get from the city dweller for the legislation which we may require in order to assist the countryman. To my mind it is a very great benefit, and is largely the cause of the greater interest that is now being taken in farming than used to be taken, that the number of allotments have increased and the city dweller, as a result, has begun to learn something about life in the country and is, therefore, more sympathetic to the farmer than was the case in days gone by.
My noble friend Lord Treowen has moved the rejection of this Bill. We who sit on this Bench hope that your Lordships will not follow the advice he has given. There are some parts of the Bill which most of us will agree are so unnecessary and so extravagant that I think your Lordships will have no hesitation in eliminating them from the Bill. There are other parts of the Bill, however, which I believe many of your Lordships would be sorry to lose. I for one should be extremely sorry to lose the provisions in regard to allotments. I think many of your Lordships will feel that where we can take an unemployed man out of the city, a man with perhaps a flair for farming, and place him satisfactorily on a small holding, we should try to do so. After all, the State has made itself responsible under the Coal Mines Act of last year for leaving men permanently out of employment by closing mines owing to the rationalisation which was part of that Act. Therefore I think your Lordships will feel that if we can successfully put a man upon
36
the land we should endeavour to do so, but that we should assure ourselves that there will be no question whatever of wasting the money of the State and breaking a man's heart by establishing him in a place where he has very little chance of success.
I hope I have made it clear that I suggest that your Lordships should give a Second Reading to this Bill with the object that the House should deal with it as it thinks fit in its later stages. I must point out one further matter that may arise. It has been said, probably with justice, that owing to the way in which this Bill is drafted, certain Amendments may raise the question of Privilege. It is always possible, of course, for the House of Commons to set aside the question of Privilege while retaining to itself the right to argue an Amendment on its merits. If the Government are prepared to say that they will take that line, they will naturally he followed by the majority of their supporters. Therefore, there can be no difficulty in obtaining agreement to a Motion which the Government may accept on this subject.
If your Lordships agree to give this Bill a Second Reading I trust that you will insist that a very substantial interval shall occur before the next stage in order that there shall be plenty of time to draft Amendments. When the Government have seen and considered those Amendments, I feel that we should ask them, in regard of course only to the important Amendments, that the question of Privilege shall be set aside. Failing such an assurance, your Lordships of course will retain full power to reject the Bill on Third Reading if you wish. For the considerations which I have ventured to place before your Lordships, I hope that you will not support the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Treowen for rejection, but that You will agree that the Bill should be given, at any rate, a Second Reading.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, the noble Earl introduced this measure to your Lordships so moderately and so persuasively that it might he possible to believe that the measure itself was not one of outstanding importance. In fact, both in its financial provisions and its agricultural aspects, it must be long

37
since a Bill of such outstanding importance was brought before your Lordships' House. Moreover, it is a Bill that is full of strange inconsistencies. My noble friend Lord Stanhope has pointed out with force that its early parts provide for the removal of persons from the land, and its later parts for increased small cultivations. If I may follow precedent and deal with the measure as briefly as possible as the clauses are printed, I would like to say a word or two that has perhaps not yet been said upon Clause 1. I was impressed by the noble Earl's earnestness in stating that he thought it would be a disgrace to his Government if they did not probe into every new form of agriculture in these days of grave depression, but, in respect of this large-scale farming, I wish to ask him what is it he wants to find out, why does he want to find it out, and when he has got the information, what is he going to do with it? He wants to find out, presumably, if ranch farming in England will pay.
Ranch farming, of course, covers both large-scale grass farming and large-scale arable farming. My noble friend Lord Stanhope has pointed out to him that there are in existence quite a number of these ranch farms in England to-day, at any one of which the owners would be glad to welcome the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture. If he would give me the privilege, I would point out where they exist, and would go with him; and, with very little financial assistance, probably with none, the Government of the day and the country as a whole can be fully informed as to what are the prospects of ranch farming in Great Britain. There is no need to spend the money of the State upon any investigation of that kind. If the money of the State was spent upon any such investigation, it might be found that ranch farming did pay. Many of your Lordships and many agriculturists in the country would admit at once that ranch farming probably could be made to pay by modern machinery, under capable management, by employing a less amount of labour and spending possibly a less amount of money. In all probability by these means ranch farming could be made to pay. Having found that out, the logical consequence is that large additional areas should be converted into ranch farms. Otherwise, there would be no
38
object in finding it out. The thing must have a result, and that would be the result.
Lord Stanhope has suggested, and I fancy it has been said in other quarters of the House, that surely in these times, when our chief endeavour must be to find employment for as many men as possible, it is little short of a scandal that men who are already in employment should be excluded from it. There is no reason why I should speak only from the standpoint of the landowner or farmer. Why should I not stand up and speak for the agricultural labourers of England, and protest vigorously, throw it in the teeth of the Labour Government, that they are endeavouring to exclude men from the occupations they now hold? It is not right that anyone knowing what conditions must follow upon ranch farming should allow themselves to remain in their seats and not protest on behalf of the agricultural labourers of this country. We do not wish ranch farming in England to be a success. If it made more money than any other form of occupation in this country I should still wish it to fail, because if it succeeded, it would remove from the land the labourers who now live upon it, and it would destroy the very foundations of our country. I should press most sincerely, whatever views any one of your Lordships may hold in respect of other parts of the Bill, that Clause 1 be discharged as an unworthy one to have found its place in this or any other measure.
With regard to Clause 2, I have for many years been most keenly engaged in endeavouring to assist in the application of science to agriculture, and in giving opportunities for its demonstration. Grants have always been not too easy to come by, and are always badly wanted in these directions. There is land enough. I have never heard of a case where it was difficult to obtain land for purposes of this kind, and, especially in view of what Lord Stanhope has said, quoting the large number of these demonstration farms that now exist, I should believe it impossible for the noble Earl to convince your Lordships that Clause 2 really adds anything to existing requirements in agriculture.

39
As to Clause 3, it clearly is one of vast importance. The noble Earl has pointed out with perfect truth, that there are parts of England—and large parts—in which agriculture has deteriorated. But there is one remark I would like to make about that, because I see in subsection (3) of this clause, words which, personally, as a landowner, I deeply resent, because they contain the implication that landowners have not taken reasonable steps to reserve or enforce their right for securing the execution on pieces of land of any necessary works of maintenance. For years all Parliamentary Parties have been engaged in restricting the powers of landowners until to-day there is no landowner in this country who can really call his land his own. The tenant is little more nor less than a squatter. I should like to know how, under the existing law, a landowner, without incurring expense and loss which he can ill afford, can conceivably make his tenant perform the works which this subsection in the Bill upbraids him for not having carried into effect. The point is one of small importance, indeed of no importance at all, but when insult is added to injury it rather induces those who have suffered both to say a word in season.
In respect of this taking up of land, the cost of it is limited in this Bill to £5,000,000 at present so long as Parliament shall so decide. But is it seriously supposed that a mere £5,000,000 is going to recondition, reclaim and do all the the things that are necessary to be done to British land in order to bring it into that high condition of farming which economic conditions, if they existed, would bring it to at no cost at all? £5,000,000 is a mere drop in the ocean. £50,000,000, £500,000,000 would not do it; and when it is discovered, as it will be discovered, that the expenditure of £5,000,000 has had a pleasant and even excellent effect, how difficult will it be for Parliament to resist a demand for an additional £5,000,000, £10,000,000, £15,000,000 or £20,000,000. And what will be the result? It will be certainly the gradual, perhaps the rapid nationalisation of the land of Great Britain. There is nothing whatever that stands between the nationalisation of the land in this Bill except the need to get the money
40
to do it with. The principle is given away.
On this subject of nationalisation, I should like to say a word. There can be no doubt that the Government of the day, certainly large numbers of people in the country, probably and even possibly some members of your Lordships' house, would hold to the opinion that landowners as a class object to the nationalisation of land. For over a quarter of a century, since I first had the honour and privilege of a seat in your Lordships' House, there has been a constant and unabated stream of restrictive legislation, promoted in the first instance by the Liberal Party, not checked by the Conservative Party, fomented by the Labour Party, all of it in the aggregate inducing the landowner to take every possible opportunity that can present itself to him to get out of his land.
The market for arable land in East Anglia, whether it is to let or to sell, is nil. This Bill finds a market so badly needed. Is it reasonable to suppose that any landowner approaching the matter solely from that standpoint is going to object to nationalisation when it will do him good? No, my Lords, there can be no objection to nationalisation on the part of the landowners of this country for their own sakes. But as responsible Englishmen and, let us hope, as Englishmen who have a regard for the interests and urgencies of the State transcending their own, we cannot admit, and we cannot descend to admit, that we as landowners should profit at the expense of the State. It is for that reason that we object to nationalisation. The bargain would be too bad, and why should the taxpayer be saddled indefinitely with a bargain so bad as this would be? Part I of this Bill has in it features that can commend themselves to none who have any knowledge of or regard for agriculture. It can commend itself to none who have regard to the proper conservation of the national finances, and whatever may happen to the rest of the Bill I trust that Part I will very shortly be passed into the limbo of forgotten things.
Now, if I may be permitted, I will pass to Part II. In Part II Clause 6 has for me a tremendous interest. It is a subject which requires, I think, to be approached and can be approached from

41
quite a number of different angles. It is, on the face of it—I am not sure that the noble Earl put it in so many words—obviously an endeavour, a perfectly honest effort, to remove as many persons as possible from worklessness and the receipt of the "dole" on to the land where they may have a chance of keeping themselves in physical condition and earning a living. Probably if there was a chance of their earning a, living the transference would not only do good to the men but would also do good to the finances of the State. If that was all there was to be said about it, I fancy large numbers of your Lordships would find it in their hearts to agree with the Government and with the Minister that these proposals had very much to commend them. If Part II of the Bill was not complicated by an added clause I would even now be inclined to agree with them.
I would even now be inclined to agree that the risk would be worth the taking—other, of course, than that exceedingly important human point which was so ably put to your Lordships by my noble friend Earl Stanhope. It is a very grave responsibility for Parliament to take to place upon the land men in thousands, in scores of thousands, knowing full well that those who are already there, who have the experience and who have worked like slaves for years, are now upon the brink of starvation in all parts of England where arable cultivation is in practice. It is a very grave responsibility to take men and place them in that position. And regarded from the financial standpoint it would be gravely disastrous, because the State, having taken responsibility for putting, let us say, 100,000 unemployed on the land, would house them, fit them up, equip them. Could the State allow them then to fail and allow them to starve? No, my Lords, they would be squatters. They would remain in the houses, they would pay no rent, and the State would have to carry them at vast cost, at least to the extent of preventing them from starving. Conceive the attitude of mind that would be taken up by local authorities when by action of the State those men came upon the rates. My noble friend Earl Stanhope indicated that point. Is it one that the Government have taken into consideration?
42
There is, of course, the very serious point that smallholders, especially in those desirable parts of England where they conceivably might make a living, would by their very presence spoil the living of those already there. There are large unconquered markets in England. Canning is one of them, to which I think the noble Earl referred. There you have enormous possibilities which would help under intelligent direction and might quite conceivably solve certain small holding problems in certain parts of England. There is, too, almost unlimited development possible in the egg market, and there are others. But when it comes to fruit growing and market gardening any large influx into those parts of England where that can be conducted would prejudice the living of those already there. That must be avoided.
I have mentioned the feelings and outlook of myself and a very large number of your Lordships with regard to Clause 6. The small holdings part of the Bill has been vitiated by the addition of Clause 7. There was issued with the Bill in the first instance in another place a Memorandum, to which the noble Earl has referred, which gave an indication of the cost which it was suggested and supposed might attach to the implementation of this Bill. But since that Memorandum was issued Clause 7 has been added and has completely destroyed, has completely knocked the bottom out of that Memorandum. No attempt has been made to place before your Lordships or the other House any estimate of what Clause 7 is going to cost the country. Clause 7 admits to conditions of security untold thousands of excellent and worthy men who are now earning a low wage and whose employment is most precarious. What sort of guarantee have you that every agricultural labourer in Eastern England will not instantly apply for a house, for maintenance, for equipment and for land? You have no guarantee. If you have thought that the provision of small holdings for unemployed persons would, in effect, cost you nothing because it would be a mere transference from the "dole" to another Department of the Treasury, bear in mind that the agricultural labourers who will come to you under Clause 7 are not included in the insurance scheme and that every penny you have to find will be new expense. And it is absolutely unlimited.

43
It might so easily be £250,000,000. It might amount to any sum which any of you choose to quote. There is absolutely no limit.
In this House I would no more think of moving the elimination of Clause 7 than I would of doing things much more foolish. I was not responsible for putting it there, and no agricultural Peer would desire so to affront the countryside as to move the elimination of this clause. But it has ruined your Bill. It has made your Bill impossible of passage because your Lordships' House and the country at large must realise that the financial commitments to which this puts you are so unlimited that in the present condition of the country's finances it would be nothing short of criminal to allow the passage of this Bill into law with Clause 7 attached. As Clause 7 cannot be put out, Clause 6 clearly must, because then Clause 7 will follow it.
I have very little more to say, and I shall not delay your Lordships for more than a few minutes. On the subject of allotments, I think a good deal of fuss has been heard about these clauses which they do not deserve. Under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, local authorities have ample power, and the duty, to supply all the allotments that are required, but under that Act and succeeding Acts they are not permitted to supply allotments except on an economic basis; that is to say, they are not permitted to charge their ratepayers with any loss that may arise. The whole purpose of Clause 14 is to take out that restriction. There will be found, hidden in brackets, a reference to subsections (1) and (2) of Section 16 of the Allotments Act, 1922. That, of course, unless you choose to look it up or happen to know it, appears on the face of it to be unimportant, but in point of fact the whole purpose of this clause is in those words. They give to the Minister, not so much the power to supply allotments as the power to supply them without counting the cost. That is all it does. Even with that undesirable provision, I should be strongly inclined to agree with my noble friend Lord Stanhope that access to the land in the form of allotments is as desirable as anything in this life, and if there are not sufficient allotments now available for industrial and other populations, by all means let them be placed at their disposal, and the sooner the
44
better. I am quite sure that your Lordships would be inclined to save this Bill if possible, even if it were only for the clauses concerning allotments.
Finally, I come to a point which does not concern the finance of the Bill, which has been blamed on all sides. My noble friend Lord Stanhope raised the question of how we stand in the matter of Privilege with the House of Commons. If this Bill is rejected on Second Reading, very little that appeals to your Lordships on this side of the House will be lost. We shall lose the clauses regarding allotments and cottage holdings, but I have the greatest doubt, in face of the arguments that could be brought to bear against them, if any other clauses of the Bill could possibly be passed through Committee. What is going to happen if, as I suggest, we omit these clauses and this Bill goes to the House of Commons and we are told that we have made only Privilege Amendments, and the Bill is then sent back to us, as Lord Treowen suggested, with the Speaker's Certificate attached to it, which we have to swallow? Something has to be done about that before we part with this Bill, which has so much that is bad and wrong in it. Clause 1 is a wrong clause and, in my humble opinion, it has no business to be included. The last clauses carry with them so immense a charge upon an impoverished country that they, in their turn, cannot and ought not to pass your Lordships' House. Are we to lose our control over those clauses? It is in accordance with the answer that, I have no doubt, will be given to us in the course of this debate that my own action with regard to the future of this Bill will be governed. I thank your Lordships for your kind attention to a speech that has been over-long.
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, I shall delay your Lordships for only a very few minutes. Last week the Education (School Attendance) Bill was rejected by your Lordships' House. It was said that the expenditure under that Bill, if it became an Act, would amount to from £10,000,000 to £15,000,000 a year. I am not going to argue whether the provisions of this Bill are good, bad or indifferent. I am going to consider its cost, and whether the country can afford it. Mr. Snowden has told us that schemes involving heavy expenditure, however

45
desirable they may be, will have to wait until prosperity returns. He has made a great plea for economy. He has told us that he will have a heavy deficit at the end of this year, that Expenditure has increased and Revenue has declined. What will be the cost of this Bill? No one knows. When one reads the Financial Memorandum which was attached to this Bill when it was introduced into another place, one sees that the Fifth Clause says that it is impossible to foresee with any precision what expenditure it will be necessary for the Ministry to incur. Those are cheery words! Part 1 of the Bill deals with the Agricultural Land Corporation, demonstration farms, and improvement schemes. The expenditure on that Part is small in comparison with the cost of Part II. Part I, we are told, will cost £6,700,000.
I will now deal with Part II and the provision of small holdings. The Financial Memorandum tells us that a small holding varies from one acre to fifty acres, fully equipped with a house and buildings, and that the estimated cost of every 1,000 holdings may be £1,000,000, that is, an average of 1,000 per holding. As has already been pointed out during the Committee stage of the Bill in the House of Commons, agricultural labourers were added to the Bill and have been given a right to apply for small holdings, so that all the financial estimates have been upset, for there are some 900,000 agricultural labourers in Great Britain. How many families are going to be given small holdings? If I turn again to the financial statement, it tells me that it is impossible to state how many holdings it may prove necessary for the Minister to provide.
I have heard it suggested that 100,000 families might be so supplied. With the agricultural labourers included, this sounds a very low estimate. The cost of 100,000 holdings would be £100,000,000. The Government think that they will receive interest at 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. on the capital, but the rate of interest on borrowed money will be far higher than that. The Bill provides, in addition, for further expenses and for training, providing holdings and making capital advances and subsistence allowances, which will cost for every 1,000 men another £1,000,000, so that an expenditure of £200,000,000 may quite easily be made necessary for small holdings alone.
46
We are also told in the Memorandum that the Bill will necessitate an increase in the Minister's administrative and technical staff. It also adds that it is impossible to state any precise figure as to the cost of such additional staff, but that it will clearly be large. Now when a Government Department tells us that expenditure is going to be large, you may be quite sure that it is going to be very large. It is quite clear that many millions of pounds are to be spent, and the Bill would come into operation at once, quite unlike the Education Bill.
Until the Budget is balanced and unemployment is heavily reduced, no more large or new expenditure ought to be incurred. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that an expenditure which might be easy and tolerable in prosperous times becomes intolerable in years of industrial depression. The Prime Minister, not long ago, appealed for a Grand Council of the Nation. Is not this a moment when we should all go to the aid of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, in his courageous statement in the House of Commons, has told us the position and asked for a halt in expenditure. We can follow his advice and prevent him from, having this huge burden of expenditure placed upon his shoulders by refusing to give a Second Reading to this Bill.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I would like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Dynevor upon his very excellent speech and upon his calling the attention of the House to the very serious state of the country's finance at the present moment, and the absolute necessity, however good the case, for not spending more money. My noble friend Earl Stanhope, if he will allow me to congratulate him, dealt with the clauses of the Bill and made, as I thought, one of the most excellent speeches I have ever heard. I thought we should be told, before he sat down, that he hoped that to-morrow Peers on this side of the House would come and vote against the Second Reading. To my horror, after having made an excellent speech against the Bill and shown that every clause in it was bad, he turned round and said: "Oh! give it a Second Reading and do something in Committee." Lord Hastings and Lord Treowen alluded to that. What are we going to do in Committee?

47
There are twenty-six clauses and unless I am very much mistaken twenty-two of them, if not twenty-three, deal with finance, and therefore they ought all to be left out. Then what remains of the Bill? The title, the definition clause, and possibly some small thing which does not matter.
Supposing that we leave out most of the bad clauses—they all deal with finance—what is then going to happen? If the Bill goes back to another place, there is no doubt that Mr. Speaker will say that he has to draw attention to the fact that the Amendments of the Lords infringe upon the Commons Privilege, and he will probably add, though he does not always do so, that it is open to the House of Commons to waive its Privilege. The House of Commons may or may not do so. The Amendments will probably come back to this House, and what are we going to do then? Stick to our Amendments or run away? My experience, though not long in this House, is that we shall probably run away, and if so, let us take our courage in both hands and reject the Bill on Second Reading.
I do not suppose there is any Peer in this House at the present moment, or who has been in the House during the afternoon—except on the Opposition Benches, and I do not count them—who is not certain in his inmost mind that this is a bad Bill and that it is going to cost the country a lot of money which it cannot afford, and who would like it to be rejected. I am inclined to think that among the occupants of these Benches it is probable there is a sort of fear that someone in the country may say something that the Socialists will not be pleased with, and so we must conciliate our enemies. I think we have had enough of conciliation. The first thing we want to do is the right thing, quite irrespective of what anybody is going to say. What is the use of this House if we do not sometimes assert ourselves when we believe we are right? Whatever we do, somebody will say we have done wrong. Whatever we do, we shall never please noble Lords opposite or the misguided people who follow them in the country, and therefore our duty at the present moment is to reject this Bill upon Second Reading.
48
Do not forget this, my Lords, that there is a feeling in the country that the Conservative Party have not shown the strength which their supporters would have liked them to show. I do not know whether that feeling is right or wrong—it does not matter—but it does exist. Let us consider our friends and never mind our opponents. Shall we not encourage our friends if, at the present moment, we reject a Bill which is going to be an abject failure if passed and is going to cost the country enormous sums of money?
I will not go into the calculations made by my noble friend, but I am certain they are right and they are really terrific. Only a few days ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Unemployment Fund was going to cost the country 100,000,000 a year. When I first entered the House of Commons, the total expenditure of the country was only about £90,000,000 a year, and now we are going to spend £100,000,000 on unemployment, and on top of this comes this Bill which is going to cost an enormous sum and do no good whatever. Who is going to spend the money? There is one clause in the Bill in which there is no limit. During the years I was in the House of Commons, whenever there was a Money Resolution, I always moved to put a limit to it, and I am glad to say that on my limiting Amendment I defeated the Liberal Party in a Division on a Home Rule Bill. I always took the same lines on a Money Resolution by my noble friends on this side. There is one clause in the Bill which is without a limit and it relates to small holdings. That is going to be administered by Dr. Addison, the most extravagant man who ever came into any Government or any House of Commons.
What did he do when he was Health Minister? He spent millions of money in providing very few houses. If he had had any business instinct he could have provided double the number of houses for the money he spent. The result was that he brought in an enormous Bill to enable him to spend more money, and your Lordships threw it out. At any rate the then Prime Minister, Mr. Lloyd George, had had enough of him, and he found that it was convenient to leave. But that is the man whom you are going to pick out to give an unlimited power at this moment

49
to spend money. I cannot conceive that any sane man can support this Bill. I am quite certain that my noble friend does not really want to do it.
Let me say one word about what was said by my noble friend Lord Hastings. He said there was something good in the Bill. I have not been able to find it, but I dare say he is right. But if there is something good in the Bill may I suggest to my Front Bench the proper course to pursue? Throw this Bill out on the Second Reading, bring in a new Bill, limited to whatever good there is, which Lord Hastings thinks ought to be preserved. That is a reasonable proposition. We could then discuss something which may or may not be good—as to that we must wait and see. Why pass the Second Reading of a Bill with which you do not agree when, if I have sufficient courage to put down an Amendment or two, as certain as I am standing here I shall be told: "Oh, you agreed to the Second Reacting of the Bill, and, having done that, you cannot do anything which rejects the principle"? I have heard that said over and over again.
What is the financial position of the country at the present moment? I do not agree with Mr. Lloyd George that the City is always wrong. I think that the City is nearly always right. And what does the City say? That we are now going on a course which, if we pursue it, will lead to bankruptcy. What has happened in Australia? We are doing exactly what the Australians did. Some twenty years ago, seeing what Australia was doing, whenever I had to make a trust or anything of that sort I always put in a clause saying that in no circumstances whatever was any money to be invested in Australia, because they were then governed by the Labour Party, who had no knowledge of finance, who were extremely extravagant, and who did not care what they did with other people's money, and the result would be that Australia would become bankrupt. She is very near it now. Now, my Lords, take warning. It is a very unpopular thing to do, to stop spending. Extravagance is always popular. You take money out of my pocket, and give it to somebody else, and the man who gets it likes it. But I do implore you to remember that we cannot go on. Say for a moment that this is an excellent Bill, but
50
supposing it were, if it were going to cost money we ought to reject it, and I hope that we shall.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: My Lords, the noble Lord in the course of his remarks warned your Lordships that any man who was sane could not possibly support this Bill. I regret to say that I must claim the emotions of insanity, because I for my part propose to give full support to the Bill which the noble Earl has introduced this afternoon. The noble Lord who has just sat down waxed eloquent—and nobody knows more about it than he does—upon the importance of economy and the amount of money that has been wasted during the last few years. In dealing with this Bill I should like to remind your Lordships of our agrarian history during the last few years. You will bear in mind that the Corn Production Act was repealed in the year 1921—an Act which was supported by both Parties, and which was repealed with the approval of both Parties. Well, what was the effect? A thousand million pounds, we will say for argument, had been invested in the soil of England during the War, owing to support of the Government to the agrarian community. And when the Bill was repealed the effect was that, since wheat was guaranteed at 68 s. a quarter, and oats, if my memory serves me right, at 46 s., when these guarantees were removed, the agrarian community were flung on to the open market and the price of their commodities fell 20, 30, and in some cases, 50 per cent.
What was the result? Those who are possessed of an income from other sources equivalent to the amount they lose in their agricultural venture are entitled to reclaim those moneys back from the State. The result was this, that in the passage of several years the collective amount of money demanded by the agrarian community from the State in consequence of their losses—and which the Government was bound to refund—amounted to millions and millions of pounds. What the actual amount was I do not know; the Treasury alone knows. But this I do guarantee to say. The amount that the taxpayers of England had to refund to the unfortunate people who lost their money in consequence of the repeal of the Corn Production Act is greater than the de-

51
mands which the noble Earl has made to-day in the Bill which he has laid before you. Noble Lords on both sides have in the past possibly committed themselves to unfortunate expenditure and loss, and I think it is hard that they should examine too closely into the economic propositions which have been laid before the House by the noble Earl.
What is the position since the Corn Production Act was repealed? Every year 10,000 labourers have left the soil. One million more acres are neglected than there were in 1921. Only 7 per cent. of the population remains on the soil. And the position is getting worse every year. It is true the late Government in the time that they were in office attempted to do a little to help the agrarian community, but it was really very little, and the money that was supposed to go to the agrarian community in consequence of the passing of the De-rating Bill really did not stem or prevent this tide of migration from the land and the neglect of agriculture which resulted from the repeal of the Corn Production Act in 1921.
However, we must look to happier days and to brighter times and I am reinforced in my feelings and hopes for the future of the industry when I bear in mind the remark which the late Prime Minister, Mr. Baldwin, made in connection with the agrarian problem, and I commend these words to your Lordships because they are really vital to the matter which we are discussing. He said:—
" I regard it as vital that the great basic industry of agriculture should not merely be preserved but restored to a more prosperous condition as the central balancing element in the social life of the country."
"The balancing element!"—that is the important word. Surely, the proposal which has been laid before you this afternoon by the noble Earl is an effort, a genuine effort, a comprehensive effort to place on the soil of England a greater number of its population, and as the result of this measure if it passes into law a better balance of that population would be assured. If that is the case, and if no one denies it, surely this measure, which noble Lords have condemned so drastically this afternoon, especially the noble Lord, Lord Hastings,
52
does help and does carry out the wishes of the Leader of the Tory Party.
It is under those conditions that I approach the consideration of Part I of the Bill which is before your Lordships this afternoon. We have heard a great deal of the valuelessness of Clause 1, how unwise it would be to have a Corporation farm, and how the Government might lose and waste money and so forth. The advantages of it to the general community have been questioned. In my view, the advantages are these. Owing to Death Duties, to the Super-Tax and to all the various taxes which have been imposed upon the landlord, we have no longer the opportunity we used to have of attaching to ourselves great agricultural experts, men like Edward Strutt and Richardson Carr, whom some of your Lordships may remember. Those men exercised an immense influence and their views and ideas carried great weight with and helped the agrarian community. It may be that such men still exist and work in England, but they are unknown. They may not wish to work on the estates of your Lordships, either because they know that the occupancy of the farms will be measured by the life of the occupant, or because they feel that they have not sufficient finances at their disposal to develop their ideas. Whatever the cause may be, if those men exist in England to-day, they are not employed owing to the conditions and circumstances which I have mentioned. Those are the men that I hope the State will look for and associate with the Corporation farm, which may endure, which is not subject to Death Duties and which, in the passage of years, may associate with its operations all the best intellects of the brightest economists and those who are deeply interested in the welfare and extension of agriculture.
It is said: "There are already many of these experimental farms: why have another? What is the use of having farms where you are going to mechanise half the land and reduce the number of occupants of the soil instead of adding to them?" One of your Lordships said that this Bill contradicts itself in principle: that on the one hand it desires to eliminate men from the soil by mechanical processes, while on the other it proposes to put more men on the soil by an uneconomic process. My reply is

53
that this Bill will owe its success in practice to its inconsistencies in principle. It is essential on the one hand that you should have a large tract of land which you can cultivate, on which you can train people, and in regard to which you can have the advantage of the best knowledge and brains of the agrarian community. From that farm such men can be pushed out either on to the farms and estates of your Lordships, or to administer and look after and supervise those in a humbler position who are put on the soil under Part II of the Bill. Even in my own county there is great need and great demand for some sort of experimental farm, which may be controlled by the Government.
I might add in reply to the noble Lord who spoke last but one, that there is no idea at all that this experimental Corporation farm shall be entirely mechanised. The Minister of Agriculture absolutely dissociates himself from the gentleman that he appoints to control this farm. Once he has handed over the administration of it to him, he declines utterly and absolutely to take any further responsibility for its administration. We may assume that an able agriculturist and administrator will not necessarily instal machinery on the whole of this tract of land which may be possessed by the Government. He will show on a portion of it, as an experiment, the value of machinery and the methods by which modern machinery can Le employed. He may utilise other portions for the full production of crops, possibly uneconomically but with the object of showing the general community the valuable possibilities of abundance of crops. Again, he may have portions where food is grown on an economic basis to show the farmer the best methods and manner of handling it. Therefore, noble Lords who argue that this farm is to be a bad and uneconomical one and will not add to the number of people on the soil, will see, I think, on further consideration that they have not really appreciated what is at the back of the mind of the Minister of Agriculture.
In my own county we are deeply in need of a farm of this character. Undergraduates have taken an interest in farming desired to learn the latest methods and systems. They have be-
54
longed to a club called the Plough Club and have been under the administration and supervision of Professor Somerville. That has broken down. It no longer exists and, having spent two years or more in studying the economy of agriculture, those undergraduates have now to leave, and have no longer a permanent place to which they can go to get the best instruction and the finest supervision. Clause 2 of Part I really comes under the same consideration and definition as Clause 1.
I now turn to Clause 3, about which Lord Hastings felt so strongly. He seemed to think that because the Government propose to take over derelict land under Clause 3, it is making an attack upon the administration of your Lordships' land and upon the manner and methods by which that land had been handled. I have made it my business to enquire, and throughout the long debates in another place there was not one word or suggestion from any hon. or right hon. member that the landlords of England had not done their duty to or taken their share in the life of the countryside. But it is felt, and I am bound to add that I agree, that there are vast tracts of land which are improperly cultivated, and that it would be wise, if it was possible, for the Government to step in and take that land over and recondition it. Your Lordships will bear in mind that only 7 per cent. of the population is on the soil, that 10,000 labourers are leaving the soil every year and that 2,000,000 acres of land are water-logged in this country. Those are official figures. I well remember that the same thing existed in my youth, but in those days there was no Income Tax, or it stood at only 8d. in the £. There was no Super-Tax, and no Death Duties. Indeed, the financial obligations of the citizens to the State were very slight. Therefore, the landlords were able, when matters became had, to undertake the reconditioning of their farms.
What happened was this, and it must have happened to a number of noble Lords. The tenant died, but his widow remained. You could not turn out the widow. It was impossible to do so; social conditions would not permit of it. She then married the bailiff, who, of course, in the long run allowed the farm to deteriorate, and in the passage of

55
years the condition of the farm became such that no tenant would take it. In those days noble Lords had to put that right. They had to restore that farm and re-settle it. I am sure it is in the recollection of Lord Hastings that thousands of pounds have been spent by his friends and forbears in putting such farms into a proper condition. To-day we cannot do it. Owing to the taxes, it is no longer possible for a great number of noble Lords to undertake those obligations and duties. It is not their fault; it is the system of taxation. Surely, if that is the case—and it is not denied that these great blocks of land do exist—it is not unreasonable that the State should then step in and collectively carry out that which the individual can no longer perform.
One word on finance before I turn to consideration of Part II. It has been claimed that £1,000,000 should not be spent on Clause 1, that £500,000 on Clause 2 is really more than is necessary, and the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said—I think this was the strongest point he made—that £500,000 a year for ten years in reconditioning the soil of England would not be sufficient. I am bound to say I rather agree with him. It was said by noble Lords who were sitting on the Back Benches behind the noble and learned Viscount who leads the Opposition that these sums of money were unnecessary, that we cannot afford to spend them, and that it would be wiser to delete them.
But let us bear in mind this fact, that not 100 years ago the head of the house of Russell, the Duke of Bedford, spent £1,000,000 in reconditioning and reclaiming a lot of the fen land, and placed it in a condition suitable for farms and small holdings. Am I to understand that while that noble Duke could afford to spend £1,000,000 in the nineteenth century, we, in the twentieth century, with the collective strength and the financial resources of the British Empire, are incapable of finding a similar sum to carry out a similar object? I am bound to add that I feel we can well afford £1,000,000. When it comes to the other sums of £500,000 and £5,000,000 in ten years which are to be spent, I think those sums are really insufficient for the work which may have to be performed. I, for my part, consider that money spent
56
by the Exchequer, carefully, prudently and properly, is only following out that which your Lordships have done for years past when you were in a position financially to carry out your duties in a manner that you wished. The Government are only following out your policy and your traditions. That money, if properly, carefully and prudently expended, will have a benefit and a use in maintaining not only the fertility of the soil, but also in retaining the men upon it.
There is only one other point I should like to mention to the House before I pass on to the consideration of Part II of this measure, and it is this. There are many noble Lords in this House, who, no doubt owing to Death Duties and various financial causes, feel that they would be glad to translate some of their land into terms of money. In fact, Lord Hastings suggested that might possibly take place. Your Lordships may have noticed that in the passage of this Bill from the other House to this House, the Auctioneers' and Estate Agents' Institute, the Society of Land Agents, and the Chartered Surveyors' Institution, permitted themselves to write what, in my judgment, was a rather injudicious letter, in which they suggested that it would be wise if your Lordships did not agree to pass the Second Reading of this Bill. All I have to say in regard to that is this, that as these gentlemen, distinguished and able as they are, are our personal advisers, it seems to me that it is very short-sighted policy on their part to recommend noble Lords to destroy a Bill by which alone you might get your prospective purchasers.
I now come to the consideration of Part II of this Bill. It is proposed to place as many as possible of smallholders on the soil. £1,000 is to be spent on each holding, £270 for equipment and £50 for the first year the occupier is in it. The first question I ask myself is this: Is this economically sound? Will these people who are placed on the soil get any trade? Will they be able to maintain themselves by trade? I answer that question by saying that it is well known to those who have studied the figures—and many noble Lords have done so—that there is still fifty per cent. which it is possible for us to win of the home market in eggs and poultry. There is another thirty per cent. which can also be won from the foreign

57
market for the home market in vegetables. The question we have now to ask ourselves is, will the capture of this foreign trade, if kept as the home trade, recompense us for the sums of money which we have to spend as a result of this Bill? The reply is a very difficult one to give.
This is an organism which is to be created, it is not a mechanism. Noble Lords one after another got up, and, possibly with a knowledge of small holdings and also conviction, said that in many cases they did not pay. That is perfectly true. Small holdings were first started thirty or forty years ago, and I have heard it said ever since that small holdings do not pay, but, although many people have always said that the movement is an unsuccessful one, and the finances of it are not sound, the fact remains—and it is one which I hope your Lordships will take notice of—that the small holding movement does increase, the demand for land greatly increases, and—I speak for myself and of my own county—although there are failures, yet on the whole the small holdings movement has been a success. A greater volume of food has been produced in consequence and more people have been put on the soil. I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, who was at pains to prove that the small holding movement was deteriorating, that the number of people on the soil was far less than formerly, and that a great number had given up their holdings in consequence of financial loss. I take those figures with a certain amount of reserve. One can always produce figures, and get institutions who will produce figures but I should doubt very much indeed that the Minister of Agriculture would support the statement made by the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, this evening.
Once again let me allude to the reference of Mr. Baldwin to the balancing effect. Here is an offer on the part of the Government to place, by means of this Bill, these smallholders on the soil. Here is an offer once again to alter and redress the balance. It may be claimed that it is not the right way to do it, that it would have been better to work through the existing organisations and to have utilised them rather than to create an organisation directly responsible to the Ministry of Agricul-
58
ture, which responsibility, if he likes, he can partially band on to the local authorities. It is true that, for a moment, the position of the agrarian community, financially, is not very good. We are faced by a lowering of prices and by competition from abroad which is not at all satisfactory or favourable, but we look to the future.
We know that every political dog has his day, and there is no reason why, in the passage of years, the Tory Party should not be in power once again. And we know from the promises which have been made that the quota may be introduced. The quota is designed to be not only of benefit to the big farmer, but also to the smallholder. The extra growth of wheat, barley and oats, as the result of the quota granted to the farmer will stimulate the production of those commodities and as the farmer will possess a great quantity of tail wheat, barley and oats he will be in a position to sell his surplus to a smallholder who, in turn, will utilise those foods for the production of pigs and chickens and the residue of them will be employed for the production of vegetables. So the prospective policy of noble Lords on the Opposition Bench may help to fortify and strengthen the active policy now pursued by noble Lords on this side.
I fear that at this late hour I have detained your Lordships rather at length. The explanation of it is that I have an intense affection for the land, and I have an intense admiration for the crops that can be produced by the good and useful farmer. I am most anxious at this time when the economic conditions are so serious, when the unemployed numbers are swelling, that we should do everything in our power to increase those crops, to multiply them and make them as effective as possible. I think that the terms of this Bill may do so. I am also most anxious, and always have been anxious, that the pre-eminence and the predominance of your Lordships' House may be sustained. We are growing in strength year by year compared with years ago, and I trust that no step may be taken, that no advice may be given by the noble and learned Lord who leads noble Lords opposite with regard to this Bill which can, in any way, diminish that strength which this House has gained. I can only hope that to-morrow when

59
the Division bell rings and when the Division is taken noble Lords on that side of the House will say to the noble Earl who introduced this measure: "My Lord, we will pass the Second Reading of your measure because in a matter of this sort, in a matter in which the requirements, the needs and the vital necessities of our fellow citizens on the land are essential, we will once again be animated by a well-worn emotion, nobles oblige."
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned until three o'clock to-morrow.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

IMPROVEMENT OF LIVE STOCK (LICENSING OF BULLS) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 2:
Licences and permits for bulls.
(2) The Minister may refuse to grant or may revoke a licence in respect of a bull, if the bull appears to him to be—

(a) of defective conformation or likely to beget defective or inferior progeny; or

(b) permanently affected with any contagious or infectious disease; or

(c) permanently affected with any other disease rendering the bull unsuitable for breeding purposes;

and may revoke a licence in respect of a bull, if the bull appears to him to be inadequately prolific, or if any condition of the licence is contravened or not complied with.
(4) If the Minister refuses to grant or revokes a licence or permit, he shall give notice to that effect, in the case of a refusal of a licence or permit, to the applicant therefor, and, in the case of a revocation of a licence or permit, to the person stated therein to be the owner of the bull, and any such notice given in respect of a licence shall state the grounds for the refusal or revocation.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "if the bull appears to him to be inadequately prolific, or." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Amend-
60
meat standing in my name, you will remember, was moved at the Committee stage by my noble friend Lord Banbury. There was some discussion on the more obvious inference of the words and during the course of that discussion the nimble brain of my noble friend Earl Stanhope descried the true import of the words. He thought having descried their import it would be wise that they should remain in the Bill. I regret that my slower mentality did not enable me, at the moment, to find the proper answer. But in point of fact the Ministry cannot afford anyhow to accept both the responsibility and the liability of giving to every bull which is licensed a certificate of prolificacy. That they should do so might, and not only might but would, involve the Ministry of Agriculture itself in difficulties of the most serious kind, and would unquestionably to a very large extent throw out of commission its livestock officers, a great part of whose lives in future would be spent in giving evidence in the witness box. I do not want to take up time in elaborating the matter, but I have been in consultation with responsible officials of the Ministry and although I am perfectly prepared to give to your Lordships a full discourse as to my reasons for holding this view, I greatly hope that the noble Earl will find it possible to accept my Amendment. I reserve to myself the right to say more if the noble Earl does not accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 24, leave out from the first ("bull") to ("if") in line 25.—(Lord Hastings.)
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I will accept the Amendment subject to putting on the licence a statement to the effect that prolificacy is not guaranteed. That will let it be known that we have no liability and I think that covers the point.
LORD HASTINGS: I must thank the noble Earl for having accepted this Amendment. I agree with him that it is wise, rather than to retain the words, that there should be put on a licence a definite repudiation of liability for prolificacy. I would certainly agree to that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, after subsection (4), to insert the following new subsection:—

61
"(5) If notice is duly given in accordance with the last foregoing subsection to a person who is not the owner of the bull, it shall be the duty of that person forthwith to take all reasonable steps to inform the owner accordingly, and, if he fails to do so, he shall be liable to indemnify the owner against any loss the owner may suffer by reason of the failure."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I move this Amendment in response to the feeling of the House.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 37, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl De La Warr.)
Clause 3:
Change of ownership and duration of licence or permit.
3.—(1) A licence or permit granted under this Act shall become void on the expiration of one month after any change in the ownership of the bull to which it relates, but without prejudice to an application by the new owner for a new licence or permit, as the case may be.
(2) Upon any such change of ownership, other than a change in consequence of the death of the holder, the holder of the licence or permit shall forthwith deliver it to the new owner together with notice of suspension (if any) the terms of which have not already been endorsed thereon, and send by post to the Minister written notice of the name and address of the new owner, and the new owner upon delivery to him of the licence or permit shall become the holder thereof, subject to the terms of any notice of suspension which have not already been endorsed thereon, for the purposes of this Act; and, upon the death of the holder of a licence or permit, his personal representative shall become the holder thereof for the purposes of this Act.
(4) If the holder of a licence or permit fails to comply with any of the requirements of subsection (2) or subsection (3) of this section, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved to leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert the following new subsections:—

"(1) Upon any change in the ownership of a bull in respect of which a licence or permit is in force under this Act (other than a change in consequence of the death of the holder), the holder of the licence or permit shall forthwith deliver it to the new owner together with any notice of suspension received by him in respect of the bull the terms of which have not already been endorsed thereon, and shall send by post to the Minister written notice of the name and address of the new owner, and the new owner, upon delivery to him of the licence
62
or permit, shall become the holder thereof for the purposes of this Act.

(2) Upon the death of the holder of a licence or permit in force under this Act, his personal representative shall become the holder thereof for the purposes of this Act.

(3) Any person becoming the holder of a licence or permit under the foregoing provisions of this section shall, within one month thereafter, send the licence or permit by post to the Minister, together with a request for the transfer thereof, and the Minister shall thereupon transfer the licence or permit to that person by endorsement or otherwise.

(4) If any licence or permit is not sent to the Minister in accordance with the last foregoing subsection, it shall become void at the expiration of the said period of one month, but without prejudice to an application for a new licence or permit, as the case may be."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is to give effect to an undertaking which I gave in Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 13, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert the said new subsections. (Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, lines 7 and 8 leave out ("subsection (2) or subsection (3)") and insert ("subsection (1) or subsection (5)").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Duty to produce licence or permit]:
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, there are two consequential Amendments to this clause.
Amendments moved—
Page 9, line 4, leave out ("has been granted") and insert ("is in force")
Page 9, line 9, leave out ("has been granted'') and insert ("is in force")
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

ACQUISITION OF LAND (ASSESS MENT OF COMPENSATION) (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
WILLS AND INTESTACIES (FAMILY MAINTENANCE) BILL.
Message from the Commons that they have passed the following Resolution to which they desire the concurrence of this House: "That it is expedient that the Wills and Intestacies (Family Maintenance) Bill be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons."
CHINA INDEMNITY (APPLICATION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons endorsed with a Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a; and to be printed.
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons endorsed with a Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a; and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn until 3 o'clock to-morrow.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, motion agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes before eight o'clock.

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
Calder and Hebble Navigation,
New Junction Canal,
Walthamstow Corporation.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lords following be proposed to the House as Members of the panel of Lords to act as Commissioners under the Act, viz.:

E. Liverpool,

L. Polwarth:

Agreed to: and the said Lords appointed accordingly.

SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL BILL.
Reports from His Majesty's Attorney-General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
PRESTON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
The King's Consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.

ST. THOMAS RURAL ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1930.
Special Order in respect of part of the rural district of Saint Thomas, in the County of Devon:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

MOTOR VEHICLES (VARIATION OF SPEED LIMIT) REGULATIONS, 1931.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That they have examined the Regulations as required by the Standing Orders of the House; that the Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, attended the Committee; that in their opinion the provisions of the Regulations raise questions of principle, but not questions of considerable importance; that the provisions of the said Regulations are not founded on precedent; that in their opinion the Regulations can be passed by the House without special attention, and that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision upon the Resolution approving the said Regulations: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
BUCKROSE AND DISTRICT ELEC TRICITY ORDER, 1930.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Order, and that there is nothing in this Order to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.