Sitting of 19 March 1931

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
London Passenger Transport Bill,
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th day of March, That, in the case of the following Bill, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
London Passenger Transport Bill.
Public Works Facilities Scheme (Wick Harbour) Bill,
Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HACKINGasked the Minister of Labour the number of

    THE FOLLOWING TABLE shows, for each Administrative Division of Great Britain, the total number of persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges at 9th March, 1931, and the increases in the numbers as compared with a week before, a month before, and a year before.

    Division.

    Number on Register at 9th March, 1931.

    Increase (+) or decrease (-) as compared with

    2nd March, 1931

    9th February, 1931.

    10th March, 1930.

    London

    …

    269,799

    +505

    +671

    +110,844

    South-Eastern

    …

    122,580

    +2,159

    -1,754

    +50,587

    South-Western

    …

    130,508

    +1,332

    -481

    +49,061

    Midlands

    …

    392,039

    +20,623

    +31,333

    +187,725

    North-Eastern

    …

    582,996

    +22,205

    +27,822

    +255,563

    North-Western

    …

    636,825

    +2,262

    -27,276

    +238,726

    Scotland

    …

    357,903

    +9,308

    +11,998

    +169,532

    Wales

    …

    199,087

    -1,231

    +12,293

    +65,892

    Great Britain

    …

    2,691,737

    +57,163

    +54,606

    +1,127,930

    The increases between 2nd March and 9th March in the Midlands and North-Eastern Divisions were due mainly to temporary stoppages in the coalmining industry.

    A detailed industrial analysis is not available for a date later than 23rd February. An analysis for that date is given in the Ministry of Labour Gazette for March.

    cases within the past six months where decisions taken by courts of referees to refuse benefit have been submitted to the umpire; and the number of cases where the umpire has ruled in favour of the applicant and against the decisions of the courts?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): During the past six months the umpire allowed benefit in 3,118 cases, and disallowed benefit in 8,123 cases, a total of 11,241. The form in which the statistics are obtained does not enable me to give the further details asked for.
    Mr. HACKING: Does that show that the present constitution of the courts is not very satisfactory?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I should say not.
    Sir HENRY BETTERTONasked the Minister of Labour the districts and the industries which are responsible for the recent increase of the numbers on the unemployment register?
    Miss BONDFIELD: As the reply includes a statistical table, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir H. BETTERTON: Is the increase due to the mines quota?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would study the tables.
    Following is the reply:

    MUSICIANS.
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Minister of Labour whether she has considered the representations recently addressed to her as to the conditions under which alien musicians are permitted to remain in this country; and whether, having regard to the unemployment amongst British musicians, she proposes to revise such conditions?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I am not sure what representations the right hon. Gentleman has in mind, but the matter is one that is receiving constant attention. In my view the present practice adequately safeguards the interests of British musicians.
    Sir K. WOOD: Is it a fact that an increasing number of British musicians are out of employment, and cannot the right hon. Lady do something?
    Miss BONDFIELD: But there is a great decrease in the numbers of foreign musicians.
    Mr. DAY: Has the right hon. Lady any statistics of those granted very long extensions?
    Miss BONDFIELD: No alien musicians have been granted long extensions.

    WORK SCHEMES.
    Sir K. WOODasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons directly employed engaged on work on all schemes approved on or after the 1st June, 1929, at the last convenient date; and the estimated cost of works on which such persons are employed?
    Miss BONDFIELD: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the right hon. Member to the answer given to him yesterday relating to the number of men employed on schemes in operation on 30th January. The estimated cost of these schemes is £92,000,000.
    Sir K. WOOD: Does that mean that it has cost £92,000,000 to put 8,000 people into work?
    Miss BONDFIELD: No, the right hon. Gentleman's conclusion from the figures is entirely wrong.
    Mr. STRAUSSasked the Minister of Labour how many persons were employed, directly and indirectly, on State-
    2118
    assisted schemes other than those financed out of the Road Fund on 29th June, 1929, and on the latest convenient date?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Of the total of about 200,000 estimated to be employed directly and indirectly at the end of December last on works for the relief of unemployment, the number attributable to schemes, other than those financed out of the Road Fund, may be estimated at 135,000. The corresponding figure for the end of June, 1929, was in the neighbourhood of 20,000.
    Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: How many of these were directly and how many indirectly employed, and how does the right hon. Lady define the words "directly" and "indirectly"?
    Miss BONDFIELD: That was clearly explained by the late Lord Privy Seal in a statement which he made to the House when he quoted the 200,000.
    Sir K. WOOD: How many were directly employed?
    Miss BONDFIELD: My right hon. Friend said at the time that the proportion was about 50–50.

    TRANSFERRED WORKERS (SOUTHWARK).
    Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons who have been transferred from the depressed centres to the borough of Southwark, and who have secured employment through the Walworth Road Exchange for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The number of persons from depressed areas who have been placed in employment by the Walworth Road Employment Exchange during the 12 months ending 9th March last was 39.
    Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Lady say how many of the 39 are still in the employment to which they were transferred?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I regret that I cannot say.

    INSURANCE.
    Mr. AYLESasked the Minister of Labour the number of those who are in insurable occupations who have contracted out on each basis for which contracting out is recognised?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I am not quite sure what my hon. friend means by "contracting out." At the latest dates available there were about 137,000 persons covered by the two special schemes for insurance and banking, respectively; about 28,000 persons were covered by exemption certificates, and about 524,000 were covered by certificates of exception.
    Mr. AYLESasked the Minister of Labour what additional number of employés would be added to those insured for unemployment if those in uninsured occupations were included or if the income level was raised to £350 a year respectively?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Precise figures are not available, but it may be estimated that if all manual workers and all non-manual workers earning not more than £250 a year, aged 16 to 64 inclusive, employed under a contract of service, were included in the scheme of unemployment insurance, the numbers insured would be increased by about 3,500,000. I am unable to say how many would be added if the income limit for non-manual workers were raised to £350 a year.

    EXCHANGE MANAGERS.
    Mr. AYLESasked the Minister of Labour the conditions as to remuneration laid down for the employment of Employment Exchange managers?
    Miss BONDFIELD: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    Employment Exchange managers are of three grades, with the following scales of salary (exclusive of cost-of-living bonus):

    First Class Officers:

    £600–20–£700 (Men).

    £475–20–£550 (Women).

    Second Class Officers:

    £400–15–490–20–£550 (Men).

    £300–15–£440 (Women).

    Third Class Officers:

    £200–15–£400 (Men).

    £200–10–£300 (Women).

    CLERICAL WORKERS.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Minister of Labour if she has any information as to the number of clerical workers, now unemployed, whose re-
    2120
    muneration when employed is in excess of £250?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Statistics giving the information desired are not available.
    Mr. McKINLAYasked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed clerical workers registered at Partick Employment Exchange; and the number, if any, who have been engaged through the said Exchange for work in connection with the forthcoming census?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I am making inquiries, and will let my hon. Friend know as soon as possible.

    BENEFIT CLAIMS (PROSECUTIONS).
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the Minister of Labour the number of cases of alleged fraud in connection with claims for unemployment benefit submitted to the Ministry of Labour for the sanction of the Department to the institution of legal proceedings in each of the six years ended 31st December, 1930; and the number of cases in each of these years in which prosecution proceedings were sanctioned?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I will circulate a table giving the information available.
    Sir F. HALL: Will the right hon. Lady give me the figures for 1925 and 1930?
    Miss BONDFIELD: In 1925 the number of cases reported by the local offices was 11,413 and the number of cases in which criminal proceedings were taken was 2,034. In 1930 the figures were 11,765 and 914.
    Sir F. HALL: Can the right hon. Lady say why the number of prosecutions has gone down by more than half during the period?
    Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: Is not one of the objects of prosecution to deter people from doing wrong?
    Sir F. HALL: There must be some reason; can the right hon. Lady tell me why?
    Miss BONDFIELD: No I cannot without going into every individual case.
    Sir F. HALL: Does it not lead one to believe that the Government are not paying the attention that they should d to this matter?
    Miss BONDFIELD: It certainly does not.
    Following is the table:

    Year. (1)

    Number of cases reported by Local Offices. (2)

    Number of cases in which criminal proceedings were taken. (3)

    1925

    …

    11,413

    2,034

    1926

    …

    10,873

    1,750

    1927

    …

    10,121

    1,639

    1928

    …

    8,563

    1,233

    1929

    …

    9,382

    949

    1930

    …

    11,765

    914

    The figures in the second column include cases where the question of recovery of benefit arises, even though no fraud is alleged. The figure in the column for 1930 is not strictly comparable with the earlier figures as owing to a change of procedure it includes a not inconsiderable number of cases which would not have been reported in earlier years.

    NEW EXCHANGE, CREWE (LABOUR RECRUIT- MENT).
    Mr. BOWENasked the First Commissioner of Works the number of men engaged in the construction of the new Employment Exchange at Crewe that have been engaged through the Crewe Employment Exchange; what proportion of the total so employed this represents; and whether it is a condition of contract that the labour to be recruited locally shall be engaged through the Employment Exchange?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): Twenty-two men are at present engaged in building the new Employment Exchange at Crewe, of whom nine, or approximately 40 per cent. of the total number, were engaged through the Crewe Employment Exchange. It is not a condition of contract that the labour to be recruited locally shall be engaged through the Employment Exchange.

  DOCK LABOUR (DECASUALISATION).
  Mr. OLDFIELDasked the Minister of Labour when it is expected that the committee of inquiry into the decasualisation of dock labour will report?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I understand that the Port Labour Committee of Inquiry,
  2122
  under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean), hope to present a report to me about the end of this month.

  COST-OF-LIVING INDEX FIGURE.
  Mr. ALBERYasked the Minister of Labour whether the Government !will consider setting up a committee to study the alteration of the method by which the cost-of-living index is arrived at?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 19th February last to the hon. Member for North Newcastle (Sir. N. Grattan-Doyle).
  Mr. TOM SMITH: When will the White Paper be issued giving details as to how the cost-of-living index is arrived at?
  Miss BONDFIELD: It is in the hands of the printers, and I hope that it will be issued in a few days. It will be a Stationery Office publication, and Members can obtain it in the usual way.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Can the right hon. Lady say what date she expects a report from the inquiry, which is an important matter?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I am not in a position to say.

  HOURS OF INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT BILL.
  Mr. WHITEasked the Minister of Labour if she is now in a position to make a statement with regard to the Hours of Industrial Employment Bill?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I cannot add to the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 27th January.

  POLICE.

    WOMEN POLICE.
    Mr. HACKINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the present number of women police in the Metropolitan area engaged in outdoor work; how this figure compares with that of 12 months ago; and whether it is his intention to still further increase the number?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes): The present number is 46, there being four vacancies. The number employed a year ago was 47, the vacancies then being three. It is proposed to increase the strength by approximately 50.

    CHIEF OFFICERS (APPOINTMEIUS).
    Mr. R. A. TAYLORasked the Home Secretary whether experience as prison governor is treated as police experience, as required by the Regulations governing the appointment of chief officers of police?
    Mr. CLYNES: No, Sir, but a candidate's qualifications and experience may clearly justify his appointment consistently with the terms of the Regulation on the subject. As my hon. Friend appears to be unfamiliar with the terms of the Regulation, I am sending him a copy.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Has the right hon. Gentleman recently sanctioned any appointment of chief constable without other police experience?
    Mr. CLYNES: Yes, but my hon. Friend will see on reading the Regulation that the sanction has been given in conformity with the practice and the terms of the Regulation.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Was there a considerable number of applications from people who had been a long time in the police service, and who were evidently qualified for this particular post?
    Mr. CLYNES: It is not part of my duty to enter into details of that kind. My function is limited to sanctioning after the proper authority has dealt with the appointment.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Before the right hon. Gentleman sanctions any further appointments, will he seriously consider the general principle involved and its reaction on the police force?
    Mr. CLYNES: The general principle is that covered by the Regulation, and I have acted quite within the terms of the Regulation.

    FORCES (APPLICATIONS FOR INCREASE).
    Mr. EDEasked the Home Secretary how many police forces in England and Wales applied for an increase in the num-
    2124
    ber of their recognised establishment during 1930; what was the total by which they asked that their establishments might be increased; how many such applications were granted in whole or in part; and by how many men were the forces increased in cases where an additional establishment was sanctioned?
    Mr. CLYNES: As the answer is long and contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    Applications for the augmentation of 21 county and borough forces were made in 1930, the total augmentation asked for being 206 men. In 18 cases the augmentation was approved, and in the remaining three cases was approved in part, the total approved augmentation being 169 men. In a few other forces, additions to the strength have been made by filling vacancies, amounting to 40 or 50 men. In the Metropolitan Police an augmentation of 250 men was approved towards the end of 1929, and minor adjustments of the establishment were made in 1930. The total addition to the strength of the force in 1930 was 109 men; and, as I have stated in reply to other questions, the whole question of the strength and distribution of the force has been under review for some time.

  APPEALS AGAINST CONVICTIONS (SURETIES).
  Mr. HACKINGasked the Home Secretary whether he will introduce legislation so that it may no longer be necessary for a person wishing to appeal against a conviction to lodge £40 or obtain two sureties for that amount?
  Mr. CLYNES: While the Government have much sympathy with the object which the right hon. Gentleman has in view, the question raises very difficult issues, and would require the most careful consideration before legislation could be proposed. In view of the state of public business, I regret that I cannot see my way to introduce legislation to deal with this matter.
  Mr. HACKING: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the statement recently made by the Recorder

  2125
  of London when he describd the present position as one law for the rich and one law for the poor, and does he agree with that statement?
  Mr. CLYNES: I have not seen the statement. I am well aware that in certain cases hardship arises, but I am at present unable to add anything to the answer.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although there may be plenty of law, there is very little practice for thousands of poor people pending the passing of some amending legislation?
  Mr. CLYNES: The House has recently done much to lessen any cause for grievance under that head, and a little later might be prepared to do more.
  Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a case of successful appeal, owing to some technicality, no costs can be recovered, and that that is very unjust?

  CRIME STATISTICS (THEFT, LONDON).
  Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMSasked the Home Secretary if he will state how many thefts other than housebreaking have been reported to the Metropolitan Police since 28th February, 1930; and how many of these were from private motor cars?
  Mr. CLYNES: Figures to show all thefts other than housebreaking for this period are not available, but perhaps the following figures will give the information the hon. Member desires. The number of thefts in the streets of the Metropolitan Police District from the 28th February, 1930, to the 17th March, 1931, was 2,300. Of these 891 were thefts from private motor cars.

  PRISONS (EDUCATIONAL CLASSES).
  Mr. MUGGERIDGEasked the Home Secretary if he can give particulars of the instruction given in prisons by prison schoolmaster-clerks; what is the number of prisoners attending such instruction; what is the extent of the education provided; and by whom it is inspected?
  Mr. CLYNES: Most of the educational classes in prisons are taken by voluntary teachers; but some elementary instruction is still given by officers of the clerk and schoolmaster grade. I am obtaining the particulars asked for and will send them to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. MUGGERIDGE: Was it not an understanding that if education were given in the prisons there should be inspection, and has that been done?
  Mr. CLYNES: I should require notice of that question.

  INDUSTRIAL DISEASES (ISOLA- TION HOSPITAL STAFFS).
  Mr. GEORGE HIRSTasked the Home Secretary whether he has considered the resolution passed and sent to him by the Wrath, Swinton and District Joint Hospital Board with reference to nurses and other persons employed at isolation hospitals; and whether he will consider amending the Workmen's Compensation Act to include them or what action he intends taking in the matter?
  Mr. CLYNES: The resolution asked for such an amendment of the Act as would bring infectious diseases within the provisions relating to industrial disease. This would involve a big extension of the general scope of the Act, and all I can promise is that it will be noted for consideration when the opportunity comes for a revision of the Act.

  EDUCATION.

    SCHOOL DISPUTE, ESTON.
    Mr. MANSFIELDasked the President of the Board of Education if he has made inquiries into the strike of school children in operation in the Eaton area; and what action he proposes to take to try and effect a settlement of this dispute?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Lees-Smith): My attention has been called to the unfortunate situation which has arisen in connection with the reorganisation of schools in the Eston district, and I am keeping myself informed of developments.
    Major COLFOX: Is not the best way of dealing with school children who go on strike merely to whip them?

    STAFFING.
    Mr. EDEasked the President of the Board of Education (1) if, in view of the policy of allowing to each elementary education authority an establishment of teachers, he will say in how many cases since 1st June, 1929, has an authority been called upon to reduce the number of teachers in its employment, either as a whole or in respect of teachers of a particular grade of professional qualification;
    (2) if he will give the number of education authorities for elementary education who have been requested since 1st June, 1929, to strengthen the staff of teachers in their employment, distinguishing between those cases in which the total establishment has been the cause of the representation and those in which the staffing of individual schools has been concerned?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: It will be understood that the establishments of teachers which have been considered by the Board since let June, 1929, are those for the year ending 31st March, 1931. In three cases the Board suggested to the authorities that the establishment might be slightly reduced. In one case the Board approved the proposed establishment on condition that there should be a reduction in the number of supplementary teachers. In three cases the Board have suggested that the proposed establishments should be increased. I could not ascertain without very great labour in how many cases representations have been made either by the Board or by His Majesty's Inspectors as to the strengthening of the staff of individual schools. The results of these representations are normally reflected in the authorities' proposals for their teaching establishments. The establishments approved for the year 1930–31 represent a total increase of 2,000 teachers as compared with the previous year.

    MEDICAL AND DENTAL TREATMENT.
    Mr. FREEMANasked the President of the Board of Education whether he can state the total number of children needing medical and dental treatment, separately, on entering school at five
    2128
    years; and the percentage in each case for the last known year?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: In 1929, of the children who were medically examined on entering school, 128,000, or 20.3 per cent., were found to require some form of medical treatment. There is no universal dental examination of children entering the schools, and I am therefore unable to give corresponding figures as regards dental treatment.
    Mr. FREEMAN: Do not those figures show that a high proportion of these children require treatment, and does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate taking any action to remedy that state of affairs?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: The hon. Member will realise that the position is that these children require treatment before they come within the purview of the Board of Education, and the remedy is at the Ministry of Health. As a result of the action of the Ministry of Health, the proportion is far smaller than it was before the War.
    Mr. FREEMAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any action to deal with children before they reach the age of 5?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: That is a different matter.
    Miss LEE: Does not the Minister think that, if these children were put into nursery schools where they would get medical attention, it would reduce that figure very considerably?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: Well, yes; but the whole question of nursery schools is at present under investigation by a committee of the Department.

  POOR LAW (CASUALS, LEYTON- STONE).
  Mr. SORENSENasked the Minister of Health the average number of casuals accommodated at Leytonstone, and in the whole of England, for each quarter of 1930?
  Mr. LANSBURY: I have been asked to reply. As the answer contains a tabular statement I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the answer:

  AVERAGE NUMBERS (on a weekly count) of casuals relieved in 1930 in the casual wards at Leytonstone with corresponding figures for the whole of England and Wales.

  —

  Quarter ended

  March

  June.

  Sept.

  Dec.

  Leytonstone

  72

  55

  50

  56

  All England and Wales.

  11,475

  11,507

  9,996

  10,315

  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  Mr. R. A. TAYLORasked the Minister of Health whether he will consider introducing legislation at an early date to provide that wives of insured men shall be eligible for pension when their husbands attain the age of 65 years?
  Mr. LANSBURY: My right hon. Friend has nothing to add to the reply which he gave to my hon. Friend on 29th January on the same subject.
  Mr. TAYLOR: May I ask if the Committee on Social Insurance makes any recommendation on this point?
  Mr. LANSBURY: I am not able to answer that point; it is a matter for my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. TAYLOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman represent to the Minister the very serious disability which a large number of men suffer by reason of losing their unemployment insurance benefit at the age of 65? If their wives are under 65, they have to face life on 10s. per week.
  Mr. TINKERasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that persons who have become entitled to old age pensions under the Widows', Orphans and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, and did not make their claims until some time had elapsed after they had turned 65 years, have been refused the three months' arrears because they were 65 years of age before 2nd December, 1929; and will he take steps to remedy this?
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): I would point, out that the provision in the Contributory Pensions Act, 1929, which allows payment
  2130
  of three months' arrears is limited to cases where the title arose on or after the 2nd December, 1929. In the case of a person who becomes entitled on attaining the age of 65 before that date, there is no alternative but to apply the relevant provision of the Act of 1925 which allows of payment only from the date of claim. I am not satisfied that there is a case for amending legislation to secure more favourable treatment for a person who, though qualified before 2nd December, 1929, has not yet made the necessary claim.
  Mr. TINKER: Is it not obvious that there is an anomaly in the Act and cannot the Minister see his way to remedy it? There can only be a very few cases; if the application comes in after December, 1929, surely he could allow it.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I think these people have had a fair amount of time, and it is very difficult, after the time has elapsed, to make retrospective legislation apply.
  Mr. TINKER: In view of the answer which has been given, I beg to say that I shall take the opportunity of raising this matter on the Adjournment.

  HOUSING.

    REGIONAL PLANNING COMMITTEE.
    Sir K. WOODasked the Minister of Health whether the committee under the chairmanship of Lord Chelmsford has yet made any recommendations?
    Mr. LANSBURY: It is presumed that the right hon. Gentleman refers to the committee which is examining the reports of Regional Planning Committees. That committee has not yet made any recommendations.
    Sir K. WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly inquire whether this committee has yet considered the Liberal proposal for the formation of a National Housing Board?
    Mr. LANSBURY: Oh, yes.

    BUILDING MATERIALS (LABOUR CONDITIONS).
    Sir F. HALLasked the Minister of Health what requirements the Ministry

    2131
    has laid down in connection with the payment of Government grants to local authorities for housing schemes with respect to the observance of fair conditions of labour as regards the materials used in the provision of housing accommodation; and whether such conditions apply to goods imported from abroad as well as to those produced in this country?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I am sending the hon. and gallant Member a copy of the Fair Wages Clause which local authorities are required to insert in all contracts for the building of subsidised houses.
    Sir F. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the last part of the question?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I think the hon. and gallant Member will find, if he will consult the Fair Wages Clause, that that point is covered. I will discuss it with the hon. and gallant Member.

    RENT RESTRICTIONS ACTS.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS (for Sir BASIL PETO)asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the case of Frederick Norris, 38, Emes Road, Erith, who, with his wife and four children, is obliged to live in two rooms, although he is the owner or a six-roomed house of which he cannot get possession; and whether the Government have any present intention of introducing legislation to amend the Rent Restriction Acts in the interests of owners of small houses which they require for their own occupation?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: This case has not been brought to my attention, but I understand that it is one which the hon. Member has himself submitted to the Inter-departmental Committee on the Rent Restriction Acts. As regards the second part of the question, I must of course await the report of the committee.

    SUBSIDY.
    Mr. E. D. SIMONasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the unskilled labourer with a family is normally unable to pay the rents which are being charged for the new subsidised municipal houses, and that the subsidies are to a great extent being given to persons who could reasonable afford to live in an unsubsidised house; and whether he is prepared to in-
    2132
    quire into the extent of this misdirection of the subsidy with a view to the possibility of preventing it by legislation or otherwise?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I am aware that in some cases the rents of houses provided under the Housing Act of 1924 are more than the lowest paid workers are able to afford but, as the hon. Member is aware, the financial arrangements of the Housing Act of 1930 will enable local authorities to let a substantial proportion of the houses provided by them under that Act at rents within the means of these workers. I am not aware that local authorities who are responsible for the management of the houses provided under the Housing Acts are letting them to persons for whom they are not intended—nor am I aware of any general misdirection of subsidy such as the hon. Member suggests. If he is in a position to give me any information on the subject I shall be glad to consider it.

  FRENCH LOANS (BRITISH INVESTORS).
  Mr. ALBERYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the proposed French legislation to compensate French original and small subscribers of War Rentes, he will press that British subscribers of similar status shall also receive at least equal consideration?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): Representations are being made to the French Government in the sense proposed by the hon. Member.
  Mr. ALBERY: Can the hon. Gentleman say if those representations will especially apply to French loans issued in London during and after the War?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Perhaps the hon. Member will nut down a further question on the specific point he is now raising.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  Mr. THOMAS LEWISasked the Minister of Health if he will state for each year since 1912 the total numbers of doctors undertaking National Health Insurance work, and the total amount paid to such doctors out of National Health Insurance funds?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: With my hon. Friend's permission I will circulate these particulars for England and Wales in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following are the particulars:

  NUMBER of MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS undertaking National Health Insurance work during the years 1913–1930.

  (England and Wales.)

  1913

  …

  12,674

  1914

  …

  12,868

  1915

  …

  12,675

  1916

  …

  12,321

  1917

  …

  11,984

  1918

  …

  11,675

  1919

  …

  11,346

  1920

  …

  11,620

  1921

  …

  12,216

  1922

  …

  12,531

  1923

  …

  12,862

  1924

  …

  13,211

  1925

  …

  13,823

  1926

  …

  14,432

  1927

  …

  14,952

  1928

  …

  15,269

  1929

  …

  15,563

  1930

  …

  15,750

  At 1st January, 1931

  …

  15,703

  AMOUNTS paid from NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE FUNDS to INSURANCE MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS during the years 1913–1930.

  (England and Wales.)

  £

  1913

  …

  …

  …

  3,858,000

  1914

  …

  …

  …

  3,673,000

  1915

  …

  …

  …

  3,470,000

  1916

  …

  …

  …

  3,353,000

  1917

  …

  …

  …

  3,845,000

  1918

  …

  …

  …

  3,641,000

  1919

  …

  …

  …

  4,052,000

  1920

  …

  …

  …

  7,403,000

  1921

  …

  …

  …

  7,824,000

  1922

  …

  …

  …

  6,773,000

  1923

  …

  …

  …

  6,670,000

  1924

  …

  …

  …

  6,476,000

  1925

  …

  …

  …

  6,518,000

  1926

  …

  …

  …

  6,661,000

  1927

  …

  …

  …

  6,831,000

  1928

  …

  …

  …

  7,037,000

  1929

  …

  …

  …

  7,109,000

  1930

  …

  …

  …

  7,300,000

  Mr. LEWISasked the Minister of Health if he will state for each year since 1912 the total reserve values credited to approved societies; the amount de-
  2134
  ducted from contributions paid in respect of insured persons for the redemption of such reserve values; the manner in which the amount so deducted has been utilised for the redemption of such reserve values and the payment of interest thereon, respectively, and the total amount of reserve values unredeemed at December, 1930; when it was anticipated that the original reserve values credited in 1912 would be fully redeemed; when it is now anticipated that all reserve values will be redeemed; and the reasons for any extension of such time?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: As the answer is long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the answer:
  The particulars asked for in the first part of the question are not available, but the position at December, 1930, is estimated to be as follows:

  £

  Total amount deducted from contributions

  56,000,000

  of which the amount applied to payment of interest on reserve values

  34,000,000

  and the amount applied to redemption of reserve values

  22,000,000

  Total amount of reserve values unredeemed

  48,000,000

  In answer to the latter parts of the question it was originally estimated that the reserve values would be redeemed by about 1932, but following the recommendations of a Departmental Committee the contributions applied to this purpose were reduced in 1918 to enable the contingencies funds of approved societies to be set up and the redemption period was extended, as estimated, to 1952. A further extension to 1955 followed on the increase of benefits and contributions in 1920. Subsequent changes have not affected this date, but considerable uncertainty has been created by the conditions of recent years, since interest being the first charge on the contributions assigned to the service of reserve values, the whole weight of the reduction of income arising from abnormal unemployment falls upon the amount available for redemption.

  BUDGET.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an assur-

  2135
  ance that no Customs Duty will be imposed in the Budget without a corresponding Excise Duty?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I must ask the hon. Member to await the Budget statement.
  Mr. MANDER: Can the hon. Gentleman assure me, at any rate, that this point will be most carefully borne in mind by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The hon. Member may rest assured that my right hon. Friend will bear that point, and all other similar points, carefully in mind.
  Mr. HANNON: Is this a new method on the part of the Liberals of securing the safeguarding of British industry?

  LOSS OF AIRSHIP R 101 (REPORT).
  Sir SAMUEL HOAREasked the Prime Minister whether he will institute an inquiry into the means by which a daily newspaper has been able to forecast in detail the contents of the report of the inquiry into the R 101 disaster?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): For some days I have heard various rumours regarding the alleged contents of this report. I am informed, however, that the Court of Inquiry has not made its report to the Air Ministry. Such anticipations, therefore, can only be guess-work, and for this reason I am unable to say whether the newspaper in question has been able to forecast the contents of the report in detail or otherwise. Under the circumstances of this case an inquiry is quite certain to yield no useful results.
  Sir S. HOARE: Arising out of that answer, has the Prime Minsiter himself read this report in the daily paper, and, if so, does he agree that the details are so circumstantial as to make it appear most probable that the writer of the report in the paper must have had the report of the Committee in his hands; and, in view of that fact, will he not follow the precedent which has often been followed by other Governments, and put the matter into the hands of the Law Officers of the Crown, to see how it is that a paper of this kind obtained that information?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will be perfectly candid with the House. I am in this position. I have heard, not as Prime Minister or as a Minister of the Crown, even more details alleged to be in this report than were published in that paper on that day—and, in these circumstances, it is quite impossible to narrow down the charge or the terms of reference of the question and refer it to the Law Officers of the Crown in such a way that leakage can be proved. The alleged contents or the anticipated contents of this report had been a matter of conversation for days and days before anything at all appeared in this newspaper.
  Sir S. HOARE: Arising out of that answer, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the paper in question states quite categorically that it has been able to reveal what the Court of Inquiry into the R.101 disaster will report, and it then gives a series of details which could not have been in possession of that paper unless they had seen the report; and, in view of that, will the Prime Minister not still make such an inquiry as I have suggested in the interests of hon. Members in all parts of this House.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I should very much like to get a really good case of leakage. This sort of thing is happening far too frequently, but I do not select this case, because I think it is one of the worst cases that could be selected for a really effective inquiry.
  Sir K. WOOD: The Prime Minister has just said that it is impossible to narrow down the inquiry. Is it not a fact that, although a report has not been presented, it has been set up in print, and therefore the right hon. Gentleman has ample opportunities of making pertinent inquiries in that particular direction?
  The PRIME MINISTER: All I say is this. You want something a little more definite than that a report has been sent to the printers. That kind of inquiry, I am perfectly certain, in view of the rights of newspapers, would not reveal the source of information, and that kind of inquiry is bound to end in an abortive conclusion.
  Sir S. HOARE: Will the Prime Minister undertake to hold an inquiry if, when the report comes out in a fort-

  2137
  night's time, it shows quite clearly that the paper had the details of the report in its hands?
  The PRIME MINISTER: If the right hon. Gentleman will wait until the report is out and not put his question in hypothetical form, I shall be glad to give him an answer.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS.

    OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. TURTONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what was the cost incurred by the issue of bound volumes of Parliamentary Debates to Members during the last three years?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The face value, on the basis of the selling price to the general public, of the bound volumes of Parliamentary Debates issued to Members of the House of Commons during the last three years, was:

    £

    Session 1928

    …

    …

    1,447

    Session 1928–29

    …

    …

    1,183

    Session 1929–30

    …

    …

    2,541

    But the cost, in the sense of the saving that would be effected if the free issue of bound volumes were cancelled, would only be a small fraction of these figures.
    Mr. TURTON: Will the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the need for economy being so stringent, consider setting the highest example to the nation by charging Members at cost price for these volumes?
    Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: The practice is—I think hon. Members know—to ask Members not to have the bound volumes unless they wish to have them, but I think, if an hon. Member wishes to have the record of the Debates for Parliamentary purposes, he should be allowed to have them.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that an offer has been made by Members to pay for the bound volumes of the OFFICIAL REPORT and no notice has been taken of such offer?

    REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT.
    Mr. SORENSENasked the hon. Member for the Gorton Division, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, the
    2138
    total receipts for, respectively, Imperial and British alcoholic liquor, cigars, and cigarettes sold in the House of Commons during 1928 and 1930?
    Mr. COMPTON: As the Kitchen Committee do not keep separate records of the receipts for. Imperial and British acoholic liquor, etc., it will, I regret, be impossible for me to supply the hon. Member with the numerous statistical details mentioned in his question.
    Mr. SORENSEN: Would it be possible for the hon. Gentleman to provide information, on the one hand, as to the amounts of foreign liquor, cigars and cigarettes consumed, and a statement of the total amount sold?
    Mr. COMPTON: The Kitchen Committee is a feeding, and not a statistical, Department.
    Mr. SORENSEN: Does the hon. Gentleman keep accounts in connection with his Department; and, if so, would it not be possible for him to discover just what proportion of these goods manufactured in this country or in our Empire are consumed by Members of the Conservative party?
    Mr. COMPTON: The accounts are audited, and it would be possible for us to get out the details, but I have decided that the expense involved would net be justified.

  STAMPING OF DOCUMENTS (SOUTHAMPTON).
  Mr. T. LEWISasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the delay caused by the fact that there is no office at Southampton for the stamping of documents; and if he will consider the reopening of a Government stamp office in that town?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The interval of time which elapses between the presentation of documents for stamping and their return is not, I am advised, greater at Southampton than at many other towns similarly circumstanced—and is in any case not considerable. I regret that I am unable to agree to reopen the office, which was closed in the interests of national economy on the ground that the volume of work was insufficient to employ a full-time staff.
  Mr. LEWIS: Cannot these documents be sent back by return of post instead of being kept for two days, or over weekends, and sometimes four days?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am sure that there is no unnecessary delay, but, if my hon. Friend finds there is delay, and will furnish me with cases where there has been delay, I will have the matter looked into.

  AGRICULTURE.

    SUGAR-BEET CONTRACTS.
    Mr. W. B. TAYLORasked the Minister of Agriculture, (1) whether, in view of the necessity for removing the deadlock in sugar-beet cultivation caused by the refusal of four beet-sugar factories in East Anglia to pay the price agreed upon in the national settlement, he will say what action is contemplated to give the growers the opportunity to cultivate that crop at the national price in the present season;
    (2) what steps he proposes to take to bring the Anglo-Dutch combine up to the terms of the national settlement agreed to by the Government, the National Farmers' Union, and the majority of the beet-sugar factories in relation to beet-sugar prices, thereby enabling growers in East Anglia to proceed with these contracts and cropping in the present season?
    Dr. ADDISON: I can assure my hon. Friend that I have used all the influence at my command to induce the Anglo-Dutch Group of factories to make an offer to beet growers of the same kind as the offer made by the majority of factories. The Group has not seen its way to do so, and I regret to say that I have no power to compel them to do so.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Has my right hon. Friend received representations from the National Farmers' Union with regard to the emergency of this case?
    Dr. ADDISON: Yes, Sir, I have received quite a large number.
    Mr. WISE: Will the Minister of Agriculture consider coming to this House for powers to deal with the situation if he is unable to find any other way out of this dangerous deadlock?
    Dr. ADDISON: That question is being examined.
    Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: Is the right bon. Gentleman aware that the Anglo-Dutch factories are proposing to cut large quantities of Dutch grown beet, and that they are only able to do so because of the subsidy paid to them in the past from the taxpayers' money, and will he see that these Dutch factories do not use money paid by the British taxpayer to further a foreign industry.
    Dr. ADDISON: With regard to those companies the position is most unsatisfactory and I can only say that we are examining the possibilities very closely.

    WAGES ACT.
    Mr. FREEMANasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will state the total number of farms inspected for the purpose of the administration of the Agricultural Wages Act; the total number of prosecutions; the total number of infringements; the total number of claims for arrears; and the total amount recovered during each year since the passing of the Act?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): As the reply is in the form of a tabular statement I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:

    AGRICULTURAL WAGES (REGULATION) ACT, 1924.

    Year ended 30th Sept.

    No. of farms inspected.

    No. of prosecutions.

    No. of claims for arrears.

    Amount recovered.

    £

    1925

    389

    17

    —

    850

    1926

    1,277

    82

    691

    6,150

    1927

    2,275

    98

    1,061

    13,420

    1928

    2,558

    93

    1,119

    11,910

    1929

    2,378

    97

    1,099

    12,426

    1930

    4,523

    175

    1,630

    18,542

    Totals

    13,400

    562

    5,600

    63,298

    It is not possible to state the number of infringements of the Orders as many cases arise where, owing to disputed evidence, it is impossible to determine whether in fact an infringement has taken place.
    Mr. FREEMAN: Do these figures not indicate that there has been very wide evasion of this Act in the past?
    Dr. ADDISON: They do indicate considerable evasion, but I think it will be seen that the efforts to recover the amounts have been greater than in past years.
    Mr. FREEMAN: Are the powers possessed by the right hon. Gentleman sufficient to deal with this matter?
    Dr. ADDISON: They go a long way.

    —

    Number of Premium Bulls.

    Total Number of Bulls on 4th June, 1930.

    Percentage Proportion of Premium Bulls to Total.

    Amount provided in Financial Year, 1930–31 for State grants in respect of Premium Bulls.

    £

    England and Wales

    …

    1,543

    82,816

    1·9

    20,900

    Scotland

    …

    666*

    17,147

    3·9

    8,700

    * Excluding bulls supplied, on loan free of charge, to crofters grazing committees under the Scheme administered in the congested districts of Scotland. The number of such bulk on loan during 1930 was 279.

    Mr. TURTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of increasing the number of premium bulls to at least the number in Scotland?
    Mr. HAYCOCK: May I ask what is a premium bull?
    Dr. ADDISON: It is an animal in respect of which a premium is paid.
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: Has the right hon. Gentleman's Department succeeded in the elimination of the scrub bull?

  WIRELESS NEWS MESSAGES.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Postmaster-General the arrangements under which the Wireless Press, Limited, is allowed to deliver over the wireless messages of a partisan and propaganda nature to ships at sea?
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Viant): For many years past, paid news messages have been transmitted by wireless telegraphy from Rugby on behalf of the Wireless Press, Limited, for reception on board ships, the owners of which have subscribed to this agency's news service. The Post Office merely transmits the messages, and is not responsible for their contents.

  PREMIUM BULLS.
  Mr. TURTONasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will state how many premium bulls there are at the present date in England and Scotland, respectively; what proportion of the bulls in each country are premium bulls; and what sum is contributed by the State towards the provision of premium bulls?
  Dr. ADDISON: The figures are as follow:
  At the same time, I understand that it is the policy of the Wireless Press, Limited, to avoid the inclusion in these news messages of anything of a partisan or propaganda nature, and that, apart from an isolated case which gave rise to a complaint in a newspaper, there have been no recent complaints either from subscribers or from others concerning the character of the messages.
  Mr. MANDER: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to see that biased propaganda of this sort is not permitted again in any circumstances?
  Mr. MUGGERIDGE: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the "Times" of the 26th February, where he will see a very egregious case of propaganda on behalf of the views of people on the other side of the House?
  Mr. VIANT: My attention has been drawn to this incident, but this is the only instance in which this kind of thing has occurred.
  Earl WINTERTON: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that, on the contrary, those of us who travel constantly by sea are frequently coming across cases of the most blatant propaganda on the part of this organisation; and that some hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the

  2143
  House, whose names I could give, and who have been with me, will agree with me?
  Mr. VIANT: The very fact of this case having been brought to light will, we are persuaded, have the desired effect.

  MURDER CASES (APPEALS).
  Mr. MANDERasked the Attorney-General if he will consider the possibility of introducing legislation to render possible an appeal in murder cases on grounds of wrongful admission of evidence at any stage of the proceedings?
  Mr. PALING (Lord of the Treasury): No, Sir. There is no intention of introducing legislation to extend the grounds of appeal in Section 3 of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907.
  Mr. MANDER: Does the hon. Gentleman think it fair or right that evidence can be given in a police court which would be inadmissible if given in the Assize Court; and will he not consider taking steps to alter the law in this respect?
  Mr. PALING: I have no doubt that my hon. and learned Friend will consider that point.

  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACTS.
  Mr. DAYasked the Solicitor-General whether he has any information and can state the number of cases that are at present pending that have been instituted under the Prevention of Corruption Acts, 1906 and 1916?
  Mr. PALING: Only one case is pending, in respect of which the prosecution was authorised on Tuesday of this week.
  Mr. McSHANE: Does the St. George's election come under this head?

  COAL MINES ACT (QUOTA SYSTEM).
  Sir F. HALLasked the Secretary for Mines what has been the number of men in the coal-mining industry who have become unemployed as the result of the working of the quota system under the Coal Mines Act since 1st January, 1931; and what increased expenditure
  2144
  this has involved in the payment of unemployment allowances?
  The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): Although the incidence of employment may have been affected, I am not prepared to admit that there has been any appreciable reduction in the numbers employed in the coal-mining industry as the result of the operation of the quota system. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.
  Sir F. HALL: May I ask if that is the hon. Gentleman's private opinion, or is it the opinion of his Department and his officers?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Thorne.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    TIMBER IMPORTS.
    Mr. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade what action he intends taking in the matter of the resolution sent to him from the executive council of the Timber Trade Federation of the United Kingdom, protesting against any discrimination against Russian timber?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): I have not yet received this resolution.
    Mr. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade the total amount of cubic feet of timber imported from India (East) and India (West) during January, 1931; and whether he has any information as to the rates of wages paid to the workers engaged in felling trees in the lumber camps and the loading of ships at the various ports in India?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Particulars of the imports into the United Kingdom of timber consigned from India (East) and India (West), respectively, are not available, as the imports from different districts in India are not separately recorded. The total quantity of wood and timber imported into the United Kingdom, and registered during the month of January, 1931, as consigned from British India as a whole, was 144,766 cubic feet. As regards the second part of the question, I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India, but I regret that no information is available in his Department or in mine on this subject.
    Mr. THORNE: Is it not generally known that the wages paid to this class of people in India are very much lower than the wages paid to any workers in any European country who are doing exactly the same thing; and does not my right hon. Friend think it is about time that the propaganda which is being carried on against Russia was put an end to?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I can only say to my hon. Friend that neither Government Department has any information as to these statistics.
    Mr. THORNE: Is it not generally known that the Indian workers are the worst paid workers in the world?

    IMPORT DUTIES.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the President of the Board of Trade in what countries of the world import duties are used for purely revenue purposes; what is the level of such duties on the principal commodities of international trade; and which of the countries using these tariffs also have protectionist duties on the same classes of goods?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: It is not possible to draw any hard and fast line between revenue and other duties except in the case of duties which are levied on goods not produced in the country concerned or which are countervailed by an equivalent excise. Except under those conditions all duties, even though imposed primarily from revenue motives, necessarily have some protective effect. I am not aware of any country in which all the import duties in force are purely revenue duties in the sense that I have indicated.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: From the general point of view, will the right hon. Gentleman consider, in view of the success of import duties in other countries, suggesting to the Chancellor of the Exchequer levying such duties in this country?
    Mr. GRAHAM: No; I could not undertake to make any such proposal. I should think that that would aggravate rather than cure our industrial troubles.
    Mr. ALBERY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that Question Time is a suitable time for a fiscal Debate.

  TRANSPORT.

    MOTOR OMNIBUSES.
    Major COLFOX (for Major EDMONDSON)asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that anxiety exists among certain public conveyance proprietors, particularly in rural areas, with regard to the new regulations in connection with the design and construction of motor omnibuses; and will be take steps to ensure that the regulations are applied in such a manner as to entail the least possible hardship upon the small owner?
    Mr. THURTLE (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has already amended the original regulations with a view to meeting the case of owners of existing vehicles in certain particulars, but he is bound to retain requirements, which he considers essential in the interests of public safety. I may add that the requirements generally are based on recommendations of the Departmental Committee on the licensing and regulation of public service vehicles which reported in the year 1925, and it has long been known both to manufacturers and to operators that requirements of this nature would be imposed as soon as the legislation necessary to enforce them was passed.

  INDIA (DISTURBANCES).
  Mr. C. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for India (1) how many lives were lost owing to political disturbances in India during the years 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929 and 1930, respectively;
  (2) if he can give figures showing how many persons were imprisoned for political disturbances in India during the years 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929 and 1930, respectively?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): I regret that the information is not available in the form in which the hon. Member requests it.
  Earl WINTERTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he promised me the figures of political offences, and when will that information be available?
  Mr. BENN: I have taken some steps to implement the promise that I made, and will inform the Noble Lord as soon as possible.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    WAR VESSELS (REPAIRS).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state, for each country concerned, the classes, numbers, tonnage, and armament of war vessels that are now under repair or refit in those countries for other countries?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): The answer is "None."

    ADMIRALTY CONTRACTS (EMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the number of men in private firms who are employed on contracts placed by the Admiralty in connection with shipbuilding or ship repairing?
    Mr. AMMON: The total number is estimated at 29,500, including men employed on making guns and armament stores.

    ACCOUNTING, DEVONPORT (APPOINTMENTS).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that women candidates in a recent open competitive examination held for appointments in connection with the new system of accounting which has been adopted in His Majesty's Dockyard, Devonport, were informed that successful candidates would be appointed in the order their names appeared on the official pass-list; and whether this procedure is being carried out in the filling of these appointments?
    Mr. AMMON: The answer is in the affirmative. Where two candidates secured the same total number of marks, marking for arithmetic has been taken to determine priority.

    TIMBER PURCHASES.
    Mr. QUIBELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty for what reason timber
    2148
    is being purchased from Canada which was formerly bought from Russia?
    Mr. AMMON: Archangel deals have been bought in the past as a substitute for Canadian deals where the latter were not obtainable in sufficient quantities or at prices which would bring them within the preference accorded to Dominion products. At the reduced price of Canadian deals now ruling, it is more economical to purchase these deals from Canada.
    Mr. QUIBELL: Do I understand that this applies to all goods purchased from foreign countries and is chiefly a matter of finance?
    Mr. AMMON: Yes. Russia is dealt with precisely on the same lines as any other country.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Why is any timber imported from Russia at all, in view of the conditions under which it is handled?
    Mr. AMMON: Timber has been imported from Russia for a great many years, and was imported under the preceding Government, both on account of price and because they were unable to get the right quantities elsewhere.
    Mr. AMERY: Is the standing rule of the Admiralty still maintained, that a definite preference on all purchases shall be given to British Empire products?
    Mr. AMMON: The right hon. Gentleman did not listen to the answer. I said that was so.
    Mr. REMER: Is it the tact that the Admiralty are still continuing the policy they have always maintained of having regard to price, consistent with quality?
    Mr. AMMON: I indicated that we have regard both to quality and price.

  SCOTLAND (NATIONAL LIBRARY SITE).
  Mr. JAMES WELSH(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if his attention has been drawn to the letter which appeared in the "Times" on 7th March, signed by Members of Parliament and others, asking that the question of the siting of the National Library of Scotland

  2149
  should be examined by a small committee representing both technical and lay opinion, and whether the Government are prepared to adopt this suggestion?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In view of the facts that the control of the National Library of Scotland is by Statute vested solely in A board of trustees representative of Scotland; that the question of sites has been carefully examined by these trustees; and that they have reached a definite conclusion in favour of the site on George IV Bridge, the Government is not prepared to take a step which would in effect amount to superseding the trustees in a matter which is clearly within their statutory duties and powers. The answer to the last part of the question is, therefore, in the negative.
  Mr. WELSH: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that a considerable amount of indignation has arisen through the way this matter has been handled, and that opinion is very much against the site?
  Major ELLIOT: Even though the right hon. Gentleman has decided not to refer the matter to a committee, as suggested, is it not possible for him to use his good offices in the friendliest possible way with the trustees to see whether it would not be possible for them once more to examine the case in view of the large amount of opinion which desires that this re-examination shall be carried out?
  Mr. ADAMSON: I am fully aware that there has been a considerable amount of agitation going on regarding the site chosen by the trustees. But my hon. Friend is also aware that we have scarcely ever had a site chosen in Edinburgh for any public building regarding which there has not been a similar amount of agitation. With regard to the point put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, it would be quite easy for me to suggest reconsideration, but to do so would be simply to keep up an agitation which has its support on both sides and is delaying the building of an institution which, in my opinion, has already been too long delayed.

  MALTA (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Mr. AMERY(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he is yet in a position to announce the composition of the Royal Commission on Malta?
  The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty has been pleased to approve the appointment of the following gentlemen to serve on the Malta Royal Commission:

  The Right Hon. Lord Askwith, K.C.B.

  Sir Walter Egerton, K.C.M.G.

  The Count de Sails, K.C.M.G., C.V.O.

  Lord Askwith will be chairman of the Commission, and Mr. A. J. Dawe, of the Colonial Office, has been appointed to be secretary.
  Mr. AMERY: Can the right hon. Gentleman, tell us how soon it will be possible for the Commission to start on its work?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot give a date, but it is expected that it will arrive at the island in the early part of next month.
  Mr. HANNON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the terms of reference?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The terms of reference were given to the House some little time ago.
  Mr. MAXTON: Which of these representatives is representative of the Labour movement?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The question of the Labour movement, as separate from the large constitutional issues, is not involved.
  Mr. MAXTON: Is not the question of Labour representation in Malta one of the important constitutional issues?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Absolutely, not a shadow of it.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is it not in accordance with precedent for a Commission appointed to report on a constitutional issue to be a Parliamentary Commission?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, I do not think so. In this case, it is very desirable—in fact, it is essential—that the Commission should not be a Parliamentary one.
  Mr. HORE BELISHA: Why has the Prime Minister departed from precedent in this matter? Is it not a fact that, in regard to Palestine and India, Parliament was represented on the Commission?
  The PRIME MINISTER: In this case, it was necessary to have representatives who were not Members of the House of Commons.
  Earl WINTERTON: The answer of the right hon. Gentleman to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) does not, I suppose, mean that this Commission will have no power to inquire into the grievances of the Labour party and the Constitutional party in Malta if they wish to put their grievances before the Commission?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am very much obliged to the Noble Lord for the opportunity he has given to me to make that point perfectly clear. That is so. But it is not a question of Labour representation. It is a question of constitutional rights and constitutional grievances which are held in common.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question, as he has not done so? What are the reasons why Parliament is not represented on this Commission, as has always been the case in the past? Will he add a representative now?
  The PRIME MINISTER: On account of the very special conditions of the Maltese problem.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that Parliament is disqualified from forming a judgment on these matters?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not call it disqualified, but it was considered that it would be far better that the report of the Commission should come to the House of Commons from persons of the experience and of the type of those who have been appointed to form this Commission.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is it not right and proper that Parliament should have an opportunity of informing itself upon these matters?
  Mr. ERNEST WINTERTON: Will my right hon. Friend consider making an addition to the Commission of one Member from each of the parties?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: May I ask the Prime Minister to tell the House what the business will be for next week, and if he is in a position to say anything about the Recess?
The PRIME MINISTER: Monday: London Passenger Transport Bill, Second Reading.
Tuesday: Supply (4th Allotted Day), Report of Air Estimates, 1931, Army Estimates, 1931, Navy Supplementary Estimate, 1930, Navy Excess, 1929; Report of Ways and Means Resolutions.
Wednesday: Consolidated Fund Bill, Second Reading.
Thursday: Consolidated Fund Bill, further stages; Army Annual Bill, Second Reading.
Friday: Further stages of the Mining Industry (Welfare Fund) Bill, and the Yarmouth Naval Hospital Bill; Second Reading of the Improvement of Livestock (Licensing of Bulls) Bill.
On any day, should time permit, other Orders may be taken.
Regarding the Recess, we propose, to adjourn on Thursday, 2nd April, but I fear that the programme of Business before us is such that, if the date of re-assembly is later than the 14th April, there will be grave risk of sitting well into August. If these fears prove groundless, a short extension of the Whitsuntide Recess may be possible, but I propose that we should resume on the 14th April.
Mr. REMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Mining Industry (Welfare Fund) Bill has not yet completed its Committee stage?
The PRIME MINISTER: That Bill is put down for to-morrow week.
Mr. REMER: But it has not yet completed its Committee stage.
The PRIME MINISTER: I will look into the matter.
Sir DENNIS HERBERT: May I ask the Prime Minister whether, if the need arises, he will allow a longer time than one day for the Second Reading of the London Passenger Transport Bill? I make the suggestion because there are a number of difficult questions of principle involved, each of which really requires to

2153
be separately discussed. There is, for example, the question of the advisability of placing this matter entirely in the hands of this particular form of control, and, secondly, there is the question of the scheme generally, as to whether it is to be committed to a board of this kind or to something else. Thirdly, there is the question of determining the terms of the expropriation in regard to the present owners of these undertakings. Fourthly, there is the very important question of the apparent omission of the suburban lines of the main railway companies. I venture to suggest that, if those matters were thrashed out thoroughly on Second Reading, the Government would be able to ascertain how far they had the general assent of the House to one or more of them, and which of them were matters which would really be contentious during the subsequent stages of the Bill.
The PRIME MINISTER: I am fully aware of the points to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred. They are mainly business points and points of negotiation. I would remind the House that this Bill does not go straight to a Committee upstairs. When the Bill receives a Second Reading in this House, it will go to a Select Committee where every one of those points will be very specially and carefully considered.
Sir D. HERBERT: May I venture to express the hope that the Prime Minister will give time for an adequate consideration of such report when it comes?
The PRIME MINISTER: I think that there will be in one day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [3RD ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Resolution [12th March] reported.

  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1931 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
  "That a sum, not exceeding £152,710,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charges for the following Civil and Revenue Departments (including Pensions, Education, Insurance, and other Grants, and Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues) for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932."
  [For details of Vote on Account, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th M arch, 1931; cols. 1413–16.]
  Resolution read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

POST OFFICE.
Mr. MACPHERSON: I need offer no apology to the House for opening a discussion on a matter which affects directly and indirectly, every industry, every home, every man, and every woman in the country. I realise that my hon. Friend the Postmaster-General is new to his task. It seems to be our fate in this House to welcome new Postmasters-General, who sojourn in that capacity for a brief space in our midst. Those who have left us are in numbers as thick as leaves in Vallambrosa. They may have received promotion and in almost every case they have thoroughly deserved it. If they have improved their position, I venture to think that their sudden and quick departure from an office the details of which they have struggled to master has not been of benefit to that most remarkable Service over which they have had control. The Post Office is the largest employer of labour in the country. The numbers employed vary from thousands in the great cities, whether in the post offices, in the exchanges or in the telephone offices, to the lonely individual who perambulates daily in the silent places of the country-
2166
side, bringing his compact burden of joy or sorrow to the scattered inhabitants of those outposts.
On more than one occasion I have raised the question of the penny post, and I have not been alone in advocating the return to that exceedingly laudable and valuable institution. Postmaster-General after Postmaster-General has expressed a desire to see the penny post once again in force. It was abolished as a War measure, but the War has been over for 12 years and we seem daily to be receding from our desired object. Any Postmaster-General since the War could easily have returned to the penny post and have restored what every chamber of commerce, every business house and every man and woman in the country desires; but the Post Office has never been run as an ordinary business. The profits of the Post Office during the last 10 years have been enormous, and they are growing daily. I believe I am right in saying that at the present time from this great public service the profits are between £9,000,000 and £12,000,000 a year. If the Post Office were run as an ordinary business concern it would not be necessary to take any money out of those profits to restore the penny postage.
I put a question to a Postmaster-General who is no longer with us the late Mr. Vernon Hartshorn, and he told me that if we had at that time, in 1924, returned to the penny postage we should have had an increase of 300,000,000 letters per year bearing penny stamps. He was of the opinion then that that restoration, which was so much valued by the people in pre-War days, would have paid for itself. The Post Office ceased a long time ago to be run as a businesss concern. It is an appanage of the Treasury. The dead hand of that august overlord is ever upon it. It does not return into the business out of those gigantic profits as much as it did before the War. I will make a statement which I think will be assented to by every Member of this House who has any connection with rural constituencies. I make bold to say that the postal facilities to-day are worse than they were before the War, and with very much less justification.
I will take a typical case from my own constituency. Other hon. Members will have equally typical cases. I raised the other day the case of the remote village

2167
of Applecross. We are giving a very great subsidy to the MacBrayne Company to provide services just as good as they were before the War. That was part of the contract which this Government entered into with MacBrayne's. What are the facts? The services to this particular place are not as good as they were before the War. I could give many other instances. What reason is there why we should not have out of these enormous profits a universal daily service even in the remotest part of my constituency? We who represent rural constituencies have time and again brought hard cases of that kind before the Postmaster-General. The matter has been looked into and they have been sympathetic, but the invariable reply has been that the business done in those localities was not sufficient to justify the outlay. I see the present Postmaster-General and the late Postmaster-General present. I am certain that that reply was not their reply. They are widely sympathetic men who understand local difficulties and know the value of daily deliveries in remote districts. I can see the dead hand of the Treasury in each of those replies.
4.0 p.m.
The postal service is a national service and the richer districts ought to support the poorer districts. We had in Scotland a very fine system in the voluntary churches called the sustentation fund, a very sensible system, initiated by that wonderful divine and economist Dr. Chalmers, who maintained that whether Church or State combined in support of a great undertaking those who were the richer were in duty bound to support those who were poorer. The result was that for nearly a century those churches flourished. The State in these national services have the same duty. When the State makes enormous profits those profits should not go to extraneous services foreign to the general purposes of the State, but they ought to go to the same object as that from which the profits were made, for the support and general betterment of the national service in question. The Post Office, quite recently, embarked in a great many new undertakings, and I would like to ask one or two questions with regard to them. There is the new undertaking which is commonly called C.O.D.—cash-on-delivery. Again,
2168
as a Member for a rural constituency, I am very much interested in that. I did not, on the whole, approve of it, because, like mass production, it is one of those things which is destroying rural industries in the small villages. In the old days shoemakers, smiths and tailors had their small custom in their various small townships. They are now supplanted by mass production, and cash-on-delivery. They are no longer in existence. You can go to any village, whether in England, Scotland or Wales, and the old craftsmanship and the old workmanship have all vanished. I should like my right hon. Friend to tell me how the cash-on-delivery system is working now.
I should like, also, to ask the hon. Gentleman about the telegraph service. I understand, although we have not got recent figures, that the telegraph service is on the wane, that it is a dying service. That is to be expected, because the telephone has come in and displaced it. Where 100 people in the old days used the telegraph office, I do not believe to-day you will find five, because of the advent of the telephone. Not so long ago a very interesting and very powerful committee was appointed to consider the whole question of the telegraph service. I refer to the Lever Committee. On more than one occasion I asked Postmaster-General after Postmaster-General how the recommendations of that committee had been dealt with. Some of them—a good many, I regret to say, are trivial—have been put into force; others have not. I want to ask my right hon. Friend whether he proposes to put into force the remainder of those recommendations, which, if I remember aright, were unanimously accepted as being in the best interest of the service.
There is no doubt that at the present time what interests the public mind, as far as this service is concerned, is the extension and development of the telephone. There has scarcely ever been such a great romance as the romance of the telephone, when you consider that less than 50 years ago it was nothing more or less than a scientific toy, and now in this country we have as many as 2,000,000 telephones in active operation. I believe it is perfectly true that if you care to use the telephone in your house at your leisure, you can get into personal

2169
touch with no fewer than 26,000,000 subscribers on both sides of the Atlantic. It is a very marvellous achievement in science. But what do we find as far as this country is concerned? We are only tenth on the list in what is called comparative telephone density. I have been supplied by one of my hon. Friends with certain figures which, I believe, were used not so long ago, but which, I think, are worth giving again. These figures are the latest available, and the telephone density is taken per thousand.
We find that in the United States of America there are 169 telephones for every 1,000 persons; in Canada, 149; New Zealand, 108; Denmark, 94; Sweden, 83; Australia, 82; Norway, 66; Switzerland, 65; Germany, 60; Great Britain, 42. These figures clearly show that Great Britain takes the tenth place in comparative telephone density. That is surely a state of matters which is hardly tolerable in a country like this, and its lowly position is not accounted for by the notorious under-development of telephones in rural areas in this island. I will instance one or two comparisons not dealing with rural areas, where, notoriously, there is at present underdevelopment, although my right hon. Friend who has just left to become a leaf of Vallombrosa did yeoman service in attempting to develop, particularly in my part of the world, the rural telephone.
Take London, which has a population of about 7,500,000. Berlin, with a population 54 per cent. that of London, has 80 per cent. of the number of telephones in London. Oslo, which, in the old days, was Christiania, has as many telephones as Birmingham, although its population is only 23 per cent. that of Birmingham. Frankfort has as many telephones as Manchester, but only 44 per cent. of its population. Edinburgh, one of the best developed and most beautiful cities in the world, has 23,000 telephones, while Hanover, with about the same population, has 32,000 telephones. It is hardly necessary to elaborate the economic necessity to a nation of possessing an adequately developed telephone service. One has only to consider what would happen to-day if there were total or temporary dislocation of business and social life by a breakdown in the telephone service. It has become a real and a genuine part in the commercial,
2170
social, industrial and political life of this country. After all is said and done, it is like a good road or a good railway—it is the one means that humanity knows at the present time of transporting intelligence quickly over large areas from one firm to another, or from one person to another, and it is our duty, if we are to remain in the forefront as a commercial nation, to see to it that we take our rightful place in the world as a telephone-using nation.
In order to place ourselves in that position, there are three or four essentials which must be looked to. First of all, the controlling Department, namely, the Post Office, must guarantee four or five things. They must guarantee good service. They must guarantee reasonable prices. They must guarantee attractive conditions for obtaining service. They must guarantee quick connection for new subscribers. Last, and most important of all, they must have an intensive publicity campaign of good and effective advertising. This is the most important of all. Postmasters-General in the past—I do not accuse my right hon. Friend the new Minister of Education of saying it—have said that, as long as the Post Office caters for the demand, that is all that is expected of it. No other country in the world takes that view. It is not the industrial view; it is not the commercial view; it is not the view of any sane man who understands modern conditions. What happens in America, for instance? Ever since the telephone system was founded, Americans have gone upon one principle, which is the recognised principle in every advance business, namely, of going ahead of business.
What has the Post Office done since the last Debate on this subject to stimulate demand as far as the use of the telephone is concerned? I have already admitted that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education did a great deal. I can mention places on the west coast of Scotland—Gareloch, Ullapool and the Island of Skye—where I had, I think, the first long-distance call to London from those remote places. I have no doubt that in the course of time it will revolutionise those particularly beautiful and lonely districts. Let me tell the House what happened there. Take the case of Skye. No sooner was the telephone system started there with the

2171
minimum number of subscribers the Post Office insists upon getting, than 15 more people in a fortnight desired to have a telephone put in. If that happens in a conservative part of the world—I do not mean, of course politically, but conservative from the point of view of moving slowly—how much more would it happen in parts of the country much more advanced, not in education, but in general productive development.
I have no doubt that a great many of my friends will cavil at my using as a sort of Bible for everything connected with modern advance in industry—if not modern advance, at any rate, intelligent anticipation of what the country will consider to be the right thing in a short time—the new Yellow Book, on the cover of which I see, in large capitals, the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), the name of a very distinguished Member of the other House, the Marquess of Lothian, and a name which is a household word in everything connected with industrial investigation—Mr. Seebohm Rowntree. What do they say on page 77? The passage is exceedingly short and very germane:
"How profitable an increase in the canvassing efforts of the telephone department would be is clearly shown by specimen results already achieved. The Postmaster-General informs us, in a very interesting memorandum, that special intensive canvasses were recently carried out in some 12 centres by the department. The number of canvassers employed varied from two to eight, and the length of time from two to six weeks. In all the equivalent of 47 men-months, or the work of four men for one year, was utilised. The yield in orders, as compared with the yield in corresponding previous periods in the same centres, was as follows:

Orders Received.

—

Direct lines.

Extensions.

Special canvass

375

182

Ordinary period

166

73

Extra yield of orders from special canvass.

209

109

Thus, during the period of special canvass, the orders received for direct lines were 225 per cent. of those secured at ordinary times, and the orders for extensions 250 per cent. of the average rate.
Apart from canvassing, the only other publicity work that is done is the fixing of posters in post offices and telephone kiosks, and the distribution through the post of some millions of circulars."
These are very remarkable figures, official figures supplied by the Post Office, and they show conclusively what can be done by an attempt to go ahead of business. The moment people get accustomed to a certain thing they will use it; when they see it being worked they will desire to have it. No man desires to have a telephone if there is no one in the district to whom he can telephone, but once it is started they say "if you are going to have a telephone I am going to have one too." That is what is happening. In the North of Scotland and in Wales the progressive farming community have found that with a telephone it is not incumbent upon them to go every day to the market town to find out the price of things; it has been of enormous advantage to agriculture. If the present Government are to go ahead with their scheme of repeopling the countryside one of the most essential things is to have an extension of the telephone system. Instead of assisting the development of this wonderful piece of industrial machinery what has been happening recently? I hope the figures I am going to quote are accurate, they are the last available. The commercial accounts for the year ending the 31st March, 1930, were issued a few weeks ago and they show these extraordinary items; the net addition to plant during the year was £8,907,000. This compares with £10,878,000 in 1926, £9,557,000 in 1927, £9,236,000 in 1928 and £9,290,000 in 1929.
Apparently, as the unemployment problem has become more acute the Post Office has correspondingly cut down expenditure on works of this kind. That is a state of things which is not tolerable in view of the present state of unemployment and the evergrowing demand that the Post Office should take its courage in both hands and be ahead of business. It is not only upon evidence of that kind that I rely. Take those who are daily connected with the work of the Post Office, the employés inside and outside the Post Office; what do they say? There is dissatisfaction with the present system and you have for instance the Union of Post Office Workers sending a deputation to the Postmaster-General

2173
urging for more publicity because they know from their experience that the more you advertise the more you get, the more you extend work the more chance of employment there is for themselves. You have the National Federation of Postal Workers and Clerks. They gave evidence the other day before the Royal Commission on the Civil Service and they expressed the view that the rigidity of Treasury control hampers development; which is my point. I believe every Postmaster-General is anxious and desirous to do his level best, but as they say:
"The rigidity of Treasury control hampers the development of the Post Office and a more elastic system of administration, combined with financial autonomy of the Post Office, is desirable."
That is my case in a nutshell, and these are the people who understand the inner workings of the Post Office. Outside the Department you have resolution after resolution from Chambers of Commerce and business organisations all desirous that there should be not only elasticity but freedom from the overlordship of the Treasury and that the Postmaster-General should be more in touch with the feelings of the country through the representatives of the country in Parliament. No one wants him to do a job, but one does want him to be in a position to use money which the service produces in the shape of profits in the best interests of the country as a whole.
I should also like the Postmaster-General to give us some information as to the workings and popularity of the dial or automatic telephone. I have been wondering what effect the introduction of the dial will have upon the labour employed. When looking at my own dial machine, I thought that personally I did all the work and that there might be some dislocation of labour in the exchange offices. It is a serious problem, and I hope the Postmaster-General will deal with the point as to whether he is going to recruit more or whether the numbers at present used are sufficient; and what is the general effect upon labour in the various offices.
There are one or two complaints which one usually hears. For example, in the telephone directory there is a miserable amount of space given to addresses. I happened to be looking up the address of a friend in Hampstead who I thought lived in Daleham Road, and there was
2174
only the letters "DLM." That seems to be most unfair and to be taking money by false pretences. The main thing, of course, is to get the telephone number, but for the purposes of identification you should have a sufficient number of letters which will identify the name of the street. It is a small thing, but it is one which might create a great deal of inconvenience and hardship to telephone users in cities. Again, what is the reason for splitting up the telephone book? I cannot understand it, nor have I seen any reason given for it. If it is an attempt at economy before the 31st of March there may be some justification for it, but it is an obvious hardship on telephone users. If you are going to have a telephone book for general purposes you should have a book with all the letters of the alphabet. It should not stop at L or M, because the very name you may be wanting is probably Y, which is not in the telephone book, and you have to go through all sorts of trouble to find out the number. Perhaps the Postmaster-General will explain to telephone users why he has dared to halve this well-known book.
I want to say a few words with regard to the British Broadcasting Corporation. I know that I am treading upon dangerous ground, but I do not propose to say anything about the grant for grand opera, as this obviously is an inappropriate occasion to discuss that matter. I was present when this Corporation was given its Charter and I realise to the full that the Postmaster-General in this matter is, to use a Post Office phrase, "merely a postman," and that he will carry a letter from this House to-day and hand it in at Savoy Hill, or wherever the British Broadcasting Corporation happens to be at the moment, and in a humble way explain to this Olympic body what exactly is the feeling of the House of Commons as representatives of the country in regard to its operations. The British Broadcasting Corporation is an independent body with complete freedom of action and decision, but we as the representatives of the people of this country are tremendously interested in it and in its operations. I know of no force so mighty for good or evil as the British Broadcasting Corporation. It is an instrument which can enrich and ennoble life, and it has extraordinary

2175
far-reaching effects particularly upon the young of this country.
Only the other day, I was talking to a distinguished divine who told me that when he was asked to broadcast a service in five minutes he addressed more people of all ages than John Wesley addressed during the whole course of his life. [An HON. MEMBER: "He thought he did!"] I will put it that way if the hon. Member desires, but I am perfectly certain that the name of this distinguished clergyman would make everybody listen to him. There is no doubt that with a big corporation of this kind you get varying opinions. Some people say that there is too much music, others that there is too much Socialism, and others that there is too much bias one way or the other. It is the old Latin saying, tot homines tot sententiae.
Personally, I think that the British Broadcasting Company do some things extraordinarily well. There is nothing to equal the running commentaries upon great football matches, whether association or rugby, and there are at times things which command the most profound respect and admiration of all those who listen because one feels that those in authority are genuinely trying to interpret the wishes of a very difficult clientele.
There has been a good deal of discussion with regard to the stopping, I will not say banning, of radio plays. It has been said that the British Broadcasting Corporation have no policy other than expediency. I understand that as far as this House is concerned the various parties have come to some arrangement with regard to the amount of lecturing which each party is allowed to have. But I am one of those who believe that the present mood of the people of this country is a controversial mood. I firmly believe that people wish to hear the two sides of a question, and that they very often wish to hear the great protagonists on the one side and the other. If it were at all possible I should like the Postmaster-General to tell the British Broadcasting Corporation that this House is very anxious that in certain matters where there is a great deal of public feeling aroused, expression should be given to that feeling by the great protagonists on the one side and the other. One must
2176
remember that this is a new and mighty force. Consequently one can appreciate the fact that those in authority have to be more or less conservative in the way in which they do their work.
I am glad that there has been a protest against biased propaganda. I should feel uncomfortable if there were propaganda that was biased towards my own party, for I think it would be unfair. What people want to hear is the truth, and they want to hear it without any diffidence. I for one pay this compliment to the British Broadcasting Corporation, that on the whole they are doing their work with great fearlessness and great fairness, and that they are attempting, in a very difficult position, to interpret what they regard as the genuine and the lasting phase of all that is best in this country. My hon. Friend the Postmaster-General might be able to tell the House whether there has been any increase in the number of wireless sets or any reduction in prices. The House is very anxious to hear about the great Broadcasting Corporation. I have said all that I want to say, and I hope that I have not been unduly long. I have attempted as best I can to traverse what I regard as points that are of interest to the public mind, and if I have done that successfully, I shall be glad, because it will enable my hon. Friend, whom we welcome in his new position as Postmaster-General, to give the House the information that it desires to have.
Mr. O'CONNOR: I know that the whole House would like to congratulate the Postmaster-General on the position that he now enjoys, which we all feel to be a recognition of the great service he has done to the country in connection with the Statutory Commission and in other Departments of the Government in which he has served. Incidentally we feel rather sorry for him on this side, because many of us feel that he has taken on an absolutely impossible job, which daily becomes an anachronism and an anomaly in our public life—an anachronism which many of us hope to remove if and when in the near future we are restored to the reins of office. I want to make only one reference to the concluding remarks of the last speaker regarding the British Broadcasting Corporation. I will put my point of view to the Postmaster-General

2177
in order to give him an opportunity of clearing the public mind on the subject. As I understand it, the British Broadcasting Corporation, in determining who are to be the spokesmen for the different parties or the different points of view, is guided by the official Whips of the different parties. I do not know definitely whether that is so or not, and the Postmaster-General will be able to tell me if I am wrong. But if I am right I suggest to him that that is taking a very narrow view of public controversy in this country.
I can see no earthly reason why broadcasting controversy should be placed within the comparatively narrow limits represented by the party Whips. I do not see why the hon. Baronet the Member for Smethwick (Sir O. Mosley) should not have an opportunity of blowing off steam if he so desires, or Sir Ernest Petter. Party opinions are not crystallised in the way in which they used to be crystallised. No one objects more profoundly to or disagrees more completely with the views of the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) on the subject of India than I do, but I do not think that any good is done by precluding the expression of that kind of opinion through a great Corporation like this, and I think it is taking too narrow a view of their functions if the Corporation say that they are going to receive only statements made by persons who have been nominated by the party Whips. For Heaven's sake let us have as much freedom of expression of opinion within the parties as we can. The days are past when we were all mere nominees of the party Whips, and when we were satisfied to be nominated by the party Whips as representatives of the opinion of our party.
There was one part of the speech of the last speaker with which every one in the House and in the country will agree, and that was his statement that the service rendered by the Post Office to-day is far worse than before the War. It is slower; there are fewer deliveries; there is no Sunday delivery. There is no earthly reason, at a time when there are 2,500,000 unemployed and when we ought to take every step to expedite methods of communication and to facilitate business, why a great many of the facilities enjoyed before the War should not be
2178
enjoyed to-day. Take the two services, the telegraphs and the telephones. My view is that the telegraph system to-day is nothing more than a joke, a jest. It is a moribund service which feels the creeping paralysis of death approaching and is making no attempt whatever to shake itself out of its impending doom. The telegraph system has become an adjunct supplementary to the telephones, but it makes no attempt whatever to be complementary.
It is useless to run two competing systems. They ought to be made complementary and supplementary, and a drastic alteration ought to be made in the rates at which telegrams are sent. The rates should be modified in cases where they are competing with the telephones. There ought to be a variable rate, smaller for the short distances and higher for the longer distances. You would thus still get a competitive rate as against the telephone. But the telegraph service makes no attempt whatever to get business. Let me give two or three instances that have come within my own observations. Such instances can doubtless be supplemented by others. I wonder whether the Postmaster-General himself knows that there is no telephone office on the platform from which the cross-Channel steamers sail at Dover, and that one has to walk the best part of a quarter of a mile to find a telegraph office? That is absurd. It is almost incredible that any business organisation could have allowed such a thing to continue. One has to cross four platforms in order to find a telegraph office. There must be many people crossing the Channel who at the last moment desire to send a message, and yet no attempt is made to offer them facilities or to increase the telephone service in that way.
Then in regard to railway trains, one would imagine that if the telegraph system was attempting to get business some effort would be made to get it from people who are proceeding on the great main routes of this country. On some of the big main line stations, for instance at Leicester or Rugby or Crewe, there might be messenger boys to receive telegrams. If there were facilities of that kind the trade would come. People would get to know that there were facilities, and they would have their telegrams written out ready to be handed to the boys. This

2179
proposal is nothing startling. It is what private enterprise, what the great American telegraph and cable companies do. You cannot step on a train in the United States or board a boat at Liverpool without being badgered by the representatives of two or three competing companies with requests for your telegrams. There is no emergency service.
The Post Office does not seem to have realised that nowadays, with the development of the telephone, people will send telegrams only at times when it is impossible for them to telephone. Let me give an example of an occurrence in this House. The telegraph office here is open all night when there is an all-night sitting, but for what earthly reason I do not know, because one cannot send a telegram. Last Session there was an all-night sitting during which we debated the staggering figures of unemployment. I did my duty so assiduously that I was here at 6 o'clock in the morning. I had people coming to see me from a great industrial city, and they were leaving that city at 8.20 in the morning. I desired to put them off and wanted to send a telegram. In that city there were thousands out of work, but at 6 o'clock in the morn-it was impossible for me to hand in here a telegram which the Post Office would undertake to deliver at the other end before my visitors left at 8.20.
The telegraph service will disappear in complete desuetude unless something drastic is done with it. No one in the Post Office seems to think it his particular business to give any assistance. In these matters every member of the public has his own personal experience and growls upon these subjects. If the Postmaster-General would disguise those benevolent features which have made him so famous in the House, and would walk into any Post Office in London at mid-day and say, "I have here an express letter. I want to know whether that letter can be delivered in Reading this evening if I put six extra penny stamps upon it," I guarantee that in this neighbourhood no one would be able to tell him. It might be that if he rang up some number in the City and paid 2d. more, some person might be able to tell him of the probabilities, but no one will tell him whether an express letter would be delivered in Reading, only 30 miles away, if he put
2180
on the six extra stamps. The probability is that he would be handing over 6d. to the Post Office and getting nothing what-even in return, for it would be impossible to get the stamps off or to get the money back.
Let me say a few words about the telephone service. The last speaker gave some figures which I would supplement. In the United States there are 22,000,000 telephones, as against our 1,900,000. But I have some even more significant figures. Other countries have recognised that sterile State control leads nowhere, and that there must be a change if progress is to be made. Five years ago Spain handed over her telephones to concessionaires, and in those five years the number of subscribers has been doubled. Signor Mussolini came to the same conclusion in 1925. Italy was divided into four zones, and each zone was handed over to a public utility corporation. Since then the number of subscribers has been doubled.
What is the position as regards our own service? We are not increasing but slowing down. In 1925 the percentage development rate was 9.2; in 1926 it was 8.7; in 1927, 8.2; in 1928, 7.7; in 1929, 7.3 and, as one would expect under a Socialist Government, in 1930 it fell to 5.9. Those figures, under the present rigid system provide a horrible example of how things can be mismanaged in the iron grip of State control, without the wider methods of public utility corporations which are gaining adherents every day among both Socialists and capitalists. The telephone can be described as the greatest irritant in life. I believe it is responsible for more of the nervous disease's which afflict humanity than almost anything else. It is all very well for the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) to say that each telephone is an advertisement. Each telephone is an advertisement only if a good service is being given. If not, each telephone is a warning and, when the service is so shocking—as in the case of our rural districts—that people go round complaining about it, that has the effect of preventing people from having telephones. I recommend the Postmaster-General to ascertain the number of people who in the normal course might be expected to be telephone-users and who

2181
have had the telephone for a time and have then given it up. I know of a great many people who have given up the telephone simply because of the irritation which it causes and the defects of the service and the apparent impossibility of remedying those defects.
I am the unfortunate possesor of three telephones. I have one in the City, and it is not so bad. It has only been Gut of work about three days in the last year. It is true that I was made a little jealous the other day when an American lady told me that her telephone in New York had only been out of order for half-an-hour in three years, but, as things go in this country, three days in one year is not bad. I have also a telephone on the Gerrard Exchange, and, owing to the great courtesy and helpfulness of my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General, I have been able to get that telephone attended to. Previously I had communicated with the exchange in the ordinary way for weeks and weeks without any effect. There was what is called an "intermittent fault," and, of all the maddening things which can arise in connection with the telephone, an intermittent fault is the worst. You never know when your telephone will work and when it will not work. It will perhaps cease to work, and then when an official comes to look to it, it is working all right. It is difficult for ordinary subscribers to have things of that kind put right, unless they are in the specially favoured position, as I was, of being acquainted with the Assistant Postmaster-General.
There is a moral to be drawn from the case of my third telephone. It is in a country district and is on a party line. Last year it was out of order on at least 12 whole days, and certainly on 12 occasions. I did not start counting until after about the sixth occasion so I cannot give exact figures, but that telephone was completely out of commission on about 12 or 15 whole days in the year. The lines which lead to it go across a bare upland in the neighbourhood of the Cotswolds, and every time the wind rises above a whistle in those parts, down go the wires, and out come the gangmen, and off goes my service, and then I blaspheme. I am afraid I am not a good advertisement for the telephone in that district. Down below in the valley there
2182
is an ironworks which stopped working last year, and in that little village, only a mile away, there are dozens and scores of ironworkers who are unemployed and who could easily be turned on to the work of putting these wires underground and running them through iron pipes which they themselves could manufacture. The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of every telephone providing new subscribers, but that would be a most effective method of providing new subscribers.
There is not the smallest reason why the rate of underground construction of telephone communications should not be trebled in this country. That is a suggestion which I would make to the Postmaster-General, who will probably be the last occupant of that office in its present form at any rate. I hope that in the order of nature the hon. Gentleman will survive this Parliament holding his present office, but I also hope that, when our party take office again, they will take their courage in both hands and abolish the present State control of the telephone and telegraph services. [HON. MEMBERS: "Optimist!"] Perhaps I am not so much of an optimist as hon. Members think. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has always got his ear well to the ground and has the keenest political perception of any man in England at the present time. He has put that proposal in his programme and in his policy. I do not always follow the right hon. Gentleman, but I believe him to be right in that matter. You would have the support of public opinion from one end of the country to the other if you went all out for turning over these services to the control of a public utility corporation.
I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs in his road programme, because, for every road you build you place a burden upon the rates and the taxes to sustain that road, but for every mile of telephonic or telegraphic wires laid underground you effect a saving of expenditure and you increase the goodwill of your telephone service, if you look upon it as a business, because you have more satisfied subscribers. I have ventured to point out two or three

2183
respects in which I think the telegraphic service might be improved, and I have ventured to give some reasons why the telephonic service is so unpopular. If, as I sincerely hope, the hon. Gentleman is to be the last to hold the office of Postmaster-General in its present form, I suggest that he should spend the remainder of his tenure of that office in working out programmes for the handing over of these great services to a more rational, more flexible, and more business-like form of control.
Mr. BOWEN: I join with the two previous speakers in congratulating my hon. Friend upon his appointment as Postmaster-General, and I express the hope that he will have a long and successful career. I do not share the views of the hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor), whose speech leads me to believe that his study of the Post Office has been very short and incomplete; otherwise, he would not have committed himself so clearly to some of the statements which he has made. In the deputation room at the General Post Office there is a very interesting display of photographs of past Postmasters-General. Reference has already been made to the rapidity of the changes in that office, and I share in the disappointment that has been expressed at the fact that as soon as the staff have trained a Postmaster-General he is moved off to some other office. It may interest the House, and particularly the hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham, to know that there are 16 vacant panels in that deputation room awaiting the photographs of 16 future Postmasters-General.
Mr. O'CONNOR: During this Government?
Mr. BOWEN: No. That is the reason why I have wished my hon. Friend the present Postmaster-General a very long and a successful career. I was very interested in the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson). Although my position in some respects is somewhat difficult, at the same time, after an association of 40 years with the Post Office, I think I can presume to say that I know a little about it, and I was interested in the right hon. and
2184
learned Gentleman's speech, and also in the speech which followed it, because both referred to the Post Office as a very important service. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty described it as a remarkable service and mentioned that the Postmaster-General was the largest employer of labour, but his views were rather contradicted by the hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham, who denounced the Post Office service very severely. I venture to suggest that, with all the shortcomings which the hon. and learned Gentleman was at some pains to show, there is no service in the country which can show anything like the success of the Post Office. There is no service, there is no industry, which can show anything like its successful organisation. No one knows its defects more than I do, and perhaps I shall refer to some of them this afternoon, but, with all those defects, its success is undoubted.
I share the view expressed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty as to Post Office development, but I doubt whether he is on sound ground in suggesting an immediate return to penny postage. I wonder if he has considered that in any return to penny postage now the public would be receiving much more value than they were receiving in the pre-War penny postage, owing to the difference of prices. I, personally, would not stand in the way of penny postage provided that other liabilities were taken into account. It is also true that there are many difficulties surrounding the position of the Postmaster-General in relation to the Treasury and the rigid control which the Treasury exercises over his Department. We have long advocated that that rigid control should be relaxed, but. I doubt if it would be sound policy, or in the interests of the community, that the control of the Post Office should be taken from this House. It is a service which touches the public very closely. Every item, every movement in our industrial and social life, has some attachment to the Post Office, and such a service should be under the control of this House. I suggest, however, that the office of Postmaster-General should be increased in status and that the occupant should be encouraged to stay there much longer than he generally does under present conditions.

2185
The office of Postmaster-General in my judgment is worthy of a much higher status than has been accorded to it up to the present.
5.0 p.m.
I think it is generally agreed that the Post Office service should be developed, and I join with those who urge that the development should take place as quickly as possible. I was much interested to note that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty suggests that the Postmaster-General should take his courage in both hands in reference to the development of these services, while the hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham suggests that somebody else should take the service in hand in order to secure the right type of development. If, for example, there is difficulty with over-head wires, it may be suggested that all those wires should be placed underground, but I would like my hon. Friend to consider the fact that the Post Office has had this service since 1911 and has laid miles and miles of cable underground already and proposes to do more. But, taking the country all over, there is a very wide area to be covered, and it will take many years to do that work. The hon. and learned Member therefore will see that his proposal is not one that can be immediately put into operation. But I should not discourage him in the belief that it is the right thing to do, nor would I discourage anyone in the suggestion that rural districts should have a complete telephone service.
There is one point on which I must make my position plain. The public will not be entitled to receive this extended telephone service by the employment of cheap labour. Unfortunately, that is the underlying proposition of a good many of the suggestions put forward. It is true my right hon. Friend did not make that suggestion. He was gracious enough to suggest that the Post Office should spend money, that there was a huge surplus which the Post Office could absorb, and that the richer districts ought to pay for the poorer ones. That has been the policy of the Post Office ever since I have known it. The richer districts do pay for the poorer ones. If hon. Members take the district represented by my right hon. and learned Friend, they will see that many parts of that district cannot be economic-
2186
ally paying from the Post Office point of view and, therefore, somebody or other has to pay for the Post Office services in that district.
I feel very strongly that too much is made of the alleged lack of telephone development in this country as compared with other countries. You can express a good many things in figures, but figures do not get down to the real basic fact that the British public is not a telephone-using public, not necessarily because it has not been encouraged to use the telephone. If it has not been encouraged, then the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) has some responsibility, because it is only of late that we have seen publicity in regard to telephones. I remember, not so very long ago, when the Noble Lord was in office, taking a deputation to him and to his right hon. Friend suggesting wider publicity for the telephone service. But nothing was done at that time. There are indications, however, from recent developments that we can now look forward to some more publicity in that direction.
Viscount WOLMER: We have had less telephone development under this Government than under any other.
Mr. BOWEN: The Noble Lord knows perfectly well that the expenditure quoted does not give a flair representation of the development that has taken place. Last year a large amount of money was spent in laying down cables. That work has been overtaken year by year, but to compare the expenditure of last year with this year, or the expenditure of this year with the previous two years, is not a true indication of the development that has taken place. The Noble Lord also knows that the automatic telephone service has been very considerably extended, and that year by year more automatic telephone exchanges are coming into operation. But if the Post Office is to be a public service, if the Post Office is to have regard to the public demand, it must be recognised that the call for such a service cannot be in keeping with the call for what has been described as national economy. You cannot save money and, at the same time, call for expenditure on uneconomical proposals which will take years to become paying propositions. It will take years before the rural telephone service can be made to pay, but I would join with my right hon. Friend in agreeing that the Department

2187
ought to develop rural telephones to the greatest extent, because the Post Office, as a public service, should be available for everything that the public may demand.
I go further, and I suggest that the density of telephone users must depend on how far the use of the telephone can be inculcated as a national habit. It is very difficult to cultivate the telephone habit in this country. How many Members of this House, I wonder, are fond of going to the telephone? It is something to which the British public is not yet educated. My hon. Friend said that he had three telephones and that he had difficulty with every one of them. I would ask him; does he really consider himself to be a good subscriber? Is he the right type of man to be at the other end of the wire. There are some difficulties of that kind experienced by the staff, as I know well. When complaints are made about the staffing, let us admit things all round. There are mechanical difficulties as well as human difficulties. The staff is not always perfect, but it would be very difficult for any Member of this House to find any staff in any country anything like so perfect. It is true that many subscribers make the mistake of believing, if something goes wrong with them at breakfast time, that it is the telephone operator who should be responsible.
Mr. O'CONNOR: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that something going wrong at breakfast time causes my wires to come down?
Mr. BOWEN: No, nor can I be responsible for the wind on the Cotswold Hills. That wind, at times, will blow down the wires, however, many you may put up. I was going to suggest some criticism of the Post Office from a constructive point of view. My first point is that the Post Office buildings are nothing like what they could be made. Post Office buildings themselves, the sorting offices, the telegraph offices, and some telephone exchanges, are not a credit to the British public. Not only would I criticise the Postmasters-General on this side, but I would criticise the Postmasters-Genera] on the other side for their share of responsibility. We have pleaded for many years for improved Post Office buildings, but we have only been able to get them at a very slow rate.
2188
This brings me to the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty that the Office of Works has something to do with this matter. We know that many of the Post Offices throughout the country are in a seriously dilapidated condition. They are very much out of date, and they are really an obstruction and a handicap to organisation. I suggest that the Postmaster-General should make this one of his early studies. We do not see why the amount spent on Post Office buildings, which appears to be very little when considered in relation to the size of the Department and the volume of work, should not be increased. I find that last year for new accommodation, alterations and additions, a sum of only £36,000 was provided. Surely expenditure very much in excess of that sum is required. It was stated by the ex-Postmaster-General some time ago in an interview that it was his desire to find occupation for the unemployed. Here his successor has a big scope, and there is an opportunity for the Office of Works and the Post Office to improve these offices.
The standard of most of the Post Office buildings is very low. Many of them are badly equipped and the staff conditions are often bad. Many new offices are urgently necessary, and these public works should, I suggest, be accelerated in order to increase employment. The building programme that I suggest in this connection is a business proposal because the expenditure could be recovered by increased efficiency due to better organisation and working conditions. It does not pay in the Post Office to wait many years before getting new offices. There is real ground for complaint that the Postmaster-General must find himself hindered when he has to deal with both the Treasury and the Office of Works in the provision of buildings of this kind. I understand that there are four general grounds on which the Treasury will consent to new buildings: (1), That there is not security of tenure for the old buildings; (2), that there is some danger to the health of the staff; (3), that telephone requirements needed in a combined postal and telegraph building shall be taken into account; and (4), that there is increasing traffic. I further understand that these four requirements must necessarily be fulfilled

2189
before a new building can be put up. I suggest that other conditions as well must be fulfilled, and I hope the Postmaster-General will give consideration to this matter.
I would ask the Postmaster-General whether he could give us any information on the suggestion made by the late Postmaster-General some 18 months ago, when he said that he had in hand a large-scale programme for brightening post offices with the twofold object of improving the offices themselves and finding work for the unemployed. He made reference to the repainting of offices inside and outside, to the provision of more windows, to the replacement of out-of-date furniture, to the provision of better carpets on the floors, and so on. Can the Postmaster-General give us a full statement of what has been done, and what has been proposed?
I come now to another subject to which I should like to refer, and, speaking in general terms, I am bound to repeat what I said a little earlier in remarking upon the readiness with which hon. Members opposite are ready to spend money on the Post Office. I agree, provided the money is properly expended, that it is not wasted and is paid out in the right way. It is said that the Post Office is a bad business concern. I have already defended that to the best of my ability, but I would illustrate what I mean by giving some of the profits of the Post Office. After deducting the loss on telegraphs and the loss on telephones in some years, the net surplus paid to the Treasury since 1912 has been over £83,500,000. In this connection and referring to the loss on telegrams and the criticism made that there has been no co-ordination between telegraphs and telephones, may I say that the committee referred to has had its report very fully examined for the last year or more by a joint committee of the Post Office and representatives of the staff so far as questions relating to staffs are concerned, and there has been taken into account plans for a complete reorganisation of the telegraph service, even to the introduction of completely new instruments which would give the telegraphs a more expeditious service. In that connection, I do not regard the telegraph service as so open to attack as my hon. Friend has suggested. You want your business people to send telegrams, other-
2190
wise the telegraph service will not be able to pay. I agree that there should be more and more publicity and canvassing for work both for the telegraph and telephone services.
The Post Office surplus for 1929–30, after charging interest on capital, was a record; it was £9,372,000. In spite of the decline in the telegraph traffic largely owing to telephone development, the telegraph deficit is only half the amount at which it stood eight years ago; it is only a quarter of the loss of 1920 and 1921. The telephone since 1922–23 has made a regular, although not very large, surplus, which was about £513,000 in 1929–30. For the year 1929–30 there is a total surplus of £14,428,000, which allows £5,000,000 odd for interest on capital, plus £9,000,000 for the net surplus. These figures represent over 10 per cent. on the capital in the Post Office, which is £140,000,000. That percentage has been averaged for eight years. It may not be easy to find a close comparison with industry in general, but the "Economist" index of industrial profits shows that in 1929 the return on all capital, including debenture capital, which roughly corresponds with the Post Office interest charges, was less than 1½ per cent, say 9½ per cent. It may be said therefore that the Post Office returns will bear comparison with private industry in respect, of its financial results.
Here I come to the worst part of my case from the Post Office point of view. I have already suggested that the development of the service should not be at the expense of cheap labour, but all this surplus has been at the expense of cheap labour in the past. I would like to ask the Postmaster-General at the beginning of his career to give his consideration to this question from a new viewpoint, and to look at the development of the service in relation to the staff. I have already shown the amount of money which the Post Office can bring to the Treasury, and I want my hon. Friend to look at his responsibility to his staff, and find out whether he cannot agree with us that it is time that this question was examined from a different point of view from that of the past. In the past we have been accustomed, when making claims for improved conditions for the staff, to be met with persistent

2191
and invariable opposition. We have been to industrial courts and so on, but still we find that there is a very low wage level. There is more work in relation to the size of the staff to-day than there has been for years. The Post Office staff in 1914, excluding South Ireland, was 219,600, which was almost the same as in 1924–25, when it was 220,049.
Almost every kind of work has increased over the pre-War period, except telegrams and one or two other small items. There has been an increase in letters to the extent of 7½ per cent., parcels 5 per cent., registered items 83 per cent., telephone trunk calls 106 per cent., local telephone calls 14 per cent., and some small reductions in telegrams, money orders, postal orders and express deliveries. There have been big increases in Savings Bank transactions, Government stock accounts, old age, widows' and orphans' pensions, and insurance stamps sold. There have also teen a big addition of new kinds of business since 1914, such as War pensions, savings certificates, postal drafts, War Loan dividends, entertainment stamps, licences, and the C.O.D. service. Since 1924–25, the staff has grown by only 10,000, which is equal to 4.8 per cent. It is now 230,675. The total volume of Post Office traffic, measured by gross revenue, has increased between 1924–25 and 1929–30 by 21 per cent.; that is, from £58,579,000 to £71,189,000. During those years letters have increased by nearly 10 per cent., telephone trunk calls by 53 per cent. and local telephone calls by 42 per cent.
In the question of pay to the staff, we cannot see the same satisfactory results. In December, 1930, there were 44,600 full-time adults receiving under 60s. a week including bonus, 18,000 under 50s. a week, and a number below that figure. My hon. Friend will be aware of the very serious discontent which prevails in the service as the result of the recent bonus cut; he will also be aware that of a very large number of people who suffer, a considerable number are well below what we call the poverty level. If there be any doubt about what may be regarded as the poverty level, the simple facts of the case can be put. Seven thousand sub-postmasters receive under £50 a year, and 5,000 receive under £100 but more
2192
than £50. It is that class of people who will be called upon to work the rural telephone services if they are developed. After the bonus drop on 1st March, the average remuneration of sub-postmasters will be £115 a year, out of which they have to pay for the post office staff. A bonus drop of 10 points means to them an average loss of £6 a year. On the engineering side, which consists of the men who maintain the telephones, a reduction of 10 points means a loss of 6 per cent. of the total pay of those earning from 50s. to 70s. a week. There are thousands of people on the traffic side who are in receipt of less than £2 10s. a week, while many of them receive less than £3 a week.
I suggest to my hon. Friend, therefore, that he should consider whether some change cannot be made, and whether the time has not gone for the Postmaster-General to say to his staff, "You are a good and efficient staff, and on occasions, when any public demonstration is necessary, I praise your work in the House of Commons." They appreciate that, but they would more appreciate a proposition from the Postmaster-General to reconsider the whole wage rates. I know that the Postmaster-General can say that they have their industrial court, and that they can argue it out with them. We know we can, but on the last occasion when we did so, the Post Office representative proposed a reduction, so that we are in a difficult position. We, therefore, suggest that the Postmaster-General should come to us and say, "For the first time in the life of the Post Office, we are showing some real concern for the staff. We are not philanthropic, and we are going to be businesslike. We admit that the total Post Office staff has increased less than the total volume of work; that since 1925 the staff has increased by 3.16 and the annual income by 16 per cent.; that the increased output on this basis is about 12 per cent. per head of the staff; that the Post Office revenue in 1929–30 is £9,500,000 more than in 1925–26; that the percentage of revenue expended on the staff has declined from 50 per cent. in 1925 to 46 per cent. in 1929–30." I suggest that these are points which my hon. Friend can consider.
The Post Office workers, like other civil servants, have suffered because of

2193
cost-of-living reductions of considerable severity. They appear to be unjustified by any reference to the volume of Post Office work or the revenue, or by reference to the wealth of the country. Except for some not considerable or general upward revisions in 1927, the Post Office manipulative grades have not advanced their basic rates since 1920. Low pay reacts on efficiency, and for this reason we suggest that the State should become a model employer, and that low pay in a service like this is likely to bring State enterprise into disrepute. I am not moved by the suggestion that if the Post Office were transferred to a public utility concern the staff would benefit or by the suggestion that the staff would derive benefit if the Postmaster-General And the telephones were taken away from the Post Office. I would remind hon. Members that the telephone service was brought to the Post Office because of the efficiency of the Post Office under a nationally controlled service after private enterprise had failed completely and miserably. The Post Office has not yet had sufficient time, or sufficient allowance for the War period, or for the high rises in prices. Nobody knows better than the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) what that means.
The suggestion cannot be made that a Socialist Government has been responsible for any decline in efficiency. I blame every previous Postmaster-General for the condition of affairs in which we find ourselves, but I would give them credit for the wonderful organisation that the Post Office is. I would like at the same time to suggest that there are many serious things to be cleared up before it can be regarded as a satisfactory service. The public undoubtedly receive from the Post Office staff, both established and unestablished, a vast volume of work and service which is not properly paid for. The Treasury are not entitled therefore to receive huge surpluses from the Post Office until they have first met their commitments to the people who have to make those surpluses.
I would like to refer to a special case of which my hon. Friend has some knowledge. It is a remarkable story of a great injustice, and I am sorry that the Minister responsible is not present. The Minister who should be here to hear this
2194
is the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, but as it reflects itself on the Post Office, the Postmaster-General has to be responsible. The story concerns certain appointments to the clerical grade of the Civil Service of certain Post Office clerks. There are ex-service men who have been temporaries in the Civil Service and who secured appointments to the permanent establishment. Nothing I am going to say must be regarded as in any way disparaging to the service of the ex-service men who came in first of all as temporaries. Those men pressed very considerably years ago for opportunities to come on to the permanent establishment, and those opportunities were given to them. Side by side with that, there were certain Post Office clerks, themselves ex-service men, who sat in examinations in the Post Office for transfer to the same clerical grade in the Civil Service. In the early post-War years there was a big demand for such men, because of the necessity of clearing up the heavy work which had fallen on the Department. Of the men who sat in the 1923 clerical examination all who qualified were absorbed. The ex-service men pressed further, and successfully, for permanent posts. Some of them were not kept on, others were kept on, and their agitation led to the setting up of the Southborough Committee. That Committee made provision for the absorption of a number of these ex-service temporaries, and for securing
"such treatment m would have no suggestion of unfairness in the light of special arrangements made for the ex-service temporary men,"
keeping clearly in mind the claims also of the men who were in the Post Office at that time. Post Office men who were back on their normal recruitment, claimed another chance, because ex-service men had been given another chance under the Southborough Committee report, and this was secured to them, but to a very limited extent. An examination for men over 30 was agreed to. It gave them opportunities for competing for 25 posts only. The examination duly took place, 1,216 competed and 370 qualified. This was to be the last chance, because it was a quid pro quo for what the ex-service men were having under the Southborough Committee's report, but, to our surprise, we found

2195
that the Government of the day admitted further ex-service men—and we have no complaint about those men—but did not agree to admit any further Post Office men. These Post Office men claim therefore, that the bargain was not kept all round, and say that surely Post Office men had some claim. There can be no question about the quality of these Post Office men, because they are exceedingly good. They claim, indeed, that in their examinations they had to secure 60 per cent. of the marks to qualify, as against 50 per cent. in the case of their ex-service colleagues, and they say that they established themselves as men of good quality who could give good service.
We are not asking that these men should receive consideration at the expense of other ex-service men, but as against the open competitions. Since 1920, under various decisions, 17,000 to 18,000 ex-service temporaries have been given clerical appointments, and we are not making any complaint, but Post Office men, the majority of them ex-service men themselves, who went through the War and came back to the Post Office, have been transferred only to the extent of 550. Some of these ex-service men were promoted to the clerical grade without examination at all. We made an appeal to my right hon. Friend who was the Postmaster-General up to recent times, and he was very sympathetic, and did consult the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, with the result that the Financial Secretary was able to give these men 50 more posts, in addition to the 25 originally given. We want to express our appreciation of that award, but when the announcement was made it was accompanied by the statement that there was a clear understanding that this was to be regarded as a final settlement. We ask whose understanding that was, because, while we do not wish to appear to be ungenerous, we say that the Financial Secretary, in giving us those 50 extra posts, clearly recognised the justice of the claim, and what we ask now is that he should go a little further.
The Postmaster-General said he was not without sympathy with the disappointed competitors. We want that sympathy to be a little more pracical. We want the Post Office men to have a further opportunity, and I would ask the Postmaster-
2196
General to make further representations to the Financial Secretary, or to the Treasury itself, to see that they get it. There are about 250 cases still outstanding and in our submission the number is so small that the Treasury could very easily consent to the transfer of these men. We should be transferring qualified men, and they would be only a relatively small number as compared with the ex-service temporaries who came in in addition to those dealt with by the Southborough Commission. We regard this as an overwhelmingly strong case. The men concerned have communicated with a good many Members of the House, and I trust that after this appeal some further steps will be taken to ensure that they are given justice at last.
Major LLOYD GEORGE: I am sure the House has listened with interest to the well-informed speech of the hon. Member for Crewe (Mr. Bowen), and that the House will agree, further, that on an occasion when most of the time is devoted to complaints against the working of the service, it is as well that someone who knows the position, as the hon. Member does, should put the case of the people without whom the service could not be carried on. I would like to join in offering my congratulations to the hon. Gentleman on his new office, and if my congratulations are coupled with a few criticisms I am certain he will understand that it is only because I am anxious to get certain matters put right. From what we have heard to-day, it is obvious that we in this country are sadly behind other countries in the matter of telephone development. An hon. Gentleman said that we are not a telephone-using people. In the light of early telephone developments, I think that in the beginning, at any rate, we did show some signs of being a telephone-using people, and in any case it is important to make this country into a telephone-using country. We are the most highly-industrialised nation in the world, and if there is one thing more necessary than another in view of modern competition it is efficiency. If we are not a telephone-using people, I cannot help feeling that we are not making the best use of one instrument that adds to efficiency. Not only do we show up poorly in this matter by comparison with other industrial

2197
countries, but we stand badly as compared with countries which are in the main agricultural countries.
I wish to offer one or two observations on the development of telephones in rural areas. I think that the Post Office is working on the wrong principle in the rural districts. As far as I can make out, it insists that the demand should exist before the telephone is put in. That is putting the cart before the horse. The Post Office should create the demand. At the present time rural areas have to guarantee at least eight subscribers before they can get the telephone installed, and then the guarantee as to calls is far too high. In a rural district it is not always easy to get eight people to take the risk of a large guarantee. It is a serious matter not to have proper telephone development in the rural areas. It is not a concern of the Post Office only, but should concern also the Ministry of Health, because only those who have lived in country districts can realise what it means to have a doctor six or seven miles away even when one does have the telephone; and when, as sometimes happens, one has to go six miles to get to a telephone, there may be serious results. Within my own personal knowledge there have been cases where illnesses have been seriously aggravated and sometimes death itself has occurred. There is ample evidence that the situation in regard to telephone development is in a seriously backward state throughout the whole of the rural districts. Every assistance ought to be given to doctors and to nurses in rural districts to get the telephone as cheaply as possible. I believe the Minister of Health has a fund which is devoted to assisting nurses and doctors to get the telephone, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to see that the existence of that fund is made known.
On the question of the material advantages of an extension of the telephone service in the rural areas, I would remind the House of the Agricultural Marketing Bill which is under discussion in Committee upstairs. Personally, I think that Measure will do a great deal to assist agriculture, but it will not be half so effective if it is not linked up with an intense development of the telephone service. At the present time a farmer who lives a long way from market
2198
has no idea of the state of the market unless he goes to learn for himself. He may go several miles to a market, taking his beasts with him, and when he gets there he may find prices are not so good as he thought they would be. The alternatives before him are to sell the beasts at the lower price or to take them home. These journeys do not improve the condition of the animals. If telephones were installed in connection with these marketing schemes the farmer could more easily find out the state of the market, and he would be saved a great deal of trouble. Better terms must he offered, however, to rural telephone users.
The party line system is in use in this country, but not nearly to the extent which it ought to be. It is not advertised enough in the rural districts, where it is so much more expensive to instal private lines. In other parts of the world people use party lines, and I do not see why our people should not. They are used considerably in Denmark, and in certain parts of Canada there are districts where a majority of the lines are party lines. It is essential to let the people know how to get these party lines. May I give an instance from my own constituency to show how unfair the system is? They make the post office of a particular district the centre of a circle with a radius of two miles. Everyone within that circle is charged at the rate of £1 7s. 6d. per quarter. Outside that circle subscribers must pay 5s. extra per quarter per furlong. A man who is outside the two miles circle will have to pay three times as much for his telephone as the man inside. That seems to be unfair. If I post a letter to anyone in London the charge is only 1½d., and for the same charge I can send a letter to John o'Groats or even to Canada or the other dominions. A man who uses the post for London purposes only is not getting as much out of it as a man who is sending a letter a long distance; but we have levelled the cost of postage all round, and I do not see why the charges for the telephone should not be levelled a little more.
The circle system is unfair in another respect. I have in my constituency several coastal towns where the circle has its centre in the Post Office. In many cases the Post Office is close to the sea

2199
shore, and therefore sometimes half of that circle is in the sea. As I understand the principle of the area enclosed, the Post Office have come to the conclusion that certain charges will meet maintenance renewals and capital charges. They take an area with a diameter of four miles, but when very nearly two of those four miles are in the sea, would it not be possible for the Post Office to extend the circle a little inland? I think it is a little unfair on coastal towns where the whole area cannot possibly be used by the Post Office not to extend the area a little on the land side.
Now I want to say a word or two about the telephone service. I can begin by saying that the telephone service, especially between the larger towns, in my opinion is good. Last Saturday I listened to a relay from South America of a broadcast of the speech of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales opening the exhibition in Buenos Aires, and I was amazed at the way it came through. But that amazement gave way to the recollection of how, not very long ago, I tried to get a trunk call through from one small town to another about 100 miles away. I waited the usual time, and I was then told that I was through. I was asked to speak up and I did so, but I could not hear. It was not the case that the line was bad, but I could not hear a sound of any description. When, after the lapse of a considerable time, the operator cut in and said, "You will have to speak up. I can hardly hear them." I said, "I cannot hear them at all." I then spoke to an operator further along the line and I said, "I am not wanting to hold a conversation. It is only a case of sending a message; will you pass the message through and get the reply?" She tried to do so, but told me afterwards, "I am very sorry but I cannot hear." The distance was only about 100 miles. That may be an isolated case, but it is not an isolated experience.
I would like to contrast that case with my experience on the Continent last year. I was 600 miles from London in a very small village, not on the main line by any manner of means. I was anxious to speak to London, and I rather timidly asked whether it would be possible to do so. I was told, "Certainly; what number
2200
do you want?" I gave the number, and within half-an-hour I was through, and I never in my life anywhere heard a line like it. There seemed to be no outside interference, and it seemed perfectly clear the whole way through. My experience of trunk calls in this country from one small country town to another has been that it is quite an event to get a clear line. We see announcements in the papers occasionally that the telephone is now available to Sydney, and next day it may be that it is available to Honolulu and to various other far away places, but I wish the Post Office would look a little nearer home as regards trunk calls. I have great admiration for the work done in establishing these marvellous long-distance telephones, but I wish a little of that energy were devoted to trunk calls not so much between the larger towns, but between different places in the rural areas. It is largely, I believe, a question of equipment. We all remember our experiences during the War. When the equipment was new it was not bad, but after a few breaks through shell fire had caused damage, one began to get noises very similar to those which we get on the telephone to-day.
Just before Christmas the Postmaster-General boasted that he had a surplus of £9,000,000, but considering that there are 2,500,000 people out of employment, I do not think that is anything of which to be proud. We all know the number of years it has taken to develop our telephone system, but surely at a time when you have so many people out of employment, that is an appropriate time to speed-up the work of the Post Office. So far from that work having been speeded-up, it has actually gone back. I am not complaining particularly of the action of the right hon. Gentleman, but I think the best way to proceed would be for the telephone system to look after its own affairs and raise its own money, and that could be raised on the security of a very substantial revenue every year. Last year there was a surplus of £9,000,000. In these matters you cannot rely on what the Treasury is going to do, although we know what the country really ought to have. I believe that if the Postmaster-General could have his way, he is rather in favour of developing the telephone

2201
system a good deal more rapidly. I make this appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. If he could only develop this country, and have an ambition to raise it from the position of number 10 to the position of number one, as compared with other countries, he would be doing something not only to increase the efficiency of this country but he would be doing a great deal towards solving the problem of unemployment.
6.0 p.m.
Mr. ROSS: I would humbly add my congratulations to those which have already been offered to the Postmaster-General though these appeared to be somewhat in the nature of a hand-shake murder. It seemed to me that the congratulations were accompanied by a shot. I propose, to some slight extent, to follow the example which has been set me. I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Crewe (Mr. Bowen), who put before the House, with much force and ability, the point of view of the Post Office employés. From this point of view there are two matters to which I desire to refer. One is the case of the part-time sorter. This system may be necessary, but one does see heart-rending cases of part-time sorters with no other employment, and sometimes these poor fellows have gone wrong under the temptation to which they are subjected, and have had to be sentenced to terms of imprisonment, either at the Central Criminal Court or at the Assizes. It is impossible to see these cases without a feeling of very great regret and discomfort that men should be put in the position of temptation in which these men have been put. The other case is that of the temporary postman who has not become a permanent or regular postman, but who has been employed on his round for a long period. I am thinking of a particular case in my own constituency—that of a man who throughout his whole working life had been the recognised postman of his town, and was known to everyone. When he came to an age at which it was clear that he would have to retire, instead of his getting the terms of a, man who had been a regular postman throughout, he got terms which were very far short of that, as he had not had his position substantiated, although throughout his whole life he had been doing the work which a regular postman
2202
would have done. He got, I agree, something in the nature of an emolument when he went out, but it was not on the same scale, as I understand it, that he would have got if he had been in a permanent position the whole time.
As to the service as a whole, looked at from the point of view, not of the Post Office employé, but of the general public, the anxiety which one has is that it seems to be becoming more of a Government monopoly than a public service—that, with increasing profits, you get a decreasing service to the public. The idea of making a large profit directly out of the Post Office service has always seemed to me to be wrong. The Post Office can undoubtedly provide vast sums for the revenue of this country, but it can produce them by improving its systerm, and thereby improving trade, which will then, as a result of taxation, produce profits greatly in excess of those which can be secured directly from the Post Office service. I know that a profit of £10,000,000 has been budgeted for from the Post Office this year, and there have been complaints in this House as to the lack of development in the telephone service in this country. I think that those complaints are justified to a considerable extent, but how much more are they justified in Northern Ireland, where I come from, than in Great Britain?
In Northern Ireland, the telephone service is far behind what it is here. I can assure hon. Members who have suffered over here that, if they would visit us in Northern Ireland, they would suffer far more. I would like them to visit us, not because I want them to suffer, but because I should like them to appreciate the difficulties in which we find ourselves. I was told the other day that the number of public telephones at rural post offices and railway stations in Northern Ireland that had been installed in the last year was greater in proportion to the population than in England, and I was very glad to hear it; but the Postmaster-General was prudent enough not to give me any precise figure, and I can only suppose that the proportion by which we exceed the numbers here is but a very small one. Moreover, there is so much more to be done, because, while only 27 per cent. of these places in Great Britain have not public telephones, there are 51 per cent. in Northern Ireland,

2203
or more than half, that are in that position. I look upon a public telephone as an essential part of the health services. In sparsely populated areas, some eventuality of accident or illness may make it essential to have a telephone which can be readily got at and used.
Again, there is the way in which the lines are run. An actual conversation is seldom good except between the large towns, and it appears to be the practice that nearly every telephone conversation has to go through Belfast. I would like to ask the Assistant Postmaster-General if he can give me any idea as to how far telephone communication has been developed in Northern Ireland so as to make the system independent of Belfast, because, from the telephone point of view, Belfast is singularly ill adapted to be a centre. Being right away on the extreme east of the area, it naturally means a most uncomfortably long journey for the voice from one end of the line to the other. As regards material, I have a suspicion, which has increased in force recently, that the Post Office slyly sends over into Northern Ireland material which people in this country will not have. A man who had recently become a subscriber, largely as the result of my urging upon him that it was a patriotic thing to do, was supplied with a telephone the like of which I had not seen for about 10 years. It was one of those interesting contrivances in the case of which you have to hold a sort of spring tight with your left hand, and, after a conversation of some little length, you almost inevitably develop cramp. I have not seen one of these instruments outside a museum in this country for some time, and I would like to ask whether it is a fact that instruments which have been condemned, and which the much more impatient English, Scottish and Welsh people refuse to handle at all, are given to us as a notoriously patient people, and we have to make the best of them?
I pass to the question of mails, and perhaps mails are, if anything, the more important subject, because we do enjoy—if I may use such an expression in connection with the postal service—an extraordinarily bad mail service. It is not frightfully good to Belfast, but it is
2204
perfectly fearful further away. It seems to have been arranged, with no little ingenuity, that the boats just miss the trains and the trains just miss the boats, and when a post does arrive at a town, generally there is not a delivery. Derry City, which is the principal town in my constituency, has a glorious record. The first postal delivery of mail from England has advanced, as compared with pre-War days, to this extent, that it is now an hour later, so that business men can have another hour in bed before they go to their offices. I do not think that that is a wholly satisfactory arrangement. Then there is the case of Coleraine, which is the second largest town in my constituency. I know that the Postmaster-General is at present inquiring into the conditions there, but I would assure him that there is a very considerable body of dissatisfaction throughout the whole county as to its mail arrangements. In Coleraine, the first local mail arrives unsorted at 8.20, and is not sent out till 9.15, so that it is not actually received till between 10 and 11 o'clock; and when the English mail comes in at 11 o'clock, no one thinks of dealing with it for two hours. It sits in the Post Office till one o'clock, and People who are eagerly awaiting their letters from this side of the Channel just have to wait for them. Moreover, instead of the usual four deliveries that we had before the War, we now have three.
I submit that this is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. If a man is engaged in business, and particularly if he is engaged in business a long way from his market, which is generally England—and occasionally he may be a buyer, buying from England—he wants to be able to have several hours in which he can deal with his post, and, the further off he is, the more important it is that he should have a good mail service. The converse, however, appears to be the view of the Post Office, because, the further you get from London, the worse your Post Office service is, and the further you get even from Belfast the worse the service is, so that when you get to Derry City, where the post only gets in at a quarter to 12 and outward letters have to be posted before 4 p.m., it is clear that the unfortunate business man in Derry City has an extremely short time in which to deal with his

2205
business, and often finds it very difficult to do so.
I do not think it would be very hard to make this service very much better. The railway service and the boat service—and there are numerous services from England—might be made so to fit in as to give a far earlier delivery of English mails. The delivery of the English mail is a matter of very great importance to us, but under the present arrangement the boat from Heysham comes in at half-past six in the morning, and exactly at the same time the first train for Derry leaves the station. It is most ingenious. If the train had waited a little longer, the mails might catch the connection, but the mail train leaves the station just as the ship reaches the quay-side, except on Sundays, when there is no train, and then the boat manages to get there a quarter of an hour earlier—an interval which might suffice to make the connection possible on week-days. I suggest that that is a matter which could be seen to, because an improvement of 20 minutes in the time of the boat, or a delay of the train for 20 minutes, or 10 minutes for the one and 10 minutes for the other, would make a difference of about two hours at the other end; but whenever one raises these points as regards comparatively small and out-of-the-way districts, one is met by a sort of complacent inertia. The Post Office assure us that the system is the best imaginable, although it is very much worse than it was before the War, and that it is not necessary to make these changes, although they do not seem to be so very difficult.
I assure the Postmaster-General that this question of the mails is exciting a considerable degree of dissatisfaction in the country that they serve, and I would ask that there should be a really thorough-going inquiry into the whole question of the mails from England to Northern Ireland, especially as regards the Western areas, and that the Post Office experts and the railway and steamship authorities should consult together and see if they cannot evolve something which is at least up to the standard of 1914. I think that, if they paid some attention to the matter, they could discover something a good deal better than that, because it seems to me to be a travesty of a properly conducted public service that more and more profits should
2206
be milked out of the service every year while the service which the public gets at the other end becomes worse and worse, and is actually demonstrably and obviously far worse than it was before the War.
Mr. SANDHAM: In the short time for which I intend to occupy the attention of the House, I desire to deal with one definite aspect of the Post Office. From the standpoint of a Socialist Government, the Post Office is of paramount importance. Apart from the armed forces and the National Debt, the Post Office is the one thing which is collectively owned, and from that point of view it is important that we Members on this side of the House should at all times view the attitude of the Government towards the Post Office from the standpoint of the ever-growing anti-Socialist argument that the State cannot run anything successfully. The alleged criticisms of the Post Office have been mainly on the lines of a monopoly wail in regard to defects in the telephone system. It was certainly a relief when one heard the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) break into the realm of criticism of the mails.
In regard to the Post Office, I, as a member of the Independent Labour Party, wish to emphasise the need for an extensive consideration on behalf of the workers in that industry. The hon. Member for Crewe (Mr. Bowen) stated that £83,500,000 had been made by the Post Office since 1912, while last year was a record year, with a profit of £9,372,000, after providing interest on capital to the extent of over £5,000,000. I want to suggest that the first duty of a Governmental Department, especially when the Government is supposed to be controlled by a Socialist party, is to the workers in that industry, and that they should have the first call upon the results of the industry in respect of their wages and conditions of labour. I want to emphasise also our point of view with regard to the Post Office buildings, but, as affecting the question of wages, when one sees what amounts the employés are expected to take home to their wives week by week in the way of wages, one feels somewhat ashamed of this institution.
The hon. Member for Crewe intimated that the last reduction which took place

2207
was equivalent to 6 per cent. of the wages of the employés; in other words, that the loss on a 50s. wage was equivalent to 3s. per week, and the loss on a 67s. wage was 3s. 7d. per week. When we remember that there are men taking home 48s. per week, and that in some instances they are expected to find 22s. 6d. for rent for the house in which they live, their condition in life cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be satisfactory, so far as a Labour and Socialist Government is concerned. The Opposition, the Conservatives in particular, are desirous of taking over this State-controlled institution for the purpose of running it under private enterprise. I know it is a difficult matter for them to pass over when they know that a matter of £82,500,000 is the result of the labours of the Post Office covering the period since 1912. But I want to appeal to the new Postmaster-General to consider the matter from the point of view, first, as to whether the workers in the industry are getting all that they have a right to expect and, in the second place, may I make an appeal in the direction of better buildings?
I know that in 1908 privileges were given to local authorities to make appeals to their electorate to take an interest in the erection of Post Office buildings. I know the powers that were given to those civic bodies of not only suggesting sites, but also of contributing financial help. I am well aware that they have powers to borrow money for the purpose of helping in the development of satisfactory buildings, and I would appeal for greater consideration and greater zeal on behalf of the electorates in the direction of a co-operative effort to get this better type of buildings, more attractive to the eye than many that we have to-day. Most of our post offices are to be found in back streets. I do not know why. When you get inside them, you find them very unattractive. I feel that they should not only be pleasant to the eye, but should make the civic population feel prouder of their association with the Post Office in the sense of ownership and control. Many improvements could be made in this direction. When I think of banks and the sites that they occupy, I am certainly not very proud of my citizenship. We have had Postmasters-General not many years ago who did not
2208
believe in a State-owned Post Office, but we have had the experience that the Post Office, as an industry, has gone from success to success and, with the exception of 1926, for the past eight years each year has beaten the previous one so far as profits are concerned.
I am not a supporter of profit making by the Post Office. I do not believe in profits as the outcome of Post Office facilities. I want to call for a proper standard of conditions and proper suitable buildings and wages to the work-people and, as a consequence of that, I think the civic interest must inevitably grow in the mentality of the citizens. In Lancashire, in particular, we have found that sites that ought to be occupied by post offices have been taken by organisations which have for their object the making of profit under what is termed "private enterprise." Those sites have grown in value year after year and, if they had been monopolised by the Government, the financial results would have been even greater than they have been. I would appeal to citizens all over the country to take a deeper interest in the erection of these buildings and in the work of the Post Office, and by that means give us a satisfactory state of affairs, which, heretofore, the country has not experienced.
Sir DONALD MACLEAN: The hon. Member has reflected, very justifiably, on the success of this piece of State administration, but I do not know any State, however individualistic, which has not a monopoly of the postal services. In so far as that is an argument for Socialism, it is one that is adopted by every State in the world. If this was a private concern, with a State concession, and was able to produce year after year an enormous surplus, and was at the same time subjected to such persistent and well-founded complaints of grave defects in vital services, the concession would swiftly be taken away until those services were placed upon a very much more effective basis. In many respects the country has reason to be proud of the service, but certain complaints have been emphasised as to which I should like to say a word or two. I should like, in the first place, to join in the good wishes of the House to the new Minister and, at the same time, to voice,

2209
what I am certain is the feeling of the House, appreciation of the work of the Assistant Postmaster-General in his courteous and never failing assiduity in reply to the perfect torrent of letters which must fall on him every day from Members in different parts of the House.
I want to concentrate my criticism on the telephone service. With all the improvement that has taken place, it is clear that, as to the extent of its user, as to the deficiency in its user, we occupy an unreasonably low place in the list of the nations of the world. I ally myself in particular to the speeches of the hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) and the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson). The point that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Pembroke in particular made was one of great public value. There is no subject on which there is wider general agreement, and greater difference in particular, than in connection with agriculture, but, at any rate, we are all agreed that one of the most useful developments of the State service in connection with agriculture would be telephone facilities. On the business side and on the domestic side, any way you take it, emphasis is constantly laid upon the deficiencies of the State service as regards the telephone in connection with agriculture. Clearly one of the methods by which we can assist agriculture is by increasing, at the national cost, communication between where the products of agriculture are produced and the market where they are sold. There is no more useful communication between the seller and the buyer in that case than the telephone. There is no more ineffective service provided anywhere than in the rural service of agriculture as far as telephones are concerned.
Here we have two things. First of all we have, in this amazingly successful concern, with a surplus, even in these most difficult times financially and commercially, of little short of £10,000,000, these complaints constantly made to every Government that occupies those benches, and still—I will not say nothing done, but a quite inadequate response to the general demand from the whole House of Commons. The whole idea of the postal service is that it shall not always have dominant regard to whether a particular service pays or not, as long as the common good is assisted by the develop-
2210
ment in any particular area. That is the principle upon which it should move. There is none of us here representing agricultural constituencies or constituencies which are partly rural and partly urban who has not constantly been met by the reasonable demand for facilities of this kind. Over and over again the official reply, very courteous but none the less very disappointing, has been that unless it can be shown that there will be a certain adequate return from their point of view in a particular area, the service cannot be afforded. That is not the way the great surplus of this year has been built up. That surplus has been built up by the application of the great principle that the more general, more effective and cheaper you make your service, the more certain you are of a successful financial return. I wish we could get the telephone department of the Post Office, or the Postmaster-General, really to seize the present opportunity. The Postmaster-General is new in his office and uncommitted, and has a real chance of making a most effective new departure in connection with this matter. He has the money, though he might turn round and say, "The Chancellor of the Exchequer is after it, and I shall have to make a certain return to him."
There is one thing upon which, I think, the House and the public generally are agreed. It is that in the present state of unemployment, public expenditure on productive services is one of the very best investments that can be made. Here is a fine investment in a productive service which will bring an instant return. I do not say that it will pay its way for a year or two, but it will certainly pay its way very soon, of that, there can be no doubt. Most of us have an interest in our own constituencies in regard to this matter, and I will give an instance of what I mean. The constituency which I have the honour to represent has a very extensive sea coast, and it is rather difficult to deal with the constituency. Any person who has a boarding house there and uses it for only three months, has to pay not only £5 10s., but the additional 30s. business rate for the telephone for the whole of the year. That sort of thing is destructive of initiative in the development of the telephone service. I pressed this point upon the predecessor in the office of the hon. Gentleman, not because it was a particular

2211
instance, but because it was one of the examples of the shortness of view in regard to the possibilities of business.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take that matter into consideration. It is ridiculous to charge a three months' business user of the telephone with the 12 months rate. There are many instances in these scattered rural areas where there are small populations shut off from the rest of the world, and when the telephone service is obtained most stringent, and, I think, most unjust, conditions are imposed. They might be just as if one took the short and narrow view of the particular area, but if one takes the view which this Department ought to take—the national view—they are quite unjustifiable. While I speak with admiration and sincere appreciation of the great services which this Department renders to the State as a whole, I hope that in regard to the matter of the telephone service the Department will make a fresh start and apply the same principle, within reason, of course, which has made the Post Office such a success in other departments. If that principle were applied to the telephone service, you would have national satisfaction and a successful financial return.
Mr. HOPKIN: I rise to support the appeal which has been made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) for better postal facilities. He and I share at least one responsibility in that we represent very large constituencies. I represent a constituency of 750 square miles, and anyone who has been into the rural areas knows perfectly well that the one outstanding need in those areas to-day is better postal facilities and better telephone services. Nearly every speaker in the Debate has emphasised the great importance of the telephone in the matter of agriculture, and I agree with every word of it. I agree particularly with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) as to the absolute need of the telephone for medical purposes. I am not in a position to say whether or not the postal service is worse to-day than it was before the War, but I would appeal most seriously to my hon. Friend the Postmaster-General to look into the question of postal facilities in the matter
2212
of deliveries of letters in rural areas. I have submitted to his Department no less than a dozen cases where in very large districts, though not very well populated, the postal deliveries consist of three per week. I need not remind the House of the very great inconvenience three postal deliveries a week cause to people who live in the country. I make this strong appeal to him to go into this question, because I have been told on the very best authority that if a little care were exercised and some reorganisation were made, a, daily delivery could be given in every one of those districts, costing not one penny more.
I also wish to add my appeal on behalf of the sub-postmasters. I know of one case where the sub-postmaster and his wife work the whole of the day, have the telephone service at night, and have to pay one clerk, all on £200 a year. That sub-postmaster in a very important district does all the work of the post office, pays out old age pensions, looks after the letters, sells stamps and so on, all for less than £4 a week. It is in respect of the county of Carmarthen that I would ask my hon. Friend to endeavour to improve the telephone service. I have before me a list of the towns, villages and hamlets in Carmarthenshire where they already have telephones. The Post Office in this matter have been very kind to the county and the people appreciate the kindness, but in 1925 the axe fell on the development of the telephone service, and since then very few telephones have been installed in country places which have been on the list for some five or six years. We argue, for instance, on the question of the nationalisation of mines, that we can take over the whole of the mines, and that the mines that pay can be made to make up for the less paying mines. Precisely the same argument can be used here.
It is said that the offices, the postal services and the postal facilities in the rural areas do not pay for themselves. They cannot pay for themselves, but the profits which are made in the towns can quite easily and quite properly be spread over the rural areas. I will give a single instance which will serve as an example for practically every hamlet throughout the whole of my Division. I have applied about half a dozen times for a telephone to be placed at Abergorlech. The county

2213
councillor has been working for the last six years in order to get the telephone there. This lady has worked week in and week out in order to get the facility for this village, which consists of a population of something like 200 people, is the centre of a most important farming district, and the nearest telephone which these people are able to use is three or four miles away. Here is a place where there ought to be a telephone for the use of the people. It is no good asking these poor people to put down any considerable deposit. The telephone ought to be put there as a matter of social service, so that the people may use it if in any need. I, therefore, respectfully suggest that the hon. Gentleman should carry out the very excellent suggestion which has been made of appointing a canvasser. If we had a canvasser in Carmarthenshire, I think that the number of telephones installed in the county would be doubled or trebled within a year, and that the services of such a man would, be paid for three or four times over.
My second suggestion is that we should have better instruments in the rural areas. I agree with every word that was said about the old instruments, which are, apparently, in use in North Belfast. The same condition applies in rural areas. The whole system of telephones in country districts needs serious overhauling. On one occasion I wanted to telephone to a place that was about four miles distant. In order to get the connection, I was given a line that went at least 40 miles, simply because the Post Office will not put down a new exchange which is so badly needed in that area. You have to go at least through three large towns in order to establish communication between one village and another. The ideal for country districts is, that every farmhouse should have its telephone, and at a very low rate. I think that the cost would be almost negligible. We are going to waste according to the local authority in Carmarthen, £40,000 on a road which is wanted by nobody. If the county were given this £40,000, it would be possible to revolutionise the whole of the postal facilities of the county. For that reason I feel that West Wales, particularly in post office matters, has seriously been neglected. It is no use sending down an official from Cardiff,
2214
because he does not understand any of the rural problems. He has not the understanding eye. To all these many points which I have put before the Post Office I get a very polite but very firm answer that things cannot be done. They cannot be done because the wrong officials are sent down. I am sure that if there was a man on the spot, and he saw that these things ought to be done because they were necessary, it would be possible to get them done.
Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I hope that the hon. Member who has been so deservedly promoted to the position of Postmaster-General will not allow this occasion to pass without giving us a serious explanation how it is that our telephone service is so deficient. It is deficient in every particular, not only as regards the number of telephones but as regards the courtesy and rapidity of the service. If his Department were paid to engage on a propaganda to discourage the telephone service, they could not do it more successfully than they do at the present time. We have Debate after Debate on the question of unemployment. That grave problem has become a question for experts. We are treated to discourses on the fiscal system, on currency matters, and on the gold standard, and we are told that the problem is connected with foreign relations; but we never get down to the real facts. Here, in the Post Office, is a question which is practical. The Postmaster-General has it within his power to give work to thousands upon thousands of men. It is not a theoretical question but a question of reality, and I hope that he is not going to ride away to-day with the commonplace justification of his Department to which we are always treated on these occasions.
Whenever we discuss the Navy Estimates we are told that we must maintain a one-Power standard with America. We have not anything like a, one-Power standard with America in the telephone service. We are tenth on the list. If that were the position in regard to our naval defence, there would be grave disaffection in the country, and great pressure would be brought upon the Admiralty to increase the efficiency of our armaments. The Postmaster - General could well maintain a one-Power standard where the telephones are concerned. We

2215
are not even on a par with Switzerland. We are not on a par with New Zealand.
It is time we knew from the Postmaster-General's Department what is the explanation for this position of affairs. There is a demand for the telephone service, but everything is done to stop people getting telephones. Whenever I have moved into a flat, or an office, or a house, the butcher, the baker and the cabinet maker have come round at once to ask me whether they could do anything for me. They all tumble over one another pressing me to take the particular commodity which they have to sell. Does the Postmaster - General's Department send an emissary to me to explain how I shall benefit by a telephone? On the contrary, I have to make a request for a telephone, and I have to repeat the request. Unfortunately, I have not the powers of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue; otherwise, I would summon the hon. Member's Department to appear and show cause why a telephone is not put in. If I break a, mouthpiece, as I did a short while ago, I cannot get it repaired. I have watched the unemployed walking down the street, with no work to do, and vet I cannot get a mouthpiece repaired.
I can never get any normal request attended to, except by writing to the hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant). Then the matter is attended to at once. He is a model of courtesy, and so is the whole Department if you approach them at headquarters. But the ordinary citizens have not that facility. They do not know the hon. Member for West Willesden like I do. They cannot write him an affectionate letter. I know that he has a connection with my constituency which perhaps makes him particularly favourable to any requests which I put before him. In the ordinary way one cannot get any attention. The telephone breaks down. That does not matter. If it were a question of private enterprise, and some service for which an ordinary business man were responsible, any request that one might make would be attended to with promptitude.
The Postmaster-General has just entered into this most inefficient of all the inefficient Government Departments. There is not a good word that can be said about his Department by anybody
2216
except the Postmaster-General. I hope that out of his inexperience he is not going to take the brief that has been prepared for him, and that would be prepared impartially for any Postmaster-General, to whatever Government he belonged, and to read it to the House. I hope that he is going to say, "I am grateful for the opportunity that has been given to me. I realise that there are about 40 trades, British trades, that I can stimulate. There is every kind of raw material which can be ordered by my Department, copper, wood, coal, wire, etc., and I do not intend, like my predecessors, to read out the brief that has been prepared."
In doing that, he will take a risk. His predecessor at the Post Office in the Conservative Government made a common sense speech about this matter. He went into the country and said, "I realise that I am presiding, not over a business Department, but over a cemetery, and so long as it remains a Government Department nothing will ever be done. It ought to be handed over to a Commission, like the Electricity Commissioners." That is what the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) said, and the whole country said, "A Daniel come to judgment!" But the right hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin) did not agree with that, and publicly repudiated him. This is the risk that the Postmaster-General will run if he really means to get something done, but I hope that he will take the risk. He has had a very laudable and praiseworthy career, and he has now reached a position of great responsibility affecting the livelihood of a large number of people and the nervous system of still more.
We have research in this country into the question of industrial fatigue. We try to save the workmen every superfluous movement, and we realise that we must give them mental contentment and physical efficiency. My hon. Friend's Department exasperates people. It makes them ill, and, when they get ill and want a doctor, they cannot get the right number on the telephone. The Post Office really ought to be handed over to the Ministry of Health. It causes trouble, strife, anxiety and misery. I hope that soy hon. Friend is going to put things right and that he is going to signalise his appearance in office by handing over his

2217
Department to a Commission, like the Electricity Commission, so that he can be advised by business men and trade unions, who know how much is at stake; not to a Commission like the British Broadcasting Corporation, for which he also speaks in this House. The British Broadcasting Corporation is a Board of Commissioners who are appointed precisely because they do not know anything about it. I doubt if they meet very frequently. The cranks and the faddists have it all their own way. That is why they are giving a grant to Grand Opera. They are an inefficient Commission. They are a palsied and frightened Commission. They are frightened of the hon. Member for Smethwick (Sir O. Mosley), which is more than anybody else is.
Mr. SPEAKER: There is no one here to speak for the British Broadcasting Corporation.
Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I realise that there is no one here to speak for them, and perhaps no one would desire to speak for them, because their record is so bad. I support the right hon. and learned Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) who, in a very brilliant and effective speech, asked the Postmaster-General to convey to the British Broadcasting Corporation the view that controversy is the breath of life. We in the Liberal party think a great deal about controversy. We know its value. It is very important that all points of view should be expressed, and that the community should be instructed on all the questions of the hour. Therefore, I hope that the Postmaster-General will convey that message to the British Broadcasting Corporation. I conclude by wishing him the best of luck in his new Department and expressing the hope that he will hand it over to some body that will really get on with the job.
Viscount WOLMER: I should like to add my voice to the congratulations and the welcome to my hon. Friend the Postmaster-General on his first appearance in this House in connection with the Post Office Vote. I can assure him that this is a very typical Post Office Vote discussion. He will find, if he is so unfortunate as to have to attend many more of these discussions, that there are more complaints than bouquets thrown at his head. He must steel his heart and brace
2218
his courage for a repetition of the ordeal he has been through to-night.
I wish to deal with the subjects that were dealt with so ably by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) and other speakers. This is not a party question. I look at the Post Office from the viewpoint that it is one of the greatest businesses and industries in this country. The carrying of mails, the sending of telegrams and telephone messages has no more to do with party politics than has the question of London traffic, or of the underground railways of London. I should like to remind the Postmaster-General, although I am well aware that I cannot dwell on the subject, of the step his colleague the Minister of Transport has taken in dealing with London traffic. In order to bring about a scheme of unification and nationalisation, he has not attempted to bring it within the ambit of his Department, and he has not even attempted to put it under any Government Department, but he proposes to put it under a Statutory authority completely divorced from the Civil Service and from politicians. I believe that is the organisation which the Post Office requires.
7.0 p.m.
The figures given by the right hon. and learned Member for Ross and Cromarty are unchallenged and unchallengable. The right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) pathetically asked: "Why cannot these matters be put right." I am convinced that the fundamental reason why they cannot be put right is that this great industry is not run and controlled as an industry, but as a Government Department. It is controlled by machinery which is utterly unsuitable for the purpose, and the result is reflected in high cost, which consequently means high charges, inefficient service, and general public discontent. I have given figures in the House which were never challenged by the right hon. Member the President of the Board of Education when he was Postmaster-General. I will not trouble the House with many of them this evening, but I would like to mention one or two. For instance, when my right hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson) went to the Post Office, he found that the cost of laying a light country telephone wire was

2219
£88 a mile over an easy route. If it had to be of more substantial construction the cost was £126 per mile. He inquired what the relative costs were in other countries, and, as that information was not available, he sent commissions to Sweden, America, and other places. In practically every case it was found that the costs were very much less in other countries than they were in this country.
These are the important figures for the House to bear in mind. In Sweden, which is one of the most fully developed countries in the world telephonically, the plant investment cost of each telephone works out in the neighbourhood of £37. The plant investment cost in America, where the wages of the men are more than double the wages of Post Office employés here—I see the hon. Member for Crewe (Mr. Bowen) shakes his head, but I can give him figures in support of that statement—in spite of the high wages of America the plant investment cost per instrument is £47. In England it is £77. That is the fundamental reason why the telephone costs more in England than in any other country, and why there is not the same telephone development here as there is abroad.
The hon. Member for Crewe tried to make out there was some inherent vice in the mentality or habits or constitution of the British people which made them averse to using the telephone. If you point to the enormously greater development in America, a country with great cities and wide tracts of land over which cables have to be passed, the protagonists of the present system say conditions are not the same in England. If you point to Sweden, Denmark, or Germany you are met with the same answer. If you point to New Zealand or Canada, you are met again with the objection that conditions are different. I find it impossible to believe that this country of all the countries in the world is the one where telephones cannot be economically erected and run and developed on a wide scale. I would suggest to the new Postmaster-General what I suggested to his predecessor, that he should inquire into the history of the islands of Jersey and Guernsey. It is a small example, but a very instructive one. One island had an independent telephone system and
2220
the other had its telephones run by the Post Office. The one with the independent system had more than twice as many telephones per head of the population as that which was controlled by the Post Office. I was never able to find in the Department any explanation of a difference of mentality between the people of Jersey or Guernsey, or in their economic, racial, or geographic circumstances which in any way accounted for such a great difference.
The root cause of our telephone inferiority and of the decline in our telegraph system is the fact that the Post Office is not run for business and has not the constitution of a great business, but is run as a Government Department. It has the same organisation and the same fundamental constitution now as it had in the middle of the last century, when the postal business was about one-seventh of what it is now and when there was no parcel post, no savings bank, no telegraphs and no telephone. It was about the size of other Government Departments, and fundamentally retains the same organisation to-day. It is presided over by a politician who always comes to the business knowing absolutely nothing of its technique. Generally speaking, by the time he has made himself acquainted with the very intricate matters with which he has to deal and has had time to get to know the important men serving under him, and more important still the able men coming on behind them, he finds that he has very little tenure of office left.
Under the politician there are civil servants, many of them men of great ability, who work extremely hard and whom no politician is entitled to hold responsible for any defect in the system. But there are none of these men who have had any commercial experience before. They have risen from the ranks of their own department, and they are paid at a rate so much below the value of commercial brains that it is impossible for the Post Office to bring in any men from outside to any important technical or administrative post in the department. That is the fundamental reason why the Post Office does not go ahead in the way that we should all like to see. If the Post Office were run like the American telephone or telegraph companies, it would make the business. It is terrible

2221
to see the hon. Member for Crewe sitting down under the idea that telegraphs must decline.
Mr. BOWEN: I am sure the Noble Lord does not want to do me an injustice. He cannot recall my ever having admitted that telegraphs must decline. In his time of office I endeavoured to prove that they could revive.
Viscount WOLMER: The action I want to take is to remove the Post Office altogether out of the hands of politicians and the Civil Service, and to put it in the hands of a statutory authority—as the Minister of Transport proposes to put the London traffic—controlled by the ablest business brains we can find, in a position to raise its own capital, to employ the greatest technical experts, no matter what country they come from, and to run this great concern as a business. Then I believe my hon. Friend would find that telegraphs would not continue to decline. In America the telegraphs have held their own and are making profits of £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 a year in face of the enormously superior competition of the telephones there. They are independent companies controlled and run on business principles by business methods.
Mr. BOWEN: The Noble Lord will remember that in America the telegraph service is very largely run by long-distance communications the like of which we cannot have in this country.
Viscount WOLMER: There I think the hon. Member is mistaken. It is perfectly true that England is a small island, but our communications are not confined within the limits of this island. Why cannot our telegraphs to the Continent be developed in the same way as the American long-distance telegraphs? It is because they have to pass through a network of Government Departments. The same facilities are not open to Englishmen to telegraph to Germany, Sweden, France and different parts of Europe as are open to the American to telegraph from New York to San Francisco. I think the position of the hon. Member for Crewe is a very pathetic one. Every time we have a Post Office Debate he has to admit that the staff is discontented. If he did not, he would soon get into trouble with his
2222
constituents. Yet he devotes the whole of his energies and abilities to perpetuating the system responsible for their discontent. He points to the great profits that the Post Office has made. Who could not make a profit with a Government monopoly? The £10,000,000 a year that the Post Office is making now is not a profit in the ordinary sense of the term; it is taxation, and a pernicious form of taxation, because it is drawn from a particular industry—a tax on every telephone message, on every telegram or transaction in the savings bank, on every letter posted. That is a form of taxation which I suggest is contrary to all the sound canons of political economy.
There is this point I would like to put to my hon. Friend. Nothing impressed me more when I was at the Post Office than the amount of wasted ability that is to be found among the rank and file of postal servants. More than 1,200 postal servants who are for the most part sorters or postmen gained commissions in the War, rising from the ranks. The great majority of these men are still sorters or postmen.
Mr. H. W. WALLACE: Will the Noble Lord say what his Administration did for these men?
Viscount WOLMER: I will tell my hon. Friend. When one was faced with a fact like that in the Post Office, one was up against two difficulties. The first was that there were a number of men who never had a chance of going to the War and who were just as able as those who did. Therefore, the fact that a man had the opportunity of distinguishing himself at the War was not necessarily proof that he was more able than a man who had not such an opportunity. But, apart from that, one was up against the whole system of promotion in the Civil Service. The Post Office is governed by Civil Service conditions, and it is extraordinarily difficult to go out of the ordinary routine method by which civil servants are promoted. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon became Postmaster-General he found that there were five men who had risen to the rank of major and 15 who had risen to the rank of captain during the War, who were still performing the

2223
duties of sorters or postmen. It was a very great waste of their ability. For a man who had proved his fitness in the field to command a company and to carry out the administrative work of a major or captain there was more useful work in the Post Office than carrying letters from door to door. I am glad to say that every one of those men was given a more important position and a chance of getting a foothold on the ladder of promotion. That is an example of the talent there is in the Post Office.
The point which I want to put to the hon. Member for Crewe is this: Is it fair to these men that we should maintain a system of Post Office administration which experience has shown has led to the comparative stagnation of telephones and to the actual decline of telegraphs, when these services are going ahead by leaps and bounds in other countries? We complain on behalf of our constituents of the injury that is done to trade by the inefficiency of the telephone and telegraph systems, but I ask the House also to remember the cruel injustice done to men who are kept in a moribund service where the avenues of promotion are blocked. Thirty years ago, when the telegraph was an expanding service, men entered the service with prospects of promotion which they now know are a vanished dream, and no one knows that better than the hon. Member for Crewe. It is up to him and to the leaders of his union, having tried a service which has given these unsatisfactory results, to try other methods and see whether we cannot get an extension of our telephones on a far vaster scale and a stopping of the contraction of the telegraph service, which will not only be of enormous benefit to British trade in general, but will give employment to thousands of men in about 40 other ancillary trades and also prospects of advancement and promotion to the staff themselves which at the present time is denied them.
The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Attlee): Before replying to the various points raised in the Debate, I should like to acknowledge the very kind references that have been made to my elevation to my present office by hon. Members in all parts of the House. I can only say that I will try to deserve them. I am
2224
told that this Debate is very characteristic of Post Office Debates. I think it is very characteristic of our British way of doing things, because we have had put in the forefront to-day every possible criticism of one of our own services. With the exception of one or two hon. Members there has been little appreciation of the greatness and efficiency of the service, and in this I include hon. Members below the Gangway, making an exception, however, of the right hon. and learned Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) who did do some justice to its achievements. Of course, this Debate does afford a congenial opportunity for raising a very large number of grievances. The Post Office is a great business, and I can imagine what the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) might find to say by way of criticism on any other large business which had to stand the fire of criticism in this House. If, for instance, he were speaking on behalf of one of our great public undertakings such as the railway companies end I rose to speak of things which happen in my daily goings to and fro on the railways, I think I could frame criticisms of point and force.
I do not claim that the Post Office is perfect or that more cannot be done. Indeed, I welcome every suggestion for extending and increasing the efficiency of the Post Office. At the same time, I am not going to stand in a white sheet and accept the position that the British Post Office is manifestly inferior to every other Post Office in the world, as has been rather suggested by some hon. Members. It is not true. Let me deal with a few facts concerning the Post Office. The right hon. Member for Aldershot who was five years in the Post Office has an extraordinary aptitude for getting hold of half-truths, which have been dealt with by Lord Tennyson in a well-known poem in language which it would be unparliamentary to repeat. Let me mention one or two. Take the amount of money that is going to be spent. Comparisons have been made with the amount of money spent in past years, but no reference was made to the change in the value of money that has taken place during the last five years. If a million pounds is to be spent to-day in goods and services it means a great deal more than that same sum meant five or

2225
six years ago. It is easy to say, as the Noble Lord the right hon. Member for Aldershot said, "You cannot answer my figures," The figures may be right, but, unfortunately, the deduction is entirely wrong.
The Noble Lord's chief criticism, however, was that the whole organisation of the Department is wrong and that it should be put in some different form, handed over to some company or a corporation. I am very new to the Post Office, but I am resolved to look into every side of the organisation, and I can say this, that if I find that the Post Office cannot be run under its present organisation and that it requires an entirely different system, and if it is for the benefit of the public that it should be carried on other than as a public Department, I shall not remain five years in the Post Office.
Let me deal with one or two specicfic points that have been mentioned. The right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty rather veered between two criticisms. One was the demand for extra services in out of the way parts of the country. That point, of course, has also been put by hon. Members from Northern Ireland, from Western Wales and from Cornwall, who all ask for special facilities for their parts of the country, and yet—and this is curious—at the same time ask that the Post Office telephones and telegraphs should be run on strictly business lines. It is not strictly business to supply these services, and no business company would think of doing so.
Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The railways do it.
Mr. ATTLEE: The railways are cutting it out. They are statutory undertakings, but I have no doubt that if the hon. Member was going to run a business line he would develop it in the most prosperous areas first. I do not think he would be a philanthropist and provide a service where it could not possibly pay. This, however, is not the line I take. Although this is a great national service I regard it as merely ancillary to the social and economic life of the country and hold that it is well worth while developing the telephone in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and in the wilds of Wales and in Cornwall, because these people are citizens of this
2226
country and we want to give them all the facilities we can. But we cannot at the same time run the Department on what are called business and commercial lines. I would remind the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) that his idea would cost a great deal of money.
Hon. Members opposite point to the fact that the Post Office is making a great deal of profit and ask why the money should not be spent on the services. They say, "Why do you let the Chancellor of the Exchequer take it." If they propose that all the money coming into the Post Office must be used for the development of the services they must be prepared to pay the piper in the way of alternative taxation which they would be called upon to pay. I will not deal with that point further because I am not going to anticipate any of the speeches which may be made during the Budget Debates, and it would be out of order for me to discuss the question of the allocation of the surplus of the Post Office.
I turn to the question of telephones. I am in favour of a rapid and energetic development of our telephone service, but at the same time we must look at the facts in order to be quite sure where we are. The Noble Lord the right hon. Member for Aldershot said that the United States was going ahead. Let us see. In 1930 our increase in telephones was ten times as rapid as that of the United States.
Viscount WOLMER: Will the Postmaster-General give the number of new telephone instruments in the two countries?
Mr. ATTLEE: I am giving the percentage increase.
Viscount WOLMER: The Postmaster-General knows what a deceptive thing a percentage increase is.
Mr. ATTLEE: The actual increase in telephones in the United States, which has a much larger area and a much larger population, is scarcely more than the actual increase this year in the number of telephones in this country, and our percentage increase is actually more than double that of Germany. This is another of the half-truths of the Noble Lord. When you are talking of communication

2227
facilities it is not enough to say that the United States have far more telephones than we have in this country. You must compare the facilities provided. Our postal facilities are much more convenient than those of the United States. We can send a letter one day and get it delivered the next, but in these arge countries it takes a much longer time than that, and that is one of the reasons why other methods of communication are developed more rapidly in these large countries. People who live in wide spaces and who are separated by long distances naturally use the telephone more than the post. I will not develop that point because anyone with any intelligence will see clearly that you must compare like with like. That does not mean that I do not wish to have more telephone development.
In regard to rural telephones, the growth of the telephone in these areas is even greater than that in urban areas. In the last 18 months, 4,200 call offices have been opened in rural areas and everyone will agree that this is something to be set against the complaints on the other side. It may be that we have a great deal of leeway to make up, but it at least shows that something is being done. The right hon. and learned Member for Ross and Cromarty raised several points with regard to telephone development. They were pretty sound points. But we have to consider what is practicable and what is reasonable, looking at things as they are. You cannot expect very heavy telephone development in a time of slump. It is inevitable that your rate of progress will not be so great. There will always be a certain number of people who will cut off a telephone as a luxury, and there will be a certain number of businesses failing. I think it is creditable that we have kept our average rate of increase throughout the slump, and even improved on it. The right hon. Gentleman asked, "Why do you not advertise more?" We have a big staff of canvassers at the present time—there are over 600—and they are visiting constantly. The staff has been heavily increased since my predecessor took office. I am prepared to increase it, but there is a limit to what can be done.
There was an instance mentioned of very intensive canvassing, from which remarkable results were obtained, but
2228
there has to be borne in mind the cost of the whole service. If it is going to cost you £7 per telephone secured, the total will run up to a great deal. I do not say that you cannot do it, but you have to consider how far you are justified in putting that amount into the effort. There is canvassing work and there is advertising work. I think more could be done by advertising, and I am going to look into the methods adopted. Sometimes methods are suggested which are not approved by the shrewd business men whom we have to advise us and who know something about advertising. The best way of advertising Bovril or chocolates is not necessarily the best way of advertising telephones.
The hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor), I know has suffered, and his speech was necessarily a little subjective. I sympathise with him. It is no answer to the person who is really aggrieved to say that there are 99 just persons who have no complaint. These mistakes will occur and we are making the utmost possible effort to get rid of them. As a matter of fact, this particular wire was knocked down by someone who cleans an exchange. I am looking very closely into the whole question as to what exactly happened when this failure occurred. I want to see whether it is possible to speed up the service at all. The hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) raised some points which are to be looked into. I agree that one of the best ways of booming telephones is to give a good service. One of the worst is to make a speech like that of the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha). That speech was not a good advertisement, but it was a fine piece of invective. He hit out generally at everything he could see.
Mr. HORE-BELISHA: But not at you.
Mr. ATTLEE: The hon. Member did not see me; I am too small. As a matter of fact, our national habit of self-depreciation does not do us much good when it comes to pushing telephones. I could wish that people would help rather more. If we are to get a good push on telephones, a good deal can be done by canvassing, something can be done by literature, but a good deal more by personal influence. From this point of view, the hon. Member's speech was unfortunate.

2229
Under any system there would be difficulties occurring, even if we adopted the method suggested by the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot. The only difference then would be that we would have the difficulties but the Noble Lord would not be able to get up and make a speech about them in the House. The idea that we are sluggish about telephones is false. We are working hard with the direct calls. We have to get the apparatus, the sites and the buildings. I have gone very carefully into the matter and we are pushing things forward as fast as possible. I believe that results will be forthcoming in a very short time. Certainly, the direct call is one thing in which we are behind the United States.
A point was made by the hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham and by the hon. Member for Devonport, with regard to the British Broadcasting Corporation. The House knows that I am not responsible for programmes. There is the difficult question of controversial matter. Neither of the hon. Members was at all sensitive about what is broadcast by the Corporation; neither hon. Member is thin skinned in the matter. But there are friends sitting around them who are extremely sensitive. I think the House should encourage experiment to a reasonable extent. To those who are sensitive on these things I say that their state is largely subjective. Some hon. Members say that there is too much of one thing, others that there is too much propaganda going on. I used to think so myself when in Opposition. Probably Members of the Opposition at the present time think there is too much Labour propaganda. When I was in Opposition I used to think I heard nothing but Lord Brentford—Jix, et praeterea nihil. In the matter of controversial broadcasts I think the Corporation is steering a very careful course. In any event it is not for me to defend the programmes. I was asked a specific question with regard to the licences. The licences at present number 3,590,000, and show an increase of 263,000 in the last three months.
Mr. O'CONNOR: The question I asked was whether the British Broadcasting Corporation accepts speakers only on the nomination of the party organisations.
Mr. ATTLEE: They act generally on the advice of representatives of the party
2230
organisations. I cannot go into that matter in great detail. It was the late Government that extended to the Corporation the right of broadcasting controversial matter. Everyone will agree that that is a matter of very great delicacy. You have to see, first of all, that you are not going to get into trouble. There are difficult questions arising, above all when you touch foreign affairs. That point has to be considered. You have next to consider whether a charge might be brought against you of not holding the balance fairly. Thirdly, you have to consider not boring your audience and not overdoing the politics. At the present time the Corporation try to reach a reasonable allocation between the three parties, but if parties multiply and if all kinds of individuals are to be admitted as parties—people who perhaps are running one particular fad—and it you once begin to open the door very widely, the unfortunate listener hears nothing but the advocates of various causes. With the consultations that the Corporation have now I think that the system works well and fairly. It may be that in future a different arrangement will be necessary, but at present I think that the Corporation are carrying out a very difficult task with very great success.
Several points were raised in the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Crewe (Mr. Bowen). He spoke of Post Office buildings. We have a very big building programme, and it has been increased this year again. When you look at this programme you have to compare year with year, and to consider the cost of these buildings not in terms of money only but having regard to the changes in money value. The programme has increased in money and still more in amount. We have a programme for building new Post Offices and reconditioning old ones, and, what is very valuable, brightening existing post offices. I am not going to give a string of figures. I have found time to go round and visit a few post offices. I would like hon. Members to see the sort of work that is going on in London. Even if they visit South Molton Street, they will find a very pleasant post office. There is no old-fashioned atmosphere about it, but it is quite a pleasant and bright place.
Mr. MESSER: Will the Postmaster-General guarantee the pens?
Mr. ATTLEE: The pens were hairless. And, not only the front counter, but the other parts of the office are bright. The hon. Member for Crewe asked certain questions regarding the wages of the staff and their conditions. He cannot expect me to answer him in detail beyond saying that I shall always be pleased to discuss such matters with him. I agree with his general statement that the Post Office must be a good employer and the best employer. With regard to the question of the limited clerical competition, the hon. Member has stated the case very fairly and I have much sympathy with him. The hon. Member knows that cases arose out of the War and out of various changes and appointments subsequent to the War. The late Postmaster-General gave 50 additional places to these men, but it is a matter of the utmost difficulty to do anything further. The whole question of age groups in the service is involved, and as he knows that this is a matter which concerns not only one Deparament, I can hold out little hope in this matter, but I will willingly discuss it with him again. He also knows the difficulty with regard to getting suitable age groups, and he knows that it is not easy to deal with all these matters in connection with the service. We have considered the matter very carefully, as I think the hon. Member recognises, and my right hon. Friend the late Postmaster-General did his utmost in order to help on these very difficult points. I do not think we can possibly hope to absorb all these men. I am prepared to discuss the subject further with the hon. Member, but I am afraid I cannot hold out much hope that we shall be able to do anything more in that direction. I do not think it is possible.
The hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke raised the matter of rural telephones, and he particularly discussed the subject of party lines. Now the party line system, for some reason or other, does not "go down" in this country. There are certain people who find their chief joy in trying to "listen in" on a party line to what their neighbours are saying, and the people who are listened to do not like it. It is no use to say that we ought to educate our people in the use of those lines. The objection to the party line is one of those things which is in the nature of the people of
2232
this country. We may be asked why are we not like the Americans who have no objection to party lines, but the American does not mind having no hedge round his garden, whereas the Englishman insists on having a hedge round his garden. You cannot argue about these things. The fact is that we do advertise party lines, and that people do not take advantage of them, and do not like the system.
The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) brought forward a number of points with regard to postal services in Northern Ireland. I shall be very glad to go into those points in detail in order to see how far these are matters in which the Post Office is really responsible, and how far they are matters which concern the railway and steamship services in Northern Ireland. I can promise the hon. Member, however, that I shall look into these matters as far as I possibly can. I think I have already dealt with the point raised by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin), and if he can bring forward any specific case I shall look into it.
On the general subject, let me say that it is our resolve to push forward with the telephone programme, but I think we have to recognise clearly the limits of that programme. At present we have a considerable amount of stock in hand. That is to say we can have a very big increase without an increase of stock. It is absolutely uneconomic to pile up enormous stocks unless you have business to justify it, and we must have due regard to business principles in running a service of this kind. As a matter of fact I do not think you can come anywhere near realising the rather rosy vision of some hon. Members opposite as regards the amount of employment which would be provided out of these telephone proposals. You can do something but not a vast deal in regard to that aspect of the question. I think I have now dealt with most of the points raised in the course of this discussion. I have not gone at any great length into the rather broader issues raised by the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot, but perhaps on some other occasion we shall have an opportunity of crossing swords on that question when I have been able to inform myself better on the details and when I shall be in a position to deal with the Noble Lord on more

2233
equal terms than I can do now, as a neophyte in office.
Mr. EGAN: I intervene to call the attention of the Postmaster-General to a situation which is seriously handicapping trade in the Mersey area. Prior to 1925 the town of Birkenhead was self-contained as regards having a postmaster, and a sorting and distributing staff. Since 1925 there has been a rearrangement by which the sorting has been taken to Liverpool, and the postmastership has been abolished. Since that time serious disadvantage has arisen as regards the distribution and sorting of mails and the postal facilities in that area. Letters from all parts of the world to addresses in that district have to go to Liverpool to be stamped and sorted and sent back to Birkenhead again, and then distributed to the various addresses, and this has occasioned a great deal of dissatisfaction. The chambers of commerce, the big shipyards such as Messrs. Cammell Lairds, and other bodies, have expressed their disapproval of the change. In the case of the shipyards, on one occasion a very important tender missed a post, and was almost late, almost leading to a very serious situation.
As a simple illustration of what occurs I may mention that about a month ago two cards addressed to myself at Birkenhead were posted at the general post office in Birkenhead, were sent over to Liverpool to be stamped and sent back again to Birkenhead, and then distributed. That is what happens, and it is particularly serious, as the area outside Birkenhead is largely residential and is occupied by the captains of industry and merchant princes from Liverpool. They have very serious complaints to make, because letters arrive at their homes after they have left for their offices in the city, and these letters have then to be forwarded, entailing serious delay. There might have been some justification in 1925 for the change, but there is certainly no justification to-day, because in the intervening period great developments have taken place in that area. As most hon. Members know, a tunnel is now being made under the Mersey, and will, it is anticipated, be opened within the next 12 months, while grants have been made by this House for the electrification of the Wirral railway which will open up that
2234
district. Financial assistance is also being given towards the making of new docks at Birkenhead, and quite recently at Lord Leverhulme's works at Port Sunlight a big new dock was opened. Further, the town of Birkenhead has become the greatest milling centre in the country. The population is growing, urbanisation is spreading all over Wirral, and at present the county council is dividing up all the rural parishes. The population of Wirral is over 300,000. There are the county boroughs of Birkenhead and Wallasey, and two or three large urban districts like Ellesmere Port, Babington and Bromboro, Hoylake and West Kirby, and in addition the rural districts are all rapidly developing. I welcome the enthusiasm and the breadth of outlook which the Postmaster-General has shown and I congratulate him on his accession to his office, but I would ask him to give serious consideration to these complaints which have been going on for the last five years and are increasing in intensity. I appeal to him to take steps to see that in the near future Birkenhead is restored to its former position in this respect, and given responsibility in connection with the postal arrangements for the large and growing area around it.
The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Viant): It is obvious that the question raised by the hon. Member requires a considerable amount of consideration, but he may take it from me that the Postmaster-General will give it due consideration and will see what can be done to meet the hon. Member's case.

COAL MINES ACT.
Mr. ERNEST BROWN: I am sure that the House will welcome an opportunity of discussing the working of the quota, system in connection with the Coal Mines Act, 1930. It is much too early yet to form a considered judgment on how the system is working. Nevertheless, there is a great deal of disquiet in various parts of the country as to whether or not the Act is working as it was intended to work by those who framed it, and whether hardship is not accruing unnecessarily to large bodies of miners especially in the Midlands district. I propose to deal with certain points which arise from the public discussion of the question, from

2235
information received from various parts of the country, and from questions and answers in this House.
It is obvious that certain collieries could employ more men if their quotas were higher. Whether there would be reflex action in other areas is a point which I do not want to discuss now. It is also certain that merchants have found difficulties in certain cases in obtaining supplies. That was made clear during the recent cold snaps in London and elsewhere. There have also been difficulties in certain ports with regard to bunkering. I was surprised at the Minister's reply on that subject because I have made inquiries, and I am assured that there has been very great difficulty in this respect. Whether they are due to the quota or not, those difficulties have arisen, and those who have suffered because of the difficulties, believe that they are due to the quota. It is also said that there has been a great deal of disorganisation of the normal marketing channels, but I do not stress that point too much, because every new departure is bound to bring in its train a certain amount of disorganisation.
Mr. TINKER: On a point of Order. May I ask, Sir, what lines this Debate will take? Will it be open to hon. Members to discuss the whole of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, or are we to be confined to the part which deals with the quota?
Mr. SPEAKER: This Debate is not on the Coal Mines Act, 1930, but on the Vote on Account, and any questions dealing with the Mines Department of the Board of Trade can be discussed. We cannot discuss the whole working of an Act of Parliament.
8.0 p.m.
Mr. BROWN: This matter, of course, concerns the administration of the Mines Department, and I do not propose to go further than to try to obtain information for the country upon it, and also the Minister's view on the complaints which have been made on this particular point. I also wish to make an appeal to him in one particular case. If other hon. Members have other points to raise, that is a matter which is in their hands, and under your Ruling, Sir, and is not in the hands of those who have given notice of raising this subject.
2236
I was about to say that in the ports on the east coast of Scotland there has been a great decrease in export coal as compared with previous years. In the case of my own division, Leith, the figures of last February as compared with those of February a year ago show that the export of coal, which was 111,000 tons, has fallen by 46,000 tons, which is a very serious fall. I am not in a position to say that this fall is due to the working of the quota, but there are certain people engaged in the shipping of coal who hold that view very strongly. I want some information from the Minister as to the reason, in his view, for that big increase. One of the reasons given for framing the Act in this way was that it was hoped to stimulate the export of coal. Whether that object will be achieved over a long period I do not know; but the first quarter is not very hopeful. Very little confidence is felt by minorities in the work of the Central Council. The Minister may reply in the words of a celebrated Member of this House, Mr. Birrell, that minorities must suffer; but that is no comfort to minorities, whether they be coalowners who do not get the quota they think they are entitled to or miners who are standing idle or working short time.
As I understand it, the Central Council fixed the total for the first quarter ending 31st March at about 10 per cent, below the output for the March quarter of 1930, and they divided the output among the various districts. There seems to have been a great deal of trouble in the Midland district, comprising Yorkshire, Nottingham, Derby, and Lancashire. They were allowed a right of appeal, but they did not exericse that appeal. Durham and Cumberland fixed their prices as the Midland district did not. The other districts claim that the Midland district undercut them in an attempt to secure more trade. I understand that the other districts state that they failed to limit their production in January and February to the permitted level. It is quite evident that the total output over the whole of the country has not bean exhausted in the period under review. The Minister, of course, will reply that, since the total output permitted has not been achieved, that is an answer to those who claim that their quota should be larger in the other districts. But there is an answer to that which goes to the

2237
root of the whole system. It appears to me now, as it appeared to me in theory before it began to work, that a system of this kind worked by committees of owners could not be elastic enough to meet the needs of producers with regard to their own markets and commitments, on the one hand, and that it could not be elastic enough, on the other hand, with regard to the needs of consumers, considering the great variety there are in the classes of coal. That seems to be borne out, so far as I can judge at the moment.
The Minister will no doubt say that the coal merchants have been caught as the consumers have been caught by the spell of cold weather. But that will always happen, because many people have no coal cellars, and they are unable to stock coal for a long period. Therefore, whatever arrangements you may make theoretically for an arbitrary figure, when a cold snap comes you are bound to get people who have not got their allotted amount. If that happens in an area where the quota is working with insufficient elasticity, the people are bound to be badly hit. I have talked with some merchants, and I have read a good deal of correspondence. The merchants blame the Act. I want to make it quite clear to the House that I do not blame the Act for every complaint that has been made. They quote a circular which has been sent out by collieries in the Midlands, who said that they had not and in some cases could not meet their contracts. Then there ate cases in which large consumers of coal are making inquiries about delivery. The London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company desire to know if a certain company with which they have contracts will be able to meet their contracts, because in the week ending 14th March the delivery was 518 tons below the contracted weekly quantity. The letter says:
"This, in view of the approaching stoppage at the collieries for Easter is a serious matter, and I shall be glad to hear that arrangements are being made this week and next to send us the full weekly quantities due, also the deficiency created last week. The Secretary for Mines is reported to have stated that a coal shortage does not exist, no appeal having been received by the Central Council from the District Executive Board. I presume this remark is intended to refer to house coal. Assuming that the short supplies of loco coal are the result of the new Coal Mines Act, I shall be glad to hear whether you have stated your case to the proper authorities in regard to your obligation to this company."
2238
The Minister will claim, I understand, that the circulars which have been issued by the merchants show concerted action. That seems to be a curious reply. My answer is, "Why not, if the facts warrant it?" In a scheme of this kind, in which the original judgment is made by a board representing a majority of owners, a minority which may have a good case may be over-ruled, and its only chance is to take concerted action with other minorities which may be suffering in other districts. Is the Minister of opinion that the Act is working in the manner in which he forecasted that it would work? In the course of the Debate an hon. Member said:
"It is nowhere stated in the Bill, so far as I can see, that the Central Council shall take into consideration past results at all. I have no doubt they will do so, but it is nowhere laid down as a principle."
The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade replied:
"I cannot say off-hand whether there is a specific reference, but there has never been any doubt about that, and there cannot be under this legislation. The Central Council has to take the present record of the district into account, and it reaches right down to the individual colliery which gets its standard tonnage to which the quota is applied. That standard tonnage, if it is fairly fixed, must have regard to what the colliery has been doing and so from the very foundation of the scheme upwards you get a reference to what has been the state of affairs, subject always to what object of this part of the Bill, the disposal of the coal at a remunerative level, putting such quantities on to the market as will bring a proper price."
The House will want to know whether the Minister thinks that, in fixing the quota in the areas, regard is being had to the past output and the potential development and needs of individual collieries or whether the figure is being based on an arbitrary figure over the area with regard to the total which is fixed for the whole country. If we can get an answer to that question, the country will have some idea as to whether scientific judgment is being brought to bear on the application of this system. May I give a particular case which is being largely canvassed in the newspapers? I refer to the case of the pits in the Barnsley district. The Barnsley Town Council—this is not in any sense a political matter—felt that their constituents were being adversely affected by the allocation and made a request for a re-allocation. They

2239
passed a resolution asking for an examination by the District Committee of Investigation. This is a copy of a resolution which was passed by the Midland (Amalgamated) District Committee of Investigation at a meeting held in Sheffield on 13th March:
"That, in the opinion of this committee the amended standard tonnages allotted to the North Gawber Colliery, the Woolley Colliery, the Haigh Colliery, and the Darton Colliery by the Executive Board of the Midland (Amalgamated) District (Coal Mines) Scheme 1930, are having an effect contrary to the public interest and are inequitable. The committee consider that these standard tonnages call for a substantial increase. The committee further resolved that copies of the foregoing resolution be forwarded at once to the executive board of the Midland (Amalgamated) District (Coal Mines) Scheme with a request that it should receive early attention and that the committee may be informed of the action taken by the executive board."
I understand from a Press report this morning that the Minister has seen a deputation from the town council and that he has told them that he has no power to act. If that is so, the House is entitled to know whether, pending a re-allocation by the standard tonnage sub-committee of that district, men who were out of work may be allowed to go back and an adjustment made afterwards. The House when it was passing the Bill never dreamt of procedure of this kind. I am not able to discover from the statement of the Minister where the power lies. I do not know whether it lies with the sub-committee itself or whether the sub-committee will have again to report to the investigation committee or how long or how far the process will go. Will the Minister tell the House how long the men are to be kept idle because the allocation is insufficient, or if there are any powers in his hand or in the hand of any other authority whereby these men can go back pending re-allocation which I assume will be made. It is a dangerous thing to have men standing idle by Act of Parliament. It is a dangerous thing from the point of view of the men themselves and of the whole country, and it does seem to me that the report of the sub-committee agrees with the complaints that have been made, at any rate in part, that there has been an allocation on too small a basis and that it is not merely adverse
2240
to the men and the colliery owners but to the public interest.
I would like to raise the question of the drop in the export trade in order that we may get the Minister's view about it. There has been a heavy drop this February as compared with February, 1930, in the exports from the port of Leith, and I understand that there is a corresponding drop in all the East of Scotland ports. If that be so, it is a serious thing. The figure for February, 1930, was 111,644 tons and the figure this February is 64,816 tons, which is an extraordinarily heavy drop. I have made some inquiries as to this, and though there is a great difference of opinion about it, there is a good deal of suspicion that it is naturally owing to the new arrangements. Those who are looking for an easy explanation will blame the coal quota for it. Let me put the points that come uppermost in my mind as a result of talking it over. There is no doubt that there are some people who blame the Mines Act for this drop. It is to be contended that the quota system compelling collieries to reduce their output makes it difficult for owners to offer ahead, as they do not know what their available quantity of shipment will be.
It is contended that the quota system operates for all collieries alike for all grades of coal alike, irrespective of the demand for certain special qualities. In certain parts of the East of Scotland, especially in Fifeshire, there are certain kinds of coal which are specially needed for steamships; there is always a demand for them, and it is contended that there is not enough variation and elasticity under this system to enable a sufficient supply to be provided of that particular type of coal, for which there is always a demand, and which is wanted badly by certain steamers in order to keep the pits working at their full output. It is also contended that there are collieries in Scotland producing certain grades of coal which will always find a market, but to-day these mines are working short time, and are dismissing miners, notwithstanding the fact that they could dispose of their whole output if the quota allowed it. Those who attribute the fall in shipments to the quota system say that the quota system is the worst that could possibly be adopted, for it takes no account of the varying classes of coal

2241
nor of the fluctuating demand which has always existed and always will exist in the coal trade. It is also held by some of the shippers that the coal market can only be maintained by full production and low costs, and it is the opinion of some coal traders that this particular system has meant higher costs and is therefore disadvantageous.
I hope that the Minister will believe me when I say that evidence comes to us from all parts of the country that there is grave disquiet at the working of the quota. I beg him not to take merely the departmental view that the Act is all right and must be all right for everybody, merely because some central committee says so. If the thing works as it has been working in the first 2½ months, he will not be able long to maintain that attitude. I put in a special plea for the particular miners in the Barnsley district who, as the investigating committee say, are suffering because the scheme is
"having an effect contrary to the public interest and is inequitable. The committee consider that these standard tonnages call for a substantial increase."
If the hon. Gentleman cannot give the House a direct statement now that these men can go back pending the re-allocation, I hope that he will give an assurance that there will be the utmost speed in re-allocating the quota, so that the men who are now standing idle may have the occupation which they are hungry to get, and produce the coal for which there is a market and which is badly needed.
Lieut. - Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: Almost exactly a week ago I raised the question of the intolerable position which has been created in the fishing trade by what the merchants in the Humber considered to be the operation of the quota; and because the Debate took place on a Supplementary Estimate, I was somewhat cramped in developing my argument. I succeeded in pointing out, however, that unless the position altered considerably before the end of this month, 50 per cent. of the trawlers which operate from Hull will be unable to go to sea owing to the shortage of coal. Trawler owners having contracts in the South Yorkshire area have received intimation that colliery owners are, according to their statement, owing to the action of the quota, unable
2242
to implement their contracts by something like 50 per cent., which meant that trawler owners found themselves suddenly and without previous warning deprived of half the quantity of coal which they had contracted for. For some reason or other, the collieries are unable to supply the coal they had contracted to supply. In order to show that this is not raised merely as a party question, I should like to read from a letter which I have received. I understand that the Minister has also received similar letters dealing with this question. This letter is from a firm of coal contractors on the Humber, and they say:
"Under our contracts we should have received 8,380 tons of coal at the fish docks, Grimsby, this month, and we required every ounce of this tonnage. Against this quantity, the collieries have informed us the best they would be able to do for us is 4,700 tons. The actual coal we have received from this source so far this month is 2,100 tons against these contracts. Providing we received the utmost tonnage from the collieries, and they say it is absolutely impossible for them to do more, we shall still be 3,600 tons short of our requirements. We have the following vessels due from Iceland in a week's time, namely steam trawlers 'Elf King,' 'North King' and 'Spider,' while we have the following weekly vessels fishing in the North Sea: steam trawlers 'Aucuba,' 'Croxby,' 'Riby,' 'Rugby,' 'Russell,' 'Garola,' 'Gadra' and 'Grenada'; while in addition we are committed for this coal to other trawler friends who have vessels due. We may say that during the last three days we have been compelled to buy considerably inferior coal at a higher price than our contract figure in order to get vessels away to Iceland and Greenland. We shall be grateful to you if you can put us into touch with some of the coal said to be available."
The remarks I made on the last occasion were implemented by every other speaker. They referred to the fact that offers had been received of Polish-Silesian coal to be delivered in the Humber. I beg the Minister of Mines not to give any encouragement to the importation of Polish coal into this country, and not to throw another market into the hands of the Polish-Silesian coalowners. That coal trade has done enough harm to the trade of this country as it is. Not many years ago, the north country and Durham coal had a practical monopoly of the coal trade in the Baltic. To-day scarcely a ton of British coal goes to the Baltic. Not long ago the Secretary

2243
for Mines made a, journey to Sweden in the hope of persuading Swedish buyers to use more British coal. Whether he is satisfied with the results of his journey I do not know, but I know that exporters in this country are highly dissatisfied.
In reply to various points which were raised in the Debate the other day, the Minister said that, taking the country as a whole, there was no shortage of coal, and he mentioned that in South Wales there was a surplus of nearly 2,500,000 tons on the quota, and in Durham a surplus of something like 500,000 tons. But coal in South Wales is of no use to the trawler owners in my constituency. Transport costs from South Wales to the Humber are approximately 15s a ton, within 1s. of the price at which these trawler owners had contracted for supplies of Yorkshire coal. An alternative source of supply is Durham, but if Durham coal is not brought down to the Humber the trawlers have to call in at the Tyne or at Seaham Harbour, incurring very considerable loss of time and very considerable other expenses. The Secretary for Mines was inclined to scoff at the suggestion that Polish coal could be imported into the Humber at competitive prices. For greater accuracy, I will read his exact words:
"The hon. Member for Grimsby spoke about the danger of Polish coal being imported into this country. The newspapers have been dealing with that point, and all sorts of threats have been used. May I point out that not a single ounce of Polish coal has come into the country during last week, although the statement appeared in the Press on Thursday that we had been compelled to buy Polish coal. It is quite plain that the tales which have appeared in the Press about the importation of Polish coal have been circulated in order to prejudice the working of the Coal Mines Act,"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1931; col. 1612, Vol. 249.]
It seems to me that those remarks were intended to convey the idea that it was quite impossible for Polish coal to be imported on an economic basis. But I have in my hand two telegrams making definite offers of Polish coal. The first one says—
"Loading about 28th. Offer 3,000 tons Progress."
That is the name of a very large Silesian cartel.
2244
"Moisture 5, ash 2,5, volatiles 34–3,5. Large coal 16s. 6d., cobbles 16s. 9d. to 17s."
I have another telegram from Messrs. Worms and Company, the large French coal traders, who have recently gone into the Polish coal trade.
"Worms offer 3,000 large over 6 inches. Approximate analysis without guarantee is volatiles 34–35, fixed carbon 64, moisture 10–11, ash 4/5 per cent. Similar Gedling bards"—
That is the name of a colliery from which trawlers and trawler owners frequently obtain their supplies—
"suitable bunkers 17s. 3d., Thames 17s. free alongside, Hull, Grimsby, Immingham, 500 tons daily delivery 1/6 stem subject to mutual arrangement; prompt shipment."
Those telegrams show that it is possible to obtain Polish coal in the Humber at a price very little in excess of the price the trawler owners have contracted to pay for Yorkshire coal, and in view of the inroads Polish coal has already made into British markets, it is highly inadvisable to throw another market, the home market, into the arms of those competitors. It is not only from the North that we receive these complaints. I have a letter from a firm of merchants in Reading:
"Dear Sir,
I desire to call your serious attention to the shortage of coal in this district which has resulted in consequence of the quota system of the Coal Mines Act. I would point out that there is a real difficulty in obtaining sufficient house coal, and this difficulty is likely to continue during the remainder of the month, as many of the collieries have almost worked their permitted tonnage."
There is another case concerning ships trading from London to Jamaica which normally obtain their bunkers from a South Yorkshire colliery which ships from Hull. They have been obliged to purchase 600 tons of bunker coal at Rotterdam. That is coal from the Ruhr, another competitor with the British coalowners.
The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): I am sorry to interrupt, but the coal the hon. and gallant Member refers to was British coal.
Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I am only too glad to hear it, but that does not make matters any easier for my trawler owners in Hull. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain why it is

2245
possible for that colliery to ship coal to Rotterdam when apparently they are unable to send it to London. As far as the Humber is concerned, I should like to conclude with a telegram I have received to-day from the Chamber of Commerce and Shipping in Hull, a most representative body, thoroughly representative of trade, commerce and industry throughout Hull, which, I would remind the President of the Board of Trade, is the third largest coal shipping port in the United Kingdom:
"Shipowners, brokers and coal exporters of Hull urge you use strongest possible means to-day to obtain some relief from the most distressing position Hull is placed. Steamers cannot obtain their supplies of bunker coal. Orders are being regularly refused and the trade of this port is becoming almost impossible."
In view of that telegram I ask the hon. Gentleman to give us some explanation and to let us know what steps he intends to take to relieve the situation existing in that city.
Mr. T. WILLIAMS: It will be observed by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen that all the quotations which have been given by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) and the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward) that in no single case do they quote any coalowner, except the Barnsley Colliery, as having made complaints about the administration of this quota scheme.
Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I purposely refrained from quoting them. I have them, but I did not read them out.
Mr. WILLIAMS: It would have been more convenient if we had had the names of the few colliery owners who have been mentioned.
Mr. E. BROWN: I alluded to one case for reallocation, and the hon. Member knows very well that, under the present system, colliery owners are not likely to come out in the open.
Mr. WILLIAMS: When all the colliery owners except one small insignificant company in the Barnsley area have made no complaints whatsoever, I ask hon. Members to disregard the complaints which have been put before the House by hon. Members opposite. With regard to the complaints of contractors and merchants, they come from speculators.
2246
They have no concern for the miners or the mineowners. What they are seeking is an unlimited output at no price at all in order that they may make more money out of the situation. The campaign which we are now witnessing is only a repetition of the campaign which occurred in the five-counties area. May I point out to hon. Members opposite that, as a result of the application of the quota system to the five counties, the exports there have increased approximately from 4,000,000 to 5,000,000 tons? When the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull referred to the decrease in our export trade, surely he had not forgotten that his own party was responsible largely for the rejection of the national levy, and their colleagues were responsible for the elimination of the district levy, thereby continuing to the coalowners the right to make the best arrangements they could for expediting and increasing the export of coal.
Major COLVILLE: Can they not do that voluntarily?
Mr. WILLIAMS: If they had desired to make their industry as prosperous as the electricity industry, they could have done so by the same method. It was merely because coalowners themselves, despite years and years of depression, refused to face the facts that it was necessary to bring in the Coal Mines Bill. It seems to me to be rather late in the day for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to be complaining about the administration of an Act of Parliament which has recently come into operation, which is most difficult to understand, and which is equally difficult to administer. The central fact of the situation has been that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have opposed this Measure from commencement to end. They eliminated some important parts of the Bill which were embodied for a very special purpose, and now they find that the industry is suffering in consequence. It was prophesied that not only would the Coal Mines Bill cause dislocation by the application of the quota system, but we were actually told that the minimum price of coal would be increased by 3s. 6d. or 4s. 6d. per ton. When we talked about tin and tin plates we were told that the Coal Mines Bill would put 16s. on every ton produced. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Car-

2247
narvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) told us that the Bill would effect every industry and every hearth and home in the kingdom—
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Robert Young): The hon. Member must not go too far into the Act; we are not discussing that question to-night.
Mr. TINKER: We have already been informed from the Chair that we should be allowed to cover a wide field.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: A discussion on the quota is in order, but the details of the Act are not in order.
Mr. WILLIAMS: I was not discussing the quota, but I was recalling to the House the opinion on this question expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs and the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) when they were denouncing the application of the quota system and the limitation of output. Both those right hon. Gentlemen seem to have forgotten the effect of the quota in the tinplate trade. No doubt we shall be told in this Debate that their prognostications have turned out to be correct, but I think I can show that not only have they not matured, but, so far as the Act has been given a chance, it has been successful.
What are the facts of the situation? The combine in Yorkshire have received their allocation; they have had an opportunity of appealing to the Investigation Committee, and they had an opportunity of going to arbitration. Hon. and right hon. Members ought to have more confidence in the impartial arbitrators who have met to deal with these complaints, and are trying to give fair treatment in each individual case. The Central Council has fixed the allocation, and it is less than the output for 1930. Each district was charged with the responsibility of fixing the allocation to each individual colliery in each district. The method adopted in fixing the standard tonnage was not to take one area which might be favourable or unfavourable to any particular colliery or combine, but to take five normal years 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925 and 1927. That was the basis upon which the standard tonnage was actually fixed.
2248
If those five years, which are a fair average, are applied to every colliery or combine in this country, there is no room for complaint.
If any district in the whole coal-mining area had cause for complaint on the first allocation, that district was the Midland area, of which Yorkshire forms a part. They had cause for complaint, perhaps, because in 1930 they had already a voluntary quota in operation, while all the other districts in the mining area were able to produce as rapidly as they liked. The Midland Counties, however, did not wish to be the first to complain, because they were the home of co-operation, and were actually the inspiration for this co-operative Bill. They made their initial blunder by not immediately appealing to the arbitrators or the Central Council when they felt that the first allocation was adverse to their area. Since, however, they made that blunder, I see no reason why even they should complain two or three months later.
In Yorkshire, for the first quarter of 1930, the allocation was 65 per cent. for January, 65 per cent. for February, and 60 per cent. for March; but when the Midland area secured their allocation for the first quarter of this year, what did they do? Let it be remembered that the South Wales miners were locked out because they were unwilling to accept starvation wages, and the Midland counties, therefore, made up their minds to allocate to each colliery and combine 90 per cent. for January, and 82½ per cent. for February, leaving only 56.86 per cent. for March, and therein lies the real cause of the coal shortage in that area at this moment. But they did more. They waited until Durham and Northumberland had fixed their minimum price, below which they were unable to sell, and then they commenced to undersell their next-door neighbours in all parts of the coal consuming area. Is that a defect in the Bill, or is it a defect in the minds of the coalowners of the Midland area?
It is true that Yorkshire is as much an exporting area as South Wales or Durham, but the exports of Yorkshire are internal. They must export beyond the boundaries of Yorkshire, or otherwise their output would have to be reduced very rapidly. But there was no necessity for the Yorkshire coalowners, or any

2249
coalowners, to undercut the price already fixed in Durham and Northumberland, so that they could make long-dated contracts at ridiculously low and unremunerative prices for the purpose of obtaining orders which really and honestly belonged to some other part of the coal-mining area. The statements with regard to trawlers referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for North West Hull, and which also have been referred to on occasion by the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley), and possibly by the hon. Member for Leith, may be true, but some of the contracts into which Yorkshire coalowners entered are impossible of fulfilment at this moment. Is there any reason why they should be permitted to fulfil contracts that are illegitimate and grossly immoral?
Do hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite believe it to be sound business for anybody to be producing commodities and selling them at a price less than the actual cost of production? That is exactly what has been taking place, and, now that the Yorkshire allocation for March is 58 per cent., as compared with 82½ per cent. for February and 90 per cent. for January, clearly the coalowners in the Midland area are not complaining, because they know, perhaps better than any Member in this House, that they themselves are responsible for the position in which they are now landed. I suggest that the Midland coalowners, having appealed to the Central Council and been turned down, having appealed to the arbitrators and been turned down, having appealed to the Investigation Committee and been turned down, have no case, and, consequently, they do not complain. They have been taking orders in Durham and Lancashire and elsewhere that did not belong to them, and now the coalowners in Durham are able to fulfil those orders which are not being fulfilled by Yorkshire or some other Midland owners; and it seems to me that Durham, who have fixed their price, should now come into their orders. That is no real defect in the Bill, but indicates a defect in the tactics and the methods employed by the Midland coalowners.
I suggest, therefore, that this campaign is merely Press propaganda, and propaganda which has been inspired by speculators, factors and merchants, who always
2250
want the maximum output at the minimum price—who, despite the fact that the demand for coal has settled down at about 250,000,000 or 260,000,000 tons per annum, would have the miners produce 290,000,000 or 300,000,000 tons, even if they were unable to secure 5s. a ton for it. I would remind hon. and right hon. Gentlemen of a statement made by one of their colleagues during the discussion on an Amendment in the Committee stage. Referring to the position that existed before the introduction of the Bill, the hon. Member for Eccleshall (Sir S. Roberts) said:
"Speaking with an experience of the quota system for nearly two years, I can say that some of my hon. Friends appear to he raising bogeys in order to knock them down again"—
they are doing that at this moment—
"and exaggerating the evils of the quota system while forgetting that it has some good points."
He went on to say:
"How did we stand in the Midland area? …. The potential output being larger than the demand led to cut-throat prices, and the price of coal went down and clown. Every concession exacted from the workers from their wages, every economy made in a mine, were all given away by the salesman."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1930; cols. 2486–7, Vol. 235.]
Those are the same people who are complaining bitterly to-day. Therefore, I would suggest that this Press campaign, initiated very largely by people who do not produce coal, who have no money invested in coal mines, but who merely sell the commodity of other people in order that they themselves may benefit, ought not to be supported by Members in any part of this House.
With regard to the Barnsley Combine, I would say this in conclusion. Here are four or five collieries which, during the period when the coalowners of Yorkshire and the Midland counties were cooperating to try to bring some element of prosperity into the industry and increase their export sales, played the part of a blackleg. They remained outside the scheme; they made no contribution towards the levy which facilitated and expedited the increase of export sales; they reduced their workmen's wages down to the lowest point consistent with allowing them to live at all; they took every advantage of the situation

2251
that the co-operative scheme made possible; and, consequently, at that moment they increased their sales at the expense of their colleagues in different parts of the country.
Now that the present quota is based upon the years 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925 and 1927, and not upon the period when they were taking undue advantage of their colleagues in Yorkshire and elsewhere, they are complaining bitterly, and want Part II of the Act repealed. I would suggest to hon. and night hon. Members that fair dealing in any trade or industry ought to appeal to them, and that, should there be that kind of individual, or collection of individuals, that we find in all sections of the community, in all political parties, and in every trade union—the sort of person who would take advantage of his grandfather—we ought not only to refrain from condoning his actions and rendering him any support, but we ought to let him understand that, if co-operation in this industry is necessary for the purpose of bringing back prosperity to it, he is not going to receive any better terms than any other section of the community.
The number of employés in the mining industry to-day, as compared with six years ago, is between 300,000 and 400,000 less. Unemployment to-day in the mining industry is not, however, due to the application of this Bill, but is due to circumstances over which no individual has any control. I would, therefore, ask Members of this House to pay little attention to individuals, but to seek their information, if they want the truth of the whole situation, from the coalowners themselves. They know the facts, and, because they know the facts, I would suggest that, so long as no complaints are forthcoming from the owners or mine workers, we can well afford to leave the factor, the speculator, and the merchant alone to his own Press campaign or any other policy that he wants to pursue. Not a single ton of coal is coal which has been brought into this country, neither are we likely to purchase Polish coal. Coal is plentiful, if the would-be buyer cares to look round for it, at a reasonable price. If I have one complaint of the administration of the Act, it is that the price has not been fixed so as to enable the miner to receive a much
2252
better wage than he is receiving to-day. That is our complaint of the application of the quota system, and it is because I believe that there are still great possibilities in the Act that I want to see it continued, and the owners to come together and do the thing that we think is really necessary before we can get prosperity.
Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Member always addresses the House in a very effective manner and presents his case in a very persuasive way. He has quoted to-night some words used in the earlier Debate on coal condemning people who put up bogeys and then knock them over. I think he has been a little guilty of that kind of thing himself. At any rate, he has not addressed himself to the argument that I used on the last occasion, and to the real charge that is being brought to-day. I am not in the least concerned as between one coalowner and another. I think the coalowners in their quarrels may perhaps be left to look after themselves. Nor am I in the least concerned with contractors, dealers and speculators. That is not what causes complaint. The complaint at present is that the consumers, ordinary men in the street, the ordinary factories, gas works, and trawlers cannot get coal of the kind they want delivered at the place where they want it.
It is no good to say that this is a Press stunt. I am not in the least prejudiced. There must be truth in this when Member of Parliament after Member of Parliament gets telegrams day after day from people who are not in the least concerned with the Coal Act, with policy or with the Labour Government—who are not politicians at all. An hon. Member read out a telegram from his co-operative society to say that they would have to close down unless they could get coal. The people who send telegrams to the hon. Member for Hull—[Interruption.] I am not sure. I hope they did. But there is not the least doubt—instances which have been quoted over and over again—about people having great difficulty in getting coal.
9.0 p.m.
I received only to-night a, long list of gas works which are having great difficulty in getting the amount of coal that

2253
they require. The list of undertakings in which deliveries of coal are short of contract quantities run into 30 or 40, and include places like Lancaster, Leeds, Market Harborough, Norwich, and Nottingham. A large number of undertakings are also given which have been seriously inconvenienced in their gas supply. [interruption.] A great many large gas works use coal at a very rapid rate. [Interruption.] Probably the gas companies know more about what coal they have to carry than the hon. Member. There is no doubt about it, and the Minister must know that there is case after case where people cannot get coal. The answer that was given by him last time, and by the hon. Member was this: "We cannot help this, because the coalowners in the Midland area got out too much in the first two months. They sold their coal in Wales, and they undersold some Durham coalowners in competition." I daresay that is quite true. I will accept it at once. But what earthly consolation is that to a consumer who cannot get coal? The hon. Member cannot ride off on that and say, "That is not the Act. That is the way the coalowners are working the Act." [Interruption.] I dare say. It is exactly what I protested against when the Bill was going through. Of course, it is the Act. You were not going to convert coalowners or miners or any one into models of efficiency by passing a mere Act of Parliament. You are saying now that this is not the fault of your Act. But who gave these coalowners the power to run this compulsory trust? Who forced them to enter into a compulsory trust of this kind? Who gave them the control over the whole of the trust when farmed? You did by your Bill.
Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Surely the right hon. Gentleman will not forget that the Midland area is the same area that had a quota scheme in operation prior to the application of the Act, and that there were no troubles at all except shortage of demand, which compelled a short number of working days.
Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not know what the force of that argument is, I think there were some troubles in the early days, and I will come to that in a moment. The hon. Member himself has said that the difficulty in getting coal to the Humber is due to the fact that the
2254
Yorkshire people sold too much of their product. He said they got their quota allotted. They used up too much of it in January and February by the ways that he has indicated. I accept that, but it is no earthly consolation to the consumer who is now put in the position that he cannot get the coal he wants at the place where he wants it, because an Act of Parliament has been been passed, not only enabling this to be done, but compelling it to be done. An hon. Member says that I gloat over it. I do not. It is a very gloomly satisfaction to me to see now in practice exactly what I pointed out through many weary months was likely, and indeed almost certain, to be the outcome of the legislation that they were passing. It is some sombre satisfaction, but no complete remedy, to repoice over a sinner that repenteth. [Interruption.] I believe there was one righteous man. At any rate, if the hon. Member voted against it, I beg his pardon. He was a very honourable exception to a band of gentlemen who spoke against it but voted for it.
The real charge that the Minister has to meet is the need of the consumer. It is not merely a question of price, though that may arise. It is to get coal of the quality he wants delivered at the place where he wants it. Nor is it any answer to say that he can go to a committee. A committee is not coal, and, when you want coal, it is no good to be given a committee, which takes a very long time to function. Let me remind the House of the interminable stages through which the consumer who complains has to go before he can get satisfaction. A coalowner who has a dispute with another coalowner seems to get his case heard much more quickly. Their domestic squabbles, about which I do not care at all, are settled much more quickly, but the consumer who has a complaint, either because the operation of the scheme is wrong or the scheme is contrary to public interest, makes an application and goes before an investigating committee. The investigating committee makes a report, the Board of Trade considers the report, and the Board of Trade is then able to make an inquiry, and as a result of that inquiry the Board comes to a conclusion—at least I hope so—and then has to enter into negotiations with the owners. If the owners do not do

2255
what the Board want, apparently all that the Board can do is to denounce the scheme and put another scheme into operation.
There is, apparently, an alternative process under which, after investigation by the committee, the committee may refer the matter to an arbitrator, who may report. The arbitrator's report may then be considered by the Board of Trade, and the Board of Trade may enter into negotiations with the owners, and may alter the scheme. That is the machinery set up under the Act. I protested against it at the time as being wholly inadequate and hopelessly inelastic. I said that it would fail to work, and that by the time a man had got his complaint considered, he would have bought coal of a different kind at a higher price, and been greatly inconvenienced. That, apparently, is what is happening. He can either go through that process, or the Minister says to him, "The coalowner is falling down on his contract, and you can sue the coalowner for damages." Of course, he can do that, but what he wants is, not damages, but coal. I am by no means sure whether the coalowner might not, under the intricacies of this Act, find a defence for almost everything with which he was charged. Does not all this show that it is incumbent upon the Minister to use all the powers he possesses?
I should have thought that he ought to have used those powers at two stages. He has the power to approve a scheme. I thought that that was an inadequate power at the time, because, as far as I can see, in approving a scheme, he has to look only at the terms of the Act. It is not the general terms of the scheme which matter, but the way in which it is carried out. I should have thought that the Minister, knowing the sort of risks that were run, and that were even run under the voluntary five county scheme, would have taken care before sanctioning a scheme to make sure that he had provisions for elasticity and provisions for making it work satisfactorily. If he has not a statutory power which he can use, he has great moral power; he must have. After all, these coal trusts are his creation. He is responsible for their daily operation. He has made them possible. He has not only made them possible, but he has forced
2256
everybody into them. That makes it incumbent upon him to use all the force in his power to see that these schemes work properly.
I suggest that, whatever the statutory powers may be, he ought to be sending for these people and saying to them: "You have got to conduct your scheme so that the consumers do not suffer. You are not to have quarterly quotas, and then exhaust them and say that people cannot get coal." I should have thought that he might, if necessary, have seen to it that they should have had monthly quotas, and not quarterly quotas. That, at any rate, would apparently avoid the difficulty of people under-selling each other and using up the March quota in January and February.
Mr. COCKS: They could not undercut if they fixed minimum prices.
Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If that be so, the Minister ought to say "Your scheme shall not operate until you have fixed minimum prices." I have always thought in these matters that this kind of control of production was the very worst possible way of dealing with it. I believe that if you are to have a compulsory system of this sort at all, you have to deal with it at the selling end, and not the production end. If, instead of having 1,700 people selling coal in competition with one another, you were going to take up the attitude that you should have a limited number of selling syndicates which would work with each other, that, it seems to me, would be infinitely a better way. But you do not do it. If the hon. Gentleman would read the long Debates upon the Bill, he would find that on several occasions I said that if we control at all we ought to control it at the selling end. I think we can very easily see that the selling end might be a good deal better and that it might be possible to bring in some of the middle men as well, but, short of doing that, let him at least do that which I did when I had to deal with the voluntary scheme in the Midlands. Let him make sure that there is a mobile pool and supply of coal of the quality and of the quantity which people want available to be allotted and delivered in the areas where people require it.
It is no good trying to deal with this thing in general terms of millions of tons

2257
of coal in the aggregate. In the first place, it is no good being told that there is coal in Wales, when you want coal in Yorkshire. In the second place, it is no good if there is coal of one type available when you want coal of another type. The hon. Gentleman knows that the more highly industry is developed the more it depends on the exact type of coal it requires. I believe that in the newest and most efficient gas works they must have exactly the quality of coal they require in order to get the best results in gas, coke and by-products. It is no satisfaction to those people who have spent an enormous amount of capital in establishing their plant, and who place their forward contracts in order to get coal exactly of the kind they require from the pit that can supply it, to tell them that they can get damages from the company, because it is not going to produce the amount of coal, which the company could produce but for the Act, nor is it any consolation to tell them that they can get coal from somewhere else. That brings me back to the importance of controlling the selling side of the business rather than controlling the production side. I would beg of the Minister to face up to the fact that this is a consumer's question and not a coal owner's question, and that as he and his right hon. Friend were responsible for forcing us into the Act, they have to use all the powers they possess under it, and all the powers they possess outside of it, in order to save the consumers in this time of trouble.
Major NATHAN: Whatever views one may take of the arguments advanced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) we shall all be agreed, I think, that it is a novel and exhilarating experience to listen to a speaker from the benches above the Gangway championing the cause of the consumer. It is rather as a party supporting the producer than the consumer that we are accustomed to hear speeches from the benches above the Gangway. Whatever views we may have in regard to the merits of the quota system—I was one of the few who, contrary to the opinion of the majority both above and below the Gangway on this side of the House, supported the quota proposals throughout the discussions and in the Lobby—it is useless to hide the
2258
fact that there is a serious disequilibrium between supply and demand; a disequilibrium which may be temporary Dr which may be more fundamental. One of the questions to which I would ask the Secretary of the Mines Department to direct his attention is, how far are the defects and difficulties that have revealed themselves inherent in the scheme, if they are at all inherent in it, and how far are they, as I believe they are, merely temporary hitches in the operation of an entirely novel project. [Interruption.] It is none the worse for being novel, but all the better. We need more novel projects, more enterprise, more initiative in order to bring our basic industries to a pitch of efficiency.
How far are these defects temporary difficulties arising out of the trial of new methods? There is nothing in the experience of the last two months, so far as I understand it, to show that there is anything inherently wrong. It is worth noting as the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) said that the Act of Parliament provides that the coalowners, if dissatisfied with their position under a district scheme, have the right of appeal to an independent arbitrator, that a whole district, if dissatisfied with its situation, has the right of appeal to an independent arbitrator, and that the consumers, if dissatisfied, have the right of appeal to the National Committee of Investigation. One hon. Member referred to the inquiries which the National Committee of Investigation have made and said that the applicants to that committee were coalowners. That is not so, and under the provisions of the Act it could not be so. It is only the consumers, the public, whose interests are to be protected by the National Committee of Investigation.
Is it not a fact that the district in which the complaint has arisen has made application to an independent arbitrator who, on the evidence before him, has refused the application? As the Minister stated on Friday last, the public, the consumers, have made their application to the National Committee of Investigation, and they have unanimously refused to countenance as tenable the complaints made by the applicants. Therefore, in the one set of complaints arising out of the same circumstances under a scheme which has been working for the last two months, the judicial tribunals set up by the

2259
Act have been put into operation and their decision has been adverse to the case of the complaints. How then can it still be suggested that in the only concrete instance where complaint has arisen, that it is really justified? It seems to be an untenable position. Even though that may be so, it is not to deny that, although there may not be that cause of complaint which calls for relief, either from an independent arbitrator or from the National Committee of Investigation, yet there are difficulties and hitches in the operation of the scheme. Here I think the Minister has great powers which he could use in bringing about a more satisfactory state of affairs.
It is no use saying that there is a surplus supply of coal, unless it be available where it is wanted, at an economic price and at the time when it is wanted. I accept the criticism of the right hon. Member for Hendon in that regard, and I also follow him when he directed the attention of the Minister to the necessity of organising selling agencies. During the progress of the Bill through the House, I pointed out that our difficulties in regard to the production of coal lie in the selling of the coal, and I put on the Order Paper Amendments designed to secure that there should be an efficient selling organisation, but those Amendments were not discussed. The Minister has enormous administrative powers. He has opportunities of exercising a very great driving force in bringing together not merely coal-owners within each district, but in bringing together the districts in one central organisation for the sale of their coal. Has he attempted or is he proposing to attempt by the exercise of his administrative powers to create selling organisations extending over the whole field, district by district, and ultimately with a central selling organisation?
The next question which I would put to the Minister, with a view to eliciting some information in regard to the position and ascertaining what the possibilities are, is this: has he begun to take or is he proposing to take steps to secure that coal which on reasonable anticipation is likely to be wanted at a particular time at a particular place, will at that time and place be available? [Laughter.] Hon. Members above the Gangway laugh and jeer at the suggestion which I should
2260
have thought would have been recognised as being, what in fact it is, a suggestion for carrying on a great industry in a businesslike and efficient way. If the suggestion is so surprising to hon. Members, I can only say that it fills me with even less confidence than I have had in the past as to their projects and schemes for dealing with British industry. In spite of the jeers of hon. Members above the Gangway, I still put my question to the Minister, and shall be grateful for the reply.
The hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward) dealt with the fact that there has been a considerable reduction in the export of coal, especially to Scandinavian countries. The explanation—and I put it tentatively and in a non-controversial spirit—is in some degree that in the past coal has gone to Sweden, and timber has been brought back at low freights. Now timber has been imported from Russia at prices with which the Scandinavian timber merchants cannot compete, and it has made the former practice an impossible method of transacting business with Sweden. For a great period in the past Sweden has taken our coal even though the price was chiefly above the coal she could secure elsewhere. That narrow margin of price between British and Silesian coal, just at a particular point of time when they could not sell their timber here at profitable prices, because of the low price at which Russia has exported her timber here, provides an explanation in some degree, at all events, for the fall in exports to Scandinavia. I am not arguing the question whether it is a good or a bad thing. It may very well be that the low coal export is compensated for by having cheap timber. I only state the facts, without attempting to draw any deductions.
The quota scheme is a difficult one to operate, and I earnestly hope the Minister will urge on the Reorganisation Commissioners the vital importance of getting amalgamation schemes into operation as early as possible, so as to get the quota scheme out of the way, because the scheme lacks some of the obvious advantages of amalgamations. I accepted the quota scheme wholeheartedly as a stepping-stone towards the amalgamation schemes, but it is to amal-

2261
gamations that I look as the ultimate objective. I should like to know whether the Minister is able to give any indication as to when the Reorganisation Commissioners will be able to show results in the form of amalgamations. I am anxious to see the scheme a success, and operating in all its aspects, and I urge on the Minister that, pending further legislation, which may well be necessary, for extending the scheme and bringing the industry into a closer and more coherent whole than it is at present, he should give an assurance to the House that all the powers vested in him in an administrative capacity will be pursued ruthlessly, relentlessly and with the utmost energy.
Mr. POTTS: The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) referred to the position of collieries in the Barnsley area. The actual facts as far as the unemployed are concerned are these. For five weeks from 550 to 600 people have been totally unemployed in these seams. Prior to the Act coming into operation the men worked five to six shifts per week. If there is anything I like, it is the truth and straight dealing. I have read in the Press—and I have cuttings from three newspapers here—the statement that these people have been idle for more than three months. I want to correct that at once. They have not been idle for three months, but have been totally unemployed for five weeks. The locality in which these pits are situated has been very hard hit, having regard to the number of people employed and the number of people working short time. Very largely the trouble at these collieries arises from regard not having been given under the Act to the extension of these collieries to which they had a right. I find that in these pits on 17th December, 1927, we had 6,477 people, and on 13th December, 1930, we had 7,367, the increase in that period being 890 or 12.08 per cent.
Under the voluntary scheme we had a colliery in that area, the Darton Colliery, to which the owners gave 120,000 tons per annum, and while the pit was standing idle that particular trade was going into other localities. Under the Act they have again given that colliery an allocation of 120,000 tons, and the whole of the workmen at the pit are almost entirely working in the developed pits.
2262
Under the development extensions, 950 men found work, and the result is that while people are working with this firm, the allocation is less than it ought to be. I maintain that this allocation of 120,000 tons belongs to the pits in this area and to the people who are still residing there. Instead it has gone to Doncaster and other localities. When there is a reallocation I hope that this 120,000 tons will be transferred to this area, or at any rate that the Minister will do all he can to see that this amount is allocated to the collieries in this are and not taken outside in order to give work for other people in other districts.
Take the case of the Woolley Colliery. Their allocation at the moment is 681,698 tons. Looking closely into this matter I find that they were working six days per week before the Act came into operation. I am not going to argue this point but if I take five days work and take the amount of output I find that the allocation to this particular mine is 72.34 per cent. or in other words 27.66 per cent. below what it ought to be if a proper allocation had been given to this particular firm. I am not here to support the company in any shape or form. I am here to support the working people and to see that justice is done to them, to the town, its surroundings, and the locality in which the mine is situate. I say that the allocation of which I have spoken ought to be transferred to this area and should go to the benefit of the people who are living in that locality. I repeat that because it is the essence of the trouble.
Let me come to the position as it was under the voluntary scheme. I want to do justice to the Secretary for Mines and to the Act. We are told that Part I ought to be repealed. I live in the locality, I represent the locality, and I hope that no part of the Act will be repealed. There are grounds for amendment in certain respects, but I hope that there will be no repeal of the Act. Look at the position under the voluntary scheme. I have the facts as to how that scheme worked. In the southern part of South Yorkshire I find that under the voluntary scheme 26 pits were temporarily closed or abandoned, employing 5,093 persons, who are now out of employment. In West Yorkshire 30 pits were either temporarily closed or abandoned, employing 4,412 people, who are now out of

2263
employment. That gives a total of 56 pits either closed or abandoned, and 9,505 men who were thrown out of employment. Little was said when these men were put out of employment under the voluntary scheme, and all the shouting now is that it has arisen out of an Act of Parliament passed by a Labour Government. I hope that is a sufficient answer and gives the contrast as between the voluntary scheme and the present scheme.
When I look at the actual workings of the mines in Yorkshire I find that in May, 1930, which is a very important date in discussing the allocation question, that the shifts worked out at an average of 4.71 shifts for the week and in June following at 4.33 shifts per week. In the Western portion of Yorkshire the shifts worked out at 3.88 shifts per week in May, 1930, and in June at 3.86 shifts per week. The question of shifts is very important when dealing with allocation. All last year from the beginning of January to the end of September the average working time in Yorkshire was 4.31 shifts per week, so that we cannot even if we tried work full time even assuming that the Act worked out on a fair and even basis. The complaint I have is that as far as my area is concerned that the company has not got the allocation it should have. I believe the Minister will agree with me in that. I have the figures, and I know what ought to be done, and I know that it has not worked out properly. Even if a mine is not inside the organisation we expect to get, in the interests of the working people, fair dealing and straightforwardness as between one firm and another irrespective or whether they are or are not members or the Coalowners Federation.
Certain things are happening in my locality, and I am going to make a statement in regard to them. It takes a great deal to hurt my feelings. I have been endowed with natural good feeling towards everybody, I happen to be endowed with patience—I am not boasting of it—I am one who can stand any amount of maligning. I am getting it. I am getting it by postcards sent to me saying that if I do not get Part I repealed I need not go there again. I happen to know where these postcards are coming from, and I say at once that any colliery company which will stoop to that kind of thing are not playing
2264
the game. I have evidence. It is being done by the colliery company getting the staff to call the employés into a particular room where it is convenient for them to sign postcards and where they are collected and sent to me. I shall do all I can for the company so far as their interests are concerned in trying to get the workmen their rights.
I say, again, that the sending of postcards to me will have no effect on me. I shall continue to do my duty. I am standing here to-night to see fair play to that company and to the workpeople. If we are not getting our fair allocation we ought to get it. But we ask for no more. It is perfectly true, as has been said, that there was a deputation to the Minister yesterday. I was with that deputation, not as an appointed member, but I was asked by the Minister indirectly to be present. I attended, and I can say now that I understand the Minister's feelings, because I have been in negotiation more than most people know, in attempts to get justice done to our people. I have tried to do the right thing in that direction. It is true that the Minister has no power at the moment, except by recommendations, so far as allocation is concerned.
The President of the Board of Trade has done all that he could for this company and has done it effectively. There has been an increased allocation and it came through the President of the Board of Trade indirectly. The present Secretary for Mines has promised to do the best that he could to see justice done, and he is trying to do it. Whilst my people are suffering, whilst large numbers are unemployed and large numbers are partially working, and while there is a prospect of more being unemployed unless something is done, I hope that the Minister will use all the power and influence that he has to secure fair play and justice to my locality, so that these people have their fair share of the allocation to enable them to work equally with other people in the county.
Mr. WOMERSLEY: As one who represents an area that has been the hardest hit by the shortage of coal, I crave the indulgence of the House for a few minutes. On Friday last we had a Debate on this question, and the Secretary for Mines in his reply referred to the Press agitation, and said that this

2265
was really a scare intended to prejudice the working of the Coal Mines Act. I am going to ask him to dissociate me and those who have acted with me in the negotiations with him, from any such charge. I think he will agree that when this trouble arose in the first place three weeks ago, I approached him directly—I did not put a question on the Order Paper—and put the full facts before him, and stated what I knew of the position. I give him credit that he made a promise—he has carried it out—that he would have the matter thoroughly investigated. It was one of his own colleagues who thought fit to raise the question publicly by putting a question on the Paper, and naturally then the matter had to be dealt with on the Floor of the House. I can assure the House that on no occasion have I attempted to make any political capital out of the matter, because I realise that it is a question of the administration of the Act, and although I opposed the Act when it was passing through the House, I was not prepared to attack the Minister over the matter, provided that by administration he could smooth out the difficulties. I am sorry to say that he has not been able to do so, and that is the reason why I have to put my case forward to-night.
In his remarks on Friday last the Minister referred to a conversation that he had had with somebody connected with the coal industry who was supposed to understand a good deal about this question. Either this gentleman had not much knowledge of the subject or the Minister misunderstood him, because the Minister quoted the case of a ship from Grimsby having to call at Aberdeen fro procure coal at an extra cost of £25. The Minister said he was very sorry that that had happened.
Mr. SHINWELL: I referred to a case where, as the result of heavy weather, a ship had to go to Dundee, not merely for the purpose of getting coal, but because of the bad weather. The prolongation of the voyage cost £25 in addition to the ordinary expense.
Mr. WOMERSLEY: Let me read the exact words of the Minister. He said:
"The trawlers had to put into Aberdeen in order to replenish their supplies, and that that entailed an extra cost in some
2266
cases of £25."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1931; col. 1612, Vol. 249.]
That is my point. The Minister has misunderstood what his friend was trying to impress on him. If trawlers are not using the right type of coal, which is Yorkshire hard, there is always a chance that they will run short of coal before they get back to port. It is a question of bunker capacity. Let me show exactly how it works out. Take the case of a ship going to Iceland from Grimsby. She has to take on board a certain quantity of coal to bring her back again to port and to give her proper fishing time. If you get South Yorkshire hard coal, you take 210 tons for a 21 days' voyage. That is what is reckoned. If you take Tyne coal, you cannot do the same trip with less than 231 tons of coal. Most of these boats are built with bunkering capacity that will not take that larger quantity. It means that even if you fill up your fish room with coal as you go on the trip, and as you empty the coal out you put in the fish, you are going to burn a ton of coal per day more, and it will cost you over £20 more for the trip. You run the risk of a broken trip, the loss of fishing time, and a, still greater risk, for while in the case quoted it was possible for the ship to call at Aberdeen to get more coal, we have had instances of ships which have gone into these far Northern waters, run short of coal, and endangered the lives of the men on board. Our people are not prepared to take a risk of that kind.
Again, we ask the Minister to consider this question. Poland has been referred to. I particularly wish to call the attention of the Minister to the words that I uttered on Friday last. I then read a telegram from a Grimsby supplier, who stated that he had had Polish coal offered to him, but that he did not want to buy it if it was possible to get the supplies he required from the right source. I never stated that the coal had been actually bought. The Minister knew that, and for him to say that an ounce of Polish coal had never been bought was all very well in Debate, although no one had ever said that it had been bought. The Minister has all my correspondence on this subject. He knows that I said to him that offers of Polish coal had been made to Grimsby trawler owners, but I never said that the

2267
coal was bought. Take the document that I have in my hand. It contains quotations, dated only yesterday, from nine or 10 firms offering lots of coal—there are 2,000 to 3,000 tons in each contract—at 17s. to 19s. 3d. c.i.f. Grimsby.
These are definite offers, representing something like 20,000 tons of coal, ready to be shipped to this country at a moment's notice. Only to-night I have been speaking on the telephone to people in Grimsby who are getting urgent messages offering this coal from Poland and it is idle to say that there is no possibility of this coal being sent into this country if we cannot get the coal which we require for our vessels. I have also heard some remarks about the possibility of preventing this coal coming into the country, and I would like to ask the Minister, whether under any power which he possesses, he can prevent the importation of Polish coal. I do not want to see our people using Polish coal in any circumstance. I want them to use British coal, but I want them to use the kind of coal which is suitable for this purpose. If it were possible for the Minister, by an order, to stop this coal coming into our ports, he would also have to make an order stopping foreign fish coming into our ports, because you would then have foreign trawlers, run on foreign coal, flooding our ports with fish because our own trawlers were not bringing it in. You would have German and Belgian trawlers here trying to capture our market.
What is the position in Grimsby today? The latest information which I have had over the telephone is interesting in view of the statement that there is no shortage. Mr. W. W. Butt, who is one of the largest trawler owners, owning three Iceland trawlers and three North Sea trawlers requiring 700 tons of coal a day, had only 50 tons of coal for them. The consequence is that the three Iceland trawlers, much against his wish, have been sent to Blyth to coal, on passage to the Northern fishing ground—involving a delay of about two days while the vessels are coaling—and, at the same time, 36 of our own men at Grimsby will lose their work as coal-heavers. I would like the Minister to address a meeting of our coal-heavers—who are members of the Transport Workers Union and are not prejudiced against
2268
the Government—and hear what they have to say upon this matter. I understand that a Noble Lord a Member of the other House is going up to Grimsby to-morrow night. Let him tackle this question with our coal-heavers. With regard to the three North Sea vessels, they will have to wait for coal to come through, although at the time of writing this communication to me, no advice of any kind had been received by the firm. Since Monday, I am informed a large number of North Sea vessels have gone to sea with light bunkers, taking the risk, and when they return next week unless the situation has been materially improved, many of them will have to tie up. This information comes from one who is not prejudiced against the Government but one who is keenly anxious to see that the trade of our port is kept going.
To-day, undoubtedly, it is the fact that there is a quantity of coal on hand, but it is not the right sort. The Minister's Department has been very busy in this matter, and I have a long list here of people offering coal from Lancashire, Northumberland, Durham, Scotland—anywhere but the right spot for our people. Half of the coal offered is totally unsuitable for trawlers. That is what has happened under this Act which was to be a great example, from the Socialist point of view, of how to work an industry. It has just set into operation a gang of speculators who are offering these lots of coal and trying to get a big price out of the trawler owners, which means out of the fishermen. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is the Act passed by hon. Members opposite which has done it. I was in South Wales yesterday addressing two miners' meetings, and I found that the Act is not popular in South Wales any more than elsewhere.
10.0 p.m.
Our people in Grimsby are prepared to do everything they can, even at a great sacrifice of money, to keep these vessels running because they know that during the Lenten season people in this country want fish. It is the best time of year for our fishermen who are paid, not wholly on wages, but also have a share in the proceeds of the voyage, while the skippers and mates are paid solely on a share basis. Therefore whatever extra charge for coal comes against the ship

2269
is a charge on the earnings of the skippers, mates and crews. It is not merely a question which affects what some people might call well-to-do trawler owners. It is the men themselves who will suffer. They have mixed some of the good coal—such quantity of it as they have got under their contracts—with some of the poorer quality in order to keep the vessels running. In Grimsby we are determined to see to it that, as far as the trade up to Good Friday is concerned, the supply of fish for the people of this country will be maintained, and no one need be afraid that there will not be a plentiful supply during that period.
There is another factor which has helped us to get over our difficulties. Only 45 vessels have landed catches to-day, in readiness to go out again, and that is a long way below the normal number for a Thursday market. Last Thursday it was 71, and on the Thursday before it was 82. By pooling our resources, we have just got sufficient to coal the vessels which will have to proceed to sea tomorrow. What is to happen after that is a puzzle. I know that the Minister has been receiving reports from Grimsby and has given a great deal of time and attention to this matter. I urge upon him that it is no use suggesting to our people who are running North Sea boats that they can go to the Tyne or to Blyth for their coal. It is not possible to coal these ships there so that the men can earn a decent wage, because it means 'a loss of two days' fishing time. Anyone who looks at a map and sees where the Dogger Bank lies will realise what it means for a ship which is going to fish on the Dogger having to go right up the coast to get coal and then across to the fishing ground. Between 70 per cent. and 80 per cent. of the vessels which go out from Grimsby are North Sea vessels, and, as for the vessels which are going to Iceland, and further north into the Arctic, calling at the Tyne to get coal, the difficulty is, and we say it quite definitely, that a good deal of the coal offered on the Tyne is not suitable for the vessels, and we would prefer to keep our own coal heavers working and also to save the time involved.
I have also had a report as regards Immingham, and probably the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) may have something to say
2270
upon it. There is a large vessel lying there wishing to take aboard 2,000 tons of coal for South America, and they cannot get it from the South Yorkshire area from which it was ordered. That ship has to lie there, and there are men unemployed—again members of the Transport Workers' Union—and they are not very pleased about it. Merchants report that they have many offers for this grade of coal, but they cannot accept them and the trade is going elsewhere. If the trade were going to some other part of England perhaps I should not complain; but I am afraid it is not, although I have no precise information.
Let me urge the Minister to realise that this is not a question of trying to get political advantage. We cannot carry on as we are doing. I know there has been difficulty with the West Yorkshire owners, and probably much of what the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has said is true, but I cannot give that explanation to my fishermen. Contracts were made in good faith. When the Bill was being passed, I made an appeal to the President of the Board of Trade on the point of the contracts that were running, and he assured me that contracts that were legally entered into would have to be carried out. I ask the Minister of Mines to see to it that contracts entered into by our people in good faith shall be carried out, and that we shall not have our boats laid up when we have done nothing to hinder the Minister in his work.
Mr. ARNOTT: I agree that any misdeeds of the coalowners individually or collectively should not be visited on the fishermen and trawler-owners, and other consumers of coal. I cannot agree that it is a reasonable thing that trawlers from Hull should be compelled to go to the Tyne for their supplies, even were these the most suitable. It is plain, I think, from the statement made by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) where the responsibility lies, and that responsibility was admitted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister). In spite of that, so anxious is he that no trace of political prejudice should enter the Debate, that he attributes everything to the Coal Mines Act. To a certain extent that is true. If a man is murdered

2271
he may be said to be partly responsible, because if he had not been there he would not have been murdered.
We cannot attribute the present state of affairs to the Coal Mines Act. The responsibility is on the people who have withheld supplies of coal which the quota allowed them to give to consumers. That may be a satisfactory explanation of what has taken place, but it is no satisfaction to the fishermen who are out of work in my constituency, nor to the dockers who are deprived of work. The House ought to be concerned with how to put this matter right, and, having put it right, how to prevent it happening again. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon did not explain what ought to be done in order to put the Act right, nor did he say that he would support the Government if they adopted certain measures to exercise greater power over the coal owners than are exercised at this moment.
Two suggestions have been made. One is to repeal Part I of the Act altogether, and to allow free competition. The other alternative is not to repeal Part I, but to strengthen it. If that alternative is adopted, the Minister ought to have power to deal with prices, to impose prices and to deal with sales. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon whether he would support the Government in such a policy? If not, what is the use of blaming the Coal Mines Act? All we can do from these benches is to protest against the treatment of industries of this kind. Any body of consumers, apparently, is at the mercy not only of the of any body of coalowners, but will suffer by any blunders that the coalowners make. The object of the Bill is to prevent such blunders, to reorganise the trade, and to do justice between consumer and producer, and people who protest against the limitations of the Act ought to help to get some Amendment to protect the interests of the community. The Committee of Investigation have decided on two occasions that the Midlands have been fairly treated under the allocation. That definitely places the responsibility on the coalowners of abusing the powers given to them, and will justify the House of Commons in making provision to prevent abuse in the future, and seeing that
2272
the consumer, the miner and every grade of coalowner gets a fair deal. I hope that whatever is done in this direction will be done very speedily, and that right hon. Members on the Front Opposition Bench will be as good as their word.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I hope that the hon. Gentleman the Minister for Mines, when he comes to reply, will not treat this as if it were a question merely of grievances that are manufactured by people who oppose the Act. I was opposed to this particular part of the Act. Some of my own constituents are complaining. They are coal merchants who belong to old-established firms, and they have sent orders to the Midlands—it is nothing to do with Yorkshire—to firms with which they have been dealing for a great many years, and they have received a reply that there is no coal available. I have not been able to investigate the matter at all, and I can only proceed upon the perfectly genuine letters which I have received from people in the coal business, and who have been in that business for a great many years, and are not worrying about the political side of the matter at all, but who are prevented from carrying on their business in the way they have conducted it for a great many years. I can only accept the Measure now as an Act of Parliament, and I am wondering whether it is possible for the Government to exercise certain powers which are embodied in the Act in a way that will ease matters.
I hope among other things that they will introduce for the first few months a certain measure of elasticity into the working of the Act. They must not imagine that in the first few months they can secure the same perfect working as they hope to achieve in perhaps six months, and I implore them not to be too rigid in the application of the quota until the thing settles down. It is no use saying to these coal merchants in my district—and there must be a great many in other districts—"You can find the coal elsewhere," for they do not know where to find it. They have dealt with particular firms for 20 or 30 years, and it is too much to tell them that they must find coal of the same quality elsewhere. They do not know how to find it. I have no doubt that in many cases of this kind the quota has been exceeded in some way or other by the owners in the Midlands,

2273
but allowances ought to be made for that. People who conduct the business in the districts ought not to be punished for a thing of that kind, and I ask the Minister with all respect not to make too truculent an answer. I do not think that it helps. It is his obligation and his duty—and I make a similar appeal to the President of the Board of Trade, who piloted the Bill through, and who certainly never exhibits any truculence and is extraordinarily courteous in dealing with questions of this kind—to say that men who are legitimately carrying on their business and have difficulty created by something for which they are not responsible are not to blame. Whether the Act is responsible or whether it is the misfaisances of the coalowners, these people who want coal are not responsible.
I therefore ask the Government during the first few months to exercise the powers that they possess in order to introduce an element of elasticity. It will mean that probably they will not be able to enforce the rigid quota for some months, but things of that kind have to be done gradually. I remember the difficulties which I experienced with regard to the Insurance Acts. If we had simply put on the full pressure of the machinery of the Acts, and started prosecutions, there would have been trouble, but these matters were eased, and the Acts began to work without any difficulty at all.
I am perfectly certain that, if the right hon. Gentleman will inject some of his suavity into his colleague who sits next to him and just try to persuade him not to be so very—what shall I say in order to keep within Parliamentary language?—at any rate, I hope that he will not treat this as merely a political stunt for attacking and criticising the Minister. There are legitimate difficulties which honest people are experiencing who are not thinking in the least of politics, but of the conduct of their businesses. I hope he will think of the little people who are consuming coal and buying coal for distribution in various parts of the country, and that he will at any rate give an undertaking that he will look into their grievances and see whether they cannot be eased during the next four or five months by not enforcing with too much rigidity the terms of the Act. The powers which the President of the Board of Trade introduced into the Act,
2274
and also the powers which were introduced partly by the intervention of the House itself, should be used with a view to making things easier for everybody all round. If he does that, he will be far more likely to succeed in the object he has in view than if he takes too rigid a view of his duties.
Mr. SHINWELL: I am extremely obliged to the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) for the moderate and, indeed, generous manner in which he initiated this Debate. I do not complain of the general tone of the Debate, and I can certainly forgive the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) for having indulged in an admonition—
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: An appeal.
Mr. SHINWELL: —because I have a very vivid recollection of the right hon. Gentleman himself having been severely chastised for having displayed mental faculties and a temper which is sometimes, I think without justice, attributed to him. While I have no complaint to make of the general tone of the speeches or of the criticism we have heard in the course of the Debate, I think I am justified, without displaying any truculence whatever, in directing attention to the speeches delivered outside and to a Press campaign which can only be regarded as a malicious attempt to prejudice the minds of the public against the administration of the Coal Mines Act.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I took no line of that kind.
Mr. SHINWELL: I accept entirely what the right hon. Gentleman said, and I share the view that there is no desire on the part of those who have taken part in this Debate to put a sprag in the wheel. The criticism during this Debate is intended to be helpful, but that cannot be said of the Press campaign. For example, I read in the "Daily Express," of 18th March, that there were 62,000 inhabitants of Rotherham lacking coal:
"The local merchants have not an ounce of coal for sale and hundreds of householders who depend on weekly supplies are compelled to do without."
Strangely enough in another newspaper of the same date I read that:
"the coal quota scheme has not so far affected Rotherham very greatly, and ex-

2275
tensive inquiries made in the town by a 'Sheffield Independent' representative last night failed to reveal any alarming shortage."
That is the view of a newspaper in the heart of the Midlands area stating the facts about an alleged shortage of coal in that particular area. Right hon Gentlemen who are Members of this House and who are regarded as responsible politicians are making statements of a similar kind. I gave notice to the late Attorney-General that I proposed to call the attention of the House to a speech which he is reported to have made on the 14th of March. This is what he is reported to have said:
"While Canada had stopped the import of Russian coal in order to buy British coal, and while this country was not being allowed to buy British, but was obliged to buy Polish, to keep the miners out of work, the Government on Friday, by a majority of five, decided to pay a salary of £7,000 a year in order to restrict the output of British collieries."
Surely there was never more extravagance than was to be found in a grotesque charge of that kind. The hon. and learned Gentleman is totally unable to substantiate a single word of that charge. He said that we had been buying Polish coal and that we were paying a gentleman £7,000 a year in order to restrict the output of coal. I have no desire to detain the House by giving instances of such trivial points, but I think that it is desirable for the purposes of accuracy to mention the matter. Finally, another great legal luminary, Lord Hailsham, who, I believe, is regarded as a possible Leader of the Conservative party, speaking during the Sunderland by-election, reviewed the Coal Mines Act, and added:
"In Grimsby they are actually having to import Polish coal because the British collieries are being put out of work."
That was last Friday.
Major COLVILLE: It will happen very soon.
Mr. SHINWELL: There was not a single word of truth in that allegation. If I may say so, I deprecate, as I feel sure the House will deprecate, these references to the importation of Polish coal. It would almost appear as though hon. Members on that side, the official Opposition, glory in the possibility of
2276
Polish coal being imported. I venture to predict that there will be no Polish coal imported, and I am very glad to be able to say that the Hull and Grimsby trawler owners are displaying more patriotism than these speeches appear to indicate; they are not prepared to buy Polish coal. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) says that that is the reason why the Polish coal has not come. It may be, because of the patriotism of the Grimsby and Hull trawler owners. I accept that. But, if the Polish coal has not arrived, why all this fuss about Polish coal being imported?
I turn from these criticisms of the Coal Mines Act, and the references to the alleged shortage, to the attitude of prominent Yorkshire coalowners in relation to the Coal Mines Act. It appears to be assumed that the coalowners are opposed to the Coal Mines Act, but that is far from being true. On the contrary, not a single complaint has been received from the Central Council of Coalowners, the most representative body of coal-owners in the land. Not a single complaint has been received from any District Board of coalowners. Although there have been isolated cases, as revealed in the Press, in which coalowners have, in the course of speeches, commented on defects in the Coal Mines Act, possibly in relation to administration, generally speaking a serious attempt is being made by coalowners throughout the coalfields to work the Act in a proper spirit. A prominent Yorkshire coalowner, speaking at Leeds University on 26th February, uttered some significant words about the Act. He said, referring to Sir William Sutherland, to whom reference has been made in the course of this Debate:
"Sir William alleged that in the Barnsley district of Yorkshire, the utter failure of the administration of Part I of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, was common knowledge, and expressed the opinion that the sooner Part I was repealed the better for the miners, owners and the country.
Mr. Archer said: 'This is an amazing statement and I assert that it is not common knowledge that Part I of the Act is an utter failure. Indeed, the vast majority of Yorkshire, Midland and Lancashire coalowners hold the reverse opinion.'"
If there were time, and if it were necessary, I could quote similar statements by prominent representatives of the coal

2277
trade—not only coalowners, but exporters and others engaged in the industry.
I want now to come to the issues presented to the House. I make no attempt to dispute that, so far, the Act in its administration has revealed certain defects, but it must be remembered that Part I of the Act only commenced to operate at the beginning of this year, and has only been working for a matter of two months. It is surely much too early to judge the possibilities of legislation of this character in so short a time. Moreover, the defects in the Act arise, not so much because of the failure of the Government to provide the requisite legislation, but because the Bill in its passage through Parliament was emasculated and amended, so much so that the most prominent coalowner in Scotland commented the other day on the difficulties presenting themselves to the Scottish coal industry because of the difficulty of adjusting the inland and the export prices. That arose because Parliament in its wisdom decided that there should be no such adjustment. It decided that there should be no district levy.
One of the amazing facts of the situation is that, when we asked the Scottish coalowners to prepare a scheme for the working of the Act, they submitted a scheme which embodied what in effect amounted to a district levy, and I was compelled to reject it on the ground that it was ultra vires the Act. But the Scottish coalowners are not content, and I have had to assure them that, if they care to secure an Amendment of the Act, we shall do all we can to support them in securing its passage through this House, and, after the speeches we have heard to-night, I have some reason for reassuring the Scottish coalowners that such an Amendment is likely to prove acceptable to Parliament.
Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If it is agreed that it is so important for Scotland to have this levy, why cannot the Scottish coalowners put a voluntary levy scheme into operation?
Mr. SHINWELL: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should ask that question. We have had experience of the Yorkshire voluntary scheme and the difficulty that now presents itself in the Barnsley area arises, as he knows, from the refusal of certain coalowners to asso-
2278
ciate themselves with a voluntary restriction scheme. Voluntary restriction schemes have proved a failure, generally speaking, and it is essential for the thorough working of a scheme of this kind to secure that every element in the industry should be compelled to associate itself with the operation of the scheme. Not only in Scotland but in Yorkshire demands have been made for the insertion in the Act of the district levy proposal, whereas in Durham and Northumberland, on the other hand, while they reject the district levy proposal, they are anxious to secure a proposal which will enable the coalfields as a whole to adjust the inland with the export price. In short, they want a national levy. Parliament rejected these proposals and, in so far as difficulties exist, the Government is not to blame.
The right hon. Gentleman quite properly, asked me to secure that, in the administration of the Act, elasticity should be provided. I am happy to assure him that elasticity is there. The Central Council of Coalowners, in determining the allocation for the districts, have regard to the needs of the districts and can at any time subsequent to the original allocation, if special circumstances warrant it, provide a further allocation. That is the elasticity for which the right hon. Gentleman asks. The right hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, be pleased to learn that the Kent coalfields will be satisfied with their allocation. They made an application for a further allocation and received it, and the Somerset area, because of special circumstances, has been furnished with an additional quota. But why was it that the Midland Executive Board failed in their application? The allocation provided for the Midlands area had regard to the probable demand for coal in that area.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Did that include the coal supplied by that area to outside areas? The hon. Gentleman knows very well that the cases I gave him were of applications from areas outside the Midlands by people who were in the habit of buying from the Midlands area.
Mr. SHINWELL: I will come to that. It also provided for the sale of coal to the districts outside the Midlands area. That, of course, would have been

2279
restricted and limited to some extent by the price of the coal, but, unfortunately, in Yorkshire minimum prices were not fixed.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I really must correct the hon. Gentleman. This has nothing to do with Yorkshire. As a matter of fact, I think it was the Atherstone and Tamworth area; I think that coal came from that area. It has nothing to do with Yorkshire.
Mr. SHINWELL: That may be, but the fact is that the Midlands area had its allocation, and had the right to appeal for a further allocation at the same time. They failed to appeal, and only after some weeks of working the Act did the Midlands Executive Board decide to go to arbitration, in which they failed, and it seemed that they failed because they had sold a considerable amount of their allocation at very low prices to the detriment of other districts. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs furnished me with a complaint.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I sent it on.
Mr. SHINWELL: I said that I would deal with the complaint in the course of my speech to-day. Some coal merchants in Bangor purchased coal from Yorkshire coalowners and discovered that there was a shortage, and they complained of the shortage. Immediately we heard of the shortage, we put the Bangor merchants into touch with North Wales coalowners, and immediately thereafter the Bangor coal merchants were informed that they could get all the coal they wanted in North Wales—good house coal at reasonable prices.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE Mr. LLOYD GEORGE indicated dissent.
Mr. SHINWELL: Surely, in these circumstances Bangor coal merchants have no ground for complaint. If they can get coal at their own door, and it appears that the quality of the coal is good and the price is reasonable, as apparently it was, there can be no complaint. I understand the complaint is that we must see to it that the coal is provided. In this case we have seen that the Bangor coal merchants could get the coal that they wanted in North Wales.
2280
What has been the fact with regard to the supplies of coal in the country generally? The complaint is of a local character. The hon. Member for Leith said nothing about difficulties in Scotland, although he made some reference to the export trade. No complaints have come from Scotland in regard to shortage of supplies. Only in the Midlands district have we heard of such complaints. Last week we were told of complaints about shortage of coal in London. I told the House that, as far as I was able to ascertain, those complaints could not be substantiated. What are the facts? There is no shortage of coal in London, none whatever. [An HON. MEMBER: "Warm weather!"] Surely, the hon. Member is not going to complain of the warm weather and to attribute some failure or other in that regard to the Government.
The complaints have been localised. They are confined to the Midlands and they have arisen in the Midlands because the Yorkshire coal owners instead of regulating their production over the three months of the first quarter of this year assumed that they would receive a further allocation. The result was that they exceeded their monthly quota in the first two months and left themselves with only 58 per cent. for the last month of the quarter. It may be assumed that there is some defect in the Act which enables the coal owners to exceed their allocation in any given month. I would remind the House that the allocation fixed by the council is a quarterly allocation and not a monthly one. The right hon. Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) argued that there should be a monthly allocation, but no such provision is embodied in the Act. I can assure him that I sympathise entirely with the view he expressed. The Yorkshire coal owners can apply the monthly allocation if they so desire, and we have reason to assume that in the next quarter the monthly basis will be accepted by the Yorkshire coal owners, and that they will operate on that basis, and we believe that no difficulties will arise.
What about the question raised by hon. Members regarding the difficulty of securing employment as the result of the quota? What are the facts? Let us take Yorkshire as an example. In the

2281
first eight weeks of the quarter, a period during which the quota was operating, the average days worked in the collieries in the Midlands area amounted to five per week. That is a very high average. It compares favourably with the coalfields in the rest of the country, but the result of that average was that in the last remaining month of the quarter many of the men had to be put on short time. The coalowners have availed themselves of the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act and have put the men on three days work, to enable them to claim three days' unemployment pay. If the Yorkshire and the Midland coalowners had averaged out the allocation and had regulated it scientifically, as they were expected to do, and had averaged out the working days, the average would have been something like 4½ days for the whole quarter.
That would be regarded as reasonable in all the circumstances. It might not have satisfied men in the Barnsley area where, preceding the application of the quota, they were working five and six shifts a week, and even more on occasions, but they were working outside the voluntary restriction scheme, to the detriment of the miners in other parts. It is a very remarkable fact, that although complaints have come from the Barnsley area, they were not endorsed in any regard by the Yorkshire Miners' Association, the obvious reason being that the miners in other parts of Yorkshire are getting a little more work. Surely it is desirable that, if there is not sufficient work to provide for full shifts every week, you should spread the work over the largest possible numbers?
Reference has been made to the difficulties of the export trade. I want to put the House in possession of the facts. It is perfectly true that British exports have dropped in the past yeas from 60,267,000 tons to 54,879,000 tons. The assumption has been made that this export diminution is confined to this country. That is far from true. What are the facts in relation to Germany and Poland? German exports have dropped from 26,769,000 metric tons to 24,383,000 metric tons, and the Polish situation has more severely declined by 10.3 per cent., from 13,934,000 metric tons to 12,497,000 metric tons. The diminution in the export trade is attributable entirely to the
2282
depression in trade, and is not confined to this country, but is common to all European coalfields. We did make an endeavour to deal with the situation. Accompanied by coalowners and exporters, I proceeded to Scandinavia to ascertain the facts. When we returned from Scandinavia we presented a report. It was a unanimous report. Coal exporters and owners, with myself, agreed as to the facts and the remedies. What were the remedies? To begin with, we asked that there should be a further exploration of the possibility of securing international agreement.
We did not stop there. We directed the attention of the trade to the inefficiency of its selling organisations, and asked traders as a whole to consider the propriety of effecting a measure of co-ordination in the trade, co-operation, in effect, between the owners on the one hand and exporters on the other, making the exporters not the masters of the coal trade but the servants. Several meetings have been held, over some of which I have presided. We have made a steady advance in that direction. As regards the question of the exploration of the possibility of securing international agreement, there have been meetings with the representatives of the Polish Government and the Polish owners, the German Government, and British owners, and only this week meetings have been held in France at which coalowners from certain coal-producing countries were represented to discuss the possibilities of effecting some measure of co-ordination in Europe.
Moreover, we have directed the attention of the coal trade to the desirability of promoting selling schemes. The right hon. Gentleman surprised me in his demand for the setting up of selling syndicates. I am happy to assure him we are ready at any time to assist in that endeavour. Moreover, the Mines Department is ready at any time to submit schemes, providing for the establishment of selling syndicates, either district or national schemes, to the owners of this country. I go beyond that. If there is one defect in the selling organisation arrangements of the coal trade in this country, it is the margin of profit as between the pithead price and the retailer. I am glad to say that despite the difficulties which exist in the Midland area,

2283
which may be attributed and properly so to maladministration on the part of some Yorkshire coalowners, that there are coalowners in the Midlands who are sufficiently progressive to proceed in the direction of co-ordinating the activities of coalowners and merchants and that meetings have been held with a view of securing a more effective organisation for the sale of domestic and other coal.
These schemes, in the nature of the case, must proceed slowly. If I or my right hon. Friend had the power to apply our proposals of co-ordination in respect of production or in respect of the sale of coal, or in respect of the proper utilisation of coal, we should very gladly use it, but in the circumstances all that we can do is to go to the coalowners and appeal to them to assist in carrying out these proposals. I am glad to say that there is a new spirit amongst the coal-owners of this country. They are more disposed to accept modern views as regards production and indeed as regards the selling of coal than they were formerly, and we shall do all that is possible in the administration of the Coal Mines Act to provide elasticity and discussions and consultations with those associated with the trade, and in the direction of super-imposing on the Coal Mines Act voluntary schemes if need be and eventually, with the consent of Parliament, legislation if it is necessary in order to effect the greatest possible measure of co-ordination.
I have only to say this, that the coal-owners are disposed to give this Act a chance. It has only been operating for a matter of two months, and I repeat that it is too early to judge of the possibilities of the Act. I make no complaint of the criticisms we have heard this evening. The coalowners themselves can make or mar this Act, but I warn those who are disposed to criticise and to be unhelpful that if this Coal Mines Act is broken there is nothing but utter chaos and disorganisation confronting the mining industry. In my judgment, and I believe hon. Members in all parts of the House will agree with me, we cannot afford to witness once more the spectacle of disorganisation and chaos in the mining industry, and defective as this legislation may be—and I can bear wit-
2284
ness to some defects for which indeed we are not responsible—it is much better to have this measure of organisation than none at all.
Major COLVILLE: Despite what the Secretary for Mines has said I am far from satisfied as to the way in which this Act is working. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] In his constituency which is next to mine there are hundreds of men who are deliberately out of work to-day as a result of the operation of the quota. There is no doubt that in certain exporting districts the quota is operating very badly, and unless it is made more elastic, and unless the situation is reviewed more often and transfers made more easy I have no doubt—[Interruption]
It being Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Resolution.
Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put accordingly, and agreed to.

GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 AND 1929.
Resolved,
"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Shrewsbury Gaslight Company, which was presented on the 19th day of February and published, be approved."
Resolved,
"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Chertsey Gas Consumers' Company, Limited, which was presented on the 16th day of February and published, be approved."—[Mr. W. R. Smith.]
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.
Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]
Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

AGRICULTURE.
  CO-OPERATION, SCOTLAND.
  CO-OPERATION, SCOTLAND.
  NATIONAL MARK PRODUCTS.
  NATIONAL MARK PRODUCTS.
  SUGAR-BEET (RAILWAY RATES).
  SUGAR-BEET (RAILWAY RATES).
HOUSING.
  BUILDING BY-LAWS.
  BUILDING BY-LAWS.
  PAVING CHARGES.
  PAVING CHARGES.
  AGRICULTURAL PARISHES.
  AGRICULTURAL PARISHES.
PUBLIC HEALTH.
  VACCINATION (COMMITTEE).
  VACCINATION (COMMITTEE).
  INFANT MORTALITY.
  INFANT MORTALITY.
  MUNICIPAL FINANCE (AUDIT).
  MUNICIPAL FINANCE (AUDIT).
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  POOR LAW RELIEF (REGULATIONS).
  POOR LAW RELIEF (REGULATIONS).
POST OFFICE.
  ENGINEERING ACCOUNTING SYSTEM.
  ENGINEERING ACCOUNTING SYSTEM.
  WAGE SCALES.
  WAGE SCALES.
  WORKERS' EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION.
  WORKERS' EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION.
  MOTORING ACCIDENTS.
  MOTORING ACCIDENTS.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  BENEFIT.
  BENEFIT.
  GRANT-AIDED SCHEMES (TENDERS).
  GRANT-AIDED SCHEMES (TENDERS).
  TAILORING TRADE (INSPECTION).
  TAILORING TRADE (INSPECTION).
  ECCLESIASTICAL ESTATES (RENTS, NORTH LAMBETH).
  ECCLESIASTICAL ESTATES (RENTS, NORTH LAMBETH).
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  TAX OFFICES, BRISTOL.
  TAX OFFICES, BRISTOL.
  DISTRICT PROBATE REGISTRIES (STAFF).
  DISTRICT PROBATE REGISTRIES (STAFF).
  COAL INDUSTRY (SUPPLIES).
  COAL INDUSTRY (SUPPLIES).
  WILLS (PROBATE COPIES).
  WILLS (PROBATE COPIES).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not know if it would be convenient for His Majesty's Government if I were to ask a question now with regard to the probable course of business, especially having regard to the fact that Easter is not very far away, and I think some of us would like to be reassured as to when we are likely to go and when we are to come back. I assume that the arrangement as to Tuesday being the day for the Committee stage of the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill still stands, but if His Majesty's Government can give any information with regard to their intention as to the other sittings of the House I think it would be a convenience for all of your Lordships.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD PASSFIELD): My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for putting this question. We are hoping that the House will be able to conclude its business on Monday, March 30, and then rise for the Easter Recess. It is suggested, if convenient to your Lordships, that the House should not assemble again until Tuesday, April 21, giving a Recess of three weeks. With regard to the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill, I am sorry to say that it will not be possible to take the Committee stage on March 24, as had been arranged. It will be known to your Lordships that my noble friend Lord De La Wan is not able to be here, and probably, almost certainly, he will not be able to be here on March 24. Accordingly it is suggested that the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill should be taken in Committee on April 21 and April 22. I think that would be for the convenience of your Lordships in any case. At any rate we are giving ample notice. I ought to say that, as your Lordships are aware, the Army and Air Force Annual Bill has to become law before April 30, and therefore it is
446
proposed to put it down as the first business on April 21, and then go on to the Committee stage of the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill, for which a second day is provided on April 22. I think that that is all that can be arranged at present.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am indebted to the noble Lord for the information which he has given us. I am sorry for the alteration of date with regard to the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill, but I quite understand that the noble Lord could not know this before and I can only add how sorry we are for the reason for the postponement.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Will the noble Lord convey to Lord De La Warr how sorry we are for his absence, because we do appreciate the way in which he transacts the business of which he is in charge. I am sorry I could not quite hear what the noble Lord said, but I think he suggested that we should meet here on Monday, March 30. If so, what would be our business on that day? Would it be purely formal business, or more than formal? because otherwise it seems rather unnecessary that those of your Lordships who may be in the country should be brought Up for a single day's business, and that on a Monday.
LORD PASSFIELD: It is proposed to take on Tuesday, March 24, the Metropolitan Police (Staff Superannuation and Police Fund) Bill, Committee stage, and on Wednesday, the 25th, the Report stage, and then the Commons' Motion for a Select Committee on the London Passenger Transport Bill, and also the Mental Treatment Rules. Then on Thursday, the 26th, the Pharmacy and Poisons Bill, Committee stage, as has already been arranged, and the Highway Code, and the Metropolitan Police Bill, Third Beading. Then on Friday there will be the Consolidated Fund Bill, which we hope your Lordships will pass through all its stages in preparation for the Royal Commission the same afternoon. This leaves over the Pharmacy and Poisons Bill, remaining stages. I do not know whether it would be for the convenience of the House to take those stages on Friday, along with the Consolidated Fund Bill.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Quite impossible.
LORD PASSFIELD: Then perhaps they had better stand over until after the Recess, in which case it would be unnecessary to meet on Monday, the 30th, at all.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: If we take the Committee stage of the Pharmacy and Poisons Bill on the Thursday, it would be rather too soon to expect us to take the Report on Friday, because I understand that Lord Dawson of Penn has been in consultation with Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, and there are important Amendments to be moved. I think we ought to have a few hours in which to consider them. Therefore if the noble Lord will give us a little more time—
LORD PASSFIELD: I withdrew that suggestion as to Friday and proposed to take the remaining stages after the Recess.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (EAST ELLOE JOINT WATER SUPPLY DISTRICT) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.

BROADCASTING PROGRAMMES.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they can state what considerations guide the British Broadcasting Corporation in the selection of their programmes and, having regard to the wide publicity enjoyed by these programmes, what steps have been or can be taken to ensure that political bias does not enter into their arrangements; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am prompted to raise the question of broadcasting because of its very great importance to the country as a whole. The rise in the desire to listen-in to the broadcast programmes has been most phenomenal, and to-day I think I can say, without fear of contradiction, that the British Broadcasting Corporation is the largest organisation in the country catering for the amusement and edification of the British public. The latest figures of those who have taken out licences to listen-in is, I believe, three and a half millions, a rise of half a million in the
448
last twelve months, and the British Broadcasting Corporation reckon that their audience numbers four to five times that number—namely, between fourteen and seventeen million people listening-in every day, or rather every evening—a very important proportion of the population and an increasing number.
I would say further that listening-in, in its initial stages, was a luxury, but it has now become almost a domestic necessity in every house. One is glad that it should be so because it brings within the reach of every one the opportunity of listening to good music and to talks on subjects of the day by those best qualified to speak upon them. But it also puts on the shoulders of those in charge of the broadcasting organisation a very great responsibility and places in their hands an enormous power for propaganda if they choose to use it. It was said to me by a keen and experienced observer of people and matters in this country that if only he were given the broadcasting organisation, within less than twelve months he would make the whole country Conservative. I have no doubt that noble Lords on the Benches opposite would be horrified at such an idea, and I think that noble Lords on this side would be just as horrified if the word "Socialist" were substituted for "Conservative." I do not propose to subscribe to that; but it is a fact that the propaganda value of wireless broadcasting is very great indeed and will increase, of course, as the number of people who have listening-in sets increases.
I do not wish to decry the work that has been done in the past by the British Broadcasting Corporation. I believe that the broadcasting organisation of this country is second to none in the world and that it has acquired in the minds of those who listen-in the reputation of being impartial and just. The mere fact that it has that reputation amongst the population of this country puts on those responsible for its programmes a graver responsibility than even those things I have mentioned already. I do not know on what principles those programmes are selected. One can only judge by the results as one knows them from what is sent out into the ether. But I think I can say definitely that recently there have been certain incidents which seem to indicate,

449
and more than indicate, that there is a tendency on the part of those in charge of the B.B.C. to try to educate the people of this country towards Socialism and even towards Communism. If your Lordships will bear with me I will give you certain cases that I have in point.
First of all, I think it was in February last, Mr. Harold Nicolson, in the course of a weekly talk, discussed the subject of Russia. His general treatment of the subject was capable of being objected to, but I will point only to one sentence in which he stated that in Russia there is no religious persecution in the historical sense of the term. I think that is a statement to which exception might easily be taken. It seemed to a very large number of people that it was at variance with the known facts. That statement was allowed to be made in a broadcast talk, but at much the same time a refusal was given to a movement known as the Christian Protest Movement to broadcast the proceedings of a mass meeting at the Albert Hall. The Christian Protest Movement, if your Lordships are not aware of it, is supported by almost every branch of the Church in civilised countries. I do not object to permission to broadcast a mass meeting in the Albert Hall being refused, but I feel that in common fairness there should also be a refusal to broadcast statements such as that of Mr. Harold Nicolson.
Then Mr. Morris Dobb was given permission to broadcast on the subject of Russia. His name was completely unknown to me when I first heard it, and I dare say that the vast majority of those who listened-in to his broadcast had not the vaguest notion who or what he was. Mr. Morris Dobb is a paid correspondent of a newspaper called the Daily Worker. The Daily Worker is the organ of the Communist Party in this country, and I am informed that it is subsidised, if not entirely financed, by the Communist Party in Russia—by the Russian Government. Mr. Morris Dobb was, in effect, a paid official of the Russian Government. He gave a particularly illuminating address on the subject of Russia, one of the finest pieces of subtle propaganda that I have ever read. It left one with the impression that the Russian system as now carried on was the most admirable thing, was for the
450
benefit of the people in that country and was ultimately bound to supersede capitalist systems in other countries. If Mr. Morris Dobb was allowed to broadcast, most certainly the British Broadcasting Corporation, before allowing him to broadcast, ought to have given their audience the very fullest particulars of his activities and past history. I am not certain whether, when he did broadcast, they knew all about him. Surely, if they do not know all about them they ought to make the most careful investigations as to the people who broadcast for them.
The other points I have to bring before your Lordships are more in the nature of domestic politics. There is still in progress, I believe, a thing known as the Daily Herald radio ballot. The Daily Herald radio ballot is one of those things with which most of us are familiar in these days. It is a competition in which the element of skill is just sufficient to bring it within the law of the land. To the ordinary person examining the particulars of that radio ballot it would seem to be nothing more nor less than a common lottery. It is one of those competitions fostered by a newspaper under the guise of assisting charity, but really with a view of advertising the newspaper and increasing its circulation. On February 4, the British Broadcasting Corporation permitted a broadcast advertising the Daily Herald radio ballot. A protest was made by other newspapers, amongst them more particularly the Morning Post, and they were informed that the acceptance of that particular item in the broadcast programme was made on the sole responsibility of one senior official and that the Director - General had no knowledge of its being accepted at all, but virtually said that it was a mistake in judgment on the part of one senior official. That statement was accepted. On February 17 the Daily Herald radio ballot was again broadcast as an advertisement in the ordinary programme. I do not think that even the Director-General can escape from some criticism for allowing an obvious advertisement for one particular newspaper to be broadcast a second time, after protest on the first occasion.
There is yet another and a rather important thing which has happened

451
recently. The Listener is a newspaper published by the British Broadcasting Corporation, and the broadcast programmes have recently included a series of talks by prominent politicians, seven in number, on the problem of unemployment. The final one was given by Mr. Stanley Baldwin, and was published in the Listener of February 25. Your Lordships can see that there is Mr. Stanley Baldwin on one side, and on the other side: "No. 8, The problem of unemployment; Epilogue by Henry George." It purports and apparently seems to be a final instalment summing up all the previous seven addresses on that subject. At the bottom of the page, in small print, is a little remark to the effect that this is an advertisement, and was not a broadcast address, and is merely extracts from Mr. Henry George's book "Prosperity and Progress," or some such name. Mr. Henry George was one of the keenest exponents of the single tax, and it states in that advertisement that hundreds of British municipalities are behind this land value policy, and that the Government are pledged to introduce it this Session. I do not know whether they are, or whether they are not, but anyhow it is undoubtedly a Socialist type of measure, and its juxtaposition on the opposite page, at the same opening as Mr. Stanley Baldwin's address, is in my opinion designed to take away from the value of Mr. Baldwin's address, and draw attention to other and Socialistic measures for dealing with unemployment.
I can also point to the Listener for May 8, 1929, where you have a large advertisement—"The Labour Party needs money." There is no other advertisement for a political Party, and I think that one of the official organs of the British Broadcasting Corporation should in no circumstances whatsoever accept advertisements from any political Party. There are many other cases. Mr. Bernard Shaw, in 1929, finished an address by saying that we were not educating children to be good citizens, but in one country, Russia, they were. Professor Macmurray, in July, 1930, said:—
"There is no such thing as a moral law, and the idea of obedience has no place in morality."
Mr. Wells is given as saying:—
"Patriotism is the enemy of civilisation."
452
Those statements are all extremely controversial. In many cases they are extremely subversive of everything we believe to be right and proper in the civilisation of this country, and they should not be brought into our broadcast programmes in any circumstances whatsoever.
In more than one of those cases the excuse was given that it was a mistake, that they got into the programmes by Mistake, but it is a curious thing that those mistakes all tend the same way. It is a curious thing that those philosophers who speak and make these contentious statements are quoting or giving opinions which are held very often by Socialists, and still more often by Communists, and that one does not see similar statements giving the views of people of other political points of view. The instances which I have given your Lordships lead one to two possible conclusions: either that there is political bias in the organisation of the British Broadcasting Corporation, or that there is such a degree of inefficiency in the supervision of the programmes that those who are interested politically against the welfare of this country are enabled to slip past the watch-dogs, or those who should be the watch-dogs, of the British public, and get into their programmes things that ought never to get there.
I do not expect His Majesty's Government to confess that there is political bias in favour of Socialists on the part of the British Broadcasting Corporation. I can hardly expect them to do that. I am, therefore, led to the conclusion that they can only say that those mistakes are caused by inefficiency or misguided keenness which results in inefficiency. But the result is the same whether it be deliberate or whether it be a mistake. The result is that propaganda is sent out over the wireless which should never get to the ears of those who listen-in in this country, or at least should not get to the ears of those who listen-in in this country unless some opportunity is given for the opposite point of view to be stated just as clearly. If it is inefficiency I think that your Lordships and the country are entitled to have some information regarding the British Broadcasting Corporation. They are virtually a public utility corporation. There is no Government Department which answers

453
for them. They are under no Government Department. If they were they would be subject to questions, and would have to produce full particulars of their activities, and, I may add, full accounts of the salaries paid to their officials. In fact, they would have to tell us everything which the British public wishes and ought to know. If they were a public company they would be compelled to have an annual meeting, and their shareholders would be able to ask questions, to which they would be entitled to answers; but with the British Broadcasting Corporation there are 3,500,000 licensed holders who are virtually in the position of shareholders, because they provide the money, and yet they get little or no information out of the British Broadcasting Corporation as to how that money is spent, or as to the qualifications of the men employed by that Corporation.
I have suggested inefficiency as being part of the reason why this propaganda is got over the wireless, and it is put into my mind by information I was given as to the qualifications of some of the senior officers. The Director-General is, I understand, an engineer. I have no doubt that is perfectly correct, and I have no doubt it should be so, because there are many engineering problems in connection with the British Broadcasting Corporation. But he should be supported by somebody who is perfectly capable of advising him on the subject of the entertainment of the public. I am informed that one of the Deputy Controllers is a retired Admiral, another is, or was, a chicken farmer—that is the Controller in charge of the programmes—and yet another is a regular officer with no experience of entertainment work. I say nothing against these gentlemen. I have no doubt that they are most excellent. I only mention what my information is to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that there seems to be hardly any one there who has had experience in the entertainment business and is capable, therefore, of justly judging the effects of the programme on the people who are listening, or of judging whether the matter of the programmes is harmful or otherwise.
I suggest that, at the present day, we are not getting the fullest information about the British Broadcasting Corporation to which we are entitled. We should
454
know exactly how it is organised. We should know exactly how the money is spent and we should know how those who are the officials in that organisation are selected. I suggest that the Government should tell us whether they have taken any steps in the past to ensure that there should be no biased political propaganda, and what steps they intend to take in the future in view of the facts that are now before us. I would suggest, therefore, to His Majesty's Government, that it is desirable in the future that no question of politics or of a controversial nature should be put on the broadcast programmes unless all three political Parties have been asked and have acquiesced in such political subjects coming forward, and that unless all three Parties have acquiesced, no politics should appear in the programmes whatsoever. They are subjects of controversy, they are subjects which give people to think that the British Broadcasting Corporation is biased. I hope I have proved to your Lordships that there is for some reason or another political bias in the British Broadcasting Corporation, that through some cause or another that is getting to the public, and that the public and your Lordships are entitled to the fullest information from His Majesty's Government in order to set their minds at rest and to ensure that the British Broadcasting Corporation is not being used for propaganda purposes of a nature which we should all deplore.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I am not going to follow my noble friend through all the biographical details he has given us, nor indeed in the criticism he has made of recent items in the broadcasting programmes. I do not pretend to be qualified to offer a measured opinion upon these points. Whether there is bias or not I do not know. I doubt it, but I do not know. I do, however, ask your Lordships to allow me to trespass on your time for two or three minutes to deal with the last part of his speech. If he intended anything definite he meant that Parliamentary control should be exercised over broadcasting, that there should be a censorship by some outside authority, and that we in Parliament should be entitled to ask questions, to control salaries and generally, in short, to run the British Broadcasting Corporation.

455
My noble friend said that the officials concerned seemed to be highly inefficient. But how is that consistent with the fact that every day about 1,500 people enrol themselves as new subscribers? How is that consistent with an inefficient broadcasting, which apparently is the view of my noble friend? The mere fact that half a million people every year are becoming new subscribers, new participants in this Corporation, is a sufficient answer to the argument that they are so hopelessly inefficient. They are not. I do not know if my noble friend has studied broadcasting in the United States. It is deplorable, it is grotesque, it is laughable, compared with the high state of efficiency of our broadcasting here. When all these rather light-hearted attacks are being made upon the British Broadcasting Corporation, I wish those who are so ready with their criticism would take some trouble to compare our situation in this country with what prevails elsewhere. I have no hesitation in saying that there are few countries in which the broadcasting is more efficient than in our own. There is no country in which there is a greater variety of entertainment and of education and in which a series of more remarkable men contribute the best of their knowledge through the broadcast. I add this in conclusion, that if once Parliament gets control of broadcasting, every time anybody is displeased by jazz music, he will get a Member of Parliament to ask a question. There will be no peace in Parliament or elsewhere. Every Member of Parliament will have to intervene whenever any group of his constituents is annoyed and the efficiency of this marvellous organisation will infallibly be impaired.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl who last addressed the House because probably in neither House of Parliament has anybody got a more intimate knowledge than the noble Earl of the work of the B.B.C. during the first four years of the company's existence, before the Corporation was created by a Royal Charter. During that period I happened to be Chairman of that Company, and it is perfectly true, as the Earl of Radnor said, that as a company we had annual meetings with our shareholders. But at no time were we criticised adversely by them for our policy. I have now been identified with
456
the British Corporation and the British Company for over eight years, and this is the first time that the policy of the British Broadcasting Corporation or Company has been really challenged in this House. It is at any rate the first opportunity I have had of replying to criticisms. I welcome the criticism and so do the Governors, the Director General, and the heads of the departments in connection with our programmes.
I should like to reply to the first Question which has been addressed to the Government, because nobody is in a better position than myself to reply to the first Question on the Paper, as to what considerations guide the British Broadcasting Corporation in the selection of programmes. My first point is a negative point and it is this. We take, as a Corporation, no editorial view whatsoever in regard to the matter which we broadcast. We prepare our programmes to give the maximum interest and the maximum value and that applies to our entertainments of all sorts, whether they are musical or the spoken word. The talks are in nearly every case factual expositions and we refrain from expressing any view in regard to policy. In regard to controversial matters I will come to them in a few moments. All I have now to say about our policy in regard to them is that we aim to secure in controversial subjects diverse expressions from those competent to express their varying points of view. We have had one series recently on which a good deal of comment was made, that on "Science and Religion," in which able scientists as well as clergy of the Church of England took part, and we have had another on the unemployment question, in which Mr. Baldwin, together with politicians of other schools of thought, and Professor Keynes and Sir Josiah Stamp took part.
What I resent is an attack upon the staff of the British Broadcasting Corporation, who, like civil servants, are not in a position to defend their action in this House or in another place. If there has been any dereliction of duty on their part or lack of discipline, or if they have not reached that standard required by the British Broadcasting Corporation, then the Director General and the Governors are responsible and will deal

457
with the situation. But, whatever faults are to be found, it is the Governors who are responsible and I am here so far as I am allowed as, a Peer in your Lordships' House who happens to be the acting Chairman for the time being of the British Broadcasting Corporation, to reply to the attack which has just been made upon that Corporation. We have a staff of 1,200 individuals and those individuals do their duty to the satisfaction of the Director-General, and of the Governors of the Corporation who have been appointed by the Government. If we fail in our duty, it is open to the Government at any time to replace us and to remove us from the positions which we occupy. We welcome criticism and I am glad, if these things that we have heard said by the noble Lord to-day are to be reproduced outside, that there should be an opportunity of meeting such charges.
If there is a strong feeling about any such question, it is reflected very rapidly in our correspondence and there is very little in our correspondence to justify the charges which the noble Lord has made to-day. During last year, in connection with our programmes, we received over 80,000 letters, of which 30,000 were inquiries and suggestions, 54,382—to give an accurate figure—were favourable criticisms of our programmes, and only 3,492 were critical in regard to what we had broadcast. I do not think any better tribute could be paid than the fact that over 50,000 people have troubled to speak well of our programmes and that only 3,500 were critical.
While I am speaking about the staff, I would merely say that, in regard to the appointments for the engineering staff, as well as for the programme staff and the head office and accounts staff, we endeavour to select the best men who apply, after very carefully going into all their antecedents, and because one man or another may have taken an interest in chicken farming, it does not disqualify him from being appointed to perform his duties at Savoy Hill. We claim that we have the best transmission service in the world, as the standard required from us by the British public is higher than that which exists in any other country, and we are looked up to by all the other countries of Europe and America as an example that should be
458
followed. We have very few breakdowns and on the technical service we claim to be superior to any other.
I want your Lordships to recollect that this after all is only a sound-producing service. Up till the present time television accompanying broadcast of sound through the ether has not reached more than an experimental stage. It is difficult for us always to be amusing because, after all, a man cannot tell a good story in the dark. He almost needs to be seen in order to be amusing, but we do our best to entertain the British public. Yet we claim to do a good deal more. In addition to entertainment, we endeavour to give accurate information on all topics of interest as well as appropriate educational matter which may help the public. By a relay system, which is rapidly increasing, we are becoming more and more an international body and bringing the peoples of Europe and of the whole world closer and closer together. I believe international communications are improving and it is all to the good because it enables each nation to see better the other's point of view.
I want to come to the particular charges which have been made against us. I will deal, first of all, with the charges made against Mr. Harold Nicolson, who has a great number of admirers among the listeners in the country. He has been giving a series of talks which will end to-morrow. He has been speaking on "People and things," a series of talks in which a good deal of individual latitude has been given to Mr. Nicolson, but at the same time I take full responsibility for everything he has been allowed to say. Mr. Nicolson was quite frank in the particular talk to which the noble Lord alluded. The noble Lord does not do Mr. Nicolson justice. He did indicate that things had been exaggerated in one direction, but he said something quite different from that which the noble Earl indicated to the House.
I will venture to read four paragraphs from Mr. Nicolson's talk, to which the noble Earl referred. These are the paragraphs that I would select:—
"And yet there are certain questions which arouse angry passions of even the mildest among us, of even the most enlightened. One of these questions is that of the religious persecution in Russia. It is very difficult to approach this question

459
without our minds being clouded by gusts of emotion.… I believe that, for political reasons, many Bishops and priests in Russia have been put to death. So also have a number of professors, doctors, grocers and trade union leaders."
He goes on to say:—
"The Moscow Government persecute individual religious leaders, just as they persecute other elements in the State, but the man who wants to worship in his own way is still, I am told, at liberty to do so. … I disapprove strongly of much of what is happening in Russia … I feel myself that, if one applies moral judgments without knowing the truth and all the circumstances, one is apt to lead oneself in a position from which it is difficult with any dignity to recede, but I fully admit that, as shown by yesterday's debate in the House of Lords, there are many men and women wiser and better than I am who feel quite differently."
At any rate Mr. Nicolson is quite frank. While he does in one direction admit that there has been persecution in Russia, a somewhat different complexion is put on the matter by his remarks than by those of some other speakers.
The charge that the noble Earl made against us is that the opposite point of view is not represented when we allow statements such as he has mentioned to be made. I am afraid that the noble Earl has been briefed by one side. He has been given only certain statements, collected out of the innumerable talks in which reference has been made to factual events that are going on in Russia, but he has not referred to facts equally presented by other speakers, because he has not been so advised, nor has he taken the trouble to listen to other talks of a very different character.
In order that as Governors we might have the best advice we could get, we have appointed various committees. One is a musical committee, upon which very eminent musicians are placed, to advise us in regard to our musical programmes. We are not bound to accept their recommendations, but we place a good deal of confidence in their judgment, because the committee includes a variety of men of great ability, whose recommendations, as a rule, are such as we can easily accept. We have an appeals committee, which advises us as to what appeals we ought to make to the public for subscriptions. We have a religious advisory committee, in which representatives of, I think, practically all the denominations are included and which advises us in regard
460
to our religious activities. Then we have a joint committee—which was recommended as the result of an investigation between ourselves and the British Institute for Adult Education presided over by Sir Henry Hadow—consisting of a large number of educational experts. This committee is now presided over by the Archbishop of York, and advises us in regard to matters of adult education.
I say again that we take entire responsibility for the talks that have been allowed, but I want to be perfectly plain that the recommendation of the series of talks on "Whither Mankind?" to which the noble Earl has particularly addressed himself, has been spoken to, not only by Professor Dobb, a don at Cambridge, on the recommendation of the Adult Education Committee, but also by Dr. jacks, who is, I believe, principal of Manchester College, Oxford, and who indicated in his first address of the series exactly what was the problem that other speakers would deal with. He said:—
"We are passing through a crisis in the world's history, economic, political, religious. And behind all this there is the spectre of race degeneracy, which threatens the revolutionary no less than the conservative. … Now what are the marks of low condition in a people? I name five."
He gives one as follows:—
"When people generally look upon the State as a charitable institution, which can be made to supply all their wants by putting enough votes in a ballot box. That is a sure sign that they are declining in will power and virility."
Another mark that he mentioned was:—
"When people generally buy their pleasures ready-made on the market, in the form of external excitement—a sure sign that personal skill is on the down-grade and creativeness passing away."
He goes on to say:—
"In following this series we must attune our minds to strange music. We shall hear of things that are new to us, things that challenge our own position and habits of mind, things that some of us may intensely dislike or even be afraid of, but which, whether we like them or not, are mighty forces in the world of our day, and certain to play a part in moulding the destiny of mankind. We must preserve an open mind, not putting our heads in the sand when things that terrify us are spoken of, but facing the facts boldly, eager to understand the signs of the times, and determined to play the man whatever may happen."
Then comes along Professor Dobb, with a talk on Russia and the five-year plan, which is purely informative. There is no

461
indication of propaganda intended to be conveyed, I believe, in that talk. It is a factual exposition of the position in Russia as he has seen it. Is it suggested that I ought to have investigated the whole of the antecedents of Professor Dobb, and to have found out whether he was in the pay of the Russian Government? Whether he was in the pay of the Russian Government I know not, but I do know that we looked very carefully at every word of this talk before it was allowed to be broadcast, and I am satisfied that there is not a word of propaganda in it. It is merely a statement of that which Professor Dobb saw in his travels through Russia, and an exposition of the facts in connection with the five-year plan of the Russian Government.
I then come to the next talk, to which, of course, no allusion has been made by Lord Radnor. It is the talk by Sir Reginald Johnston in the same series, and he exhibits Russia from a very different point of view, based on the facts he has seen from his position, not merely as tutor to the Emperor of China, buy from his administrative post at Wei-hai-Wei. He said:—
"It may disappoint, but it should not surprise us, that the conditions in China in this twentieth year of the so-called Republic are, to say the least, unsatisfactory. What we have to bear in mind is that revolution is affecting every department of Chinese life and activity … and that the destruction of the Manchu Monarchy was amongst the least important of its results."
He went on to say—
"I think it may be asserted with complete confidence that, had it not been for the stimulus applied directly or indirectly by Communist inspiration, there would have been no shooting incidents in shanghai or Cantor in 1925, no boycott of Hone Kong in 1925–6, no anti-British outburst at Hankow and no anti-foreign outrages at Nanking in 1927.
"The greatest perils that still remain to be faced and overcome are, first, the prevalence of Communist banditry in the Central Provinces; second, the underground influence of Communist propaganda among students, peasants and industrial workers; third, the possibility of a new alignment of militant forces owing to the serious split that exists in the ranks of the Kuomintang. In a manifesto recently issued to the nation from Kuomintang headquarters it was declared that 'banditry and Communism are to receive due attention,' and it is recognised that peace and tranquillity cannot be achieved until these menaces are removed."
462
There all these ills in China are attributed to Communist action in Russia, and I have no doubt that, as with Professor Dobb, from the speaker's point of view, these observations are taken as expressing what he may have seen when travelling through that country.
I wish the House to realise that we to endeavour to maintain the balance. It is clue to the listeners in this country that they should be given the best facts which are obtainable, and we endeavour to supply the wishes of the people in regard to the information which we give, and we give it from all the expert sources which are at our disposal.
Now I come to the other allegations made by the noble Earl in connection with advertisements in the Listener. I admit that the Listener, owing to my intervention, has become a paper which is a record of all the best thoughts and statements broadcast, so that they may be filed and be capable of being used as a reference for all time. I have taken very great care, against the advice of my officials, that all the advertisements should be placed at the beginning or the end of the Listener, so that, just like Punch, you can tear out the whole of the advertisements before and after the material for which people generally buy a paper, and you have in the centre the Listener containing, without advertisements, all the information which we wish to have permanently recorded. It is quite true that on one occasion, after a debate on a controversial subject by the three Parties in the House of Commons, an advertisement appeared in the Listener to which the noble Lord has called attention—an advertisement, I think, in connection with more money required for the Daily Herald, or some such purpose. Every Party was asked whether they would help the Listener by putting in advertisements. The Conservatives and the Liberals declined the opportunity, but the Labour Party accepted it, and paid £15 for their advertisement. As we are losing about £8,000 a year in connection with the publication of the Listener we are anxious to secure advertisements. I admit it is unfortunate that after Mr. Baldwin's speech on unemployment was placed in the Listener there was placed on the opposite page, owing to Mr. Baldwin's speech having being given

463
the first page in the Listener, an advertisement put in by the Land Tax Party, for which they paid double fees for the particular position.
If we had known that that particular advertisement was going to be placed opposite Mr. Baldwin's speech, we would not have allowed it to be there. It was put there owing to the over-zeal of one of the officials, who knew that we were anxious for rather more money for advertisements. We did, I think, all that was possible in the circumstances, because in the next issue of the Radio Times we apologised handsomely to Mr. Baldwin and the Conservative Party for the fact that this advertisement had appeared opposite the address on unemployment delivered by Mr. Baldwin. We made the amende so far as we could. I admit that whilst we could have accepted the advertisement in another position, it ought not to have been placed where it was, because it was liable to misrepresentation as a reply to Mr. Baldwin, which no doubt it was intended to be by the Land Tax Party, although it was in the form of an advertisement and nothing more.
Then in regard to the noble Earl's view that there should be no political broadcast delivered, all I can say is that political broadcasts were introduced on the withdrawal of a ban which was placed upon us when the Corporation was established. In 1926 we were asked not to broadcast anything controversial, either religious, political or industrial, but in March, 1927, that particular ban was withdrawn, and I would like, if I may, just to refer to the tribute which the Postmaster-General of that day, a Conservative, paid to us when he withdrew the ban. We received this letter:—
"The Postmaster-General desires me to convey to the Governors his appreciation of the loyal and punctilious manner in which they have conformed to the obligations thereby imposed."
I must say that since the withdrawal of that ban neither the late Government nor the present Government have at any time drawn our attention to any departure from the liberty given to us by the withdrawal of the ban in connection with the broadcasting of controversial subjects. In regard to political broadcasts, we have an agreement with
464
the three Parties in the House of Commons as to what we may and may not broadcast of a political character. That is all drawn up, and they take no exception to what we broadcast of a political kind. We consult them as to all that we do with regard to political matters which may be thought to trench upon the agreement arrived at between us.
With regard to religious questions, we are, of course, on still more delicate ground. We have endeavoured in our religious talks, and in any matter connected with religion, to see that no one should be allowed to broadcast anything which is calculated in any degree to injure the religious susceptibilities of any reasonable citizen, and so far, I think, we have been fairly successful. In regard to industrial controversy, I think we have had very little trouble. It is really not quite such a delicate matter as religious and political differences, which we have now and again to broadcast to our listeners. Of course, it would have been much more satisfactory to me if we had not engaged in those controversial subjects, but the Crawford Commission definitely recommended that we should be allowed to broadcast controversial subjects and the Government gave us permission, and the public require information on controversial subjects. What we have endeavoured to do, and I think have fairly succeeded in doing, was to maintain a fair balance between one view and another and to see whenever one view was put forward that if another view was held by another body of opinion that should also be expressed so that the public would realise what both sides held or, if there were more than two sides to the controversy, what the arguments were in favour of the different views.
There is one other matter to which I think I ought to refer. We have had very difficult work to carry out. It was a duty imposed on us by our Charter. We have to try to please as many people as we can. We know we cannot please everybody at the same time on any one subject, nor are we likely to please everybody, but we do our best to supply useful, healthy, valuable and interesting information, and all the time not to overlook the importance of good entertainment. The best reply to our critics, I

465
think, is that which the noble Earl referred to in his opening remarks—the increase in licences. It is perfectly true that we have now over 3,590,000 licences. In 1925 there were only 2,178,000. We thought then that the saturation point had very nearly been reached, and as we did not anticipate that very many more millions would accept licences, we agreed with the Government under protest and accepted in the Charter an arrangement by which the Government received for each million an increased contribution out of the 10 s. from the public. That we feel to-day is a real grievance because the increase in the number of licences has been very remarkable. In the year 1927 they were 9.9 per cent. over 1926; in the year 1928 20.6 per cent., in the year 1929 35.7 per cent., and in the year 1930 they were 56.6 per cent. over 1926. Therefore, the increase has been progressive month by month throughout the whole period, and during the months of January and February this year 74,000 licences were taken out more than were taken out in the corresponding two months of last year.
Out of the licence money which is paid £212,000 went in 1930 to the Post Office (that is 12½ per cent. of each person's 10 s.) in order to cover the very infinitesimal cost of issuing licences to the public and checking to a certain extent the evasion of title licence duty. The Treasury to-day retain 26 per cent. of the licence revenue, whereas in 1927 they received only 20 per cent., and the aggregate figure they received for last year was £441,000 as against £242,000 in 1927. The Government retains an increased amount every year in proportion to what they were able to retain the year before. The B.B.C. really feel that is a grievance, and I mention it here because I think the listening public ought to be aware that we could give a better service than we are giving if the Government could see their way to be rather more generous in connection with the contributions of which they deprive the listeners through the B.B.C.
I know that we cannot please everybody, but I submit that we do our best, and that we give, so far as it is possible for human beings to do so, an unbiased presentation of matters of public interest. In return, whilst we expect some indulgence for our imperfections, we trust that the public will regard those points
466
which are raised in criticism against us from time to time not only with an indulgent eye but in a tolerant and broad spirit.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I cannot claim to have the same official or semi-official connection with the British Broadcasting Corporation as the two previous speakers. I can only speak as a member of the public who has taken an interest in the development of this institution, as one who has had an opportunity from personal acquaintance of discussing with the Governors the lines on which they conduct their work, and as one who knows personally many of the officers or officials who have come under criticism to-day. I have had an opportunity of knowing from them at all events what it is they aim at doing even if they do not succeed.
The noble Earl, I understand, brought two main charges against the British Broadcasting Corporation, that of bias towards the Left and that of inefficiency. It is very fortunate, I think, that we should have such an opportunity as we have to-day of seeing how far either of those charges is justified. Your Lordships will agree that the wireless is undoubtedly one of the greatest inventions of our time and that we have not, nearly reached the full development of that invention. It has done more to revolutionise the world, to bring people together and to bring knowledge before the public which was hitherto unavailable than any other invention. If you compare the wireless with the other two media of recreation and information, the Press and the stage—and in the stage I include the cinema—it seems to me that the wireless comes out extraordinarily well. I sincerely hope that attention will be paid to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, that this Corporation should not be put definitely under any Government control. I think it is one of the greatest assets of the British Broadcasting Corporation that it is independent. It would be a tragedy if there were a Minister directly responsible because then, undoubtedly, there would be a real risk of political propaganda and bias.
As I see it there are two alternative functions before the B.B.C.—either to go in for recreation or for recreation and education. By education I mean something

467
general and based on the fact that knowledge and information are not static but are constantly changing. Your Lordships, if you think of it, will agree with me that often the infallibility of yesterday becomes the fiction of to-morrow, and that the accepted opinion of last year is looked upon as being antiquated in very many cases. I have here extracts from two newspapers, oddly enough published on the same day, criticising the B.B.C. for bias. The first is from the Morning Post of February 27 of this year. I will make only two brief quotations:—
"Widespread and legitimate anxiety is being caused in the public mind by a whole series of recent events, which cast grave suspicion on the political impartiality of the B.B.C.… the function of the B.B.C. is to provide entertainment and instruction, and not to disseminate political propaganda obnoxious to large sections of the community who pay for its amenities."
It is very difficult to carry that out as, obviously, there is not unanimity amongst the subscribers of the B.B.C. On the same day the Daily Herald had an article from which I should like to make a quotation:—
"So timid, so orthodox, is the B.B.C. that it declines to allow any original thinker to broadcast his views. No man or woman with a message of any kind that is likely to startle the conventional listener is allowed to 'shock' the ether."
Here are two attacks on the British Broadcasting Corporation by well-known newspapers attacking it from a totally different angle, one on the ground that it was going too far and too fast, and the other on the ground that it was too slow or not moving at all.
It seems to me that the Governors and officers concerned have had to decide whether to go in for originality, or whether to adopt as their principle what is known as fundamentalism. I think that they were quite right in going in for originality and reasonable examination of new subjects and new topics. Undoubtedly this is the age of new ideas. There is hardly an accepted traditional point of view that is not being challenged. That applies to economics, to political theories, to the position of sex, to patriotism, to theology. Take, for instance, the question of theology. To many young persons to-day it is not a question whether they are to believe in old theology or new theology, but whether
468
they are to believe in new theology or no theology at all. I think it would be contrary to the public interest if the decision were to go forth, either from this House or the Government, that the British Broadcasting Corporation was not to allow what is called controversial matters to be put before the public. I agree entirely that if one point of view is put before the public then every opportunity ought to be taken to put the opposite point of view. The answer to wrong ideas is not to go in for a sort of mental imprisonment, but to put forward right ideas, and then let the public judge as between the two which in fact is right and which is wrong.
I do not know that it is necessary for me to deal in detail with the different charges brought before your Lordships, because they have already, to a certain extent, been dealt with. As regards the attack on Professor Dobb in connection with "Whither mankind?" series, I understand the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, has told us that, the paper itself was very carefully scrutinised by those who were responsible before it was passed. I have read it since I saw the Motion down on the Paper, and I cannot say that I think it ought not to have been given over the wireless. I have looked at it very carefully. I understand that the charge is not so much against the material, but is against the fact that Professor Dobb had been associated with a Communist newspaper. I can easily understand that it is very difficult, even if it were possible, for the British Broadcasting Corporation to investigate all the antecedents of any individual who is invited to talk, and I think if they were to attempt to do that they might find they might get into very serious difficulty. If you are to discuss not only the employment but the associations of an individual you might also have to go into the question of his private life. I think that the fact that the British Broadcasting Corporation satisfies themselves on the subject matter should really clear them on this particular point.
As to Mr. Harold Nicolson, there again I have read the article since I saw the Motion on the Paper, and it seems to me that it is a very balanced statement. It is possible to take sentences out of the context and quote them and

469
give a wrong impression. Regarding the other point about the election manifesto of the Labour Party having been published, I understand what happened was that the three Parties were offered space, and that the Conservative and Liberal Parties did not avail themselves of the opportunity, so you can hardly blame the Broadcasting Corporation for that.
I listened as carefully as I could to the speech of the noble Earl—I only missed the opening sentences—and I could not help thinking that taken as a whole the extent of the charge and accusation was significantly small. We have brought up here to-day the accumulation of years of observation and scrutiny upon the British Broadcasting Corporation. What is the total? The noble Lord finds fault with two of the speakers; there are three indiscretions made by subordinate members of the staff, and two cases of misfortune or bad luck. Speaking roughly that is the sum total of the charges. I have been at pains to enquire how many talks are provided by the British Broadcasting Corporation. I find there are roughly fifty to sixty addresses given every week, and between 2,000 and 3,000 every year. We have been told this is the first public debate there has been about the activities of the Corporation in eight years. If all the noble Lord can do is to bring forward half-a-dozen cases of ineptitude, of inefficiency, of bias, if you like, why it amounts to something like one-half of one per cent. of the whole for a year. I should say it was an amazing tribute to the impartiality with which the Corporation have conducted their operations in the past. I have also taken the trouble to ascertain from the Corporation whether they receive a large number of letters from the public, and if so what is contained in those letters. I understand that the overwhelming number of letters are laudatory, and that those that are critical are about equally divided, one-half saying the Corporation is too much inclined to reaction, and the other half saying it is too much inclined to radicalism. That again is a tribute to its impartiality.
I hope very much that nothing which has been said, or is going to be said, to-day will restrict the activities of the Corporation. I think it would not be in the national interest if we were to try
470
and limit it to such an extent that its work could be described as grandmotherly. We have to face the fact that there are nearly always two points of view, and that it is not dangerous to the public to put those two points of view before them, although it would be unjustifiable to put merely one. Certainly I myself am glad to have this opportunity, as a listener and as a member of the public, of congratulating those who are responsible for the addresses of the British Broadcasting Corporation upon the high tone which they adopt, the diversified addresses which they give, and their balanced impartiality.
LORD DARYNGTON: My Lords, I should like to say one word upon this matter having been connected with the Post Office some years ago. The last words which fell from the noble Lord in reference to the extraordinary development of broadcasting made one think how very remarkable that development is. I remember well only some twelve years ago—it was just about the end of the War—going into a broadcasting station and asking the operator if I might listen in. I did so, and heard a very small scratch. I asked the man in charge what that was. He said: "That is Madrid speaking." It seemed to me then almost a miracle that he could tell it was Madrid.
When the noble Earl rose this afternoon he began by saying that our broadcasting was the admiration of the world. It will be quite impossible for any one not to find a system which could not be justifiably criticised. I think it is very wise for us to have a discussion on these matters in your Lordships' House in order that different ideas may be put forward and criticism made, because it may be the means of making the service even more efficient than it is to-day. I only rise to make one point, and that is as a layman to express my gratitude to the British Broadcasting Corporation for what they have done for religion. I consider that the religious addresses which have been given have been of enormous value and that they have probably had a very great influence on our national life. I believe also that having heard many of the voices of the great citizens of this country is of very great value to a vast number of the people of this country and a precious memory.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, the House I feel will be somewhat disappointed in the speeches of the two noble Lords who have answered on behalf of the British Broadcasting Corporation. Their speeches were neither an adequate explanation nor a defence of the facts laid by the noble Earl behind me. If I may take the points which the noble Earl has brought forward in their order, the first matter complained of was with reference to Russia and Mr. Harold Nicolson, Mr. Harold Nicolson said there was no persecution in Russia, that a man who wishes to worship in his own way is at liberty to do so. That statement of opinion was not answered. In fact the noble Earl has told us that when the Christian Protest Movement wished for an opportunity to answer that statement they were not permitted to do so. That does not seem to me to be an impartial treatment. of a very controversial subject. Again, Mr. Harold Nicolson appears to have said that many religious leaders were shot, not as religious leaders, but as politicians hostile to the Soviet régime. That is exactly one of the most abominable devices alleged against the Soviet Government—that they do not persecute religion openly but that they do accuse religious leaders of opposition to the Soviet, and by this means they are carrying on a very subtle and very dangerous persecution of religion.
The next point which the noble Earl brought forward was the case of Mr. Dobb. Apparently Mr. Dobb—I did not hear the broadcast myself—alleged that conditions in Russia were exceedingly good, that the Bolshevist Government was a great success in Russia; and then another gentleman on a later occasion said that Russian action in China was exceedingly bad. That does not strike me as any kind of answer to Mr. Dobb's assertion. It is perfectly possible for a Government to have an exceedingly bad domestic policy and an exceedingly good foreign policy or vice versa. I cannot accept that, and I do not think your Lordships will accept it as an answer.
Then we come to the amazing fact that the officials in charge of the Listener were so very indiscreet as to invite political Parties to advertise in their paper. The Listener alone among organs
472
of the Press occupies a privileged and quite peculiar position. The utmost discretion is absolutely necessary if it is to avoid charges of political partiality. I do not blame the Labour Party for their acceptance of the offer of advertising space, but I do blame—and I trust your Lordships will agree with me—the officials in charge of the Listener for making that offer at all. Then there was another matter—that of the advertisement coming under the heading of "Unemployment No. 8." It appears now that the B.B.C. have apologised for the position in which that advertisement appeared, but so far as I can gather from the speech of the noble Lord they did not apologise for the acceptance of such an advertisement. I do not think that a more experienced paper would have accepted an advertisement with a direct reference to a matter that was being discussed in its news columns, and I do not think they would have allowed an advertisement to appear to be a contribution to the ordinary columns of the paper.
I have felt it my duty to bring forward these very serious criticisms and to point out the inadequacy of the answers given. I say that without any feeling of hostility towards the British Broadcasting Corporation, and I am delighted to associate myself in every respect with the many tributes that have been paid to the efficiency of that service; but, as the noble Earl pointed out, the very fact that the British Broadcasting Corporation is a popular and efficient service entails a particular duty or caution upon those responsible for it, and it is only proper that Parliament should be ready to criticise the very least signs of imprudence upon the part of those to whom such important duties are entrusted.
LORD LUKE: My Lords, as the hospital ballot broadcast to which the noble Lord referred was made by me, probably you will allow me to say a few words. The British Charities Association, of which I am Chairman, organises competitions for the benefit of the hospitals. We have run several of these competitions in national newspapers because their editorial columns save us expense in circulars and postage stamps. The competition referred to is called "The Radio Ballot," the term "ballot" being used because it is a voting competition. Competitors

473
vote for the items in the broadcasting programme that they like best and have to place in order of popularity fourteen subjects, such as talks, plays, dance music, information, etc. Over a million entries at sixpence each have already been received, so you will realise the value of the competition to the British Broadcasting Corporation as a means of obtaining information as regards what programme is desired by the public.
This is the first time opinions have been obtained on such a large scale and in such detailed form. We shall have the advantage of the opinions of over a million listeners and as each entrant has to pay before he expresses his views he no doubt does it with care after discussing with other listeners. In addition to that, this scheme encourages people to buy radio sets and as each radio set means an additional 10 s. licence fee for the British Broadcasting Corporation, you can realise how very beneficial the scheme is to them. We have organised these ballots through many newspapers, but this is the first time we have held a ballot through the Herald, John Bull and the People with a circulation of five million copies between them. The whole of this circulation has been used to advertise the hospitals and radio for weeks, whilst the ballot has only received a few minutes' broadcast which we of the British Charities Association thought a rather small allowance by way of contra-advertising. But no doubt the British Broadcasting Corporation thought their action might be open to misrepresentation.
Short though my broadcast was, I was a little surprised by having my address censored only a few minutes before it was given, the name of the paper being cut out in two places. Those of you who have appealed for charity will know how unfortunate it is to have the address where information can be obtained cut out, especially at the last moment. These papers are mostly read by workers and it was for this reason that we accepted their offer because it would draw new money for the hospitals from new people and also—which was far more important—because it would explain to the class that get most benefit from the voluntary hospitals, that to subscribe to them was a virtue in which they could join.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I rise to address to the House only a very few remarks, because I cannot claim any expert knowledge on the subject which has been discussed. I think that all your Lordships will feel that we are indebted to my noble friend Lord Radnor for having introduced the subject if only for the fact that it has evoked a very interesting debate and has elicited expressions of opinion and statements of policy which are of very high importance. I think we should all be agreed that if there is any feeling in any quarter of the country that there is any sort of political bias or unfairness in the administration of the B.B.C., it is very much better that that matter should be ventilated and that full opportunity should be given of dealing with the complaints and of explaining them. All your Lordships will have been gratified to hear of the high technical excellence which the British Broadcasting Corporation is able to claim. I am quite sure that the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, was right when he said it would be a great misfortune for this country if the British Broadcasting Corporation came in any sense under the direct control of the Government or in a position in which a Minister of the Crown was responsible for its administration. The temptation to misuse that power would indeed be great and—what is even more serious—the feeling on the other side, whoever happened to be the other side for the time being, that that power was in the hands of a particular Minister would lead to a suspicion of unfairness that would be most undesirable.
I agree also that it is impossible in any human institution that there shall not be some opportunity for criticism. It is inevitable in carrying on a great undertaking like this, that there must be mistakes made. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Astor is right in saying that the fact that there are comparatively few criticisms brought forward to-day is a matter on which the Corporation is entitled to congratulate itself. I am not quite sure that the increase in the number of subscribers is quite so conclusive a testimonial as Lord Gainford would have us believe because, after all, one must remember it is a monopoly and that, however dissatisfied the listeners are with the service rendered, they cannot get wireless from

475
any other quarter. Even if they do not listen to the British Broadcasting Corporation but to some foreign station; they have still to pay. No doubt, the facilities and advantages given by wireless for the early dissemination of news and for information on all mariner of subjects are facilities which becomes a necessity in public life, but, just as I would not think that an increase in the number of telephone users was a conclusive proof that the telephone administration was beyond reproach, so I think the British Broadcasting Corporation cannot rely too much on this argument.
There rest two matters arising out of the criticisms on which I would like to add a word or two of comment. The first is the question of these Socialist advertisements. I gather, if I did not misunderstand Lord Gainford, that the position was that the Listener, being a newspaper desirous of reducing its losses, had offered to all three political Parties an opportunity of advertising in its columns. One of the three had accepted, and the other two had refused. The noble Lord seemed to think that made the matter completely satisfactory. To me, at any rate, that is a profoundly unsatisfactory explanation. The Listener is a paper primarily designed, apparently, to inform a very large public of the nature of the talks which have been given and of the subjects of the programmes which are about to be given. It ought essentially, I should have thought, have been a non-controversial and non-political organ. To say that it will for money—because that is what advertisements mean—allow any one of the Parties to propagate its particular views in the columns of that paper seems to me a complete misconception of its proper function. I do not think it is in the least true to say that, because only one Party chose to buy the space, therefore you have got a good excuse. It is a profound mistake to sell to any one of the Parties in the State the right to disseminate its views by means of that particular newspaper.
The other matter, which I confess leaves me a little uneasy, is the matter of this man Dobbs, and the explanation which the noble Lord gave seemed to me to make the matter rather worse than it originally appeared. It seems that Dobbs was giving a lecture on the five-year plan
476
in Russia as one of a series of lectures, which were introduced as by distinguished professors of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge leading listeners on the wireless to believe that they were going to hear high authorities on the future tendencies of civilisation. In fact, what they got from Dobbs was not the statement of a learned professor upon the future tendencies of civilisation but a Communist propaganda speech from the paid servant of the Daily Worker. If the noble Lord had said: "Well, we were deceived. We did not know who that man was. We did not understand the sort of thing he was going to talk about," one would have said it was a mistake, the sort of mistake we must expect from time to time. But that is not the attitude of the noble Lord. He says: "We see no harm in it. Dobbs gave a statement of facts as he regarded them of what he saw in Russia." And the noble Lord added: "We actually went through the paper before he read it so that we knew exactly what he was going to say."
I wonder if any of those who listened on that particular occasion realised what they were listening to was not a statement of fact by an eminent professor in a series of discourses by high authorities but was really propaganda put out by the Soviet Government in favour of its own particular point of view. I wonder still more if the noble Lord would have been willing to publish with equal equanimity a statement of the true facts about the five-year plan, which is what Dobbs seems to have lectured upon. We all know that the five-year plan is a scheme under which Soviet Russia is plotting the overthrow of civilisation in this country, a plan designed to destroy our industries, to put our men out of work and to drive them to such a state of desperation that there will result that state of armed revolution and civil war which they hope will result in the establishment of a Soviet régime in this country.
If he had followed up the statement of Dobbs with those facts, with an account of the slave labour that exists there, and with an exposition of the true facts in Russia to-day, there might have been some excuse. To say you have sufficiently counteracted a statement of the five-year plan by a Soviet apologist by allowing

477
somebody the next week, in describing affairs in China, to mention that Communism had done a lot of harm there, seems to show a lack of appreciation of the gravamen of the charge. I should have been quite willing to accept the statement: "This was a mistake. We are very sorry for it and it will not happen again." But, in regarding it as a statement of fact because it is what Dobbs says he saw in Russia, the noble Lord seems not to have appreciated the feeling that it was likely to arouse in this country and the mischief such lectures are liable to do.
I have said these words by way of criticism because I think that a fault does seem somehow to have crept into the administration of the British Broadcasting Corporation in these instances. It is not a failure to hold the balance, as I am quite sure the noble Lord would wish to hold it, and as, indeed, he assures us that he does, but it is not an unbiased way of presenting different points of view. I do not in the least take the view that only what may be pleasant to one section of the community ought to be broadcast. I entirely agree that the different sides ought to be fairly presented, but I do not think that, either by selling their space to one particular political Party for the dissemination of their propaganda or by allowing a man of this kind to masquerade as an impartial professor and lecturer upon scientific matters—I do not think that in either of those ways the British Broadcasting Corporation have succeeded in living up to the high standard which they profess that they seek to maintain. I am sure that all your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Earl for introducing this subject, and I hope very much that, with the ventilation of the grievance to which he drew attention, the British Broadcasting Corporation, without in the least necessarily accepting his point of view, will at least be careful not to offend the susceptibilities of a great many of their fellow-citizens by making their unique opportunity the mouthpiece for Communist propaganda in this country.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE): My Lords, this debate has been very interesting, and we are greatly indebted to the noble Earl who raised this question, and whose speeches are
478
always so sincere and persuasive that they carry a great deal of weight in your Lordships' House. Until the last speech the debate had been carried on with great good humour and in a very placid atmosphere. I cannot help regretting the speech of the noble and learned Viscount who has just sat down.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Why?
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: Because I think the violence with which he spoke was based on insufficient knowledge. He referred to this particular case of Mr. Morris Dobb, whom he referred to as "the man Dobbs." He had not even taken the trouble to find out what the gentleman's name is.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I hope the noble Lord will forgive me, but I used the name which the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, used. If it was wrong, I am sorry, but he is responsible.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: At any rate, Lord Gainford did not call him "the man Dobbs."
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: He called him "Professor Dobbs."
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: The noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, told us that Mr. Dobb had said that the Soviet Government was exceedingly goad. I do not think either the noble and learned Viscount who has just sat down or the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, have the remotest conception of what Mr. Dobb said. I think it is rather unfair to bring a charge against the British Broadcasting Corporation merely on gossip, from the Morning Post. Mr. Dobb gave a lecture on the five-year plan, a very careful analysis of that plan. Whether it was a good lecture or not has nothing to do with it. What we are dealing with, apparently, is the point whether the British Broadcasting Corporation ought to have ascertained that Mr. noble had been a Communist and had contributed to the Daily Worker, I think it is putting an obligation on the British Broadcasting Corporation that is a bit unfair if they have to cross-question people and make investigations with regard to their careers and their beliefs. I have sometimes had the honour to do broadcasting for the British Broadcasting Corporation, but, if an investigation were

479
to be made into my career, I should resent it very much, and I think the Corporation would lose a great many of the important and interesting people whose services they now have if they adopted that course.
I think that this debate has done a very useful bit of work in showing that the charges against the administration of this immense Corporation have really dwindled down to—well, I really think that at the end of this debate I can only find one, and for that the British Broadcasting Corporation have apologised. That was the improper advertisement put in, not, as Lord Gainford said, by the Labour Party, but I think by the single-tax people, or the Society for the Taxation of Land Values or something of that sort. It was printed in the wrong sort of type and put in the wrong place. They have apologised for that. Over a period of seven years, that is the sum total of the charge against this organisation. The others have been disposed of by my noble friend Lord Gainford, but perhaps I might refer to those other than the point about Mr. Dobb.
I should like to say one word about Mr. Nicolson, because, although Lord Gainford quoted passages from the paragraphs in his address, he did not give the passage in which the sentence, or rather the parenthesis, quoted by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, occurred. I think that, if I read the sentence to him, the noble Earl will see that to detach this parenthesis by itself and give it as the substance of Mr. Nicolson's address was really not fair. This is the sentence:—
"I believe also that the Russian Government have embarked upon a systematic campaign in order to uproot religion from the minds of the Russian people, and that they have stopped at nothing to heap the most sacred beliefs of the Russian peasant with ridicule and abuse. But I also feel other things. The Moscow Government can scarcely be said to persecute religion in the historical sense of the term. They make fun of it, and they render it highly inconvenient and irksome."
After just detaching that one parenthesis, the noble Earl criticised this interesting talk by Mr. Nicolson. I almost felt, when the noble Earl was putting his case, that he had been briefed in such a way as to give us an opportunity of showing how little criticism can be brought
480
against the administration of the British Broadcasting Corporation.
I think the Daily Herald radio ballot is perhaps the only other case that has not been dealt with. I should like to give examples of the British Broadcasting Corporation's method of co-operating with the newspapers. The Daily Herald is not the only newspaper with which they have co-operated. Other examples are the Daily News campaign for wireless for London Hospitals in 1925–6; the Daily Mail programme popularity competitions of 1926 and 1931; the Daily Express community singing campaigns of 1927–8; The Times campaign for the preservation of the fabric of St. Paul's Cathedral in 1928–9; the efforts of the newspapers of the Berry group for the Children's Hospital at Westminster; the Daily Mail concert in celebration of the diamond jubilee of the Royal Albert Hall in 1931; and the farewell dinner to Mr. C. P. Scott of the Manchester Guardian. This radio ballot of tile Daily Herald was no exception and, as the noble Lord, Lord Luke, has pointed out, it had a very beneficial effect both in helping the British Broadcasting Corporation and in collecting money for the hospitals. As for the newspaper advertising in this connection, all the newspapers do it. Whether the Corporation should turn out all this sort of advertisement is a matter that may have to be taken into account, but for the time being that is not their policy.
Let me add that I fully endorse what Lord Crawford said as to its not being the business of the Government to interfere in this matter. I remember well in the House of Commons hearing Sir William Mitchell-Thomson, the Postmaster-General, protesting against a suggestion that His Majesty's Government should be ma de responsible for programmes that were broadcast. It is quite impossible that they should do anything of the kind, and we are continuing the policy of the last Government in preventing anything of that sort; but it rests with the Postmaster-General to intervene should there be any flagrant case of bias being shown in one direction or another. They have an exceedingly difficult task, and I must say that I think the Director-General does his work with amazing skill, because extremists from both sides fire at him. He has to try

481
and keep an even, middle course, and there is nothing so objectionable as a middle course to the extremists of both sides. Therefore, he finds himself in great difficulty. He has to deal at this moment with three Parties in the State, but he is a little doubtful what the future is going to bring in regard to fresh political Parties, and he may find his work considerably complicated in that direction.
I must say that this debate shows that an advertisement here and an advertisement there is all we can find to exemplify what may be termed as bias; that the lecture by Mr. Dobb brought in not one single letter of protest; that there have been no complaints of error in judgment or use with regard to advertisements. All this serves to show that this organisation is being conducted in a way of which we can heartily approve. I must say, in answer to the Question, that the balance sheet of the B.B.C. is published as a separate Parliamentary Paper every year. I personally very much hope that controversy will continue. I think it is the breath of life, and I am sure it is very much appreciated by the listeners. It gives zest and interest, and although it is possible mistakes may be made, here and there, on the whole, since 1928, the conduct of this organisation has proved that with wise judgment and discrimination, controversy can be well conducted.
I should, in conclusion, like to quote to your Lordships an opinion which comes from abroad, because I think it is a testimony which is interesting. I give it in the words of the report of an interview by one of the officials of the Broadcasting Corporation, who was being questioned and interviewed by the head of a large Broadcasting Corporation in a foreign country. This is the note:—
"After his describing the difficult situation in which they were, I asked whether he thought our experience and opinion would be of value. 'What,' he said, 'of value? Do you not know what the Continent thinks of the B.B.C.?' I said I was not quite sure. He leant back in his chair and pointed up to the ceiling. The Continent regards the B.B.C. as away up there, high above anything we have been able to do. Whenever we manage something good, we say that it is a step up the hill towards the B.B.C.' After more to the same effect, changing the metaphor, he said, 'What the B.B.C. has done is like a light-house, indicating the route for safe navigation.'"
482
I think that is a very striking testimony from abroad, and shows that Great Britain is taking the lead in this matter. I am glad that we have had this debate, if it is only to show that the criticisms have been very small, and that the defence has been so very strong. I think we may say that during the afternoon we have been using a steam hammer to crack a nut, and I am afraid at the end of it the nut is found to have no kernel.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: If your Lordships will permit me, I would like in reply to Lord Gainford to make it perfectly clear that my criticisms of the staff of the B.B.C. contained no personal feeling, and in fact I wish to make the point that I was not criticising them so much as showing that they had not had the training to enable them to perform their functions quite as well as people who had been trained in the entertainment business. I did not wish to criticise them in the way which he seemed to imply by defending them. Also it has been a general criticism of what I said that I think one noble Lord stated that there had been so few instances of bias in the last eight years. I have not attempted to produce an exhaustive case, for it is impossible for me to go through, year by year, the sixty lectures a week during the last eight years. I have merely picked out recent instances, and most of those which I produced were this year. I feel that those instances have not been very satisfactorily answered, and that whether they were mistakes or not, the cumulative result of those and other instances is not redounding very greatly to the credit of the B.B.C. However, it seems that the general opinion of the majority of your Lordships is that the B.B.C. cannot be better, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  SALE OF ANIMAL MEDICINES.
  SALE OF ANIMAL MEDICINES.