Sitting of 17 February 1932

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Kettering Gas Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.
Marriages Provisional Orders Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  EGYPT.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any statement to make with reference to the position in Egypt; and whether any negotiations are being carried on or are contemplated at the present time?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): There is nothing in the position in Egypt to necessitate any statement in this House.

  CHINA AND JAPAN.

    LEAGUE OF NATIONS NOTE.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will consider the advisability of proposing, if necessary, the calling of a special meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations to deal with the Far Eastern dispute?
    Sir J. SIMON: My hon. Friend will realise that his suggestion is superfluous when I remind him that the representative of China has already asked that the Assembly should be summoned.
    Mr. MANDER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Assembly is likely to meet?
    Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir, I cannot say that, because it has not yet been decided.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will consider proposing that the Council of the League of Nations should put into force in the case of Japan the resolution concerning the application of Article 16 of the Covenant adopted by the Assembly of the League on 4th October, 1921, for the withdrawal of ambassadors and ministers and the establishment of an effective blockade of the seaboard of the covenant-breaking State; and whether these matters have already been under consideration by the Council of the League?
    Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir. The question of responsibility for the unhappy situation at Shanghai was taken into consideration by the Council of the League of Nations under the provisions of Article 15 of the Covenant. Before the Council had received the statements of the parties, the Government of China claimed to withdraw the question from the Council and to submit it for decision to the Assembly. In these circumstances, His Majesty's Government would regard it as most improper to form a judgment upon a matter which is under the judicial consideration of a tribunal in which they form a part, and they would deprecate any suggestion that they have reached any premature conclusion.
    Mr. COCKSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has had any recent information from Mukden or elsewhere as to the proposal to form a new independent State in Manchuria?
    Sir J. SIMON: I have seen a report on this matter in this morning's Press, but I have, as yet, no official confirmation.
    Mr. COCKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the Japanese Government that this country will not recognise the new State, as it would be contrary to the Nine-Power Treaty?
    Sir J. SIMON: I must, of course, first make sure as to the question of fact.
    Mr. COCKS: Would it not be better that they should protest now, rather than wait until they are faced with a fait accompli?
    Mr. COCKSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Mr. H. G. Parkes, an English schoolmaster, was attacked on 14th February by 50 Japanese reservists in Hongkew; whether he will make inquiries as to the injuries sustained by Mr. Parkes; and whether he will demand an apology and compensation from the Japanese Government for this outrage on a British subject?
    Sir J. SIMON: I am awaiting a report on the matter, and cannot say anything further until it has been received and considered.
    Mr. COCKSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the invasion of China by a Japanese army, His Majesty's Government will approach the Governments of the United States, France, Italy, and Germany with a view to taking concerted action, such action to take the form of issuing a strong protest to the Japanese Government followed, if necessary, by the withdrawal of Ambassadors and the severance of trade relations?
    Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir. The present situation in the Far East is before the League, of which His Majesty's Government is a member, and His Majesty's Government will continue to act in close collaboration with the Powers there represented and with the Government of the United States of America.
    Mr. COCKS: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this situation is growing graver every day, and is menacing our position and prestige in the East?
    Sir J. SIMON: I am fully conscious, as I am sure the hon. Member is, of the gravity of this matter, and we are all acting with every sense of responsibility.
    Mr. MAXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the League of Nations is doing anything effective?
    Sir J. SIMON: I am quite sure it is doing its best.
    Mr. MAXTON: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, that was not what I asked. I asked him if he was satisfied that the League of Nations was doing anything effective in this matter, because the general opinion is to the contrary.
    Mr. MANDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the grave danger to Australia and other parts of the British Empire unless steps are taken to stop this Japanese aggression?
    Sir J. SIMON: I hope that my hon. Friend will do me the justice to believe that I have not altogether forgotten Australia.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does the Foreign Secretary think that the League of Nations can do anything?
    HON. MEMBERS: Order!
    Mr. TINKERasked the secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that, despite the promises of the Japanese authorities to the British and other consuls, a, Japanese army has landed in the international settlement at Shanghai; and whether he proposes to take any steps to protest against this action?
    Sir J. SIMON: As stated in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley. (Mr. Lansbury) on the 9th February, His Majesty's Government have on three occasions made it clear to the Japanese Government that they could not approve of the use of the Settlement as a base for operations outside it. His Majesty's Consul-General at Shanghai has now protested to the local Japanese authorities against the use of the Settlement as a channel for military operations unconnected with the defence of the Settlement. The Japanese Government have, however, stated that the purpose of the reinforcements is the defence of the Settlement and of Japanese nationals.
    Mr. TINKER: Are we powerless to do any more than we are doing?
    Mr. LOGANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the last report of the consular commission of inquiry in Shanghai; whether he has taken note of the summary execution of residents in the international settlement, and of other excesses committed within the settlement by Japanese marines, reservists, etc.; and whether His Majesty's Government will inform the Japanese Government, either independently or together with the other Powers,

    1615
    concerned; that it will be held responsible for all damage done by Japanese military and marines to residents in the international settlement?
    Sir J. SIMON: I understand that the report was telegraphed to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations on the 12th February. It forms part of the material now being considered collectively by the League, and I cannot anticipate the attitude it may be desirable to adopt in regard to it.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any licences have been granted to any company or group of armament manufacturers in this country during recent months to export armaments of any kind to Japan?
    Major COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): Yes, Sir.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Can we have the names of the firms who are exporting armaments to Japan and China?
    Major COLVILLE: No. It has not been customary to give that information.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Have the Government considered ceasing the grant of licences for the export of arms during the disturbances in China?
    Major COLVILLE: I cannot at this stage go beyond the answer given by the President of the Board of Trade to the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams) on the 4th instant.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it not the case that during the last Government names were given?
    Major COLVILLE: I think the hon. Member will find that he is mistaken. The practice that I have stated has been adhered to by my predecessors.
    Sir PERCY HARRIS: Does the hon. and gallant Member not think that it is most undesirable to carry on this export trade and to encourage war like this?
    Major COLVILLE: The hon. Baronet is asking for my opinion.
    Mr. MAXTON: Will the Chinese also have equal facilities for purchasing their arms here?
    Major COLVILLE: Licences have not been withheld in either case up to the present time.
    Dr. SALTER (for Mr. HICKS)asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been called to the public statement by Brigadier-General Fleming at Shanghai to the effect that if the Chinese invaded the settlement he would shoot them down; and whether, without interfering in any way with policy, he will recommend those on the spot to avoid phrases which may excite hostility?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): I am aware that a Press report to this effect has been circulated, but Brigadier Fleming has reported that it is untrue. I do not consider that any action of the kind suggested in the last part of the question is necessary.
    Lord SCONE: Would it not be as well to extend that recommendation to the pseudo-pacifists on the Socialist Front Bench who are trying to plunge us into war with Japan?
    Mr. LANSBURY(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement, as to a communication from the Council of the League of Nations to Japan?
    Sir J. SIMON: I have information from Geneva that the Council of the League of Nations, other than the Chinese and Japanese representatives, addressed a Note in the nature of an appeal last night to Japan; but its contents are not yet made public. I understand, however, that the Council are publishing it this evening. That being so, after its issue by the League, I shall be glad to meet the convenience of the right hon. Gentleman and the House by having it printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-night.
    Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has any information as to what is happening in Shanghai to-day? I am sorry that I have not been able to give him notice of this question, and I only heard of something happening just before I came into the House.
    Sir J. SIMON: I have no information which I can give in answer to that question. Of course, we are all aware of what is reported in the Press, and I will, make it my business to see if I have any specific information which I ought to give in answer to the question, and, if so, I may communicate with the right hon. Gentleman later in the day.
    Mr. LANSBURY: The only point that I would urge on the Government for consideration in this position is that there is very great danger of nationals other than Japanese coming into the range of the hostilities, owing to the fact that the Japanese are attacking from the Settlement, and in self-defence the Chinese apparently have to fire into the Settlement. I would like to be quite sure that His Majesty's Government are making the strongest possible effort to get these proceedings stopped at the earliest possible moment.
    Sir J. SIMON: My right hon. Friend will have, in mind, I am sure, that I answered a question which was asked this afternoon, and pointed out that we had made strong representations on the use of the International Settlement as a base of operations. I think that if he will look at the answer I gave, he will see that we have that consideration in mind.
    Mr. MAXTON: In the newspapers to-day there are reports of British casualties in Shanghai. Apart from taking the Leader of the Opposition into his confidence, would the right hon. Gentleman not do what has been done on previous occasions by making a statement to the House later in the day?
    Sir J. SIMON: If I get any further information, I shall certainly do so. I was not picking and choosing. I shall be glad to give the whole House the information if I receive it.
    Following are the terms of the Note:
    "As the President of the Council on behalf of his colleagues pointed out on the 29th of January in an appeal addressed to both parties, good relations between States can only be secured by co-operation and mutual respect and no permanent solution can be achieved by force, whether military or merely economic. The longer the present situation continues, the wider the breach between the two peoples will become and the more difficult the solution will be, with all the disasters that that would mean not only to the two nations directly involved but to the world in general.
    1618
    The 12 members of the Council, other than the Chinese and Japanese representatives, feel constrained to-day to make a pressing appeal to the Government of Japan to recognise the very special responsibility for forbearance and restraint which devolved upon it in the present conflict, in virtue of the position of Japan as a member of the League of Nations and a permanent member of its Council.
    The situation which has developed in the Far East during the past months will be fully studied by the Commission appointed with the consent of both parties. But since the Commission was set up there have occurred, and are still occurring, events at and near Shanghai which have intensified public anxiety throughout the world, which endanger lives and interests of nationals of numerous countries, and to the unexampled difficulties with which the whole world is faced in the present crisis and threaten to throw new and serious obstacles in the path of the Disarmament Conference.
    The 12 members of the Council are far from disregarding the grievances advanced by Japan, and throughout all these months have given her the full confidence which they owed to an associate of long standing who had ever been punctilious in fulfilment of all her obligations and duties as a member of the Community of Nations.
    They cannot but regret, however, that she has not found it possible to make full use of the methods of peaceful settlement provided in the Covenant; and recall once again the solemn undertaking of the Pact of Paris that a solution of international disputes shall never be sought by other than peaceful means. They cannot but recognise that, from the beginning of the conflict which is taking place on her territory, China has put her case in the hands of the League and agreed to accept its proposals for a peaceful settlement.
    The 12 members of the Council recall the terms of Article 10 of the Covenant by which all members of the League have undertaken to respect and preserve the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all members of the League. It is their friendly right to direct attention to this provision, particularly as it appears to them to follow that no invasion of territorial integrity, and no change in the political independence of any member of the League, brought about in disregard of this Article, ought to be recognised as valid and effectual by members of the League of Nations.
    Japan has an incalculable responsibility before the public opinion of the world to be just and restrained in her relations with China. She has already acknowledged this responsibility in most solemn terms by becoming one of the signatories to the Nine Powers Treaty of 1922, whereby the contracting Powers expressly agreed to respect the sovereignty, the independence, and the territorial and administrative integrity of China.
    The 12 members of the Council appeal to Japan's high sense of honour to recognise

    1619
    the obligations of her special position, and of the confidence which the nations have placed in her as a partner in the organisation and maintenanec of peace."

  BRAZIL (BRITISH INVESTORS).
  Mr. POTTERasked the Secretary of State for Foregn Affairs if he will request His Majesty's Ambassador at Rio de Janeiro to ascertain the reasons why the documents representing the obligations of the Brazilian Government's third default have not yet been handed to the British finance houses responsible for the flotation of the loans for distribution among those who are entitled to the documents?
  Sir J. SIMON: It is understood that the arrangements proposed by the Brazilian Government, in connection with their decision to issue funding bonds in respect of interest on certain of their external loans, have been stated in detail to the bondholders concerned, and I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by communicating with the Brazilian Government on the matter.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is not this one of the countries that have not met their obligations as the Soviets have met theirs with this country?

  FLOODS, CHINA (RELIEF).
  Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any Governments have acted on the invitation made by the League of Nations Council on 29th September to States, members of the League, to take every possible measure for the relief of the victims of the floods in China; if so, which States have taken such measures; and what measures have they taken?
  Sir J. SIMON: I regret that I have no information which would enable me to answer the question.
  Mr. DAVIES: Would it be too much to ask the right hon. Gentleman to secure the information, in view of the situation?
  Sir J. SIMON: I will gladly do the best that I can. I quite understand the
  1620
  feeling of sympathy that exists in all quarters of the House about this very sad disaster.
  Mr. DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that in a report to the League of Nations Council on the flooded areas of China, dated 28th September, 1931, the rapporteur stated that a number of countries, as a result of the League appeal had sent supplies, stores, and other gifts to assist the sufferers, His Majesty's Government has considered the question of participating in such measures?
  Sir J. SIMON: This matter has been carefully considered, and in view of the financial situation in this country and the urgent need for immediate economy I regret that it has not been found possible to send direct financial assistance from His Majesty's Government. I have no information as to any appeals made to private sources, nor as to any response thereto.
  Mr. McGOVERN: Will the right hon. Gentleman see at the same time that relief is given to the sufferers from the means test?

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (POLAND).
  Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the petition from Ukrainian deputies in the Polish Sejm on the subject of the settlement of Polish colonists in Ukrainian and White Russian districts of Poland has been declared receivable; and whether it has been placed on the agenda of the League of Nations Council?
  Sir J. SIMON: I understand that this petition, which is dated 1st February, 1932, has been accepted by the Secretariat of the League of Nations, who have forwarded it to the Polish Government for their observations. The Secretary-General considered that the petition should be treated as an urgent matter, and he has consequently circulated it to the members of the League Council for their information, without waiting for the reply of the Polish Government.
  As the observations of the Polish Government on the petition have not yet been received, it is not known whether they contest the receivability of this

  1621
  petition, and consequently the President of the Council has not yet been called upon to pronounce on this point.
  No decision can be taken on the question whether this petition should be placed on the agenda of the Council until the Polish Government have been given an opportunity to make their observations on the petition.
  Mr. DAVIES: May we take it for granted that, in view of the very serious situation, the Foreign Office will bring to bear upon the League of Nations all the influence that it can use, in order to bring about a settlement?
  Sir J. SIMON: My hon. Friend will, I am sure, appreciate that the matter is treated as a matter of urgency by the Secretary-General of the League, and in that view His Majesty's Government concur. Subject to that, the matter must after all be treated as a matter for the agenda of the League Council.

  REPARATIONS AND WAR DEBTS.
  Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state how many nations will be invited to the Lausanne Conference on Reparations; and whether the United States will be asked to send a delegate?
  Sir J. SIMON: The question of invitations to attend the Lausanne Conference in June is one for joint consideration by the six inviting Powers responsible for the communiqué published in the Press on Saturday last, to which I referred in my answer to the question put by my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald) on the 15th of February. It would therefore be premature for me in the meanwhile to attempt any statement on this subject.
  Mr. SMITHERS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the Conference is in a position to deal with Reparations and Debts?
  Sir J. SIMON: My hon. Friend will have observed that the agreed communiqué of the six Governments made a statement as to the scope of the Conference. I realise that the language is not precise and explicit in every detail, but I do not think I can go beyond the terms of the communiqué at present.

  RUSSIA (DEBTS, CLAIMS AND COUNTERCLAIMS).
  Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he expects to be in a position to inform the House of the steps which the Government now propose to take in order to secure payment for British nationals of the debts due to them from the Russian Soviet Government?
  Sir J. SIMON: I am not able at present to add anything to the full statements made to my hon. Friend by myself on the 2nd February, and by the Under-Secretary, on my behalf, on the 8th February.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the strong feeling of indignation among thousands of British nationals at the continued delay in settling these British debts, while at the same time the British Government are giving credits to and have resumed relations with the Government in question?
  Sir J. SIMON: My hon. Friend will, I am sure, realise that this is the third time he has put a question on this matter, very properly, within a single month, and I do not think that within the range of these three answers I can add anything.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate how any country can pay its debts without selling its goods?
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the Foreign Secretary see that the same pressure is brought to bear upon Brazil as it is sought to bring to bear upon Russia?
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great feeling that there is in this country on this subject, and can he give any indication of the date when he hopes to be able to inform the House of the results of the steps that the Government have already taken?
  Sir J. SIMON: I assure the hon. and gallant Member that I am fully aware of the strength of feeling, but I cannot add to my answer to-day.

  RUMANIA (JEWS).
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to a shooting of Jews at Soroca, on the

  1623
  Rumanian border; and, as the Jews in Rumania constitute a minority population for which we have a treaty liability, will he make inquiries as to what steps are being taken in the matter?
  Sir J. SIMON: His Majesty's Minister at Bucharest has reported that the victims of this incident, five of whom were of Jewish race, were crossing the River Dniester, near Soroca, on the 9th January, in the direction of Soviet territory, when they were challenged by Rumanian frontier guards. On being challenged they did not stop, and the guards accordingly fired, killing four of the party on the spot, and wounding two who subsequently died. A report on the incident, published by the Rumanian Minister of Defence, states that all the victims were active Communists, and points out that, since Communists crossing the Dniester have frequently been well armed, the guards have standing orders to fire immediately when persons challenged refuse to stop. I have no information that any complaint of a breach of the Minorities Treaty has been made to the League of Nations, and the facts as reported do not require His Majesty's Government to take action under the Rumanian Minorities Treaty.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: That, of course, is the official Rumanian Report. Is our Minister at Bucharest satisfied that this is a correct account of what happened?
  Sir J. SIMON: I have given to the House quite faithfully the report that was made to us by the Minister. I will gladly inform hon. Members if I have any further information to add.
  Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the deceased victims had in their possession passports duly visaed by the Rumanian authorities?
  Sir J. SIMON: I cannot say that.

  SOUTH AMERICAN STATES (LOANS).
  Mr. LEWISasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which of the South American States, other than Colombia and Argentina, are now fulfilling their obligations as to interest and sinking fund payments on those of their loans which were floated in London?
  Sir J. SIMON: Special agreements apply in the case of certain States in Latin and South America with regard to the payment of interest and sinking fund charges, by which certain concessions have been granted. It would, therefore, be invidious to give a specific list of those countries which are meeting their obligations in full, and I would suggest that my hon. Friend should obtain details from the Council of Foreign Bondholders.
  Mr. LEWISasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will cause inquiries to be made as to the intentions of the Government of Chile with regard to the default in payment of interest and sinking fund instalments on those of its loans which were floated in London?
  Sir J. SIMON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers which were given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Sir B. Falle) on the 16th and 23rd November last. Subsequent developments do not justify a belief that any useful purpose would be served by addressing representations on this subject to the Chilean Government at the present moment.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    SUBMARINES.
    Rear-Admiral SUETERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider making provision in the next Naval Estimates to replace M 2 by two submarines of smaller displacement specially designed to carry and discharge a high-speed seaplane, so as to provide a continuity of aircraft experiments from submarines in case of a mishap to one of these vessels?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): No decision has yet been reached as to what, if any, steps will be taken to continue the experiments with aircraft in submarines. Time would in any case not admit of including provision in the Estimates for 1932.

    SUBMARINE M.2.
    Rear-Admiral SUETERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the weight of the seaplane structure fitted to the M.2 submarine; if any difficulty in trimming for diving in the open sea or trimming in dock was experienced after fitting

    1625
    this structure; whether the provision of suitable surface escort, as provided in the early days of our submarine experimental work, has been abandoned; and, if so, for what reason?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: The weight of the seaplane structure (hangar and catapult) fitted to the M.2 is 40 tons, compared with 120 tons in the same vertical position as originally designed for a 12-inch gun. Experience with the M.2 since she was fitted with the seaplane structure has proved that she was easy to control and trim under all conditions. In the early days of submarines, while they were still in the experimental stage, a surface escort was provided, but for over 20 years this precaution has been considered unnecessary except on those occasions when a submarine is carrying out trials of an experimental nature.
    Rear-Admiral SUETERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to state the cause of the accident to the M.2 submarine?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: No, Sir. I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Captain North) on the 10th February. I would mention, however, that the weather conditions at the end of last week rendered it impossible to make progress with the salvage operations, and opportunity is therefore being taken to improve the salvage equipment of His Majesty's Ship "Ted-worth," from which the diving operations are conducted. Weather permitting, she will then return to the position of the wreck.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Have not the Admiralty, after all their experience with submarines, and in view of the development of the aeroplane, come to the conclusion that the submarine is unnecessary and obsolete?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot see how that question arises out of the question on the Paper.
    Mr. GROVESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that steps are being taken in private quarters to raise funds to maintain the dependants of those members of His Majesty's Navy who died in Submarine M.2; and whether he will consider
    1626
    making such dependants a charge upon public funds and make arrangements accordingly?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: I am aware that funds are being raised privately for the assistance of the dependants of those who lost their lives in the M.2. The Regulations already provide for the grant of pensions and allowances from public funds to the dependants of an officer or man whose death is attributable to the Service. In the present instance the claims of dependants are being dealt with as expeditiously as possible, and several awards have already been made. But the fact that provision in such cases is made by the State need not prevent, and never has prevented, the public at large from expressing their sense of obligation and their sympathy in a practical way.
    Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the ratings pay for the widows' pensions, but that by a decision of this House they are not allowed to receive them?

    PERSONNEL (FREE DISCHARGE).
    Mr. LOGANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty seeing that it has been decided to reduce the personnel of the Navy, if he will authorise ratings with definite offers of employment to be permitted to resign and not be compelled to purchase their discharge?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: Regulations already exist for the free discharge of ratings on compassionate grounds when, in the opinion of the man's commanding officer, it is impossible for the necessary money to be raised for discharge by purchase, and due consideration will continue to be given to all such applications. I regret it is not possible to grant general free discharge on the lines indicated by the hon. Member. The Admiralty have recently announced a certain relaxation of the rules for discharge whereby complete documentary evidence of hardships or prospective employment may be dispensed with if commanding officers are satisfied that applicants have reasonably sure prospects outside the Service.

    NEW CRUISERS.
    Lieut.-Commander AGNEWasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the dates upon which the three cruisers of the 1930 naval construction programme were laid

    1627
    down; what is the present state of construction of these ships; and whether work upon them is still being continued?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: The cruisers "Achilles," "Neptune" and "Orion" were laid down on the 11th June, 24th September and 26th September, 1931, respectively. Work is proceeding normally on all three vessels with a view to the "Achilles" being launched in September, 1932, and the "Neptune" and "Orion" early in 1933.

  UNITED STATES (COASTGUARD AND REVENUE SERVICE).
  Lieut.-Commander AGNEWasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state the number of professional man-of-war men now employed in the United States of America coastguard and revenue service; and if such number is included in the 107,000 which is the approximate total of the naval personnel of the United States of America?
  Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: The number of officers and men in the United States Coastguard Service, as given in the return furnished by the United States of America to the League of Nations on the 6th June, 1931, was 11,866. These were not included in the return of naval forces furnished by the United States of America. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has been informed of any reciprocal proposals for preferences from the Colonies arising out of the new tariff proposals of His Majesty's Government?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald) on the 10th of February. I should add that I have received from Somaliland a specific proposal to increase the duties on foreign imports by 10 per cent. I have also asked the President of the Board of
    1628
    Trade to review the existing rates of duty in the Colonies which are free to grant preference in order to see where an adjustment in the rate of duty and the preference accorded would be of material benefit to British exports.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: May we take it, then, that, as a direct result of the policy of His Majesty's Government, these matters are being reviewed, with the result that British trade will be encouraged and the same amount of revenue received?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think it is fair to draw all those deductions.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: In view of the postponement of the Ottawa Conference until the middle of the year, may I ask whether there is any chance of agreements being reached before that Conference and put into force if the Dominions are desirous of doing so?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That is a rather different point. This question was addressed on the subject of preferences between this country and the Colonies, and these, of course, are matters from day to day. With regard to the Dominions, I have already invited the Colonies to make any suggestions where an inter-Dominion and Colonial preference can be accorded. Some discussions, no doubt, will take place at Ottawa, but actually a number of matters are already under consideration.

    FACTORY SITES.
    Sir JOHN HASLAMasked the President of the Board of Trade if, in his reply to the foreign firms who apply to his Department for details of available sites for new factories, he will impress upon them the advantages possessed by Lancashire for such purposes?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Hore-Belisha): It would, as I think my hon. Friend will realise, be impossible for any Government Department to adopt a suggestion whereby one area could be treated preferentially as compared with other areas.
    Sir J. HASLAM: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that Lancashire has

    1629
    hundreds of empty factories where the streets are finished, where power and public services are laid on, and where a very high standard of efficiency exists among the workpeople, who live around the factories, and that it would be a tremendous saving.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have no reason to dispute any of those statements.
    Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: Are those statements not also equally applicable to Yorkshire?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, certainly.

  AVIATION.

    IMPERIAL AIRWAYS, LIMITED (SUBSIDY).
    Captain HAROLD BALFOURasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that State subsidy payments for 1930–31 to Imperial Airways, Limited, on account of the Cairo-Karachi route, amount to approximately £1,800 per ton of passengers, freights, or mails transported, being equivalent to £180 per passenger carried, and that the passenger fare charged for this trip by the company is £58; and if he will bear this discrepancy in mind when the occasion arises for the review of the Government agreements with Imperial Airways, Limited?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply I gave him on the 10th instant. To divide the number of passengers into the amount of the subsidy gives an altogether misleading result, since this service is not primarily a passenger service, but one for the carriage of mails, goods and passengers. Moreover, the present arrangements are for the initial years of the enterprise, and the subsidy is already fixed on a descending scale. All these factors will, however, be borne in mind when the agreements come to be reviewed.
    Captain BALFOUR: Does my hon. Friend deny the accuracy of the figures in the question, which he denied last week?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I apologise to my hon. and gallant Friend. The figures in the question are approximately correct, but, if I might say so, I think they are totally irrelevant.
    Captain BALFOURasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air, in view of the fact that the full terms of the original agreements with the British, Foreign and Colonial Corporation, Limited, and with Imperial Airways, Limited, in respect of European air services and air services between Egypt and India were published in detail, if he can state whether it is the intention of the Government to publish the full terms of the new subsidy agreements which supersede all these original agreements between the Air Ministry and Imperial Airways, Limited?
    Sir P. SASSOON: No, Sir; all the essential points of the two later agreements with Imperial Airways were brought to the notice of the House in Command Papers 3143 of 1928 and 3696 of 1930, and it is not customary in such cases to incur the considerable expense of issuing these very lengthy documents in full as White Papers.
    Captain BALFOUR: In view of the fact that the information that we have in the publications which have been issued is only approximate, is it not relevant that we should have further details?
    Sir P. SASSOON: There is no secrecy about the terms of the agreement, but the documents are long, and in these days of financial stringency my Noble Friend is anxious to avoid costly expenditure on printing.
    Captain BALFOUR: May we have a copy on the table of the Library?
    Sir P. SASSOON: If hon. Members desire it, there is no reason at all why copies should not be put in the Library.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Are we to understand that this is a case of the Government subsidising Imperial Airways, Limited? What representation has Parliament on Imperial Airways, Limited?
    Sir P. SASSOON: There are two Government directors on the board.
    Captain BALFOURasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if the latest agreement with Imperial Airways of which the essential points were given in Command Paper 3696 contains any provision for the capital grant of £20,000 to the company as a contribution towards flying boats?
    Sir P. SASSOON: No, Sir; the grant to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers was a special contribution to Imperial Airways, Limited, towards the first of the new flying boats on the trans-Mediterranean section of the England-India air route. It became necessary to arrange, for reasons not within the company's control, that the sea mileage should be extended and this involved an addition to the company's fleet not allowed for in the original terms of title agreement.
    Captain BALFOUR: Is not this extra payment an extremely important and relevant fact to the taxpayers who have to find this extra money?
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: The question makes reference to a £20,000 grant. When do these two representatives of ours make a report to the House?

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    MARRIED OFFICERS (ACCOMMODATION).
    Wing-Commander JAMESasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air for what percentage of entitled married officers in the Royal Air Force stationed in the United Kingdom, exclusive of headquarters in the London area, is accommodation provided upon the authorised scale?
    Sir P. SASSOON: Accommodation is provided for approximately 30 per cent. of these married officers.

    LONG-DISTANCE FLIGHT.
    Mr. SIMMONDSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether special care has been taken, and instructions issued, so that the recent announcement that the flight through Africa of the Royal Air Force long-range monoplane will start on Friday next, the 19th instant, shall in no way prejudice the discretion of the pilots as to the time and date of their departure?
    Sir P. SASSOON: My hon. Friend appears to be under a misapprehension. The 19th instant has not been officially announced as the definite date of departure for this flight. The intention is to make the attempt on that date or at the first suitable opportunity, but the actual date and time of departure will be decided on the spot at Cranwell in the light of all relevant considerations.

    ACCIDENTS.
    Mr. LEWISasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many officers and men of the Royal Air Force lost their lives through accidents during the year 1931?
    Sir P. SASSOON: On the assumption that my hon. Friend refers to flying accidents, the answer is 72. Of these, nine were killed in a single accident of an exceptional character.

  TRANSPORT.

    TOLL BRIDGE, SELBY.
    Mr. V. ADAMSasked the Minister of Transport whether he will take steps to facilitate the freeing of the Selby toll bridge in view of the hindrance to industrial development locally involved?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): I can only express the hope that in more favourable circumstances the local authorities concerned may find it possible to review the problem created by the toll bridge at Selby and consider the possibility of building a by-pass road.
    Mr. ADAMS: Is it the general policy of the Government to get rid of these obstacles to traffic wherever possible?
    Mr. PYBUS: Certainly.

    MOTOR TAXATION (GOODS VEHICLES).
    Colonel CLIFTON BROWNasked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been drawn to the systems of special licence or taxation per ton mile for long-distance heavy motor haulage adopted by Germany and America to secure revenue for road upkeep; and if he will consider the desirability for instituting some such system for this country?
    Mr. PYBUS: I am aware of the stringent provisions of the recent Road Transport Order in Germany which compels any operator conveying goods for hire or reward over distances exceeding 50 kilometres to obtain a licence and to charge fixed rates, but I am not aware of any system of taxation for goods vehicles per ton mile. I should be glad to receive any information on the subject in the possession of my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Mr. LESLIE BOYCE: Is the Government prepared to send a representative to Germany to investigate and report upon what is done in this matter?
    Mr. PYBUS: We are following closely the operation of the regulations in Germany.

    ROAD SERVICE LICENCES.
    Brigadier-General MAKINSasked the Minister of Transport if he can arrange to take at an early date the appeal of Messrs. Sharp's omnibus service, which runs between the Hazel Grove district and Stockport and Manchester, as well as Poynton and Woodford, against the decision of the traffic commissioners for the North-Western area?
    Mr. PYBUS: Every endeavour is made to deal with appeals of this nature as quickly as possible. I may add that, pending the decision on an appeal, the applicant is permitted to continue the service which he is operating.
    Brigadier-General MAKINS: Will the Minister take into consideration that Messrs. Sharp created this service and that it is the best in a large neighbourhood? Also is he aware of the universal local indignation at the injustice of the decision of the traffic committee?
    Mr. SMITHERS: Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that it is only typical of many cases all over the country?
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that indignation is felt by neighbouring constituencies which are affected by the service in question?
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I hope the Minister will pay no attention to all this pressure that is brought to bear on him to try to crush this Measure because they think it is a piece of Socialism.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNEasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction on the part of the small motor omnibus owners in regard to the decisions given against them under the Road Traffic Act; and whether it is his intention to reconsider the method by which an appeal can be made against these decisions?
    Mr. PYBUS: Representations were made to me as to the hardships inflicted on small operators whose services were curtailed or discontinued, and I issued certain General Directions, a copy of which I am sending to my hon. Friend,
    1634
    to the traffic commissioners for all areas. With regard to the second part of his question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte) on the 9th December last, of which I am sending him a copy.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that continual questions are being raised by those small owners of the hardships they experience, and will it be possible for him to simplify the procedure?
    Mr. PYBUS: I have just referred to the general directions which I gave to the traffic commissioners in regard to dealing with any such case which might arise.
    Sir J. HASLAM: Is it possible for other hon. Members to get copies of these directions seeing that most of us are interested in the reply?

    MOTOR VEHICLES (WEIGHT AND SPEED).
    Mr. POTTERasked the Minister of Transport the means by which he proposes to ensure that the proposed class of 120-horse-power express lorries to carry goods from Penzance to London in 13 hours' running time will conform to the weight limits of loading and the rules of speed at various points, as laid down by the Road Traffic Act?
    Mr. PYBUS: With regard to speed I would refer my hon. Friend to my recent reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) of which I am sending him a copy. Highway authorities are empowered to test the laden weights of motor vehicles and may authorise police constables to act on their behalf.

    PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES (EXAMINERS).
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Minister of Transport how many inspectors were appointed by his Department to examine omnibuses; whether they had an examination to pass; and, seeing that the main part to go wrong is the engine, how many having engineering qualifications were selected?
    Mr. PYBUS: Thirteen certifying officers and 112 public service vehicle examiners have been appointed in the 12

    1635
    traffic areas (excluding the Metropolitan area). These officials were appointed by selection and not by written examination. The certifying officers are all qualified mechanical or automobile engineers with practical experience. With the exception of two or three men experienced in coachwork, all the vehicle examiners are men with practical experience of motor vehicle engineering.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my union, the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, informed me that not a single engineer has been appointed by this Ministry to inspect engines and to approve omnibuses?
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any saving has been incurred through the appointment of these inspectors in the running of omnibuses?
    Mr. PYBUS: I can only say that before these officers were appointed, applications were made to the trade unions concerned, and a good many applications were received from them.
    Mr. MAXTON: Cannot the Minister of Transport issue a White Paper telling us exactly how the process of selection is carried through, so that we may all have an equal chance?

    RAILWAY RATES REBATE.
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the fact that the railway companies benefit by the De-rating Act in return for passing on the benefit to specific classes of commercial freight users, he is aware that in passing on this benefit the railway companies are differentiating between the same class of trader in different parts of the country; and whether, if the facts are laid before him, he will investigate them with a view to making representations to the railway companies concerned?
    Mr. PYBUS: The traffics to benefit under the freight rebate scheme are specified in the Act. I am not aware of any differentiation by the railway companies such as my hon. Friend suggests, but any question as to whether a rebate under the scheme is allowable, or, as to the amount of such rebate, is one for the decision of the Railway Rates Tribunal.

    ROAD AND BRIDGE SCHEMES.
    Mr. PARKINSONasked the Minister of Transport (1) whether the building of the Forth road-bridge is being proceeded with; and, if so, what is the estimated cost;

    (2) whether work is being proceeded with on the Dartford-Purfleet tunnel; and, if so, what is the estimated cost;

    (3) whether work on the Humber bridge is being proceeded with; and, if so, what is the estimated cost?

    Mr. PYBUS: No work is proceeding on these schemes.
    Sir JAMES DUNCAN MILLAR: Can my hon. Friend say when he expects to obtain the Treasury approval for the grant in respect of the Forth Bridge, and when the work will be proceeded with?
    Mr. PYBUS: If the hon. and learned Gentleman means the Queensferry Bridge, the scheme has been suspended.
    Sir J. D. MILLAR: My right hon. Friend has misunderstood me. May I ask, in reference to the Kincardine-on-Forth Bridge, whether Treasury approval has been received and whether the work is proceeding?
    Mr. PYBUS: There is another question later on the Paper referring to this specific bridge.
    Mr. WALLACEasked the Minister of Transport if any decision has been reached regarding the proposed Kincardine-on-Forth bridge?
    Mr. PYBUS: I am considering the tenders obtained by the local authorities but have not yet arrived at any decision.
    Mr. WALLACE: In view of the important nature of this scheme, will my hon. Friend consider, when decisions are made, the desirability of giving this particular undertaking priority?
    Mr. PYBUS: I consider that the scheme is a good one, and I will see what can be done if funds are available.

    HOSPITALS (MOTOR ACCIDENT CASES).
    Dr. HILLMANasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that, from a recent inquiry by the Yorkshire Voluntary Hospitals Committee relative to the number of third-party motor accidents treated

    1637
    in 36 hospitals in Yorkshire during the first six months' working of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, it appears that the total cost incurred by the hospitals for treating these cases amounted to £4,500, of which sum only £123 was recovered from accident insurance companies; and whether he will amend the Road Traffic Act accordingly?
    Mr. PYBUS: While I sympathise with the difficulties of the hospitals, I am afraid I cannot see my way to introduce further legislation.

    RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION.
    Mr. HUTCHISONasked the Minister of Transport if he can now state what action it is intended to take in respect of the recommendations of the Weir Committee on Railway Electrification?
    Mr. PYBUS: I understand that the railway companies are conducting investigations into the problem of railway electrification in the light of the Weir report.

    TRAFFIC SIGNALS.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Minister of Transport what purpose is served by the hoods fixed above the coloured lights on the traffic-control standards in the West End of London; whether the present design is of a temporary character; and, if so, whether he will arrange for the selection of an artistic design by open competition for permanent fixtures?
    Mr. PYBUS: Hoods are needed in order to avoid the danger that would be caused by the reflection of sunlight from the signals. They also serve to mask the lights from drivers whose movements they are not intended to control. I have no doubt that the Departmental Committee on Road Traffic Signs which is now sitting will give due consideration to the matter. I have sent the Committee a copy of the hon. Member's question and my reply.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the present system of traffic control by means of three coloured lights is confusing to motorists and dangerous to pedestrians owing to the filtration of traffic which occurs while the warning light is showing; whether any tests have been made in this country of the two-light system
    1638
    at present in operation in New York; and whether he will cause experiments to be made in the West End of London with the two-light system before permitting the erection of permanent traffic-control lighting standards?
    Mr. PYBUS: I regret that the hon. Member's question is not clear to me and I should be glad to discuss it with him. In any event, however, the question of light signals is under consideration by a Departmental Committee.
    Earl CASTLE STEWART (for Mr. EVERARD)asked the Minister of Transport whether in all cases of grants given to local authorities for the erection of traffic signals, one of the stipulations made will be that the apparatus must be of British manufacture?
    Mr. PYBUS: Light signals now being erected are, I believe, almost universally of British manufacture, although it may prove necessary in isolated cases to experiment with devices not at present manufactured in this country.
    Earl CASTLE STEWART (for Mr. EVERARD)asked the Minister of Transport whether the electric traffic-control signals which it is proposed to erect in Piccadilly are to be of British manufacture?
    Mr. PYBUS: I see no reason why the highway authority concerned should have difficulty in obtaining any necessary apparatus from British manufacturers.
    Dr. SALTER (for Mr. HICKS)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of accidents that have taken place at Ludgate Circus since the installation of traffic signals, and the figures for a corresponding period previous to the use of automatic signals?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir Herbert Samuel): During the period of 19 months since the installation of these signals, there have been no fatal accidents and 27 non-fatal accidents involving personal injury (including injury to 19 pedestrians). During the previous period of 19 months there were one fatal accident and 27 nonfatal accidents (including injury to 18 pedestrians).

    CHARING CROSS BRIDGE.
    Mr. V. ADAMSasked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement as to the Government's policy with regard to the rebuilding of Charing Cross bridge?
    Mr. PYBUS: The late Government decided not to renew the offer of a grant towards this project, and the present Government is in accord with this decision.

    PETROL PUMPS (TEST CHARGES).
    Mr. McEWENasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider introducing legislation for the purpose of reducing the charges levied under the Road Traffic Act for the testing of petrol pumps?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Petrol pumps, used in trade for sale in individual quantities not exceeding 20 gallons, are required to be verified and stamped by the local authorities under the Weights and Measures Acts; and the fees are fixed by Order in Council under that Act and not under the Road Traffic Act. I have no reason to believe that these fees are excessive.
    Mr. McEWEN: Will the hon. Member take cognisance of the fact that this is another addition to the already far too numerous restrictions on private enterprise?

    ROAD MATERIALS.
    Earl CASTLE STEWART (for Mr. EVERARD)asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider reducing the grants from the Road Fund to those local authorities who use foreign road-stone?
    Mr. PYBUS: As I have already explained both inside and outside this House I deplore the use of foreign road-stone by highway authorities. My hon. Friend's point is, I think, met by a condition attached to all grants from the Road Fund towards the cost of works, of which I am sending him a copy.

    RAILWAY AND ROAD TRANSPORT (COMPETITION).
    Mr. HANNONasked the Minister of Transport, with regard to the memorandum he has received, prepared by the four main line railway companies, in which his attention is called to the heavy losses sustained by the railway companies
    1640
    as the result of road motor competition, whether he contemplates any action in the near future to adjust the balance between competing transport interests?
    Mr. PYBUS: I have nothing to add at the moment to the answer which I gave on the 10th February to questions by the hon. Members for East Fulham (Sir K. Vaughan-Morgan) and Denbigh (Dr. Morris-Jones). I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the answer.

    MOTOR ACCIDENTS.
    Sir ERNEST SHEPPERSON (for Mr. de ROTHSCHILD)asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to an accident which happened on 5th February at Doddington, near March, Cambridgeshire, in which a woman was knocked down and killed by a relief omnibus, following the route of another omnibus at a distance of 35 yards; whether he is aware that the coroner's jury stated that they considered 35 yards to be a quite inadequate distance for omnibuses to follow one another; and whether he will issue regulations as to the distance to be preserved between a main and a relief omnibus following one another along the same route?
    Mr. PYBUS: My attention has not been drawn to the accident to which my hon. Friend refers. As at present advised, I doubt whether this is a matter which could appropriately be dealt with by regulation, but the Highway Code recommends that the driver of a motor coach joining up with other motor coaches should not drive his vehicle close behind another.

  LEGAL PROCEDURE.
  Captain NORTHasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of setting up a commission to inquire into the possibility of effecting reforms in legal procedure, with a view to reducing the present costs and delays which are frequently involved?
  The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Stanley Baldwin): I do not consider that a further commission is necessary. If my hon. Friend will kindly refer to the answer given to a similar question on 4th February last by my right hon. Friend, the Attorney-

  1641
  General, he will see that steps are already being taken to effect such reforms in legal procedure as he desires.
  Captain NORTH: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that at present the costs of litigation are entirely beyond the reach of vast numbers of people and that this state of affairs must and does create cases of hardship?

  JUDGES' SALARIES.
  Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to abolish the recent reduction in the salaries of judges?
  Mr. S. BALDWIN: I hope to make a statement in the course of next week.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: When the right hon. Gentleman is making that statement, will it have reference to the civil servants, teachers and policemen who have also suffered cuts?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I hope it will be comprehensive.
  Sir REGINALD BLAKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the Government had power to impose these cuts?
  Mr. BALDWIN: My hon. Friend had better await the statement.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS.

    ALLOCATION OF ROOMS.
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the First Commissioner of Works under what circumstances the room near the Members' cloak-room was allocated to Welsh Members; whether all Welsh Members, irrespective of party, are entitled to use this room; and what Member is responsible for it?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I regret that I have been unable to ascertain the exact circumstances in which Room No. 48 was originally allocated to Welsh Members, but I understand that the room has been so allotted for at least 43 years. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative, and I
    1642
    understand that the Welsh Members form a group and elect a chairman who is responsible for the room. The present chairman is, I believe, the hon. Member for Neath (Sir W. Jenkins).
    Sir W. DAVISON: Are we to understand that all the Welsh Members use this room?
    Mr. WALLACE: Will the right hon. Gentleman have a room set aside for Scottish Members; and who is the chairman?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: There is no other room available for Scottish or for Ulster or for Irish Members. There is no room available even if applications are made. It is a long custom which justifies the continuance of this room for the Welsh Members. I understand that my predecessor the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition at the beginning of the Parliament of 1929 had the room locked. However, the room was raided by the Welsh Members, and they successfully re-asserted their claim.
    Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider instituting a ballot at the commencement of each Session, so as to decide which regional nationality shall have the benefit of rooms.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Do the Welsh Members contribute to the upkeep of the room?

    LIGHTING.
    Sir CHARLES CAYZERasked the First Commissioner of Works when the new ceiling lights in the Reading libraries A, B, and C are to be installed, in view of the difficulty Members find in reading when not seated at the tables?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: New electric light fittings were installed in the libraries during the Christmas Recess, 1930. A recent test indicates that, throughout the greater part of the rooms in question, the intensity of the lighting exceeds the standard normally required for reading purposes. The lighting adjacent to the fireplaces in A and B libraries is, however, somewhat below the standard, and I am therefore arranging for more powerful lights to be placed in the centre fittings of these rooms.

  POST OFFICE (TELEPHONE INSTRUMENTS).
  Mr. HUTCHISONasked the Postmaster-General what is the present stock of available pedestal-type telephones; whether any further instruments of this pattern are still being manufactured or contracted for; and whether he will give an undertaking that after a certain date all new installations will be supplied with the new type of hand micro-telephones without extra charge?
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Graham White): The number of pedestal pattern telephones in stock is 267,000, and no contracts for the supply of additional telephones of this type are being entered into. So long as initial and maintenance costs are higher for the new type, I am unable to give the undertaking suggested by the hon. Member.

  AGRICULTURE (BACON PRODUCTION).
  Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Agriculture how many breeds of pigs there are in Great Britain; what advice is given by his officials as to which is the most suitable breed for producing pork or bacon; and what steps are being taken to organise the pig breeders in this country and for the setting up of cooperative bacon factories?
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): There are 13 breeds of pigs in Great Britain. My Department commends the recommendation of the Pig Industry Council as to the use of the fine-boned type of large white as sire for the production of commercial pigs. In reply to the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the statement of agricultural policy which I made in the House on Thursday last, in which I indicated that the preparation of a scheme for the organisation of the bacon industry will be undertaken forthwith.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say to what extent the farmers take note of the advice given, and, further, can he say how many bacon factories are still in existence?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I must have notice of that question. I hope that we shall have co-operation between the farmers in a very short time.

  SOUTHERN RHODESIA.
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (1) seeing that certain questions affecting the government of Southern Rhodesia are reserved for the approval of the Crown, whether these include the submission to the Secretary of State of the Bill A. B. 10, 1932, dealing with newspapers and documents affecting the natives; and whether a copy of this Bill has yet been submitted to him;
  (2) whether he is aware that a Bill has been introduced into the Rhodesian legislature providing for a penalty of five years' imprisonment with hard labour, and a fine not exceeding £500, for any person found to be in possession of a document of any kind or of newspaper extracts of any kind which are likely to have a tendency directly or indirectly to incite any native or body of natives to commit an unlawful act; whether such Bill has been submitted to him for consideration; and, if not, whether he will ask that a copy of this Bill may be forwarded to him?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I have received a copy of this Bill and its terms are receiving consideration.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this Bill does impose very serious penalties upon the reading of the natives in Southern Rhodesia?
  Mr. THOMAS: I will answer that question when I have read the Bill.

  DARTMOOR PRISON (LOCAL DISCHARGES).
  Major HARVEYasked the Home Secretary if the system of local discharge is still being practised at Princetown prison?
  Sir H. SAMUEL: This practice has been in operation at convict prisons for over 20 years without any incident having occurred on any occasion to indicate that it is open to objection. The convicts are provided with free railway tickets and almost invariably leave the vicinity at once, many of them coming to London to call at the offices of the Central Association for Aid to Discharged Convicts.
  Major HARVEY: Is the Home Secretary not aware that considerable anxiety is caused to the local people who live in the scattered districts around Dartmoor as a result of these local discharges, when they are not given free tickets to London or anywhere else?
  Sir H. SAMUEL: I think they are all given free tickets, and I have heard of no ground for any anxiety.
  Major HARVEY: If they are given free tickets, are any steps taken to ensure that they use the tickets and that they do not go to the next station and get out there?
  Sir H. SAMUEL: I have heard of no instance of the kind or of any grounds of complaint.

  POLICE INVESTIGATIONS.
  Sir C. CAYZERasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the large number of unsolved murder cases during the last two years, he intends to review the restrictions upon the method of the preliminary questioning of suspects by police officers imposed as the result of the findings of the Royal Commission on police powers and procedure?
  Sir H. SAMUEL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a question by the hon. Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall) on the 9th December last.
  Sir C. CAYZER: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the restrictions imposed upon the police have had the effect of causing the police to be afraid to carry out examinations unless they have an absolutely cast-iron case and will the right hon. Gentleman not therefore see if it is possible to allow the police a greater degree of latitude in carrying out their investigations?
  Sir H. SAMUEL: The answer which I gave on that occasion was that there had been no change of practice and no complaint on the part of the police that their efforts to detect crime were in any way restricted.
  Sir C. CAYZER: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the police are so handicapped in their investigations by these restrictions that unless they are
  1646
  modified there is a grave danger that the number of unsolved murder cases will greatly increase?
  Sir H. SAMUEL: No, Sir. The whole of this contention is misconceived. There has been no change of practice at all.
  Captain GUNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the police do not desire a change?
  Sir H. SAMUEL: I have received no representation from any police authority that any change is desirable.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    ANOMALIES REGULATIONS.
    Mr. McGOVERNasked the Minister of Labour if he can give the number of persons disallowed benefit under the Anomalies Act; the number of cases submitted to the umpire; and in how many cases the decisions were reversed?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): Between 21st October, 1931, and the end of January, 1932, 165,060 claims were disallowed by courts of referees under the Anomalies Regulations. During the same period 1,028 appeals against disallowances by courts of referees in these cases were decided by the umpire. A complete analysis of the decisions in these cases is not available but the number allowed by the umpire was probably between 350 and 400.
    Mr. McGOVERN: Is it not the case that this Act is being administered in a more unjust and cruel way than was intended by the Labour Government?
    Mr. HUDSON: No, Sir. I do not think there is any ground for that statement.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Am I to understand that the umpire, in deciding these cases, has had no pressure put upon him to give decisions favourable to the Department?
    Mr. HUDSON: No, Sir. There is certainly none.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the hon. Member aware that in a publication by an ex-Cabinet Minister the statement is made that the Umpire is not likely to give fair decisions?
    Mr. McGOVERN: I would like to ask for a reassurance that the Act is being carried out as it was intended to be carried out; strictly to the letter.
    Mr. HUDSON: It is being carried out in accordance with its terms.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the hon. Member aware that we have public assistance committees in Scotland, Tilsyth, for instance, which have been disbanded because they were operating the means test too leniently, and will he take steps to see that, instead of committees which act so humanely being disbanded, they will be encouraged to act humanely?

    TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS.
    Mr. McGOVERNasked the Minister of Labour the number of disability pensioners who have been refused benefit under the means test; and the number whose benefit had been reduced?
    Mr. R. S. HUDSON: In acordance with the undertaking which he gave on Thursday week, my right hon. Friend has looked into the matter of collecting these statistics, and regrets that it would not be practicable.
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Minister of Labour the estimated amount now saved as the result of the reductions in unemployment benefit and the operation of transitional payments since these changes began?
    Mr. HUDSON: Generally speaking, savings are being effected on the basis expected in the White Paper on the National Economy Bill (Cmd. 3952). I cannot at present give any closer estimate, but I will inform the hon. Member as soon as I am able to do so, which I hope may be some time next month.

  CYPRUS.
  Mr. PARKINSON (for Mr. LUNN)asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the total revenue of the Colony of Cyprus in each of the last five years; and what proportion of revenue was spent on the administrative services in the Colony?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As the answer contains a large number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the answer:
  The figures of revenue and expenditure in Cyprus for the last five years are as follow:

  Revenue.

  Expenditure.

  £

  £

  1927

  …

  …

  655,997

  615,028

  1928

  …

  …

  713,753

  679,980

  1929

  …

  …

  757,117

  715,342

  1930

  …

  …

  725,077

  800,207

  1931

  …

  …

  710,360

  762,873

  The figures for 1931 are estimated, actual figures not yet being available. From 1928 inclusive the whole of this expenditure, except £10,000 contributed annually in respect of Imperial Defence, has been spent on the services and general administration of the Colony.
  The amounts spent on the district administration during the period were as follow:

  £

  1927

  10,725

  1928

  17,145

  1929

  19,175

  1930

  15,942

  1931 (estimated)

  15,862

  Mr. PARKINSON (for Mr. LUNN)asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will issue a White Paper describing the developments in Cyprus since the suspension of the constitution; whether any new constitution has yet been promulgated; and whether levies to recover damage done during the insurrection are made upon districts or upon individuals?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: In view of the full statements which have been made to this House and in the Press, I do not propose to issue a White Paper describing the developments in Cyprus since the suspension of the constitution. No new constitution has yet been promulgated. Levies to recover damage done to Government property during the disturbances are being made under a law which provides for certain amounts to be paid by various towns and villages: these sums are collected by means of an assessment upon individuals.

  INDIA.

    CORRESPONDENCE (CENSORSHIP).
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for India, if he can state on whose authority a

    1649
    cable addressed to myself and handed in to the Post Office at Bombay on 7th January by Miss Slade was returned and the money refunded, and, further, are we to understand that correspondence or cables addressed to British Members of Parliament are being censored in India?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): As to the first part of the question, inquiries have already been made in accordance with an undertaking which I gave the hon. Member privately and the reply is awaited. Among other things I hope to learn whether it was apparent from the text of the telegram as handed in that the person to whom it was addressed was a Member of Parliament. In exercising lawful control over postal or telegraphic correspondence, the authorities in India would naturally, and in my opinion properly, pay regard primarily to the contents of such correspondence rather than to the status of the person to whom it is addressed.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Am I to understand from the reply that the cable referred to merely contained a truthful recital of recent incidents in India and that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that such a censorship ought to be exercised in India?
    Sir S. HOARE: I could not agree to the assumption that the hon. Member has made. I have not yet seen officially a copy of this cablegram and until I see it officially I cannot express judgment upon it.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman regard it as fatuous to attempt to censor a cable when the air mail and other means of communication are at the disposal of anyone who desires to transmit a message; and, as I have a copy of the cable here, he will see the futility of such a censorship.
    Sir S. HOARE: No, I must await the report of the Government of India, for which I have asked, before I express an opinion. I have told the hon. Member that I would inquire, and I am making inquiries, and I will let him know the answer as soon as I receive it.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman must realise that the issue is far more important than whether the telegram
    1650
    contained treasonable matter. A communication addressed to an hon. Member of this House has been stopped —[Interruption.] May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is not the case that the privilege of an hon. Member of this House is being interfered with by the Government of India; and whether it is the right of every hon. Member of this House to be addressed by any British subject?
    Sir S. HOARE: I have already told the House that I do not know how the telegrame was addressed and until I receive the details, obviously, I cannot give any judgment.
    Mr. MAXTON: But the right hon. Gentleman said something more than that; he said that he was concerned with the contents of the telegram and not with the status of the person to whom it was addressed. I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is not the right of every Member of this Parliament to have his correspondence from any part of the British Empire absolutely untampered with in any circumstances.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I should be loth to give a general Ruling, on a case of which I do not know the details.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: If a further question is submitted to the Secretary of State for India later on in the day will he be willing to reply to it?
    Sir S. HOARE: Yes, I will let the hon. Member know when I receive the reply from the Government of India.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Surely it is our privilege, under your protection Mr. Speaker, that our letters and telegrams are not interfered with.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have already replied to that question.

  HIRE PURCHASE (SCOTLAND) BILL,
  "to amend the law of Scotland with regard to the purchase, and hire of articles, not exceeding twenty pounds in value by payment in instalments, and with regard to proceedings in the sheriff's small debt court," presented by Sir Archibald Sinclair; supported by the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor-General for Scotland, and

  1651
  Mr. Skelton; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 25.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Mr. Croom-Johnson and Mr. Luke Thompson; and had appointed in substitution: Dr. Peters and Mr. Turton.
  Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee: That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Children and Young Persons Bill): Sir John Withers; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Charles Williams.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1932.
  Estimates presented,—for the Navy for the year 1932 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

IMPORT DUTIES BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME).
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Committee stage, Report stage, and Third Reading of the Import Duties Bill (including any Financial Resolution relating thereto) shall be proceeded with as follows:—

(1) FINANCIAL RESOLUTION AND COMMITTEE STAGE.
Five allotted days shall be given to the Committee stage of the Bill and to the proceedings on any Instructions and the necessary stages of any Financial Resolution relating thereto, and the proceedings on each such allotted day shall be as shown in the second column of the following Table; and those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time shown in the third column for that day.

TABLE I.—Financial Resolution and Committee Stage.

Allotted Day

Proceedings

Time for bringing Proceedings to a conclusion

P.M.

First

All stages of Financial Resolution (Import Duties [Expenses]) proceedings on Instructions, and Clause 1

9.0

Clauses 2 and 3

—

Second

Clauses 2 and 3

10.30

Third

Clauses 4 and 8

7.30

Clauses 9 and 11

10.30

Fourth

Clauses 12 to 22 and New Clauses

10.30

Fifth

Schedules, and any other matter necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion

10.30

(2) REPORT STAGE AND THIRD READING.
One allotted day shall be given to the Report stage and Third Reading of the Bill, and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at 11 p.m. on that day.
On the conclusion of the Committee stage of the Bill, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without Question put.
Any day after the day on which this Order is passed on which the Bill is put down as the first Order of the Day, or on which any Financial Resolution relating thereto is put down followed by the Bill as the first Order of the Day, shall be considered an allotted day for the purposes of this Order, and the Bill or any such Resolution may be put down as aforesaid on any
1662
Thursday, notwithstanding anything in any Standing Orders of the House relating to the Business of Supply.
Provided that, where an allotted day is a Friday, this Order shall have effect as if for the references to the times mentioned in the first column of Table II there were respectively substituted references to the times mentioned in the second column of that Table.

TABLE II.

Day other than Friday.

Friday

7.30 p.m.

1.30 p.m.

9.0 p.m.

2.30 p.m.

10.30 p.m.

3.30 p.m.

11.0 p.m.

4.0 p.m.

For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion on an allotted day, and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall, at the time appointed under this Order for the conclusion of those proceedings, put forthwith the Question on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and, in the case of a new Clause which has been read a second time, also the Question that the Clause be added to the Bill, and shall next proceed to put forthwith the Question on any Resolution, Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules moved by the Government of which notice has been given (but no other Resolutions, Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules), and any Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded and, in the case of Government Resolutions, Government Amendments, or Government new Clauses or Schedules, he shall put only the Question that the Resolution be agreed to, or that the Amendment be made, or that the Clauses or Schedules be added to the Bill, as the case may be.
Any Private Business which is set down for consideration at 7.30 p.m., and any Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10, on an allotted day shall, on that day, instead of being taken as provided by the Standing Orders, be taken on the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or under this Order for that day, and any Private Business or Motion for Adjournment so taken may be proceeded with, though opposed, notwithstanding any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.
On a day on which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, proceedings for that purpose shall not be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the sitting of the House.
On a day on which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order no dilatory Motion with respect to proceedings on the Bill or under this Order, nor Motion that the Chairman do report

1663
progress or do leave the Chair, nor Motion to postpone a Clause or to recommit the Bill, shall be received unless moved by the Government, and the Question on such Motion, if moved by the Government, shall be put forthwith without any Debate.
Nothing in this Order shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings which under this Order are to be concluded on any particular day being concluded on any other day, or necessitate any particular day or part of a particular day being given to any such proceedings if those proceedings have been otherwise disposed of; or

(b) prevent any other business being proceeded with on any particular day, or part of a particular day, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, if any proceedings to be concluded under this Order on that particular day, or part of a particular day, have been disposed of.

This Order shall have effect notwithstanding the practice of the House relating to intervals between the stages of any Bill or of any Financial Resolution."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): In explaining this Motion I propose to be as brief as possible, because I understand it is the desire of the House to proceed to the discussion of another Motion this afternoon. No apology is needed for bringing forward a Time-Table for the Import Duties Bill. The Bill is designed to come into operation on the first day of March, and hon. Members on looking through the Time-Table will see that by taking all available time we can only just get the Bill through by 1st March. I observe that some hon. Members have put on the Paper an Amendment to the effect that eight days instead of five should be given to the Committee stage. I suggest that the time allotted under the Time-Table will be amply sufficient for discussion of the various Clauses of the Bill. There may be one point on which I confess I would like to have extended the Time-Table, and that to give a space between the Committee stage and the Report stage. We are not able to do that because of the exigencies of the programme in front of us, but the difficulty about that will be Mitigated to some extent, because arrangements are being made by the authorities of the House for the Bill to be reprinted up to the end of the fourth day in Committee, and that portion of the Bill will be available in the Vote Office at 2 p.m. on the fifth day, that is on Wednesday the 24th. Hon.
1664
Members, therefore, will have the amended Bill in their hands half way through Wednesday's proceedings, and in time, I hope, to prepare their Amendments, if they desire to move any on Report.
The 10 per cent. duty imposed by the Bill, which becomes operative when the Bill becomes operative, is designed for two particular purposes. One is to check imports into the country with the view of redressing the adverse balance of payments, and the other is to give us further revenue. These two objects have been admitted to be desirable by the majority of the House, and the sooner they come into operation the better it will be. But there is another reason, and an extremely important one, why we should have the Bill through by 1st March. The House is aware that under the Act which is commonly known as the Bowles Act you cannot collect Customs Duties on a resolution of Ways and Means; you have to wait until the Finance Act is passed. Although it is true that in a Finance Act which was passed in 1926 there is a Section which provides that after a resolution has been passed in Committee of Ways and Means authorising a new tax, the Customs may take security for the duty under that resolution, yet in practice that has not been found a very convenient or a very expeditious method. It was tried in the case of the hydrocarbon oils duty in 1928. That was only one single article, and, although the trade was concentrated in a comparatively small number of hands, yet it was six months before the accounts could be settled up and the full amount of duty collected.
The House will readily realise that to attempt to put into operation such a provision over the whole field to be covered by this Bill would be to impose on the Customs a task quite beyond their powers. Therefore it comes to this: If we are to avoid forestalling, or to mitigate forestalling, we can do it only by getting the Bill through at the earliest possible moment. The experience that we had in October last showed us that the fear of forestalling is by no means an imaginary one. We found in the month of November last that the imports into this country of the class of goods covered by the Abnormal Importations Act were £29,000,000, as against £22,000,000 in the preceding year, and indeed they began at

1665
a very much higher rate in the earlier part of the month, when they were coming in at the rate of £35,000,000. We can judge by that experience. These imports were subsequently reduced considerably below even the normal. In December they were down to £18,000,000, and in January even lower still.
4.0 p.m.
However that may be, that is an illustration of the forestalling which may be anticipated if importers and foreign exporters think that there is to be a duty imposed and that there is a chance for them to get their stock into this country before the duty becomes operative. Already in classes of goods outside the classes covered by the Abnormal Importations Act we have some significant figures which show that the 10 per cent. duty is being anticipated. Generally speaking, the House may assume that this inflow of imports will continue to the utmost extent possible, subject to such limitation as may be imposed upon them by the difficulties of finance or storage, or whatever it may be. Therefore, that is a second and very important reason why we must ask the House to give us this Time Table. There is one other reason.
I believe that the whole House is anxious that the Advisory Committee should get to work at the earliest possible moment. We cannot appoint them until the passing of the Act, and when we consider the vast amount of work which that Committee has before them, when we consider that they have to deal with the duties under the Abnormal Importations Act which expires in May, and that we have to get their views as to what course is to be taken with regard to those duties, I think it will be agreed that that again is a very powerful and conclusive argument in favour of this Time Table. I do not think there is anything else I need say. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why stop at 10.30 each night?"] The hon. Member will recollect the discussion which took place last year on the Finance Bill. If I remember aright, the Government of that day had very cogent reasons for their action, and the same reasons apply this year. I commend to the House the Time Table which is on the Order Paper.
Mr. LANSBURY: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just told the House, we who sit here are very anxious that
1666
this discussion should be as short as possible, and that we should get on with the Motion which we have put on the Order Paper. In coming to the conclusion to use the time to-day, with the permission of the House, for the purpose of discussing our Motion, it must not be taken for granted, as the Lord President of the Council seemed to take it for granted the other day, that we are convinced that this hurry-up-and-be-quick procedure is one which we should support, or of which we should acknowledge the necessity. We do, however, acknowledge the massed battalions all round, and we know, of course, that in the end this Guillotine will go through just as the Government desire. I think, too, from the point of view of majority rule, they are entitled to do so if they wish, and if it is desirable.
I am not going to take up any time in arguing as to the rights or wrongs of the Government using the Guillotine. I have heard the arguments used under different conditions, and I have never thought that there was much use in carrying on a discussion of that kind. If business has to be got through; if a Government makes up its mind that certain business has to be done, the Opposition, of course, can take some time, as we might to-day, in trying to prove that they should not do so, but, in the end, the discussion would not affect the principle of the Bill, which we cannot now discuss. We can, as I understand, deal now only with the evil of the Government taking the time. There is only one thing that I would like to say in addition. We have no notion of impinging on the rights of other Members. An hon. and learned Member, when we asked that this arrangement should be made, thought that we were taking it upon ourselves that there should be no further discussion. That was not our object. Our object was to make it clear that we would divide on this Motion, but that we hoped that we might get time to discuss our Motion which is on the Order Paper, and, in furtherance of that, I would like to make an appeal to hon. Members who have put down Amendments to help us in getting on to the discussion in which, I am sure, they are as interested as we are, and to bear in mind that Divisions take a very long time. We shall vote when the main Question on the Guillotine Motion is put, and I hope

1667
that at an early hour we shall get on to the discussion of our Motion.
Sir HUGH O'NEILL: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not think that I desire in any way to delay the Motion in which he is interested, but this is really such a unique occasion in the history of the Procedure of this House, that one or two observations of a general character with regard to the Guillotine will not be out of place. This, I think, is the first time on record that a Guillotine Motion has been allowed by the Opposition to go by default and more particularly let us remember that this is a Guillotine upon what is, in effect, a Finance Bill. This is a taxing Bill. It is a Bill which proposes to tax a large section of the community, and Members who have supported Guillotines in the past have nearly always made exception with regard to a Finance Bill. I think that, apart from the Finance Bill of last year, and one previous occasion, there has never been a Guillotine Motion in connection with a Finance Bill as this undoubtedly is.
What is happening to-day shows a very great change of opinion with regard to the Guillotine as a method of Parliamentary Procedure. In the last Parliament I was a Member of the committee which was set up to investigate Parliamentary procedure, of which my hon. Friend who is now Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health was a very efficient chairman. Naturally, in the course of our proceedings, we took evidence from prominent leaders of all parties on this question of the Guillotine. My right hon. Friend who is now Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and the present Prime Minister, gave evidence, and I think it would not be unfair to say that they all admitted that the Guillotine was likely to become more or less the normal Procedure of Parliament with regard to all important and highly contentious Bills. That was particularly the view of the present Prime Minister, who went so far as to say that he thought the Guillotine ought actually to be incorporated in our Standing Orders in some form; but he made one very important proviso, with which I must say I agree, that in drawing up the compartments of the Time Table,
1668
there should be some body other than the Government of the day to settle the details—some independent body; I think, Mr. Speaker himself, if it would be fair to ask him to do it, or, it was suggested, that Members of the Chairmen's Panel might be a suitable body. I do not say whether the one or the other would be better, but I do say that, as Parliament is rapidly approaching the position when the Guillotine is to become more or less normal, then, if you have it, the details ought to be drawn up by some more or less independent and non-party body.
There is another point about the Guillotine. It always seems to me, and it happens in this particular Motion, that we are given only one day both for Report and Third Reading. I think that, generally speaking, you ought to have a fairly prolonged Report stage on a Bill which is being worked under a Time Table, because important Amendments in Committee often get entirely wiped out; they never get called. If you have a reasonable time for the Report stage, the Amendments, many of them very important ones, which are not reached or discussed in Committee, could he properly discussed on Report. There is one other point. One of the matters which, I think, impressed itself upon all of us who were Members of the Committee to which I have referred, was the evidence which was given to us by prominent Parliamentarians and outside persons to the effect that one of the dangers of Parliamentary life to-day was the undoubted decline in the prestige of Parliament in the public mind. All the leaders of all the parties agreed that that was so, and I think that there are two things especially which have lead to that decline in the estimation of Parliament. One is all-night sittings and the other is obstruction—uncontrolled obstruction.
There is no doubt that the Guillotine, the system of working by Time Table, overcomes both those things, and to that extent I do think that it is an advantage. After all, what a ridiculous thing an all-night sitting is! It tends, more than anything else, to bring Parliament into utter contempt in the country. To those who take any part in it after two or three o'clock in the morning, it is nothing but a sort of school-boy rag, and with regard to those who do not take part in it, you have the unedifying and undignified

1669
spectacle of Members of this House sprawling about half asleep on the benches. All that gets into the Press, and it does not help towards the dignity of Parliament. One of the greatest advantages of these Guillotine Motions is that they effectually and completely do away with the evil of an all-night sitting, and another thing which they entirely prevent is unnecessary obstruction.
I also think, and I believe that old Members of the House will agree, that when you get a Bill which is being discussed in this House by Member after Member from the same side of the House, when there is no Debate, no making of points and answering of points, but simply a succession of Members all on the same side getting up one after the other in order to waste time, it is not a very edifying spectacle, nor does it conduce to the greater estimation of Parliament in the public mind. As a fairly old Member of this House, I feel that to-day we are witnessing a rather interesting and important change in Parliamentary procedure, namely, the setting up of a Guillotine which is being accepted more or less without protest. It will probably become a normal part of our procedure, and I think that it will, on the whole, lead to greater efficiency and prestige for the House of Commons.
Mr. LAMBERT: The House is always interested in its own procedure, but I have noticed that people outside are not so interested. My experience differs from that of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill). I think that the prestige of Parliament is just as great as ever. We have only to have regard to the enormous number of people who have been anxious to come here during the last two or three weeks to realise the tremendous interest which is taken in the proceedings of Parliament. My view is that people are interested not in how we pass Bills in this House but in what Bills we pass. The country outside will judge this House by the Measures which we pass, and that is the point to which I wish to address myself on this Motion.
This Motion concerns a matter of great importance especially to the agricultural industry of the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that he is keeping an open mind on agricultural subjects.
1670
He said last night that powerful arguments might be addressed to him on the agricultural side of this question and that he might even be persuaded to yield to them. But if there is no time available we shall not be able to address those powerful arguments to the right hon. Gentleman. Under the Motion he is only giving one day to the Schedule. That is an extremely limited time and I ask him whether it would not be possible to stretch it. I do not want to prevent the Bill being passed at the earliest possible moment but I suggest that it might be possible to give a little more time to the discussion of the Schedule. It is an extremely important part of the Bill and it differs from other parts of the Bill inasmuch as it is not elastic and things which are now in the Schedule cannot be taken out, although the list can be added to. That is all the more reason why the Government should give as much time as possible to the discussion of the Schedule.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I suggested last night that it might be desirable to consider whether Sub-section (3) of Clause 1 of the Bill should not be amended so as to permit of articles being taken out of the Schedule as well as put into it, and there was, I gathered, a considerable measure of approval for that suggestion.
Mr. LAMBERT: I must admit that that suggestion would meet my point. I want to put the case for the agricultural industry, and if my right hon. Friend is willing to meet us in that respect I shall be glad to accept the suggestion.
Major LLOYD GEORGE: I rise to enter my protest against this procedure. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill) said that the Guillotine was becoming part of the normal procedure of this House. I am not going to argue the question now of whether the Guillotine may not, sometimes, be an extraordinarily good thing in regard to certain Measures, but I do not think that any Member of the House with an unprejudiced mind would say that the Measure to which this Motion is to apply, ought to be treated in this way. This is a Measure which is going to change the system under which the industry, trade and finance of this country have been carried on for the last 80 years. It proposes, indeed, to sub-

1671
stitute for the present system an entirely new system, and the future prosperity of this country and its people depends upon what we in this House do with these proposals. Yet all the time that we are to be allowed for the discussion of the proposals is five days.
To judge by the Amendments which have been handed in a large number of Members are not satisfied with the contents of this Measure. That dissatisfaction is not confined to Members on the Opposition Benches. A cursory glance through the Amendment Paper will show that there are nearly as many Amendments from supporters of the Government as from opponents of the Government, which rather shows that a good many Members on all sides are not entirely satisfied. I do not wish to take up the time of the House, but I repeat my protest against the way in which these proposals are to he rushed through—proposals which, in the opinion of one of the ablest Members of the present Cabinet, would be disastrous to the industry and economic life of this country and the prosperity of its people.
Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: It is not very long ago since I bitterly opposed the setting up of a Time Table and I should certainly oppose this Motion also if reasons had not been brought forward to justify it. Two years ago or a year ago the Time Table was merely set up because the Government of that time were incapable of getting Measures through as most of its Members knew nothing whatever about those Measures. We have now a Government which is composed in a different way and which works in a different way. Anyone who has followed the proceedings of the House for the last few days must realise, however, that the position of this Government is, in one sense, weaker than that of any previous Government. Normally and usually a Government has its Opposition in front of it and a Minister knows exactly where he is, but this Government is subject to such things as that which happened last Monday. A Member of the Government was expounding his case when suddenly another Member of the Government rose to attack him. Surely in such circumstances it is essential that we should have a
1672
Motion of this kind. The great block of Members of the House who desire to see this Bill passed should give the Government special facilities for that purpose.
There is another reason for strengthening the Government in reference to this matter. Usually the Members of the Cabinet look after their own work in their own Departments, but now we have the spectacle of Members of the Cabinet taking part in these discussions when they might be carrying out the very useful instructions which were given yesterday by the Secretary of State for Scotland. He said that the Government were actively pursuing reconstruction in many fields. We all agree that that is what the Government ought to be doing, but those Members of the Cabinet who have been attending here and thinking only of finance may be neglecting Scotland and other Departments—
Mr. SPEAKER: This has very little to do with the Time Table.
Mr. WILLIAMS: I was urging that the need for the Time Table is greater now than ever before because we have these peculiar circumstances, but I shall not go into them any further. There are other difficulties which this Government have to face in getting through their business. No previous Government have been in the position of having three or four Oppositions. We have just heard an excellent speech from an hon. and gallant Gentleman who is at present leading a party composed of himself and members of his family and one other. At any time the Government may be attacked by this or that group in the House. As far as the official Opposition is concerned there are dangers even there, but I shall not go into the position of the Opposition. Evidently they are not going to take the usual line of procedure on these occasions of standing up for the rights of private Members, but I do not blame them for that because it would be too quick a change even for those hon. Members who sit on the Opposition benches. When there is an Opposition of that kind, however, and when the Government are liable to attack from other quarters I think there is justification for asking that the time to be allotted to this Measure shall be limited.
The Opposition have borne out the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that there is a real desire to

1673
get this Measure on to the Statute Book as soon as possible in order to see it in action. But we have not yet heard what the tail of the Opposition who sit opposite to me below the Gangway are going to say on this matter. We know, however, that they can be very vocal, because they have rather more energy and ability than the other part of the Opposition. [Laughter.] I do not know why hon. Members laugh. It has always seemed to me that the Socialist animal keeps its brains in its tail. The Government are justified in asking the House to pass this Measure quickly and they are justified in the present circumstances in adopting a course to which fundamentally I object. The Government have a definite and clear mandate to act quickly and in the speeches of the last few days there has been nothing to indicate that a great deal of argument is going to be piled up against the Bill. That we are not likely during the five days allotted to the Committee stage to get very much argument from the small group of opponents of the Bill opposite to me, was shown by the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan). He sought to show that there was little or no abnormal importation, but almost in the same breath he contradicted himself by pointing out that among the things which affected the stability of sterling was this very matter of abnormal imports.
Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see how the hon. Member relates these remarks to the Motion which is before the House.
Mr. WILLIAMS: I realise that it is difficult, on a matter which is connected very strictly with this question of using the time of the House, entirely to fit the illustration in the way 4.30 p.m. that you would wish. I would only add that I think the whole of the Debate so far has shown the necessity of a Time Table, because unless you have one, you will simply have a series of speeches which would have very little to do with the Bill.
Sir PERCY HARRIS: I beg to move, in line 5, to leave out the word "five," and to insert instead thereof the word "Eight."
The Chancellor of the Exchequer is so sweetly reasonable that when he makes a claim for a Time Table
1674
it is very difficult to resist him, but I hope I can persuade that reasonableness to listen to arguments and to treat the House a little more generously. Last night, in his great speech on the historic occasion of the Second Reading of this Import Duties Bill, he said that what concerned the House was how to fashion the Bill in such a way that it should be effective for its purpose. I want to help him to fashion this Measure, in order that it shall promote the welfare of the country. The overwhelming majority of this House last night declared in favour of the principle of the Bill, and my hon. Friends and I, who do not accept the principles on which the Bill is based, will do nothing to obstruct or prevent the Bill becoming law, but we want to criticise it, to try to improve it and to modify the degree of injury that it will do to private individuals and to the general public and consumers.
But this is a big revolutionary Measure. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that it took three months to get the repeal of the Corn Laws through all its stages in the House of Commons. After 25 years of agitation, it is now proposed in five days—not whole days, but Parliamentary days—completely to revolutionise our fiscal and financial policy. Therefore, there is a strong case for more time. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman of the 4th June last year. Some hon. Members here may remember the happy days when they sat in Opposition. I remember his speech on that day, when he showed foresight and was something of a prophet. He realised that the powers that he was then opposing might come in useful to him, but I suppose that he very little anticipated that the opportunity would come so soon, or that he would go so much further than the Government which he then attacked. On that occasion, he moved that the Motion for a Time Table in regard to the valuation of land should be rejected, but these present proposals go much further and are much more revolutionary than were those. The Amendments to this Bill are not confined to Free Traders and hon. Members opposite; there are eight pages of Amendments, covering problems affecting the lives of the people, to be moved, not by Free Traders alone, but by Mem-

1675
bers associated with the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) and other Protectionist elements. If we are going to have a good Measure, not doing injury to our trade, we all ought to lend a hand in its construction.
Take Clause 1, which proposes to levy, for the first time, a toll of 10 per cent. on all goods coming into this country. We have fought that proposal for many years, but now, taking advantage of a national crisis and of the blizzard that has swept over the world, the Government are introducing this principle into our financial system. This is a tax. This should be in the Finance Bill of the year. It has nothing to do with the Title of the Bill, the Import Duties Bill, but is a direct tax. I am sorry that the President of the Board of Trade is not here, because he defended his position, not on the basis that this tax is protective, but almost entirely on the ground that it would help the general taxpayer and raise some £30,000,000 in revenue. A novel tax like this should be discussed fully by the House of Commons on its merits. It should be thoroughly examined, and these proposals should be amended so that the new tax does not unduly weigh on the trade and industry of the country or impose too heavy a burden on the general public and the very poor. This is a tax, not only on raw materials, but on the food and necessaries of life of the people, and you are pushing it through, not on one day, but on part of a Parliamentary day.
I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is a great Parliamentarian. Is it not stretching our Parliamentary system rather hard to take advantage of a big majority to introduce a new tax like this in less than one Parliamentary day? The right hon. Gentleman, in introducing these proposals, made special reference to the advisory committee. That committee is the keystone of the whole structure, and on its construction depends the whole building. If it fails, the whole structure falls to the ground. The right hon. Gentleman admits it. Is it not necessary, then, that we should examine that Clause, not in half an hour, but on a whole day? Is it to be merely an advisory committee to give advice to the Government at a cost of something
1676
like £50,000 a year, or is it to be a judicial committee, to hear witnesses both for and against the proposals? I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has made up his mind as to who are to be the members. They are great prizes that he has to offer. I do not know what the salaries are, but we may be sure that they will be well-paid jobs. Does it not seem reasonable that that proposal should not be rushed through in less than one Parliamentary day, with no opportunity even to discuss it on Report? It is preposterous.
Take the question of Empire preference. I have had controversy on this point for many years, but I claim to be as attached to the Empire as is the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. It is my life blood to do anything I can to consolidate or strengthen the Empire. Ought we not, therefore, to examine, in more than just a few hours, this proposal to cement the Dominions on a 10 per cent. basis? Ought it not to be a matter, not of a few hours, but of two or three days' debate? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that Australia, Canada or New Zealand will rush through proposals, like this, after the Ottawa Conference, with only a few hours' debate? Is it not an insult and a slight to the Empire to say that these proposals are not worthy of full discussion by a Committee of this House?
Then there is the introduction of a new policy of discriminating duties, or the power of retaliation. I hope that those new powers will succeed. They are a very powerful instrument, but it may be that a great instrument for good, if it is not properly designed and thought out, may be an instrument which will do much harm to our trade. Is not that worthy of a whole day's discussion? I am most anxious that hon. Members opposite should get on to the important problem of unemployment, although indirectly these proposals are of such direct concern to the employment of the country that I think they are worthy of a reasonable amount of discussion. There are points, apparently trivial, tucked away in small Clauses of the Bill, such as the question of whether the tax of 10 per cent. is to be levied on the home cost of goods, their cost in the country of origin, or whether it should be charged on what is known as the c.i.f. price, that is to say,

1677
the cost of the article plus insurance and freight. That will not be discussed at all, if the machinery of this Time Table is adhered to. If we had an opportunity, we could so amend, alter, and improve these proposals that they would not do such injury to our trade.
Then there is the question of drawbacks and home ports. The proposals were outlined in the right hon. Gentleman's final speech last night, but they require close and careful examination, and just as much by Protectionists as by Free Traders. I would even say more by Protectionists, who are anxious to make this scheme a success, because it will largely succeed or fail in so far as it does not interfere with our shipping and foreign trade. If we are not able to devise a scheme for free ports and drawbacks, a great part of our foreign trade will undoubtedly suffer from these proposals.
Finally, there is the Schedule. The right hon. Gentleman himself admits that there is a strong case for more careful examination of the Schedule. There are hundreds of articles that we wish to add to it, and there are dozens of articles that other hon. Members want to withdraw from it. Is maize to be included? Is bacon to be included? Those are two important and controversial matters affecting the whole life of the people and of the agricultural interest, and a few hours would not be badly spent in discussing such a subject. There are all sorts of problems, like that of copper and the question of fibre. As I came into the House, a supporter of the Government said to me, "Is fibre included in this Schedule? Can you do your best to get it included?" I said at once that the hon. Member's Time Table would not give me a moment to add anything, and that if fibre was not included, the whole of the brush industry of this country on its export side would be seriously injured.
The right hon. Gentleman said that a strong case was made on the point of time in order to stop forestalling, but he forgets in these fast moving times the Abnormal Importations Act, which is already in operation and which can be extended if there is any suspicion of forestalling. It would be unfortunate if, because of the fear of forestalling, we had inadequate discussion of these most
1678
revolutionary proposals. The right hon. Gentleman is so eager to rush these proposals through, that he talked about 1st January when he meant 1st March. I suggest that it would be too early to fix the 1st April, a much more suitable date, for it would give industry and commerce more reasonable time to prepare themselves for the new conditions, which we assume are to last a long time, under which the trade of this country is to carry on. It cannot make much difference to the amount of forestalling. An hon. Friend has worked out a time table which shows that if an extra couple of days are given, the right hon. Gentleman could get his Bill by the end of next week, or at latest by Monday week. It is much more reasonable that an extra two days should be given so the full limelight of criticism could be put on these proposals and that the country could feel that Parliament had thoroughly discussed and examined the proposals in detail.
I do not want to quote history; ancient history is of nought, but I would remind this great House of Commons that the very foundation of our Parliamentary system has been control by Parliament over finance. This Motion will make a most dangerous precedent, which can be abused in future, and it will weaken the authority of Parliament. The very fact that the Government have a powerful majority ready to follow them hither and thither as they wish, makes the Government more than ever the trustees of our Constitution and our Parliamentary system. Therefore, I beg the right hon. Gentleman to meet my proposals in the spirit in which they are moved, the spirit of sweet reasonableness and of a desire not to hinder but to help, and that he will show that a strong Government can be gentle and that a Government with a big majority can listen to the voice of reason.
Mr. MANDER: I beg to second the Amendment.
I join in the appeal which my hon. Friend has made to the right hon. Gentleman to allow us more time to discuss this extraordinarily important matter. We are going to consider in the next few weeks nothing less than a complete revolution in the whole of the economic system of this country, either for good or ill. I hope that it is for good, but I fear that it is for ill, and we ought to be cer-

1679
tain that the new scheme is watertight in every respect and commends itself to every reasonable shade of opinion in the House. I rather regret that the Government have brought forward a Guillotine Motion because there has been no sign of any obstruction. If the proceedings were left to the good sense of the House, the Government would probably get the Bill through in a reasonable time. Obstruction is impossible in a House constituted as it is at the present time. There has been no attempt even from the Front Opposition Bench, and the only section of the House which really is capable of obstructive opposition on this occasion are evidently not going to play the effective part which they are able to play.
I cannot feel very impressed with the case that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made about the 1st March. We have been working under one fiscal system for 80 years, and surely another seven days will not make much difference. If for other reasons the right hon. Gentleman felt able to be a little more elastic in this matter, he would not find that the date, 1st March, was such a very vital matter. It is well recognised that many who sit on these benches are opposed to the Measure root and branch, but we realise that it is going to pass into law and that nothing can be done to prevent its passage. We desire, therefore, to be as helpful as we can in bringing forward Amendments in order that the Measure, when it goes upon the Statute Book, may have some of the dangers which we think are likely to arise mitigated. We have put down a number of Amendments, some of which I hope that the Government will regard so sympathetically as to accept. I realise that they will undoubtedly not be able to accept some of them, but there are others of a constructive nature which I think that they will feel, if they are good enough to consider them in the spirit in which we put them down, are calculated to make the Advisory Committee work in a more effective and efficient manner than at present seems likely.
My hon. Friend referred to recent precedents. I want to carry the House back a long period and remind them of the time which was given when Parliament was abolishing the Protectionist system. I was interested in a maiden speech made by an hon. Member behind me who
1680
referred to Free Trade as already being in his mind a pleasing dream of the past. That was not the frame of mind in which the people were in the Hungry 'Forties. Then it was the memory of a nightmare, and I hope that the memory of what we are doing in these weeks will not be a nightmare to the people of the future. The case for the abolition of the Corn Laws, which we are now reinstituting, was carried on very largely by an illustrious predecessor of mine in the representation of Wolverhampton—the right hon. Charles Pelham Villiers—who in this House, from 1835 onwards, moved a Resolution, which was annually defeated, for the abolition of the Corn Laws. Then in 1846, under the Administration of Sir Robert Peel, the Bill for the abolition of the Corn Laws was brought in. This is of special interest to me, because I believe my constituency is the only one in the country that has the honour and privilege of having remained faithful for 100 years since the Reform Bill of 1832 to the principles of the policy of Free Trade.
In 1846, when the Corn Law Measure was brought forward, although it dealt with only one particular article, and was a Measure for repeal, and had therefore no constructive work to be done on it, the actual period of time taken was 10 days. The more important precedent perhaps is that of Mr. Gladstone's first and famous Budget of 1853, which really instituted Free Trade as a general system in this country. At that time with one sweep he placed on the free list 134 articles. There was practically no opposition to most of them. I have been reading this morning the Debates of that time, and in regard to 119 articles there was no objection whatever. Therefore, it was clearly not a Measure to which there was any violent opposition or obstruction. For the Budget Resolutions alone 10 days was occupied. In those days there was no Finance Bill, as such. Each particular item, whether Income Tax, Customs, or Succession Duty was dealt with in separate Bills. The mere fact that it took 10 days for the Budget Resolutions shows the great amount of time that was occupied simply in striking out and bringing to an end a system which was regarded with detestation.
Already 150 Amendments are on the Paper to this Bill, and it is stated that a large number more are to be published

1681
to-morrow morning. It seems that so many were handed in last night that it was impossible for the printing department to get them through even by working all night. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will appreciate that this indicates a widespread desire in every part of the House, not confined to any one party, to contribute their part to the framing and perfecting of this Bill. The particular items in which Members on these benches are more closely interested are the food taxes. This is a matter which interests also members of the Conservative party, because it is notorious that a great many of them gave specific pledges during the Election that they would oppose all food taxes. Hon. Members will certainly desire to see how far the proposals brought forward by the Government now will place them in any difficulties. Then there is the First Schedule. A great amount of time will be required to consider the question of putting fresh articles into that list, or possibly taking some out, although I hope that none will be taken out.
5.0 p.m.
The point which will require closest consideration of all is the advisory committee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer truly said that this is the keystone of the arch, and it is important to get the committee working at the earliest moment. I agree from that point of view, but what is even more important is that the committee should have proper instructions and be clear what it is expected to do and the lines on which it is expected to do it. On that subject, a number of Amendments have been put down. I will mention a few to indicate the desires in different parts of the House on this particular question. There will be a desire to make it clear that the advisory committee, before recommending any duty, shall be satisfied that the industry is thoroughly well organised on a national basis, and that each factory shall be thoroughly efficient and up-to-date. There will be a general desire to incorporate some indication of that kind. We want, too, to try and see that the advisory committee shall, be satisfied that in any industry that receives the benefit of Protection—which hon. Members claim they are going to receive—there shall be some means of sharing the profits with the employés, either through co-partnership or profit-sharing schemes; also that facilities should be provided for joint consultations
1682
between the employers and employed in the industry, and that Protection should not be given to an industry where the standard of wages and hours of work are not observed. It has been said by many hon. Members that no increase in prices is likely, and we ought to try to incorporate in the instructions something to the effect that the advisory committee shall not recommend a duty unless they are satisfied that no increase in price is likely to arise. I am making a genuine appeal to the Chancellor to give us opportunities to discuss this Bill at greater length. We on these benches are in a rather difficult position. We are really against the whole scheme, but, seeing that it is before us, we desire to play our part, as Members of the House of Commons, in co-operating to try to make it as effective an instrument as we can, and in that spirit of co-operation I appeal to the Government to meet us as far as they can.
Mr. LEWIS: In considering this Amendment it seems to me that there are certain matters of general application which ought to be borne in mind. There was a good deal of sympathy in all quarters of the House with the remarks of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill) on the Guillotine and its workings. Possibly he rather slurred over its disadvantages, but I think most of us will agree that it is to be preferred to uncontrolled obstruction and all-night sittings. It is evident that the Guillotine will be introduced more frequently in future. The right hon. Baronet urged that the Government are not the proper people to draw up the Guillotine, and I agree with him, but under present practice the terms of the Guillotine Motion, are, in fact, drawn up by the Government of the day, and therefore I feel there is additional responsibility on hon. Members to see that a reasonable amount of time is allocated to the different parts of the Bill.
We have before us an Amendment to give more time. If any body of Members, whatever their particular view may be, who have shown themselves genuinely anxious to put forward constructive criticism and to improve a Bill ask for more time to discuss certain Sections of it, their case is worthy of serious consideration. What we have to decide this

1683
afternoon is whether the hon. Members who have put down this Amendment answer that description. All of them are unrepentant Free Traders, all of them are utterly opposed to the principle of the Bill, all of them are Members who feel so strongly on the principle of the Bill that, though they were returned to Parliament as nominal supporters of the National Government, they all voted against the Second Reading of this, one of the principal Measures of the Government; but now they come before us to say that if they are allowed another three days in Committee they can in some way turn this Bill, which one of them has said he does not accept in principle, and another that he condemns root and branch, into something which is worthy to he passed by the House. I suggest that that is a ridiculous argument to put forward. If a request for more time had come from supporters of the Government interested in the Bill, or from Members of the Opposition, many of whom have a certain sneaking interest in tariff questions, I think it would have been worthy of consideration, but as it comes from that part of the Liberal party which is so sterile that it is the only section of this House which has nothing of value or interest to put forward in the Debates on this great Measure, I suggest that the Amendment stands condemned.
Mr. COCKS: I feel very strongly about the introduction of the Guillotine for a finance Bill, and so I hope my leader will forgive me for intervening. As everyone knows, this House was originally an assembly whose principal function was rather the raising of revenue than the passing of legislation, and therefore the control of finance has always been regarded as of special importance by its Members. The Guillotine and the Closure, which were invented, I believe, as a result of Irish obstruction, were never applied to Finance Bills until last spring, when, for the first time, the Budget came under the Guillotine, because it had to get to the House of Lords by a certain date. I was a supporter of the Government at that time, and I voted in favour of the Government's proposals, but I did it very much against my will. I was strongly against those proposals, and voted for them simply because we had
1684
only a small majority in the House. I was "whipped" into the Lobby, and when I got into the Lobby I expressed my views on what the Government had done in very strong language, especially about the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had introduced the Guillotine. As a result of what happened then, I feel that the Guillotine is not very successful. The knowledge that the Guillotine is to fall at half-past 10 each night takes the heart out of a Debate. There were innumerable Amendments on the Paper last year, and when the Guillotine fell many of those Amendments, including very important ones, had never been discussed at all.
As the Government have brought forward a Time Table for this Measure, it is really useless to argue with them in an attempt to induce them to change it, but may I ask the Chancellor what is the idea of bringing discussion to an end at 10.30 every night? We are to consider a revolutionary Measure which is to change the fiscal policy which this country has had for the last 70 years, and there are pages and pages of Amendments to it. Why should we have a system under which some of those Amendments will not be discussed at all? Why should we not decide to allow the House to rise by general agreement at some hour? I am not in favour of all-night sittings; nobody on this side is, because of the question of getting home, and the like; but if we decide that the Debate must come to an end at 10.30 each night there may be valuable Amendments on the Paper which will not be discussed.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I must remind the hon. Member that the Question is whether the Committee stage should last for five or eight days; it is not a question of the hours of discussion.
Mr. COCKS: I am sorry, but the main point I wanted to make concerned the hours. I think it is the only concession which the Government may be inclined to give. But I have made my protest, and I do hope that the procedure on this Bill will not be made a precedent, and that, when the ordinary Finance Bill comes in it will be discussed as Finance Bills have always been discussed up to last year.
Mr. DAVID MASON: The Leader of the Opposition made an appeal to my

1685
hon. Friends not to delay the discussion of the Motion dealing with unemployment. We have no desire to waste the time of the House, and it is because we believe that this Import Duties Bill will prove detrimental to employment and to trade and commerce that we are asking for a longer time to discuss it. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) cast, some spersions—[Interruption.] I am addressing the Deputy-Speaker. My hon. Friend cast aspersions on those who moved and seconded this Amendment for having stated that they wanted to improve the Bill. I do not think that was the language they used. What they said was that they desired to make the Bill less injurious. [Interruption.] Of course, that would improve the Bill; but their action in moving the Amendment was not sterile, as the hon. Member seemed to imagine.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the reason why only a short time could be allocated to this Measure lay in the urgency for rectifying the adverse balance of payments. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is very anxious to find out, if he can, exactly what is this adverse balance of payments, and if I can show him, as I shall venture to do, that there is no adverse balance of payments, it will do away with his argument that it is necessary to shorten discussion on this Bill. Affecting as it does our trade and industry, it requires the most careful inquiry and debate, and it ought not to be rushed through and the country ought not to be deluded by references to the terrible emergency created by an adverse balance of payments. That view has been propagated throughout the country as if it were a reason for hurried action, and would justify the House in rushing through a revolution of our present fiscal system. If I can show that the Chancellor is wrong in his arguments, and that no such urgent necessity exists, I think we shall have made good the case for our Amendment and that we can have a longer time for the discussion of the Measure. With regard to this matter, which is evidently very dear to him and to which he attaches great importance, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answer to a question of mine the other day, deprecated the discussion of this matter by way of question and
1686
answer on the Floor of the House. Perhaps he will now be good enough to controvert what I have said, as this matter is now on the Floor of the House, and to tell me on what foundation he bases his contention that we are suffering from an adverse balance of payments. In reply to my question, he said that the position roughly was that, since our imports of goods—
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot discuss the entire financial situation upon this Amendment.
Mr. MASON: I do not intend to discuss the whole financial position. I am simply replying to the argument which was used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is entitled to bring that forward for our having five days instead of eight, I suggest that I am entitled to answer that contention of the right hon. Gentleman. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, in answer to my question, that the position is that, since our imports of goods exceeded the whole of our visible and invisible exports—[Interruption.] The hon. Member on my left is very encouraging, but he must contain himself a little, and I will be able to get on with my argument. Broadly speaking, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that since—
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot go into the whole question of trade on this Amendment.
Mr. MASON: I do not propose to go into the whole question of trade. I am endeavouring to answer the argument which has been submitted. You, Sir, were not in the Chair when the right hon. Gentleman brought forward this argument this afternoon in favour of a shorter duration of time for the discussion of this Bill. I think that had you been present you would have heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer laying emphasis upon the importance of our rushing through this Bill because of our adverse balance of payments, and I appeal to you, is it not then fair, if I can demonstrate briefly —[Interruption]—I shall be as brief as possible. I have already said that I do not intend to occupy the time of the House unnecessarily. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer can advance this argument for cutting down the time to five days, and if I can demonstrate with that

1687
argument the hollowness of his case, that surely advances our contention for eight days. I say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer argued that there was a difference between our imports and our exports, including our invisible exports, that had to be made good by payments in gold, and the position had been affected by the diminution of British assets abroad. Has he really considered the fact that this is what is called a creditor country, and that it is a good thing when you have a large excess of imports over exports?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot go into the merits or the demerits of the Import Duties Bill under this Motion.
Mr. MASON: I am very sorry. I am glad to accommodate myself to your Ruling, but I do ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is it not a fair thing to use this argument, if I can show the hollowness of the Chancellor's contention?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is quite entitled to point out the hollowness of the Chancellor's argument, but he must do so on the appropriate occasion, not on this Amendment.
Mr. MASON: I contend, while wishing to submit myself to your Ruling, that if the Chancellor advances this as an argument in all seriousness for limiting our time to five days, we are equally entitled to advance it in order to show the hollowness of the argument, and in favour of eight days. We are pleading for an extension of time. We say that this is a very serious Measure. It interests everyone in the trade and industry of this country. The Chancellor says that there is an urgent emergency and that that is why he contends that we should carry the Measure through. I ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, am I not in order in endeavouring to show to the right hon. Gentleman that this adverse balance does not exist? Is it not a fair thing to endeavour to show that it does not exist, that this is a creditor country and that when you have excessive imports it is a good thing? There are people, a large rentier class, who are not exporters, and when they spend their money, or surrender their bonds, that accounts for the large excess of imports over exports—
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot really go into the whole question of the balance of trade on this Motion.
Mr. MASON: I will not pursue it further. I have endeavoured to put my point to the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that this will be the last occasion on which he continually drags in the subject. I did not drag it in. I hope I have exposed it and blown it sky-high. The people in this country have been told that it is one of the principal reasons for this Measure. I can respect an honest Tariff Reformer who defends Tariff Reform. That is a perfectly reasonable thing, but to try to confuse the issue, and to humbug the people and this House into believing that we are in a state of emergency, is a very serious thing. I hope that I have made it clear, both to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Leader of the Opposition, that we are not in any sense obstructing the Motion on unemployment, with which we desire to sympathise. We say that this Measure is equally important with the Motion of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who do not agree with us in regard to its merits. There are hon. Members who believe that this is a very serious Measure, they have a number of Amendments down on the Paper and they are very anxious to make it watertight and in every sense a logical Measure. We are anxious from our point of view to make it less injurious in its effect upon the people, and it is because of that that I support this Amendment.
Major NATHAN: I shall confine myself strictly to the Motion. We have registered our protest by speeches from these benches and by votes in the Division Lobby. The House of Commons has decided, contrary to our views, that this is a Bill which should receive the assent of Parliament. We are confronted with that position, and we confine ourselves now to a sincere attempt to modify some of the dangers which we see in the Bill. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer will look at the Order Paper, he will find that there are already printed as many pages of Amendments from Protectionist supporters of the Government as from hon. Members of the official Opposition. We on these benches have put down a number of Amendments, but I venture to

1689
claim for them that they are directed to questions of principle. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take it from me, speaking on my own behalf and on behalf of the hon. Members with whom I am associated on these benches, that we have no intention of being obstructive, either in the method by which we approach the discussion of these matters or in the various questions which we raise.
The Government have already taken private Members' time, in the ordinary understanding of that term, and it would be a pity if private Members, in the framing of this important Measure, which is to alter the whole of our fiscal policy for a definite period of time, were prevented from making their contributions by undue limitation upon the opportunities of debate, subject always to the condition which I have made of no obstruction, and constructive contribution. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not think me impertinent, I wish to make a suggestion. I feel that, as the Amendment is drawn, it would take the Committee stage to Monday week. While I do not see the same point in the 1st of March as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if the Government are determined that the Bill shall be through by 1st March, we must bow to their decision, having regard to the great majority by which they are reinforced in this House. I make this suggestion to him. The general question of Protection or no Protection has been decided. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out in his speech, and as we on these benches hold emphatically, the key of this Bill is to be found in the Clauses relating to the Advisory Committee. Yet, upon looking at the Time Table—I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong—I see that for the discussion of the Clauses relating to the Advisory Committee and the additional duties, there is only the fag-end of Thursday night, after nine o'clock and a Division, and 4½ hours on Friday. I venture to suggest that this is not adequate time in which to discuss what he himself justly admits to be a vital feature in the whole of the scheme which he has placed before the House, the provisions relating to the composition of the Committee, the nature of it, the quality
1690
in which it shall act, the instructions to be given to it, the limitations upon its action and the steps to be taken upon its recommendations. To that Committee, by the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government, are entrusted duties extending over a very wide range of great affairs, upon which depends the prosperity of this great country. I would urge him to give us rather longer time for the discussion of the provisions relating to the Advisory Committee.
5.30 p.m.
The second matter to which, in my judgment, insufficient time is allotted is the Schedules, for which six and a-half hours only, in my computation, are allowed. Apart from all matters of detail—and there are many—there are three questions of principle which arise. Apart from the question of drawbacks, there are the questions of the food of the people, of feeding stuffs for animals and of raw materials. Those are the broad categories for discussion to say nothing of the details within those categories. For all these great matters, according to the Government's Motion, only six and a-half hours are to be allowed. Indeed, according to my computation, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has only allowed 31 hours from beginning to end for the discussion of the whole of this Bill of 22 Clauses and three Schedules. The suggestion on the Paper would involve an extension of that time, according to my computation, to 50 hours. I earnestly ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to extend the time until, say, Friday week, which on my calculation would give us 43½ hours. I am sure that he is anxious to deal fairly with the whole position, and to give to those who are opposed to the Measure in any of its parts a reasonable opportunity for putting their case before the House for consideration. In any case, I would ask him so to extend the time as to afford further opportunities for debate in connection with the provision relating to the Advisory Committee and to the Schedules. If the right hon. Gentleman will meet us in that way, I can assure him that, so far as we are concerned, he will have nothing to complain of, either in the way of obstruction in debate or in placing before the House Amendments without substance.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am sure that the House will wish now to come to a decision on this Amendment. I must ask the House to reject it, for the reasons which I gave in my introductory remarks, when I said that we cannot spare the three extra days which have been asked for by hon. Members below the Gangway. I should like to add that really hon. Members have it in their own power so to arrange the time which will be put at their disposal as to debate at quite adequate length the really important parts of the Bill. A vast number of Amendments has been put down. I, of course, accept the assurances of hon. Members on my right that their Amendments are put down with a single eye to assisting in improving the Bill, but I am afraid that their root-and-branch hostility to the Bill may possibly colour their idea of what is or what is not important. For my part, after a cursory examination of the list, it seems to me that no damage will be done to the public interest if some of the Amendments are not even discussed at all.
If, as I have said, hon. Members will so arrange among themselves the time that is to he devoted to the discussion,
and if all of them will be as concise and brief as the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Mason) was just now, I think it will be found that they will have plenty of time to discuss everything that it is necessary to discuss. I think that the provision which will enable not only additions to the free list, but also subtractions from it, to take place after the Bill has become law, without an amending Act of Parliament, on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee, will give great elasticity to the Measure, and that in itself will at any rate be some mitigation of the fact that one day, and one day only, is to be given to the discussion of the Schedules.
Mr. MASON: Will it be in order both to add to and to subtract from the free list?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I was alluding to a statement which I made earlier, when I think the hon. Member was not present. I then said that it would make possible both additions and subtractions.
Amendment negatived.
Main Question put.
The House divided; Ayes, 318; Noes, 53.

Division No. 63.]

AYES.

[5.36 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

Dickie, John P.

Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

Campbell, Rear-Adml, G. (Burnley)

Donner, P. W.

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

Doran, Edward

Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Dower, Captain A. V. G.

Albery, Irving James

Carver, Major William H.

Drewe, Cedric

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

Castlereagh, Viscount

Duckworth, George A. V.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Castle Stewart, Earl

Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Duggan, Hubert John

Aske, Sir Robert William

Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

Chalmers, John Rutherford

Dunglass, Lord

Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

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

Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Atholl, Duchess of

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

Ellis, Robert Geoffrey

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le Spring)

Elliston, Captain George Sampson

Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

Elmley, Viscount

Balniel, Lord

Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Chotzner, Alfred James

Emrys Evans, P. V.

Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

Christie, James Archibald

Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

Clarke, Frank

Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)

Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th,C.)

Clarry, Reginald George

Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

Clayton Dr. George C.

Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

Colfox, Major William Philip

Fermoy, Lord

Blaker, Sir Reginald

Collins, Sir Godfrey

Fielden, Edward Brockiehurst

Blindell, James

Colville, Major David John

Ford, Sir Patrick J.

Boothby, Robert John Graham

Conant, R. J. E.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Boulton, W. W.

Cook, Thomas A.

Ganzonl, Sir John

Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

Cooke, James D.

Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E W.

Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

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

Boyce, H. Leslie

Craven Ellis, William

Glossop, C. W. H.

Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

Crooke, J. Smedley

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

Broadbent, Colonel John

Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Cross, R. H.

Goff, Sir Park

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

Crossley, A. C.

Goldie, Noel B.

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

Browne, Captain A. C.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

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

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

Burghley, Lord

Davison, Sir William Henry

Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

Burnett, John George

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Cadogan, Hon. Edward

Despencer-Robertson., Major J. A. F.

Grimston, R. V.

Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

McKie, John Hamilton

Salt, Edward W.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

McLean, Major Alan

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Hales, Harold K.

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Savery, Samuel Servington

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

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Scone, Lord

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

Selley, Harry R.

Harbord, Arthur

Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Hartington, Marquess of

Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

Hartland, George A.

Marsden, Commander Arthur

Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

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

Martin, Thomas B.

Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastie)

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)

Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

Meller, Richard James

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

Millar, Sir James Duncan

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

Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Hepworth, Joseph

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Smithers, Waldron

Hillman, Dr. George B.

Milne, Charles

Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)

Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-

Soper, Richard

Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

Hornby, Frank

Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

Horobin, Ian M.

Moreing, Adrian C.

Spencer, Captain Richard A.

Horsbrugh, Florence

Morrison, William Shephard

Spencer-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

Muirhead, Major A. J.

Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

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

Munro, Patrick

Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Stewart, William J.

Hume, Sir George Hopwood

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Stones, James

Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

Storey, Samuel

Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

Normand, Wilfrid Guild

Strauss, Edward A.

Hunter-Weston. Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

North, Captain Edward T.

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Hurd, Percy A.

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)

Palmer, Francis Noel

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

Iveagh, Countess of

Peake, Captain Osbert

Summersby, Charles H.

Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

Pearson, William G.

Sutcliffe, Harold

James, Wing Com. A. W. H.

Peat, Charles U.

Taylor, Vice.Admiral E. A.(Pd'gt'n, S.)

Jesson, Major Thomas E.

Penny, Sir George

Templeton, William P.

Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

Perkins, Walter R. D.

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

Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

Petherick, M.

Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

Ker, J. Campbell

Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)

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

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Potter, John

Thompson, Luke

Kimball, Lawrence

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

Kirkpatrick, William M.

Procter, Major Henry Adam

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

Purbrick, R.

Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

Knebworth, Viscount

Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

Touche, Gordon Cosmo

Knox, Sir Alfred

Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

Ramsey, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

Turton, Robert Hugh

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Ramsden, E.

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Law, Sir Alfred

Rankin, Robert

Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

Ratclife, Arthur

Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

Ward, Lt. Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

Levy, Thomas

Reid, David D. (County Down)

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Lewis, Oswald

Reid, James S. C. (Sterling)

Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

Liddall, Walter S.

Reid, William Allan (Derby)

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Lleweilin, Major John J.

Remer, John R.

Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

Renwick, Major Gustav A.

Wells, Sydney Richard

Lloyd, Geoffrey

Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip

Weymouth, Viscount

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)

Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

Whyte, Jardine Bell

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)

Robinson, John Roland

Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

Ropner, Colonel L.

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

Loder, Captain J. de Vere

Rosbotham, S. T.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

Ross, Ronald D.

Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

Lymington, Viscount

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

Worthington, Dr. John V.

Mabane, William

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

McCorquodale, M. S.

Runge, Norah Cecil

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

Mr. Shakespeare and Mr. Womersley.

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

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

McEwen, J. H. F.

Salmon, Major Isidore

NOES.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

Hopkinson, Austin

Attlee, Clement Richard

Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

Jenkins, Sir William

Batey, Joseph

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

John, William

Bernays, Robert

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Grundy, Thomas W.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

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

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

Kirkwood, David

Buchanan, George

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Harris, Sir Percy

Lawson, John James

Cove, William G.

Healy, Cahir

Logan, David Gilbert

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Hicks, Ernest George

Lunn, William

Daggar, George

Hirst, George Henry

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Edwards, Charles

Holdsworth, Herbert

McEntee, Valentine L.

McGovern, John

Owen, Major Goronwy

Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Parkinson, John Allen

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot

Price, Gabriel

Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

Salter, Dr. Alfred

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Maxton, James

Thorne, William James

Mr. Duncan Graham and Mr. Groves.

Nathan, Major H. L.

Tinker, John Joseph

Ordered,
"That the Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading of the Import Duties Bill (including any Financial Resolution relating thereto) shall be proceeded with as follows:—

(1) FINANCIAL RESOLUTION AND COMMITTEE STAGE.
Five allotted days shall be given to the Committee stage of the Bill and to the proceedings on any Instructions and the necessary stages of any Financial Resolution relating thereto, and the proceedings on each such allotted day shall be as shown in the second column of the following Table; and those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time shown in the third column for that day.

TABLE I.—Financial Resolution and Committee Stage.

Allotted Day.

Proceedings.

Time for bringing Proceedings to a conclusion.

P.M.

First

All stages of Financial Resolution (Import Duties [Expenses]), proceedings on Instructions, and Clause 1

9.0

Clauses 2 and 3

—

Second

Clauses 2 and 3

10.30

Third

Clauses 4 to 8

7.30

Clauses 9 to 11

10.30

Fourth

Clauses 12 to 22 and New Clauses

10.30

Fifth

Schedules, and any other matter necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion

10.30

(2) REPORT STAGE AND THIRD READING.
One allotted day shall be given to the Report stage and Third Reading of the Bill, and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at 11 p.m. on that day.
On the conclusion of the Committee stage of the Bill, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without Question put.
Any day after the day on which this Ordr is passed on which the Bill is put down as the first Order of the Day, or on which any Financial Resolution relating thereto is put down followed by the Bill as the first Order of the Day, shall be considered
1696
an allotted day for the purposes of this Order, and the Bill or any such Resolution may be put down as aforesaid on any Thursday, nothwithstanding anything in any Standing Orders of the House relating to the Business of Supply.
Provided that, where an allotted day is a Friday, this Order shall have effect as if for the references to the times mentioned in the first column of Table II there were respectively substituted references to the times mentioned in the second column of that Table.

TABLE II.

Day other than Friday

Friday

7.30 p.m.

1.30 p.m.

9.0 p.m.

2.30 p.m.

10.30 p.m.

3.30 p.m.

11.0 p.m.

4.0 p.m.

For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion on an allotted day, and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall, at the time appointed under this Order for the conclusion of those proceedings, put forthwith the Question on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and, in the case of a new Clause which has been read a second time, also the Question that the Clause be added to the Bill, and shall next proceed to put forthwith the Question on any Resolution Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules moved by the Government of which notice has been given (but no other Resolutions, Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules), and any Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded and, in the case of Government Resolutions, Government Amendments, or Government new Clauses or Schedules, he shall put only the Question that the Resolution be agreed to, or that the Amendment be made, or that the Clauses or Schedules be added to the Bill, as the case may be.
Any Private Business which is set down for consideration at 7.30 p.m., and any Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10, on an allotted day shall, on that day, instead of being taken as provided by the Standing Orders, be taken on the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or under this Order for that day, and any Private Business or Motion for Adjournment so taken may be proceeded with, though opposed, notwithstanding any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.
On a day on which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, proceedings for that purpose shall not be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sitting of the House.
On a day on which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order no dilatory Motion with respect to proceedings on the Bill or under this Order, nor Motion that the Chairman do report progress or do leave the Chair, nor Motion to postpone a Clause or to recommit the Bill, shall be received unless moved by the Government, and the Question on such Motion, if moved by the Government, Shall he put forthwith without any Debate.
Nothing in this Order shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings which under this Order are to be concluded on any particular day being concluded on any other day, or necessitate any particular day or part of a particular day being, given to any such proceedings if those proceedings have been otherwise disposed of; or

(b) prevent any other business being proceeded with on any particular day, or part of a particular day, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, if any proceedings to be concluded under this Order on that particular day, or part of a particular day, have been disposed of.

This Order Shall have effect notwithstanding the practice of the House relating to the intervals between the stages of any Bill or of any Financial Resolution.'

UNEMPLOYMENT.
Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move,
"That this House, recognising the increasing gravity of unemployment and of the condition of the unemployed and their families, regrets the failure of the Government to initiate effective measures for the reconstruction of the economic life of the country and the short-sighted economy of expenditure on works of public utility, especially housing, and on schemes of allotments, whereby unemployment has been increased; and is of opinion that the administration of the means test is causing grave injustice and distress and that the machinery of the Poor Law should not be used in connection with applications for unemployment benefit."
Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. There is an Amendment in the name of myself and several hon. Members—In line 6, to leave out from the first word "the," to the end, and to add instead thereof the words:
"institution and administration of the means test are causing grave injustice and distress, and that neither the machinery of the Poor Law nor any other inquisitorial
1698
committee regarding means of applicants should be used in connection with applications for unemployment benefit."
I was going to raise with you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the desirability of calling our Amendment, because we think there is a point of principle which is not involved in the Motion. The Motion does not seek to censure the Government for the means test, but for the method of administering it. I was going to ask, in view of the fact that our Amendment directly challenges the whole issue of the means test, if you could not see your way to call it.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think probably it would be best if the hon. Member raised that point with Mr. Speaker when he returns to the Chair.
Mr. LAWSON: The House will have noticed that the unemployment figures last week were the first figures to be published monthly instead of, as hitherto, weekly. The Government have now taken a line which has been desired by many Governments in days gone by. It has been well known to those in the Departments, and to Members of the Government, that the weekly figures, which are approximately accurate, were more up-to-date than most of the figures in other countries. It has been well known to the Government that these figures have been bandied about by other countries, and used for trade and financial purposes against us. Those of us who have been in Departments and have been abroad have seen the evil of it. Now the Government have taken the step of publishing the figures monthly instead of weekly. I make that point to draw attention to the fact that there has been no objection raised to that decision, and the fact that we have not taken any step in respect of it is proof that we have no desire to raise the unemployment question merely as a tactical matter, or to use the extremity of the nation and the unfortunate position of the unemployed for Opposition purposes. Of course, the new method of publishing the figures monthly has its drawbacks, as the House has seen during the past few days. It must have come as a shock to the House to learn that the unemployed have increased by 218,000 upon fast month's figures, and I think it certainly came as a shock to the country. The right hon. Gentleman says, of course, that there are 150,000 more employed than in this month

1699
last year, but the fact also remains that there are 70,000 fewer employed than there were in October—that is almost at the beginning of the Government's term of office.
Even the 218,000 is not altogether accurate, for the right hon. Gentleman himself has told the House that during the last three months no fewer than 130,000 people have lost their unemployment benefit, or any transitional payment which they had previously received. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right when he says some of these 130,000 will be registered. They register because of getting their health cards stamped and for various reasons but, when everything is said and done, the fact remains that 218,000 does not represent the increase in unemployment. I am satisfied, however, to use 218,000 as the minimum figure. There are to-day no fewer than 2,750,000 unemployed, that is, more than 2,000,000 wholly unemployed, 500,000 temporarily unemployed and 100,000 casually employed. With the exception of a comparatively small margin, these unemployed are men and women of the highest calibre, and some of the finest craftsmen that there are in the world to-day. What is being done for these people? I have been looking at the figures. Every good citizen desires to see some system of training, some method of employing the spare time of these men and boys, even when they are unemployed. I asked the Parliamentary Secretary the other day how the question of training was progressing, and he told me there were nearly 27,000 boys and girls in juvenile training centres. That is a great improvement, and we give the right hon. Gentleman credit for that. But in the matter of adults, they have gone down from nearly 6,000 to 4,000. It was realised when the late Government were in office that it was very necessary to increase the number of boys and men who were being trained, and we realise how poverty-stricken were the attempts that were being made to meet that great need. But the fact remains that, instead of attempting to develop this kind of work, there is a slowing down and a reduction, since the present Government took office, of something like 2,000 on the adult side.
6.0 p.m.
It is important that we should know exactly the measure of the problem with
1700
which we are dealing. I asked the Ministry of Labour this week for the various ages of the people who were unemployed, and I discovered that there are no fewer than 135,000 under 17, there are 224,000, roughly, between 18 and 21, and there are no fewer than 1,500,000 under 34, and over 2,000,000 under 50 years of age. It seems to me that, whatever this House agrees or disagrees upon, if there is any imagination, any understanding of the problem with which the country is faced, any care for the country's future, of whatever party Members may be, they have to see to it that this training and general educational side of unemployed youth is developed. But, as a matter of fact, practically nothing has been done. It is difficult to get the figures, and I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us haw many schemes have been started by the Unemployment Grants Committee and the Road Fund since this Government took office, and how many men they employ. I have been looking up the figures, and it is evident to me that the only men who are employed on schemes of roads, bridges, and all the rest of it, are the people who were started as the result of the schemes that were begun under the late Government, and practically nothing is being done by the present Government of a remedial kind to meet the needs of the unemployed. Nothing is being done and nothing is contemplated. If there were war to-morrow, masses of these people, particularly the youth, would become important people at once. It cannot be denied that they would be fanned upon, and great houses would be thrown open to them. But there is no war, and they are scantily clad, half-fed, struggling to maintain their moral, and a menace generally to the vitality of the nation. What is the position of those who are unemployed? The Government took 10 per cent. off the very meagre sum provided for the unemployed. The only prospect that one sees is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to reduce the Income Tax by 6d. I heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer speak the other night about the cost of living being artificially low. I wish be could try for a week the standard of living of some of these unemployed people. He would know then that the cost of living, in proportion to the money which they receive, is very

1701
high. The right hon. Gentleman spoke lightly of the fact that the cost of living might go up a point or two. I do not know what he means by a point or two, but it will mean very much to those people to whom a penny matters a great deal. It is hoped to get, I understand, £30,000,000 of new revenue, and I also understand that the Government are considering the possibility of restoring the cuts to which the judges submitted.
I ask the Government whether it is not time that they considered restoring the 10 per cent. cut to the unemployed, to the men and women who find life very hard indeed? I was very pleased to see that Lord Melchett in another place made a very strong protest against the reduction of 10 per cent., and I think that he spoke the mind of a great mass of decent-minded, comfortably-placed people in this country. The Government—and I stress this point because it is extremely important—,have a great majority. They may even make use of the £30,000,000 by giving it to the comfortably-placed classes, but I warn them that they had better be careful what they do, in view of the state of mind of the people of this country at the present time. Actions of that kind may have the reverse effect from what they either expect or desire.
The Motion calls attention to the condition of the people who have to submit to the means test. The Minister of Labour in January of this year told us that on 21st December there were 742,222 men and 97,000 or 98,000 women with applications for transitional benefit. These figures include the wholly unemployed, the temporarily stopped, and casuals. The claims of 683,442 men and 78,000 women were authorised for payment, while the needs of 59,000 men and nearly 19,000 women were not held by local authorities to justify payment. That is, roughly, the story as it may be told of the operation of the means test. Great numbers of men and women are losing altogether the little incomes they possess, and great masses of them have had their transitional payments reduced. Members of the House almost every day put questions to the Minister of Labour. They demand that disability pensions should not be included in the calculations, and, in fact, that pensions of all kinds should be excluded. They put fierce supplementary questions, but the Minister of Labour always gives the same answer.
1702
He says that the Ministry has a great deal of sympathy with the people, but he cannot do anything in the position in which he is placed. I agree that he cannot do anything while the law remains unaltered.
As a matter of fact, we are really addressing the wrong man when we address the right hon. Gentleman. The real culprit in this matter is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is the man who is to get the £10,000,000 off the transitional payments. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has shanghaied the Ministry of Labour and is using them to do the work on board ship. The right hon. Gentleman, as I have said, is repeatedly being asked questions by Members of the House who know of the trouble. They are receiving letters. It is not a question of protest from individuals, but of complaints from people who are being deprived of assistance. It is a matter which affects large numbers of their constituents, and, therefore, they are taking whatever steps are possible to make their protests.
It is true that the people of this country, by a large majority, voted for the present Government, but it is also true that they were misled on the question of the means test. The Prime Minister, I remember well, was harassed in the Seaham Division about this matter, and generally, with that clarity which is so characteristic of the right hon. Gentleman, he created the impression that nobody was going to lose any part of the disability pension. In the last Debate which took place, Conservative Members complained openly that even they had been misled by him. The same applies, of course, to compensation. As I said in the last Debate on this matter, a man receiving compensation is in the same position as a man receiving a disability pension. Men who have been injured in the battle of industry are as much entitled to consideration in this matter as men with disability pensions. But when hon. Members put these questions, the right hon. Gentleman always refers them to a circular sent on 10th November to the Poor Law authorities. The right hon. Gentleman does not himself know what that circular means, and the public assistance committees certainly do not know. You might as well refer anyone to those strange languages inscribed on some of the Egyptian monuments, which

1703
some of the most expert linguists have not yet been able to translate, as to that particular circular.
When everything is said and done and it is all boiled down, the fact remains that the right hon. Gentleman and his Government have put nearly 1,000,000 unemployed into the same position as the paupers of this country. The right hon. Gentleman covers up the position sometimes by nice words. It may be suggested that the Minister of Health, with his characteristic brevity and incisiveness, always says what is true, as he did in the last Debate upon this matter, when he told the brutal truth. He cannot cover it up as nicely as the Minister of Labour. The Minister of Labour, and the Parliamentary Secretary say, "We are helpless in this matter. We cannot give any instructions to exclude disability pensions. We cannot give any instructions to exclude any particular thing. Everything must be dealt with upon its merits." The test is the test of destitution, and I suggest to Conservative Members, at any rate those who may make speeches tonight and who may keep on asking questions, that if they intend to vote for the Government to-night, they might as well save their speeches and questions in the future, for the simple reason that the destitution test is the standard by which these people are tested.
Let the House note the effect which this sort of thing is having upon the people in the country generally. I have here the figures for the city and county of Bristol. On 24th January, 1931, 6,578 persons were receiving out-relief, and on 23rd January, 1932, the figure had risen nearly to 12,000. That is the result of the policy of the Government in that particular area. The number of persons receiving out-relief in that locality has doubled since this scheme began to work. The cost of outdoor relief in 1931 was about £1,800, and to-day it is £2,000.
That is only a slight indication of the fact that the financial responsibility of the Government is being thrown upon the local authorities. The taxpayer has been eased, and the ratepayer is now bearing the burden. The figures tell the story of the lamentable condition of great masses of our people, and it will be a matter of shame if we allow this sort
1704
of thing to go on. We are asking tonight that this question should be taken out of the hands of the Poor Law authorities altogether. As a matter of fact, when it suits the purpose of the Ministry of Labour, they interfere with local authorities. The Ministry of Labour say they are helpless in this matter, but, when it suits their purpose, they are not helpless. I have received a letter from a very prominent member of the South Shields public assistance committee, in which he says:
"Some time ago two inspectors visited the committee and, in an interview, they claimed that if a man or his wife had anything like £20 to £100 saved up in a bank, a co-operative society or in War Savings, etc., such savings should be exhausted before any transitional benefits could be awarded."
I would draw the Minister's attention to that statement. It is the statement of a responsible man in that town, and it is in keeping with the general line of action which has been taken. If the public assistance committee suit the right hon. Gentleman's Department or if they suit the work of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if they are paying their portion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer they are left alone; but if they are not exactly suiting that purpose, they are interfered with. There is no consistency about it at all. The law is that the recipients should be dealt with on their merits as Poor Law cases, and they must be dealt with in that way unless the law is to be departed from, but, as I have said, when it suits the Government's purpose they do interfere with the operations of the public assistance committees. They cannot have it both ways. Either the public assistance committees are responsible or they are not, and I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government had better take note of the position into which they are getting over this matter.
What is the policy of the Minister of Labour and the Government on this matter? No one knows. The Minister himself does not know. The public assistance committee does not know. The most skilled and experienced Members in public life in this House do not know. What is the story of the action of the Sheffield committee? The Sheffield committee ceased to operate. They refused to go on any furthr. They told the right

1705
hon. Gentleman that they were not going to operate any longer. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not say, as he said on the last occasion, that I am attacking the public assistance committees, because I am not. I sometimes wonder how they have carried on so long. They have had the most thankless task imposed upon them by the Government that could have been imposed upon any body of public men. The Sheffield public assistance committee were sent for by the right hon. Gentleman after they had told him that they would not operate any longer. He had an interview with them. I understand that they are operating now. Is that a fact? What did the right hon. Gentleman tell them? Nothing was published in the Press. It was a sort of secret society. The Minister of Labour is turning himself and his Department into a sort of secret black-hand gang with reference to public assistance committees and transitional operations. It is said that he gave the Sheffield committee the right to do things that he does not allow other committees to do. Is that a fact? If it is not a fact, will he tell the House frankly what power he gave them and what he advised them to do in regard to the matter?
There are great masses of unemployed men who served their country well during the years of stress. They were awarded disability pensions. Is this House going to allow the attachment of those pensions for the purposes of the Government? Hon. Members who are behind the Government, Liberal and Tory alike, must realise that if they do not vote against the Government to-night they are voting that public assistance committees should take the disability pensions of ex-soldiers. That is what the public assistance committees have been empowered to do by the action of the Government. When a question was asked on the subject, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour said that to disregard disability pensions would be a breach of the law. Therefore, public assistance committees cannot disregard those pensions, and if hon. Members vote for the Government to-night, they are voting for a system whereby these disability pensions have to be taken into consideration.
Mr. J. LOCKWOOD: Not taken away.
Mr. LAWSON: In fact, they are taken away.
Mr. LOCKWOOD: That is incorrect.
Mr. LAWSON: If any hon. Member does not believe it, will he tell me what is the reason for all the questions which appear on the Order Paper day after day in regard to this matter? What is the reason for the indignation? In the last Debate I gave particulars of the case of an ex-soldier who had lost the whole of his pension. I gave the full facts. I asked the Minister if he intended to interfere with the action of the committee, and he said, "No." Take the question of compensation. Men are injured. One of my hon. Friends raised a very important legal point in the last Debate. I understand that, legally, compensation cannot be attached, but apparently it is being attached by public assistance committees. These soldiers of industry have a right to special consideration.
Then there is the question of mothers' pensions, and there is also the question of the income that goes into a house. In an industry like mine, that of coal mining, a man may work five days and earn 30s. I know there are exceptional cases, but in 60 per cent. of the cases in the north a man will get 30s. if he works five days. If he happens to have a younger brother unemployed, he is supposed to help to keep that younger brother. How can the House justify a thing like that? But that is what is taking place all over the country. It is well known that where 30s. income is going into house for two persons, a third person in the house is refused transitional payment on the ground that something like 30s., 32s. or 33s. is enough for those persons to live on. Members of this House may be comfortable or well-to-do, and it is not for this House by their votes to justify a state of things like that.
On the ground of administration and on the ground that a great alteration is desired by every Member in this House, the whole matter should be reconsidered. The Prime Minister went to Seaham a fortnight or so ago and met with such opposition, and had such evidence of the evil working of transitional payments under the public assistance committees, that he said an alteration would have to be made. There was a time when, if a Prime Minister made a statement of

1707
that sort, it meant that action would be taken. Does the Leader of the House know anything about that? Has there been any discussion? Has there been any move made to make a change? Surely the Prime Minister cannot make a statement like that to his people without, for the credit of the Government, some step being taken. So far as we know, nothing has been done.
My hon. Friend who will wind up the Debate will deal particularly with the question of the builders who lack work. He has intimate acquaintance with that question. I should like to say a few words on the general organisation of industry. Hon. Members opposite will say that they are organising industry by putting tariffs into operation. It is not for us to-day to argue that question, upon which Members of the Cabinet cannot agree. It is a matter of life and death for this country that there should be a proper organisation of industry. It is necessary to consider matters not only from the point of view of this nation, but also in regard to the international life. I understand that Britain is losing the initiative so far as international affairs are concerned. The right hon. Gentleman now sends a civil servant to the International Labour Office instead of himself or his colleague going. They have no policy, no initiative and no intention of having an initiative. Therefore, the International Labour Office and all connected with it is left to a civil servant, who has the thankless task of telling them over there that nothing is to be done.
The Labour Government did their best to get a 7¼ hours' convention for miners. That matter is closely connected with the solution of the problem that will be before us in June of this year. So far as one can see, the coalowners do not intend to do any more organisation. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman and the Government that in this great industry, as in other industries, they should have a keen eye to organisation as well as the increasing of leisure for those who are connected with them. The one thing that this country must do, if it is to keep up the moral of the great mass of its workers, is to increase leisure, to decrease the hours of labour, and to increase the standards, in order that there may be some easy passage from the old,
1708
chaotic, contradictory industrial state to a decent and organised form of society.
I would ask the Government to take our Motion seriously, and, if they will not do so, I would ask hon. Members to take it seriously. The living of our people depends upon it. There are children lacking shoes to-day, as a result, it is safe to say, of the present policy. Ex-soldiers are being deprived of their pensions, men are being deprived of compensation, widows and mothers are being deprived of their little allowances and people who are working hard are being punished in order to keep those towards whom the State has great responsibility.
Mr. TINKER: I beg to second the Motion.
6.30 p.m.
This most important question of unemployment comes up again for discussion. We debated it last December, and although we put up what was a most effective case, we were defeated by 439 votes to 44. Liberal Members on that occasion voted against us, probably imagining that the policy of the Government would bring succour to the unemployed. Recent events have driven some Liberal Members from the Government, and I am expecting, now that they are satisfied as to the policy of the Government, that they will go into the Lobby in support of this Motion. I can see no hope for the unemployed under the present Government. The Motion covers three important points. The first is the gravity of the unemployment problem; and it is well to consider it from a broad point of view. Unemployment is growing, and cannot be stopped under our present system. St. Helens is a glass-making centre, but invention has produced machines which remove the making of glass from the hands to machines, and quite recently hundreds of men have been discharged because these machines can produce far more than hand labour. Consequently, more glass is produced with less people at work.
The same thing has happened in the coal-mining industry. I have figures showing that in one case in my own county six men filled 391 boxes, equal to 26 tons per man, because of the machinery which is now used, whereas the average per man at the coal face formerly was 50 cwts. This means that while hundreds of men are thrown out of work, a great deal

1709
more coal is being produced. Yesterday the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) put a question as to the number of men employed in the coal-mining industry in 1926 and in January of this year, and the figures he received in reply were that in 1926 there were 1,084,400 men employed and in January, 1932, 835,700, a reduction of 246,700, or 28 per cent.; but the production per man per shift had increased from 18⅓ cwts. per man shift in 1926 to 21¾ cwts. in December, 1931. This means that with a reduction of 28 per cent. in the number of men employed, the total amount of coal produced is only just short of that which was produced when the full number of people were at work. This is going on in every industry. More is being produced but fewer men are working.
How are we going to meet that situation? Will any ordinary method, such as tariffs, help the unemployed? It seems to me that the only way to meet the situation caused by improved machinery is to take the full value of that improvement in the way in which it was intended, that is, to reduce the hours of labour. Scientific inventions are for the purpose of benefiting mankind, and should be used in that way. If it had not been for these inventions the men would have to work the same number of hours, and there would have been work for all. It is wrong to meet such a situation by throwing men out of work, because the more unemployed you have the less is the consuming capacity of the country. It may be said that this Parliament was not elected to deal with the question of production and a decrease of hours.
That brings me to the second point in our Motion, which deals with the failure of the Government to provide work for the unemployed. Again I appeal to the Liberal party. At the election of 1929 their cry was to spend large sums of public money on public works for a temporary period in order to absorb the unemployed. The Labour party when in office tried to carry out that policy with the aid of the Liberals. We had a vast number of schemes on hand. What happened? The present Government, in their search for economy, decided to stop a number of these schemes, and I have figures to prove my point. To-day a question was put by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) to the Minister of
1710
Transport asking whether certain schemes were in operation, the Forth road-bridge, the Dartford-Purfleet tunnel, the Humber bridge, and the reply he received was that no work is proceeding on these schemes. In answer to another question it was said that it had been decided to postpone, or curtail, or close down, 1,000 schemes of the amount of £30,000,000. These schemes are situate in all parts of the country. Then, in regard to the building trade, we were told, in answer to a further question, that building has been stopped on £55,000,000 worth of schemes which were in operation. If the Government will not adopt our methods of finding work for the unemployed, they should at any rate go forward with these schemes until their tariff proposals are in operation.
The third question referred to in the Motion is that of the transitional benefit, and the way it is being administered by public assistance committees. On this point I can speak with some certainty. During the Recess I went around my Division addressing meetings, and I found a feeling prevailing among the people which I have never experienced before. It is quite true that many of them supported the present Prime Minister and the National Government, believing that something required to be done to build up the fortunes of the country, but they never expected that they would be driven, as they have been driven, nor did they ever expect that they would be deprived of their unemployment benefit, as they have been. The result is that in my constituency we have a league of action for the abolition of the means test. It is signed by a number of the unemployed and several minister of the religion, and it calls upon the Government to do away with the means test as being wrong for the genuine unemployed, a test which ought not to be applied. I have also received a resolution from the Tyldesley Urban District Council urging the Government to do something in this matter.
I should like to put one or two questions to the Minister of Labour. In regard to the payment of 156 days in the benefit year, do such cases as these come under it? Suppose a man has been unemployed for three months and gets three months unemployment benefit, then starts work again and works part time for six months. He would have drawn three

1711
months unemployment benefit, which added to the three months he had before he started work, makes six months in the insurance year. Would he then have to come under transitional benefit because he had drawn six months benefit? Take another case. Suppose a person had a number of stamps and then drew six months benefit in the insurance year. Would he require to get in the requisite number of stamps before he went on full payment again? We have a number of cases showing the great hardship which exists in different parts of the country; and one of the things upon which I feel most strongly is the lack of uniformity in the payments made under transitional benefit.
To be quite sure of my ground, I asked in a Question last week for the figures of the country generally and for Lancashire. In the reply the right hon. Gentleman said that there was a slight difference in the payments, and one can understand a slight variation in different parts of the country, but the large difference which exists shows that in one part of the country they are much more generous, or that in the other parts of the country they are much more niggardly. According to the answer, for Great Britain as a whole the figures were: payments allowed at normal benefit rate were 50 per cent.; at less than the normal rate, 35 per cent. The number of cases which did not justify any payment at all was 14 per cent. In the case of the county of Lancashire, excluding county boroughs, the figures were: payments at the normal benefit rate, 16 per cent.; the payments allowed at less than the normal rate, 52 per cent.; and here comes the big difference, whereas the disallowances for Great Britain were 14 per cent., for the county of Lancashire they were 31.3 per cent.
I would ask this question: Was it ever intended that public money should be so unevenly distributed? For a man in one part of the country to be getting almost full benefit and in another part of the country for a man to be getting little or nothing, cannot be fair. Only this morning I received a letter from a councillor of Preston. The Preston council had a meeting this week, and my correspondent says that after the examination of the figures on Monday 43 per cent. of the
1712
claims were totally disallowed. That letter shows that the figures of total disallowance are getting higher. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that the scheme is working as it ought to work. The Minister of Health on 10th December last, when the scheme had not been working very long, said that he was watching things very carefully and that in the light of what happened he would be prepared to act. The things that we are bringing forward to-night should convince the Minister that something must be done.
I have referred to isolated cases, but one could quote similar cases by the dozen to show how hard is the lot of the unemployed. An hon. Member of this House has handed me a letter giving a typical case. It is that of an engineer who has been out of work for six months, but was in full or nearly full time work before that. In his household are a widowed mother getting a pension, a girl of 11 and a brother working in the mine. That man has not been allowed anything under the transitional benefit system, and he naturally asks, is that right? He says, "Here I am, a genuine unemployed man, only temporarily unemployed and expecting any day to get work, yet I am dependent on my mother and brother." I could multiply by the dozen cases of that kind. We bring this matter before the House to see whether amongst the Conservatives and Liberals there has been any change of heart since December last. No one can look upon these cases with calmness. Ninety-nine per cent. of the cases are those of men who are just as genuine and honest as any Member of the House. These men want help and succour, and they are expecting that Debates like this will bring to light their grievance and that some help will be given to them by this House.
Mr. SPEAKER: Sir. Henry Betterton.
Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. Is it your intention to call the Amendment that stands in the name of myself and other hon. Members. I would submit a reason for it being called. Besides calling attention to the question of housing and allotments and the general economic system, the Motion under discussion deals with the means test and raises the problem of its being administered by the Poor Law. It does not, I understand, denounce the means test as a

1713
means test. On the other hand our Amendment raises a direct cleavage of opinion, and would give the House an opportunity of voting for the abolition of the means test entirely. Could you not, therefore, see your way to call the Amendment?
Mr. SPEAKER: It certainly was not my intention to call the Amendment, because I did not see that it differed very much from the Motion that has been moved. The hon. Member, if called, will be able to raise on the Motion all the points that he has mentioned.
Mr. BUCHANAN: I do not want to pursue the matter too much. The point of difference between the Motion and the Amendment is a serious one. The Motion says that the means test is causing grave injustice and distress and that the machinery of the Poor Law should not be used in connection with applications for unemployment benefit, but it does not rule out other machinery being used. Our Amendment says that no other machinery shall be used as a means test, and that the test should be abolished.
Mr. SPEAKER: I see the point that the hon. Member has raised, but he can raise it equally well on the Motion that has been moved.
Mr. KIRKWOOD: Further to that point of Order. There are three distinct points of view in the House on this matter. We on these benches have a distinct point of view. The means test is being operated just now under the Poor Law. The official Labour Opposition is not in favour of what is being operated now, but it is in favour of a means test. [HON. MEMBERS; "Who told you that?"] I am asked who told me that, and I reply that the Labour Conference at Scarborough carried that against me when I moved the abolition of the test.
Mr. SPEAKER: It seems to me that anybody reading the Motion put down by the Labour party, the official Opposition, would come to the conclusion that they were against the means test. In that case it would be only waste of time to move the Amendment.
Mr. BUCHANAN: I do not want to get into conflict with any section of the House, or with you, Mr. Speaker, but I want to emphasise one point. We say that the Motion of the official Opposition
1714
can be read in any way that suits the reader. We say that it is time the House was allowed to give a definite opinion in no ambiguous fashion against a means test of any kind. We, therefore, ask to be allowed to move our Amendment.
Mr. SPEAKER: There is a distinction but not sufficient difference to justify me in calling upon the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) to move the Amendment. When this question was first raised by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), he said that he was not going to make very much of it.
Mr. KIRKWOOD: We want to be perfectly fair with you, Mr. Speaker. We do not want to be misrepresented in the country. Our point is that there is a distinct cleavage between the Motion and the Amendment. We say that the only test should be the offer of a job to an unemployed man.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not draw too heavily on my patience.
The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): I shall refer, in the course of my observations, to the point just raised by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). I am very glad indeed that this Motion has been put on the Paper and that it is couched in such wide terms as to give an opportunity of dealing with the question free from the limitations necessarily imposed when we discuss such questions on Departmental estimates. I am glad also that it gives us an opportunity, as a House of Commons, to face the realities of the situation. I do not complain at all of the tone of the speech of the Mover of the Motion, nor indeed of the tone of the speech of the Seconder, but, of course, to put it quite plainly, this is a Motion of censure upon the Government. It seeks to censure the Government for putting into operation measures which were necessary in consequence of the position with which the Government found itself faced. The Mover of the Motion went into some detail, and I shall do the same.
7.0 p.m.
The Motion begins by asking the House to recognise the increasing gravity of unemployment. I ask the House to believe me when I say that there is no one who recognises the seriousness of the present unemployment position more than I do,

1715
and it is because I am so mindful of it and because the Government recognises the seriousness of the position, that the Government are at present passing through the House by overwhelming majorities, with the full support of the vast majority of the people of this country, a Measure the passing of which is a condition precedent to any real improvement in employment. Let it not be said for a moment, therefore, that we do not recognise the gravity of the situation. When the hon. Gentleman who opened the discussion talked about the increasing gravity of the situation, it is at least relevant to remember that during the first seven or eight months of last year—in fact, until the hon. Gentleman and his Friends went out of office—the unemployment figures increased month by month until they reached their peak at that time. It is also undoubtedly true that, had it not been for the very heavily increased taxation which we were compelled as a Government to lay upon the shoulders of the people in this country last October there is little question but that the situation would be a great deal better than it is to-day. I am not going back upon the history of that time except to say once again that we were compelled to increase taxation in the face of the gravest financial situation in our history.
I would like to say one thing by way of parenthesis. When we are dealing with the very large numbers of those on the register I should like, if I may, to pay a tribute to my predecessor, Miss Bond-field. She did what I am trying to do. She did try to develop the placing side of the Ministry of Labour. As a result, last year, with the assistance of the Ministry of Labour, some 2,000,000 places were found.
This Motion stands in the name of six hon. Gentlemen, four of whom are connected with the coal industry and are indeed among the most trusted and experienced leaders of the miners. They are, I know, as disturbed as I am at the disclosure of figures which show that there is an increase of unemployment in that, industry. They are anxious, as I am anxious, that this House as a House of Commons and the Government as a Government should do all that they can to help the coal industry. Part of that
1716
increase is due up to a few days ago to the exceptionally mild winter. Part is due to the fact that the figures in the December return were taken about the middle of the month and those of the last return about the end. Both these causes were partly responsible for the increase, but there is a cause which is far more responsible than either, and that is that the industry has been subjected to restrictions, sometimes discriminating, which have been placed by foreign countries upon our exports of coal. I was exceedingly glad, as were other hon. Members, to hear the Foreign Secretary, in reply to a question, say that it was undoubtedly true that,
"since the policy of the Bill was announced, many foreign countries—I could not give an exhaustive list—have expressed a new interest in regard to their trade with this Country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1932; col. 1259, Vol. 261.]
The President of the Board of Trade said yesterday:
"I am happy to be able to inform the House that the French Government have notified His Majesty's Government of their decision to exempt coal from the operation of the 15 per cent. Surtax; the question of the application of this Surtax to other goods remains over for further discussion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1932; col. 1439, Vol. 261.]
Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: That does not mean more employment.
Sir H. BETTERTON: If you restrict exports, you create unemployment here.
Mr. GRENFELL: But the French have not increased their licences; they have only taken off the Surtax.
Sir H. BETTERTON: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated a point that I was going to make. The fact that they have not increased their licences makes it more necessary that we in this country should obtain power to reinforce our protests by appropriate action if necessary. For this reason, in the interest of the miners, I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will give us all the help that they can to facilitate and expedite the passage of the Import Duties Bill through the House. Both hon. Gentlemen regretted,
"the failure of the Government to initiate effective measures for the reconstruction of the economic life of the country."
I confess I have not the slightest idea what that means, nor did either hon. Gentleman do the slightest thing to

1717
illuminate the House or to tell us exactly what he had in mind. This I do know, that when they and their friends were in office for two years, the result of their efforts to reconstruct the economic life of the country was to bring the country to the verge of bankruptcy. During that period unemployment increased by 136 per cent. or by 1,500,000. If that is their idea of reconstructing the economic life of the country, it is indeed a lesson and a warning.
Then the hon. Gentleman went on to refer to expenditure on works of public utility. I would remind the House of what has happened in the last few years with regard to the expenditure on works of public utility. I have had some figures got out, and their magnitude will surprise and indeed startle the House. Since December, 1920, the capital value of works assisted by what is known as the St. Davids Committee is £191,000,000 and of that sum just on £80,000,000 was incurred since the 1st June, 1929. So, during the last two or three years, we have to an increasing extent adopted this method of public utility grants in order to alleviate and help unemployment. Since 1924 the amount spent on public works to relieve unemployment, including road improvements and subsidised housing, amounts to more than £700,000,000. These are perfectly staggering figures. In addition to that the local authorities have in the last nine or 10 years increased their total indebtedness from just over £650,000,000 to over £1,200,000,00, an increase of £565,000,000. Local authorities have been asked, cajoled, bribed and almost forced into these schemes, which are reflected in increased rates. What has been the result? The result is that, in those areas most distressed and which you most want to help, you have a burden of rates which makes it almost impossible for industry to revive in those areas. What is the next step? My right hon. Friend in a previous Government, realising the truth of what I am saying, transferred from industry a large part of that great burden on to other shoulders.
What we are asked to do now is to continue this vicious circle of increased expenditure, increased rates, and increased national expenditure. If we do that, that vicious circle will go on revolving and revolving to the greatest possible detriment of employment. That is not
1718
at all the policy which we seek. What I am saying was pointed out as a certainty as long ago as July, 1926, in the report of the St. Davids Committee, which has been entrusted with the business and duty of making these grants. In this report it says:
"This scheme has largely passed the period of its greatest utility, and, if pursued indefinitely to the same extent as in the past, it will be difficult to avoid subsidising work properly undertaken by local authorities in the normal course of their business, and in such a case but little could be added to the sum total of work performed in the country. In so far as special schemes might continue to be evolved, there is the further objection that they might well have the tendency to divert capital from the normal trade developments which are now to be looked for and would thus hinder rather than assist the relief of unemployment through the proper channel of trade recovery."
This process of spending the money of the ratepayer or the taxpayer for the relief of unemployment not only fulfils no useful purpose, but will add the greatest possible hindrance to trade recovery in every part of the country. If you manage by your policy to get trade going to the extent that even a dozen factories or a few collieries are open which were formerly closed, you do more in a week to help to solve unemployment than you will by all these relief schemes.
Mr. KIRKWOOD: Can you tell me any place where this has taken place, where work has started in factories?
Sir H. BETTERTON: Oh yes, I can certainly tell the hon. Gentleman that. Within the last few months in my own district in Nottinghamshire hosiery factories, which were formerly working short time, have resumed working, and in Lancashire there is a very marked and considerable movement in the cotton trade. What we shall be prepared to do is to consider the extension of the Development (Loan Guarantees and Grants) Act for three years, such grants to be restricted to developments calculated to increase the national revenue.
Mr. LAWSON: Is that a recent decision?
Sir H. BETTERTON: That is what I now suggest the Government will be prepared to do.
Sir P. HARRIS: Will the Minister explain a little more fully what he means by "developments calculated to increase the national revenue"
Sir H. BETTERTON: Where any particular scheme is likely to increase the national income, that will be a matter for the committee to consider in dealing with applications.
Mr. LAWSON: Is this to be considered as a kind of subsidy for private employers or is it a new decision concerning local authorities?
Sir H. BETTERTON: It is a decision to help public utility companies in such of their enterprises as are calculated to increase the national revenue. The last part of the Motion deals with the needs test. It says:
"The administration of the means test is causing grave injustice and distress and that the machinery of the Poor Law should not be used in connection with applications for unemployment benefit."
It is not used in connection with applications for unemployment benefit. Unemployment benefit has nothing to do with the machinery of the Poor Law in any shape or form. What we have done has been to call in aid the public assistance committees to assess the needs of those applying for transitional payments, which is a wholly different thing from unemployment benefit. Much of the criticism which has been levelled against the needs test in this House and in the country is due to a very imperfect appreciation of the fact that transitional payments are not insurance benefit but State maintenance paid to those who have exhausted their insurance rights. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion asked about the 26 weeks. In our view, if a man has had 26 weeks' benefit in an insurance year, he has exhausted his insurance rights for that year. That was the limit imposed by Statute up to 1927. A man with a wife and two children who has drawn benefit for 26 weeks has drawn as much as his accumulated contributions would pay for in seven years. That is the limit which any insurance scheme can stand. I am speaking in the presence of many trade union representatives and I doubt if there is any trade union in the country where the limit is more generous.
1720
The truth of the matter is that no insurance scheme will stand an unlimited charge upon it if it is to remain sound. You must enormously increase the amount of contributions and limit the amount of benefit or else you must place a limit upon the period for which benefit is paid. As an example of what has happened when no limit is imposed I give two cases. These cases are probably known to the hon. Member who moved the Motion because they have been in the possession of the Ministry of Labour for the last two years. There is the case of a man who paid eight contributions amounting to 5s. 4d. and who received benefit amounting to £58 7s. 4d. Another case is that of a man who paid contributions amounting to £1 7s. 4d. and received in benefit £210 4s. 8d. If you multiply cases of that kind, and there are a great many, it will be seen at once that there must be some limit if the scheme is to work at all. To my mind a limit is an essential.
I ask the House for the reasons which I have given to assert that, if insurance rights have been exhausted, there is no more justification for paying State moneys, without inquiring into the needs of the applicants, than there is for paying the ratepayers' moneys without similar inquiry. There should be no right to pay away public money to people who have no insurance claims, without inquiry as to whether they need it or whether they do not, and 99 per cent. of the confusion which has arisen in this matter has been due to the fact that for years we have been paying in the name of benefit what is, in fact, relief and nothing more. I put this point to the House. Suppose that you go on paying, without inquiry into the needs of the applicants, money to which those applicants have no insurance right, what answer are you to make to all the hundreds of small Income Tax payers who have shown such a splendid and spontaneous response to the demands made upon them and whose incomes as we know from figures already published are in many cases very little above those of some of the people who were claiming and drawing benefit? The comparatively small amounts which these small Income Tax payers paid in January last, £10 or £15, or whatever it may have been, to them may be a serious embarrassment

1721
throughout the whole year. If for no other reason, we have no right to pay out public money without inquiry into the needs of persons who have no insurance rights.
I now want to ask the very question which was put a moment ago by the hon. Member for Gorbals and I hope that the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) who is, I understand, to reply, will give me an answer on this point. I ask the leaders of the Labour party whether we are to understand that it is their contention that State relief should be given, without any insurance qualification and without any consideration as to the means of the applicants. That is a question to which I understand the hon. Member for Gorbals and the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) want an answer. It is a question to which the House and the country would like an answer. It is the question which I now put, in the hope of getting a reply from the hon. Member for East Woolwich.
The next point which has been taken with regard to the needs test relates to the question of administration. I wish to meet every point which has been raised. I would remind the House that the assessment of need was deliberately placed by the Government in the hands of those who in our view were best qualified by experience to perform what has been rightly described as a very disagreeable and thankless task. There were three alternatives. The first was to ask the Ministry of Labour to perform this task and I ruled out that alternative at once for reasons which I have already given, namely, that the Department had not the experience and had not the necessary officials to undertake it. The second alternative was to hand all over to the public assistance committees. The third, which was adopted by us, was to ask the public assistance committees to assess the needs on our behalf. When the needs of the applicants are assessed they are paid their transitional payment at the Employment Exchange. We have taken every means in our power to ensure that what is sometimes called the stigma of the Poor Law does not affect them at all.
When this matter was first considered I attended a conference at the Ministry of Health, the present Chancellor of the
1722
Exchequer being then Minister of Health. We met representatives of the public assistance committees from all over the country and they told us that they would undertake the task. We were told afterwards in the House that the public assistance committees, having undertaken the task, would not go on, but would throw in their hands. As a matter of fact, at this moment there is not one public assistance committee in the whole country which is not carrying out the task which has been entrusted to it. I say, quite plainly, that looking at the matter generally, this administration is working far better than might have been expected. Of course there has been criticism of lack of uniformity, but some lack of uniformity is inevitable where there are different bodies administering this test in different areas. On the other hand, it is only right that there should be some lack of uniformity, because it may be that in some districts rents are higher and cost of living is higher, and it is impossible to compare one district exactly with another. I have endeavoured to the best of my ability in answer to deputations and in the circular which I have issued to make it clear that we have no desire that the needs test should be worked harshly or unconscionably or unfairly. I am glad to be able to inform the House, as a result of those deputations and as a result of the advice and efforts of inspectors of the Ministry of Health, these discrepancies have now been largely minimised.
7.30 p.m.
There are, however, discrepancies on both sides. There are cases, I have reason to believe, in which local authorities are not properly carrying out their obligations, which are really trustee obligations. It must not be forgotten that, as the Seconder of this Motion has pointed out, the money involved is taxpayers' money. If the elected representatives of the people are not to be relied upon to act reasonably, the only possible alternative is to replace them. That is the very last thing that I want to do, because we want, if we can, to trust the local people, who know the local circumstances and conditions.
There are still some discrepancies arising from a difference in Poor Law conditions and practice, but I have reason to think that my right hon. Friend the

1723
Minister of Health, who sits beside me, is considering the summoning of a conference of public assistance authorities from the difficult areas and asking them to consider jointly how to avoid variations in practice for which no justification can be proved. I think that, by this means and by the effort of the Ministries both of Health and of Labour, these discrepancies are being very fast reduced, and the criticism which, I say quite frankly, some months ago was, I think, in many respects very well founded is a criticism which should not now be made.
The hon. Gentleman who moved the Resolution referred to the question of disability pensions. Of course, that is a question which has received much publicity, and I have said over and over again that I have every desire that it should be treated both humanely and sympathetically. One difficulty that has already been mentioned by the Mover of the Resolution is that you cannot consider this question of disability in isolation. The moment you start considering disability, you must inevitably be driven to consider industrial compensation for accidents and such matters. I have been asked now to make another Order in regard to this matter. I say quite frankly that I cannot do that, because the Act under which I was empowered to make the Order last October only gave me power to make Orders for one month, and so my right under that Act, even if it was desirable for other reasons, has now gone.
Then I have been asked to issue instructions, and I say again that I have no power to issue instructions, but even if I had the power to issue instructions with regard to transitional payments to disabled men, let me remind the House of two injustices which might at once arise. Take three men who went to the War, one perhaps an engineer, one a farm labourer, and one perhaps engaged in some small business. They may have all gone from the same village, they may all have joined the same regiment, and they may all have received the same degree of hurt in the War. You cannot say to the agricultural labourer, "Your disability shall be taken into account for the purpose of the relief that you get"—he is not entitled to transitional payments at all, not being an insured person,
1724
so that at once, if you do that, you raise a distinction and create another anomaly between the engineer and the agricultural labourer. Precisely the same thing applies to the small shopkeeper or the man of small means, perhaps, who does not belong to any insured trade at all.
I have satisfied myself, after the most careful consideration that I have been able to give to this matter, that in the interests of the disabled men themselves justice can best be done by individual and sympathetic treatment of cases on their merits, and the public assistance committees have the necessary discretion to take into account extra needs of a disabled man. I have received several—in fact, many—deputations on this subject. I received the other day a deputation from the British Legion in England, and I received another from the British Legion in Scotland, and I am very glad to hear that they are submitting to the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance, which is still sitting, their views and their evidence on this very matter. The terms of reference to the Royal Commission are quite wide enough to cover it, and, as I have reason to know, it is just one of those questions, with all its difficulties and anomalies, on which we can expect to get guidance from the Royal Commission. Therefore, I ask the House to believe me when I say that, even if one could do it, it would not be in the interests of the disabled men themselves if I at this moment promised the legislation which would be necessary in advance of the Report, which I expect to receive about Easter.
I think it was the hon. Member who seconded the Resolution who referred to the last election. We, on this side of the House, have an immense majority, and to my mind that very fact places an additional responsibility on the Government and a special responsibility on the Minister of Labour, and of that responsibility I am very conscious. But I cannot agree with the hon. Member who seconded the Motion that the electorate were misled.
Mr. LAWSON: It was I who said that.
Sir H. BETTERTON: Then there is certainly no justification for the statement, because now there is a personal

1725
responsibility in the matter. The Order under which this means test was to be imposed was issued to the public on the 19th October, and the election took place, I think, on the 27th October, and all over the country this question of the means test was one of the principal issues which was fought. Furthermore, in order that we might not render ourselves liable to a charge of having deceived the people, we actually put into operation the cuts which we found it necessary to impose about 10 days before polling day, so that it is clear that those who voted for us in such large numbers did so—
Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order. The means test was not put into operation until after the election, though, it is true, the Anomalies Act was.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member puts that question to me, but that is not a point of Order.
Sir H. BETTERTON: I can answer the hon. Member. The Order was issued on the 19th October, and it stated that there would be a means test. It is true that the means test did not begin to operate till afterwards, but none the less it was brought to the notice of the country. Surely the deduction that we may draw is this, that the people of this country were thinking far less of means tests, doles, and benefits than they were looking to a party and to a Government which would restore that confidence which is absolutely essential if trade is to recover at all, and they were looking to the Government to take such legislative measures as would be necessary to that end.
Some of the figures in support of what I say are really very remarkable. In several of the large towns in England the numbers of those on the unemployed lists last October were considerably higher than the whole vote polled in favour of the opponents of the National Government. Take Blackburn. There were 33,700 on the unemployment register at that date, and the total number of votes polled for the opponent of the National Government was 25,643. Take Oldham, with 38,000 on the register, and the vote polled for the opponent of the National Government was 28,629; and so on at South Shields and Sunderland. That, to my mind, conclusively
1726
points to the fact that it was that to which the people were looking, namely, a Government which would restore confidence and give them a chance in their own industry to earn wages at their own trade.
Now I will say a word in conclusion. I am not going to put this case too high, because I do not believe in doing so, but I believe there are signs at this moment of a returning confidence, and I get that impression from such symptoms as an increasing inquiry by foreign firms to set up factories in this country. But I do say this, that if you regard the position as it was last August and consider what our prospects are to-day, it is clear that we are gradually, painfully, and very slowly surmounting some of those difficulties which last August seemed absolutely overwhelming, and with a balanced Budget, and with the determination of all sections of the community to face up to realities, the failure to do which in the past has been so largely the cause of our troubles, we can look forward to the future with a good deal more confidence than at that time seemed possible.
Mr. BUCHANAN: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that, having heard the Minister, at least you will be able to reconsider your decision not to call the Amendment on the Paper. We are discussing a Motion in the names of six Members of the Labour party, and that Motion, to me, shows three different points of view, or rather, in reality, only two. One point may be sub-divided into two, and there is another point in direct cleavage from the other. This Motion seems to me to be remarkably worded. I should have thought that those who occupy the Labour benches would have thought that the means test itself was so grave, was so important, was so above almost every other human issue that their Motion would have dealt with the means test and faced up to that issue alone. Instead of that, we are not faced in this short Debate with a Debate on the means test, but with a Debate on housing, on allotments, on roads, and on the reconstruction of our economic life, in addition to the operation of the means test. What is the reason? The last part of the Motion says that

1727
"the means test is causing grave injustice and distress and that the machinery of the Poor Law should not be used in connection with applications for unemployment benefit."
Let the House note that the Motion does not say that the means test is bad. It is causing great distress, but why mix it up in the Motion with other things? The Labour party—and it is time that this was said—are doing what has already mislead thousands, this is, clothing their language and using phrases so as to leave people wondering so that later on they may say that something else was meant. That is what is intended by the form of this Motion. Do the Labour party intend to abolish the means test entirely? Do they want to take it away in every conceivable respect? I ask the right hon. Gentleman who leads the party if he wants to do that? I think that I do him no injustice when I say that he says that if a man who had drawn his insurance benefit came to him—
Mr. LANSBURY: The hon. Member had better quote what I said. I said nothing about unemployment benefit.
Mr. BUCHANAN: If he had exhausted his right—that is what I intended to say. If he had exhausted his right to insurance benefit, and if it could be proved that he had a personal income, the right hon. Gentleman said he would be no party to paying him benefit from the State. That is not, I think, an unfair interpretation of what the right hon. Gentleman said. That is a means test. Hon Members may sneer at it, but it is a means test. Does the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), who made such an able speech, deny that that is a means test? Is it not a fact that after I asked a question at the party's secret meeting upstairs, some Members were annoyed at it but that the majority defeated them because they want a means test? Will the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister who is to reply tell me, if that be the test for the individual, what is to be the individual's income before he gets benefit when he has exhausted his right? Is it to be £2 a week, £3 or £1? Will they tell the country, because the country is entitled to know. The Labour party, when I asked a question about it, indignantly denied the means test, but that is the means test. In the Education Bill
1728
dealing with children they tried to force through the House a miserable, contemptible means test.
According to this Motion, the Poor Law is to be taken away. Who is, then, to administer the means test and to do the investigating? Until the present Government took office, the Employment Exchanges never possessed the right to investigate the incomes of people. Am I to understand that what is to be done now is to take the power away from the Poor Law and to give power to the members of a Government Department to investigate the means of other people? That is what this Motion says. If you do not have the Poor Law, you must have a, Government Department, and you are now wanting to turn the exchange authorities into Poor Law authorities. If I have to choose between a Government servant and a local man subject to election, who has to face the electors, who has a shop in the division, or who is a trade union official, or who works and lives in the locality, I would choose the local man, although it would be a miserable and shocking choice. The language of the Motion is contemptible because it is misleading to the poorer section of the community. It is similar language to that of the Anomalies Act. That Act was intended to get at the dentist's wife, the £7 a week week-end worker and such classes, but it actually hit others. What is being done under the Anomalies Act is worse than the means test. Take the treatment of the servant girls. Under the means test a man gets his benefit, but what do they do with the servant girls? Such a girl pays every week, and you give her benefit under the Labour Government Act during the season when she does not need it and when she can get a job. Then, when the season is finished and she needs it, you do not give her benefit, although she has no means and she has paid her insurance. I know that you will tell the old lie that it is due to administration.
In the Division of the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard) is the case of a woman who had 87 stamps in two years and three months. I took the case to the umpire and she was turned down under the Labour Government Act. You say that it is the administration of the Act. I always think that they have more of the burglar mind than the burglar;

1729
they are always looking for a way out. Although she has 87 stamps, the means test is not even given to this girl. She is just refused benefit. She belongs to the type of servant girl who goes to the seaside—decent, clean, prim and honest, and yet you deprive her of an income entirely under this Act. If the Labour party mean a means test, why do they not say so? The country and every section of the community have a right to know how they would deal with it and administer it. It may be said that I want to run it on a family basis. Under the Anomalies Act, 165,000 persons were dismissed from benefit, yet each one had stamps to his credit; and yet it was said that that Act was only intended for the £7 a week person.
8.0 p.m.
As a matter of fact, once you start a means test, you cannot draw a dividing line. You cannot say that the individual is to be treated apart from his family. If a man has £2,000 in the bank, it brings him in £2 a week, and he is to get nothing. Another man, however, has four sons working earning £3 a week, and he is to get it because the means test is not on a family basis. One man puts his money in the bank and another may have invested money in the education of his family. They are both investors, and you cannot differ between them. Take the soldier's pension. The man with a pension of £2 a week, I understand, is to be exempt, but what about the poor devil who does not get a pension, but who fought in the War for four years and came out battered and bruised and should have a pension and does not get it? What about him. The case for the means test is no case at all. Let the Labour party stand in their place and say what they would not say at Scarborough, that they are not in favour of a means test. Let them turn it down deliberately, and say that they speak the mind of Arthur Henderson and of Mr. Greenwood. Let them say that that is what they stand for. If it is not what they stand for, let us know definitely for the sake of the millions who contribute to the Labour movement. I am chairman of a trade union. My union contribute to the movement, and they have a right to know. Let Members on the Labour benches drop their phrases about what they mean and what they do
1730
not mean and come down to definite facts. What is the charge against the colleagues for whom I am speaking? That we are visionaries—not definite enough—that our heads are in the clouds. What do they themselves mean? Let them get down to it and tell us what their means test means. Let them tell us they are for a means test, if they are for it, tell us their scales, who will administer it and the type of relief to be given.
I want to deal with the Government. In my view there is no defence of this means test. An hon. Member spoke of a man who had paid in £1 and drew out £200. Good God, that is nothing! I expected he would find something worse. Does not the criminal crack cribs and cost the country £500? Do not things of that kind run through the whole strata of society? One person dies and never draws a penny of Poor Law relief while another person draws thousands of pounds in Poor Law relief. In the dreadful social conditions we have got things like that do not matter greatly, if they enter into the account at all. I want to consider the means test from a point of view with which the Minister did not deal. I am not going to deal with ex-soldiers' pensions. I think the ex-soldier ought to draw his pension and his unemployment benefit. I want to deal with it from its most cruel aspect—the family life of our people. It may be said by the Minister "We must do this in order to save money." Let me remind my colleagues on the Labour Benches that under their plan they intended to save £8,000,000 on transitional benefit. Over in Transport House, when I questioned the then leader of the party, he said that different conditions would have to apply when men came on to transitional benefit. I want to know what the different conditions are.
We are told there is to be a saving of £10,000,000, and that it is necessary, but I would put it to the Minister that it is not all saving. Alongside of it there is a debit balance that may not show itself at the moment but will show itself sooner or later. Take the case of an ordinary family, with the father out of work, and a son, who is earning, living at home. I have such a case in my pocket now, where the son earns 30s. and there is a sister and there is a child of the sister. The father and the daughter are assessed

1731
to receive 23s. 3d. a, week and the child 2s., making 25s. 3d., the son earns 30s. and they get 10s. 3d. a week on his 30s. Out of his 30s. he has to pay his card, his insurance, in addition to his own cost of living. What happens to that fellow? He throws in his hand. He refuses to stay at home. He says: "Good God, I cannot live; I am going out," and he leaves his parents. "Ah," says the Minister, "if he does it, then we will take Steps, maybe, to stop him," but, in effect, they cannot stop him. If he is mean, if he leaves his parents, then instead of their receiving 10s. 3d. per week they will receive from the Poor Law authority 25s. 3d.
Is there any defence for a system which so penalises a man who lives at home with his parents? After all, a young working-class man has a right to save to be married, and it is a good social law that when he is married he should make provision for his wife and children. One would think that under this Bill it was held to be possible to stop the ordinary social movements of life. This Bill does not stop marriage. The young man sets out on his married life, and if he comes from poor people he does so without a single penny piece to provide for his future wife and child. This means test, looked at from any angle, is a fearful attack on the family life of the poor. In the old days, when they were up against it, they used to crowd together, live in crowded homes in order to save the extra shilling or two of rent, but even that has been stolen from them here. And now the most ghastly thing of all. A dozen of my constituents are at Shanghai, in the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, every one of them ready to die for this country. Not one of them is related to me or to any man on the Labour benches, and they are terribly poor people, but there they are, fighting for us, dying for us; and while they are out there you are pinching the few "bobs" they send home to mother and father. Is there anything more cowardly and contemptible? A constituent of mine now in Shanghai is sending to his grandmother 5s. a week, and it is all taken off her—and he might die for this country tomorrow! That is your means test! He would be a dirty hound if he did not send the 5s., but if he kept it the grandmother
1732
would get 5s. That is what we are bought down to.
An hon. Member on the Labour benches pleaded with the Liberals to vote with them. They will not. They are united—only differing from the Government on problems which do not affect the workers in vital details. Whenever it comes to a lowering of standards they are united. I look with amazement on the action of the Prime Minister, the Lord Privy Seal and the Colonial Secretary. Everything they have got came from these poor people, and to-day they repay them with a cowardly and contemptible standard of life. I wish I could get the Minister of Labour to see into the homes which he is doing down—I wish he could see inside, into the hearts of the people. The doctoring profession, to their credit, are being sweated without payment. They must attend the children, yet they cannot get money. That is the sorry pass to which Britain has come. It is said that these people voted for the present Government. Why did they vote for the National Government and against Labour? There are two outstanding reasons. One, they wanted work, and thought that if they put the present Government in power it would give them what the other Government did not give them, a job. At the end of four months their jobs are further away than before. Even the Home Secretary says the policy of the Government will not bring more jobs. That is the Home Secretary—on tariffs! Therefore, they are not getting what the Government promised them—a job. Instead they are being attacked by this other method.
The other reason why they voted for the National Government was disillusionment about the Labour party, which had not fulfilled their expectations. Those were the reasons why this Government were elected, but I say to the Minister of Labour that he is getting no credit in his post. He is responsible to-day for debt, for disease, for ill-health. People cannot live without food and without clothes. In a bad winter you have deprived men, women and children of the necessaries of life. You will carry your vote. You have got behind you a great galaxy of talent, and associated with you are men who have sold the working people. But I will not wish you joy. You have the office and you have the distinction, but alongside of that you will have

1733
a record of brutality, cruelty and death never borne by a Cabinet Minister before.
Mr. PETHERICK: In rising to discuss this Motion I propose to confine myself, mainly, to the latter part of it. As hon. Members have pointed out, it is really in three parts. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), in his very eloquent and forceful speech, wished to know whether the Opposition are in favour of continuing the means test in any form or to do away with it entirely. A great deal of his speech seemed to be devoted rather to the censure of the Opposition than the censure of the Government. I am not clear whether the third part of the Motion is merely a condemnation of the means test as a whole, or whether it is the administration of the means test which is being condemned. It says the House is of opinion
"that the machinery of the Poor Law should not be used in connection with applications for unemployment benefit."
There are only two alternatives—either to use in the main the machinery of the Poor Law for assessing means or that the Ministry of Labour should assess means. This Government, of which I am a supporter, was returned to deal with the general financial situation of the country. One of the worst and most dangerous aspects of the financial situation was the terrific debt on the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and the fact that it was running into debt at the rate of an enormous sum every week. The last Socialist Government brought in a modest Measure to correct some of the anomalies, but it was merely a drop in the ocean. The National Government, when they were returned, were determined that the existing situation could not and should not be allowed to continue. They decided that it was absolutely necessary to separate the Unemployment Insurance Fund from the transitional payment scheme. It is obvious that if an insurance fund is to remain solvent, it can only provide benefits up to a limited extent, and when the people have exhausted the benefits to which they are legally entitled under the Acts, it is impossible to continue to pay benefits without the fund becoming completely bankrupt, as it in fact was, and has been for many months.
The suggestion has been made that the Ministry of Labour should be responsible for the administration and the assessing of the needs under the recent Act. I
1734
believe that if the Ministry of Labour had arrogated to itself the assessing of the means test, it would have been subjected to criticism as violent, if not more violent, than has arisen because of the present system, by Which the public assistance committees all over the country assess the means test. It would have been said that the Ministry of Labour was too hidebound, and was endeavouring to obtain what, perhaps, I may call a super-unity all over the country, and that therefore the individual needs of certain districts which were more needy than others, were being ignored, in the endeavour to get some form of complete and soulless form of bureaucratic uniformity. I think we should have had it, if the other system had not been adopted. There was another reason why the Ministry of Labour was not solely responsible for the assessing of the needs, and that is the very important question of staff. Undoubtedly, if the Ministry had decided to take over those functions, an enormous increase of staff would have been necessary, a practically duplicated staff. One of the main functions which the National Government were returned to carry out, was the reduction of expenditure and staff wherever possible, while obtaining the maximum of efficiency.
I believe that the public assistance committees have a very wide experience, extending over many years. I believe that those committees consist, in the main, of very loyal, public-spirited and hard-working men and women, who are determined to do their utmost to see that hard cases are not too unfairly dealt with, and to do the best they can to administer the Act as it stands, with the utmost fairness. There are undoubtedly, and there are bound to be, inequalities. As the Minister pointed out just now, each district varies from the next district, because of the cost of living and so on; not only each family, but each individual case varies from the next case. No two cases are exactly alike. There are bound to be inequalities, and a certain number of injustices, even. One must look at the main operation of the scheme. It is not fair to level at the Minister, or at the public assistance committees, accusations that the Act is being unfairly administered, because of a comparatively small number of admittedly hard cases, when the mass of evidence shows that the Act is being very fairly administered, and that

1735
the public assistance committees are carrying out their functions extremely well, as one understands, in spite of many reports to the contrary.
We have heard a great deal on the subject of the disability pension, and remarks that have been made from the other side are indications that hon. Members opposite think that we on this side have not the cause of the ex-service man at heart. Judging from one's own personal experience, I think there is at least as much sympathy with the ex-service man on this side of the House as on the opposite side, if not more.
Mr. J. JONES: There ought to be more!
Mr. LOGAN: What is sympathy worth?
Mr. PETHERICK: What is sympathy worth? You have to do your utmost to try to administer the Acts which are in existence, so that the ex-service man, wherever possible, has, as he should have in my opinion, a preference, but, taking the broad principle, it is absolutely necessary that we put the national interest paramount and the good of the whole of the country first, while the good of any section, however important that section may be, must be subordinated to the general considerations which are of such enormous importance at the present time.
An Amendment was put forward and was not permitted, but the hon. Member for Gorbals gave utterance to his opinions in a speech. It was the usual argument for work or maintenance. There are two main extreme views on that. You have the laissez faire policy of simply letting every individual look after himself and the devil take the hindmost, and you have the other school of thought, represented by the views of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. The true function of the State is something between the two. It is impossible to maintain seriously that the State's function is to provide work or maintenance at the full rate of wages. It is not fair to the men who are in employment, and it is absolutely and totally impossible under the present conditions. It is equally unwise and inhumane to maintain, in accordance with the system which has been adopted in America, that the State should do nothing.
1736
The truth is between the two. The State should do everything in its power, not to make employment by an enormous extension of public works, but to help employment; and, particularly, it should do nothing to hinder employment by unwise and extreme expenditure or rash actions which will cause the industrial community of the country to lose confidence in the Government. If there is, as there is bound to be at the present time, a great deal of unemployment in the country, the State has to help, to the extent which it considers wise, to mitigate that unemployment, but it cannot go beyond a certain measure. It must absolutely restrict its intervention in helping the unemployed to the means that it has at its disposal, and it is quite clear that the Government which is now in power was returned in order to stop, once and for all, that system which had been getting worse and worse, more and more pronounced, during the last few years—the system of providing doles for everybody, irrespective of the insurance scheme or anything else, or, in other words, providing State relief on a large scale.
8.30 p.m.
It is essential to distinguish between the Unemployment Insurance Fund and State relief, and to see, when unemployment benefits are exhausted, that every possible care is taken to examine into the actual needs of applicants for insurance benefit, to see that they really need it. That does not mean that we are in the least unsympathetic towards the very serious and hard cases which are at present being dealt with, but we have to remember that, if we are to remain solvent as a State, we can only go so far and no further, and that, therefore, we must see to it that we cut our coat according to our cloth. This country is now, and has been for some years, in the position of an old firm. We all know the kind of firm which has a big capital, which has had large reserve funds which it has built up during prosperous years, which is efficient up to a point, but which is old-fashioned in its methods. Sooner or later such a firm comes up against increasingly severe foreign competition, and, when the pinch comes, it finds that it can no longer carry on its old prosperity. It begins to dismiss staff, it begins then to live on its reserve funds, and, when the reserve funds are exhausted, it starts to live on its capital,

1737
or, in other words, to live on its fat. That is precisely what this country has been doing for several years. There has been severe competition from the foreigner, and we would not take steps to protect ourselves. We have, in short, been living on the capital we have invested abroad, which has been accumulating as the result of years of prosperity and the efforts of our ancestors. The pinch has now come, and we have to meet modern competition with modern methods. This Government was returned to meet that competition. Other countries protect themselves, and we have passed two Measures of extreme importance in order to protect our industries. What we want to do is to substitute work for doles, and it is for that object that we have passed those two Measures, which are already beginning to show their effects. It is with that object, also, that the Measure which is at present before the House of Commons has been brought in. I feel convinced that the supporters of the National Government should do everything in their power to carry it through at the earliest possible moment, and to carry out, also, the mandate with which we were returned, namely, to prevent and stop unconsidered expenditure, which lowers not only our power of resistance to the present depression, but the determination of our people.
Mr. BERNAYS: We on these benches have been invited by Members of the Labour party to join them in the Lobby to-night, for the peculiar reason that they carried out our unemployment policy when they were in office. Our whole quarrel with them is that they failed to carry out our unemployment policy, and that is why they suffered the great crash at the last election. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the sentence in this Motion which condemns the Government for not having produced plans to restore the economic life of the nation. There is a danger of our eyes and ears becoming dimmed and dulled to this problem of unemployment. When the unemployment figures were round about 1,000,000, Members in all quarters of this House were seriously alarmed about it. They said that such a situation could not go on; they produced programmes and made pronouncements; and they even got angry with one another in this House. But, as the figures have
1738
mounted, 100,000 upon 100,000, there seems to have been a growing atmosphere of unreality about our debates, a creeping paralysis of hopelessness. We begin to look back to the time when we had 1,000,000 unemployed as a sort of golden age. We look back to 1929 and call it a boom year. We look back upon 1,000,000 unemployed almost as incredulously as, during the carnage of the Somme battles, we looked upon the losses in the South African War. Unemployment in the last three years has increased two and a-half times, but I wonder whether we are two and a-half times as much concerned about it as we were then.
I rise to ask the Government, as scores of Members have asked them in the past in dozens of debates, what is their long-term policy on unemployment? I know that I shall be told, as we have been told by the Minister of Labour to-night, that it is the Tariff Bill. But some of the chief sponsors of that Bill from that bench have been careful to tell us that the primary object of the Bill is not employment, but revenue. How many men is it expected to put into employment? We have been told that it will bring £30,000,000 into the Treasury, but we have not been told how many men it will take off the dole. The results of the Abnormal Importations Bill give us cold comfort in this matter. We Free Trade supporters voted for the Abnormal Importations Bill. Admittedly the bulk of this post-Christmas unemployment is seasonal, but it is a little alarming that the seasonal increase in unemployment this year is greater than in the last two previous years. I have taken the trouble to compile the figures. In the corresponding period in 1930 it was 187,000, in 1931 it was a trifle less—184,000—this year the increase is 218,000–34,000 more than last year. I do not want to press these figures. It is not the time to approve or condemn the Abnormal Importations Bill, because it has not been given a chance, but I suggest that these figures support the thesis that, if imports are restricted, the volume of trade is restricted and, if the volume of trade is restricted, unemployment increases. We Liberals have been told that we do not move with the times, nor apparently do the laws of arithmetic.
But, even supposing the Protectionists are right—and we Free Traders from the

1739
bottom of our hearts hope they are—and this Bill is an important contribution to unemployment, what are the Government going to do next? After Protection what next? Surely Protectionists do not hold the view that, once they put a tax on imports, they can leave the rest to fate. We Free Traders have tried to act up to the belief that Free Trade is not enough. Is it not equally important that Protectionists should make it their axiom that Protection is not enough? The Prime Minister promised any and every Measure, including tariffs, to deal with the emergency. We have had tariffs. When are we going to have "any and every measure," and what are they going to consist of?
At present we are engaged in giving out-relief to industry on a gigantic scale. Our postbags are full of letters about pensions and unemployment insurance in one form or another. Now, in addition, we are getting letters from industry asking for just the same kind of treatment. Ever since this Parliament began every conceivable industry, by letter, by telegram, by memorandum, by corporeal presence has asked the Government, What are you going to do for us? Is it not time the Government said to industry, What are you going to do for yourselves? When individuals are given relief, they have to satisfy the authorities that they are genuinely seeking work. Is it not reasonable to expect that industries, when they are given relief out of taxation, should have to satisfy the Government that they are genuinely seeking reorganisation in return for tariffs and that it should be an undertaking on the part of industry to spring clean itself in an effort to substitute co-operation for the old outworn practices of individualism, a greater expenditure on research, and the establishment wherever possible of industrial councils?
Most of all, I should like to see accompanying this Tariff Committee a Development Commission on the lines that the Liberal party laid down in Britain's Industrial Future. The Attorney-General laughs, but I think there is a great deal of support for the recommendations of that book in all parties. When I was listening to the speech of the Home Secretary a week ago, I heard among the older Members of the House a continuous
1740
muttering: "He is living in 1852." What we should like to see is some indication that those who interrupted are living in 1932. It would, of course, be absurd to censure the Government for not having reconstructed Great Britain in five minutes. The official Opposition have least right of all. For years they have been saying the capitalist system is done for. Some of them, particularly those who sit below the Gangway, have been trying, by piling on to it doles and pensions so that it creaked and groaned under the strain, to hasten the collapse of the capitalist system. Last August the capitalist system was threatened with collapse, and then hon. Members opposite discovered that they had nothing whatever to put in its place and they ran away and left office. They talk now about the reconstruction of industry. In the election, the chief item of their programme was bigger and brighter doles.
Mr. LANSBURY Mr. LANSBURY indicated dissent.
Mr. BERNAYS: I can only point to the posters in my constituency; I expect they were in other constituencies as well. I think they were issued by the Labour Central Office. My opponent placarded the hoardings with, "Vote for Labour. You may be unemployed yourself one day." In the language that we use in this House, I should like to have moved after the word "Labour" to insert the word "and," and then I should agree.
Mr. LANSBURY: That is too deep for us.
Mr. BERNAYS: I will try to explain it to the right hon. Gentleman when we meet again in the Lobbies. I have faith in the National Government because I believe, once this wretched tariff is out of the way, it will return to the task for which it was given this enormous majority, and I am fortified in that belief by the recent speech of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who has a power second only to the Lord President of the Council of interpreting the spirit and the ideals of the younger men in the House and, through them, of the electors who sent us here. This is what he said in his first speech on the Tariff Bill:
"The House is hungry and longing to get on to the greater problems before us."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th February, 1932; col.392, Vol. 261.]

1741
It is hungry to get on with far more important problems than tariffs. We are hungry. Can the Government tell us how soon and to what extent our hunger will be appeased?
Mr. LOGAN: I have listened with amazement, and not a little amusement, to the speech of the hon. Member for North Bristol (Mr. Bernays), who reminded us on this side of the House that the Labour party in their years of office had done nothing whatever in regard to the problems of the day. We had two years as a minority party, with the most uncertain quantity of a Liberal party of misnomers sitting on those benches who were as fickle as a mistress in regard to the questions of the clay. Now we find, when we come forward with a Vote of Censure in regard to unemployment, that from the Liberal party, of all parties, small though they may be, and with that effrontery that can only be shown by Members of the Liberal party in the National Government, we have to receive abuse. The hon. Member for North Bristol told us that he has received communications, and that his mail-bag is full of circulars and memoranda, and that, in fact, corporal punishment is likely to be administered. I do not know whether there is any alliance or association between corporal punishment and corporeal works of mercy. Whatever may be said about the National party—God knows that it has a name, and I will not take it from it; I am not able to interpret or define what is meant by it—I hope that the hon. Member for North Bristol will remember the corporeal works of mercy. I believe that it can be said in regard to the corporeal works of mercy that "Feed the hungry," "Clothe the naked," "Visit the sick" and "Bury the dead" are essential attributes in all good society. Are they the only class who believe in administration under the four heads which I have just enumerated?
You are back to the old system of the Poor Law. You are back in the Eliza bethan period of 1601, and you talk about being progressive in the year 1932. Let me deal with your system and analyse it. I know that the language of Members on the Front Bench opposite may be subtle, but I wish to be clear in regard to my definition of the means test as referred
1742
to by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). I say quite distinctly that men who are unemployed are entitled to all the benefits, of Unemployment Insurance. There is no necessity to state the reason why, for, surely, those of an analytical mind are confronted with this difficulty. If you are not prepared to feed, clothe, and maintain living bodies, you must be prepared to kill. You must recognise your responsibility in regard to this great question.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): I think that the hon. Member is making his speech so emphatic that he had better follow the usual rule, and address the Chair.
Mr. LOGAN: I beg your pardon, Sir Dennis. With all respect, my remarks were really meant to be addressed to you. I wish to point out to the House that in this Vote of Censure there is honesty of expression from the Labour benches. We feel sincerely, honestly and truly that the great Government party, vested, as they are, with great responsibility, have not assumed all the responsibility appertaining to the high office which they hold. You are neglecting your duty, and the same can be said—
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am trying to do my duty. I must again ask the hon. Member, to address the Deputy-Speaker.
Mr. LOGAN: Perhaps I am being carried away a little, but, in my humble opinion, this House would be well advised to carry the Vote of Censure to-night. I am convinced, as far as the Opposition is concerned, that we are, at the turning point, and that we—all Members of this House—have to face a new era and deal with things in a far different way from the way they have been dealt with before. Let us ask ourselves collectively whether we are rational in the affairs of State in regard to the method we are applying to the difficulties which present themselves. It is distinctly stated that after the period of 26 weeks of unemployment insurance benefit has passed, the question of transitional benefit has to be decided by the members of a public assistance committee. I repudiate any assertion that the Labour party are willing to assent to the poor of the country being compelled to go there at

1743
all. We have objected to it. It is wrong in principle. You are taking from the Employment Exchanges the right of dealing with this matter, and placing it in the hands of a Poor Law authority. You have no right to do so. Supposing you agree that it is the right and proper thing to do, how is it to be applied?
The Vote of Censure deals with the question of administration. Surely, if you do not carry out the matter properly, we have a right to criticise and to condemn the Members of the Government in respect of the administration, and that is what we are doing. From the point of view of economy, the system adopted by the Ministry is wrong. It is entirely uneconomic and not beneficial to the nation. I put it to hon. Members opposite, is there anyone who dare say in his constituency that Members of the Government should have the right to debar them from getting the means of existence. I contend that, under the Poor Law system, you must give adequate relief and the right of maintenance to every able-bodied man. If you do not give food, clothing and shelter you are hindering life. It is encumbent upon the State to maintain the efficiency of the individual. That is of primary importance to the welfare of the nation. We find that in regard to an allowance of 15s. 3d., 8s. for a wife, 2s. for a child, or 27s. 3d. for a family of four children, out of which they have to pay the rent, the public assistance committee have power to say that the means test must be applied. If you happen to have a, daughter or a sun working and the amount of the income exceeds 27s. 3d. in that home, they say that no money must be given for the upkeep of that family.
Does the hon. Member for North Bristol in his condemnation of the Labour party, agree with that kind of system? Will he or any other Member of the National party be prepared to justify that treatment to the breadwinner, to those who went to the Great War in 1914. The nation is practically out of its difficulty so far as the War is concerned—having poured out millions in the War, in respect of which we are paying £1,000,000 a day interest—and when it comes to the question of keeping together the body and soul of the unemployed man, even when he is disabled, economy must step in.
1744
With all your great National Government, with all the great unity that is to be found in your ranks—what a wonderful unity you are in the House of Commons—with the game of bluff that you played outside, you come here and you profess to extend your sympathy to the disabled soldier.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have several times called the hon. Member to order for breaking a rule, the existence of which must be known to him. He is not entitled to accuse hon. Members directly of want of sympathy. He must address his remarks to the Chair.
Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. I have been accused by hon. Members opposite, and my friends have been accused, of almost every crime in the decalogue, but no one interfered.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman knows the rules well enough to address his remarks to the Chair when he is attributing crimes to hon. Members.
Mr. LOGAN: I do not feel hurt because I have been called to order. I understand exactly the rules of debate and what I should say. I am not going to plead justification, although hon. Members opposite did use terms that called for a reply on the matter with which I am dealing.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: May I explain to the hon. Member that I am not complaining of his language, but of the way in which he addresses it direct to Members of the House. He knows that he has no right to do that. He must address his remarks to the Chair.
Mr. LOGAN: There is one particular item in regard to the Vote of Censure to which, through you, Sir, I would call the attention of the House. The amount of 27s. 3d. per week would have to be paid in bona fide cases by the public assistance committees in respect of a man, a wife and four children. I am asked what has the Labour party done to bring about better conditions.
Mr. HOWARD: They started the economy proposals themselves.
9.0 p.m.
Mr. LOGAN: I am reminded that if we put these people into Poor Law institutions it would mean that, instead of

1745
the 27s. 3d. per week paid for the upkeep of such a family in their own homes, it would cost for the man, wife and four children £3 10s. per week. We must maintain the unemployed. If they have no home a home must be found for them. It would be inhuman to allow them to lie in the street. To domicile, feed and clothe them in an institution would cost the nation £3 10s. I am told by hon. Members that extravagance can be charged against the Labour party. I am proud to belong to a party which was so humane that even a sum of £100,000,000 was used to keep the down-and-out and the unemployed and to give them food and shelter. Life has been kept in many children simply and solely because of the humanitarian way in which the position was handled. I do not want to be too personal, but I want to strike a personal note. I want to ask hon. and right hon. Members opposite what justification there can be for a Government dealing with disablement pensions in the way in which they are being dealt with to-day. Before the Recess there was an ambiguity, which was unexplained by the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Health, when we were dealing with the question of the unemployed girl who was a seasonal worker, and also the question of the disabled soldier. In my home, as in thousands of homes, we suffered through the Great War. We were not sorry that such sacrifice had to be made in the national interests, but the nation is entitled to demand in the days of peace, seeing that sacrifices were made in the time of national extremity, that the people should have full right to the things of life. What do we find?
I have given a case to the Minister of Labour respecting a servant girl who is described as a seasonal worker. Members of the National party say: "We must have economy. We must be careful that we do not spend too much money." They did not say that during the Great War. They spent as much money as they could. All parties in the Great War came along, and if you had sons they demanded them as fodder for cannon. To-day they treat the disabled man in the way that I have described. What of the seasonal worker? The girl to whom I have referred is 24 years of age. She was engaged for four years in a canning factory. She had 46 stamps one year and
1746
39 stamps in the next year. She lost her employment because the firm closed down through slackness of trade. When she went to the Employment Exchange they said to her: "What are you doing?" and she told them. They said: "You must take seasonal employment." She did so, and because she took seasonal employment and afterwards came back home and could not get work at the factory the Ministry decided, the umpire decided and the committee decided that she is not entitled to any benefit. Through no fault of her own this girl is denied benefit because she cannot find work in an occupation in which she has been working since she was 16 years of age.
We have a right to say that in our opinion these matters are not being honestly and sincerely administered. Seasonal workers are not being treated properly, disabled soldiers are not being treated properly, the reckoning up of the family income is a great scandal, and, reviewing the whole position since the great fiasco of this new Government coming into power, I say quite candidly that there is not a Member of the present Government who could stand before an audience and give an explanation of what they are doing to-day. [Interruption.] With all due respect to hon. Members opposite we are right in our contention. This Government has failed in its duty and I shall be pleased to vote against it in the Lobby to-night.
Mr. SUMMERSBY: No new Member has risen to speak in this Parliament with a greater respect for the House than I, and no man needs the sympathy, if not the prayers, of his colleagues more than I in making my first speech. I have hesitated on previous occasions to interrupt the very important matters which have been discussed, but in view of the fact that there are so many unemployed in the division which I represent in this House, I felt that on this occasion I must raise my voice. May I say in passing that with a good deal that has been said on the question of transitional benefit I am in entire agreement. I was spellbound by the speech of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). I see so much of the distress of unemployment in my own division that I should indeed be a man with a hard heart if I did not feel some sympathy with those who are

1747
placed in such a position. I do not propose to detain the House very long and anything I may say will not be in the form of an attack upon anyone, but rather an attempt to make a suggestion by which employment might be created. Hon. Members have already touched upon the subject of my remarks, that is to say, the unemployment caused by the cessation of large works by public and local authorities. In saying this I am not referring to extra work and additional schemes, but to the ordinary business which they would carry on in normal circumstances.
In September the whole country was in a state of panic because of what was said to be the extravagance of local authorities. It may be that there was ground for the complaint in some cases. The Minister of Health in a perfectly worded circular asked for the cutting down of expenses. In the ordinary way that would have done no harm and could not fail to have done a considerable amount of good, but the psychological effect of it just at that moment was that all spending authorities, all local authorities, became panic stricken and went to very extreme measures. There are at least 150,000 people unemployed who would have had jobs in the ordinary course of events, not because local authorities adopted expensive plans involving any increase in rates. In one eastern county alone 1,000 men were dismissed by the county authority. In that county there are towns which do not come under the county authority, and where it is true to say that 1,000 more men were dismissed. That, I think, will give us a total of at least 100,000 men for the whole of England.
In the part of the country with which I am intimately associated 100 men were dismissed, a North London district, where 400 men would normally have been taken on. If this is multiplied 28 times by the number of Metropolitan boroughs it would bring the total to 114,000, leaving out the London County Council which, of course, is affected in a similar way. I am not including in my remarks any works which might be called extravagant. I pay heavy rates in my business and I am the last man to suggest extravagance on the part of local authorities, but I do suggest that in this
1748
as in other things we have gone from one extreme to the other. My suggestion to cure this would be that another carefully worded circular should be sent to local authorities asking them to carry on business as usual. I believe that we could reckon on 100,000 of the unemployed being absorbed. I would like to refer briefly to what I believe has been very largely the cause of the undermining of our industrial position and, as it affects the question of unemployment, I trust that the House will forgive me if I refer to the action of this country in 1920 in adopting a course of deflation. That meant that industrialists who had fixed overhead charges at the then rate of currency were bound to find that their goods and produce were not paying the overhead charges fixed at the old rate of currency, and in addition it had the effect of subsidising Free Trade, bringing in vast amounts of imports, and increasing dumping, about which we have heard so much. A manufacturer who made a shilling article was told that as the pound was worth more his shilling article must be sold at 9d., that he must be satisfied with that because his 9d. was worth 1s.
Theorists will say that that was quite in order, but unless the manufacturer has his capital reduced by 25 per cent. or the same amount returns to him, instead of increasing his works and taking on new hands in the ordinary way, he was more likely to dismiss his staff and in some cases to close down his works altogether. That has been carried on right away through to such an extent that the only safe thing for people to do has been to put their money into gilt-edged securities or something with a fixed dividend. That, of course, has benefited one class of people at the expense of another, and I maintain that while we have been dreadfully frightened of the pound falling, we are in an equally great danger of the pound rising. I was in the Argentine some time ago and saw Englishmen who were competing with Americans in selling English goods. So long as the pound was under the dollar Englishmen found it quite easy to sell their merchandise, but they said to me, "You will see that before long the Americans will take care that their rate of exchange is under ours." What they said happened, with the result that no more English goods could be sold to employ English people,

1749
and everyone wanted American goods in terms of dollars. With all the talks on tariffs—I believe in tariffs and am supporting them—I wonder that we have not heard more of what may happen if foreigners do that again and arrange that the value of their currency falls to such an extent that a 10 or 15 per cent. tariff on their goods would still make them cheaper than ours in their currency. This question has had a tremendous bearing on our past and it will have on our future.
In order that the early point of my speech may not be overlooked may I respectfully suggest that the Minister of Health considers my suggestion of sending out a new circular to local authorities indicating that they should carry on business as usual?
Mr. TEMPLETON: Before I say the very few words I intend to say, I would like to congratulate the hon. Member who has just spoken on a most excellent maiden speech—one that I am sure, in the opinion of all who heard it, in no way justified the very diffident manner in which he introduced it. Most of us feel that we would like to hear the hon. Member's, voice in this House again. I am not making a maiden speech, but it is so seldom that I address the House that I am not at all surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) should have been so surprised when I rose. But I have the opinion that it would be unwise on my part, representing an industrial constituency and being a member of the working class, to give a silent vote in this matter. I should imagine that there has never been, certainly there has seldom been, any Government in this country which after a few weeks in office has not been subject, and very properly subject, to a good deal of criticism. We have our expectations raised very highly at election times. I have done my part in raising high expectations, and I hope to do so again. Expectations are not realised to the full, and consequently it is, perhaps, the duty of the Opposition to put down a Vote of Censure. We are now having the second of these in the short time that the present Government have been in office.
I am an exceedingly diffident and modest man by nature. When I have undertaken to do somewhat and have
1750
made a hopeless bungle and terrible mess of the job, and some other body takes it on and endeavours by other means than mine to carry it through to a better issue than mine, I am very loth indeed to rise upon my hind legs and cry out upon the man who has undertaken the job of which I have made a mess. That is exactly the position in which we are to-night. Part of the Vote of Censure is based on the suggestion that the present Government are not dealing properly with the problem of unemployment. When I was last a Member of this House, and until I was butchered to make a Liberal holiday in 1929, I went to my constituency somewhat shamefacedly confessing that there were still 1,000,000 unemployed. We then had a change of Government. There came into power a party who, according to the statement of one who became a Member of the Government, would be able to cure unemployment. At any rate they said they could bring to an end the want of boots and milk and all the general misery within three weeks without the necessity of passing an Act of Parliament at all. That Government came into office, and when it had been in office for 2½ years we found that the number of unemployed, so far from being less, had more than doubled; and now we find that those same people bring an accusation against the present Government that the unemployment figure is pretty much where they left it, and they ask us to chase the Government out of office because the Government have not done what they themselves so hopelessly failed to do.
As one who has advocated fair protection during most of my manhood, I am delighted that the Government have taken a step in the only direction in which we can solve the great problem of unemployment. I would be loth indeed to oppose a Government that comes forward with the only practical proposals of the last seven years for dealing with the problem. But what I want to speak about mainly is what has occupied the time of most speeches to-night—the means test for unemployment benefit. I have in my own lifetime, and not so very long ago, known what it is to be out of work. I have known what it is to go from factory gate to factory gate, asking for employment and meeting with the unctuous snobbery that every little pettifogging foreman seems to have, as though I belonged to a

1751
lower order of creation than him—meeting with the contempt and contumely that comes to everyone. I know the unemployed. I do not believe there are 1 per cent. of unemployed men in Scotland who would not be willing to take a job at little more than the amount of the dole if it were offered to them, though it would be a shame if an offer on such terms were made.
But when we come to consider this question I think we ought to pay due regard to what it is that we are considering. For many years we had National Insurance based on actuarial calculations in order to secure certain benefits for certain payments. It was easily understood. I understood it, and it must have been easy to understand, therefore. I understood that for the payment of certain premiums a certain benefit was received for a certain number of weeks or months. The scheme followed the lines of the old trade union system. At the end of six weeks it did not matter a tinker's curse to the officials of the trade union whether you had a bedridden wife or whether you wer destitute, the payment of benefit stopped. We understand that. That is what the trade unions did, and they did it as part of the working of an insurance scheme. No one complained; no one thought that he had a right to complain. Then the Government took over unemployment insurance. It was restricted to a few trades at first and then expanded. There came the great slump in industry. The great army of unemployed steadily increased, and after two years of so-called Labour Government we found that the Insurance Fund was running into debt in the payment of benefit, including transitional benefit, to the extent of £1,000,000 a week.
It was discussed by all sections of the community, and the general consensus of opinion was, rightly or wrongly, that an endeavour should be made to make the Insurance Fund solvent, and that to do that it would be necessary to put a time limit to the period during which unemployment benefit would be paid. The time limit was not six weeks, as in the case of my trade union, but six months, and at the end of six months to make the thing solvent it was argued we would have to stop payment. It was pointed out,
1752
then, and I was one who humbly did so, that here would be a great grievance. There were many people who, through no fault of their own, were still unemployed at the end of six months, and who had no means or possibility of living unless they could obtain something. There was a natural and very admirable reluctance to appeal to the parish authority for Poor Law relief. We pointed out that it would be a great hardship to such people.
Then I was told, time and time again, to look at this person here or that one there who, it was said, having sufficient income, surely ought not to be a burden on the State at the end of the insurance period. It was said that we ought to give to those who really needed the payment under transitional benefit, and to do that you must have a means test, as it was impossible to get the knowledge without it. Then comes the real hardship. We can argue as we like—and I have argued it as a matter of mere discussion—that all payment of public money can be justified only on the ground of destitution, and that nobody except those who were destitute had any right to look for it, or to demand it. We can argue that in cold blood and in logic, and I do not think it can be answered.
I have in my mind the case of two families, in both of which the breadwinner is unemployed. The one breadwinner, who is not a bad fellow, when he got his wages counted out so much to go home to his wife and so much to spend on his own pleasure. When the time of unemployment came, after years of employment, he was dependent upon his unemployment benefit. He had wasted his substance in riotous living, or any way you like to put it. His neighbour, under exactly the same conditions, had a nest-egg. He has put by some money and invested it in the cooperative store, or some other form of saving, and he had a little income when it came to unemployment. These two men, having come to the end of their insurance, appeal for transitional benefit. The one gets the benefit in full because he has nothing. The other, because he was thrifty and saved, is penalised to some extent on account of his thrift. I submit that while it is right, proper and just that consideration should be given to those who are in actual need, even when the insurance benefit has been exhausted, there

1753
should be far greater consideration insisted upon by the Government on the part of local authorities for those whose thrift has been the means of their being penalised under this Measure. I intend to vote against the Motion of Censure, but, in voting, I want not to demand but to request that there shall be an easing of the restrictions in order that thrift may not be penalised, and that the little nest-egg shall not be the means of a reduction of the standard of life of these people.
9.30 p.m.
Captain FRASER: The Mover and Seconder of this Motion of censure made speeches which, if I may say so, were moderate in tone and calculated to impress the House with the fact that they were genuinely anxious to put forward the case of the men whom they represent. The Minister made a speech which was conciliatory and helpful. There was one small point in the speeches of the Mover and Seconder to which I take exception, and to which I should like to call attention. Both made reference to the case of the disabled soldier whose disability had been taken into account by public assistance committees. Both claimed, though from very different points of view in their arguments, that there was not very much difference between the claim of the disabled soldier and the person who was graphically described by the hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Front Bench as the "soldier of industry." Such men, he said, should be given the same consideration. I do not want it to be thought that I desire to give such a person less consideration than he should have. His disability may be the same as that of the soldier, but there are two facts about the matter which, I think, it is fair to mention in this House. One fact is that the compensation afforded to the soldier of industry is, in fact, based upon the extent to which he is deprived of earning capacity. That is the whole basis of the law under which such compensation is given, whereas the disabled soldier's benefit bears no relation whatever to his earning capacity or to the earning capacity of which he has been deprived. There is, therefore, not a strict parallel between these two cases. Moreover, in my judgment, the disability pension is not wholly given to support and maintain life. It is given partly as compensation
1754
to provide amenities and comforts over and above those which are ordinarily enjoyed, and therefore there is quite definitely a reason in logic and sentiment why you should distinguish between the soldier disabled in war and the so-called soldier of industry.
It is fitting that Members of this House should on all possible occasions have an opportunity of stressing the differentiation which this House has time and time again made in respect of men who were disabled in the country's service. I welcome the Minister's remarks regarding the deputation which he received from the British Legion. I congratulate the British Legion on having taken the matter to him, and I hope that they will be able to go forward to the Royal Commission to whom the Minister advised them to apply and give evidence which will substantiate the case for special consideration. I regret rather that the disabled men were not given special consideration under the law from the beginning, but the fact is they were not, and they will be the first to realise the immense rush and hurry in which this legislation was prepared and had to be carried through. Believe me, disabled soldiers are not all fools, and a great many of them realise that there are times when the nation's needs are greater even than their own needs. Should it be shown that they have made out a, case to the Royal Commission and should the report of the Commission be received by Easter I hope that the Government will not be unwilling to introduce legislation on their behalf.
Having said that may I briefly refer to my experience during the last few weeks in relation to this subject? I earnestly hope it will give the House pleasure to know, from the experience of one Member who happens to be in touch with a great many ex-service men, that the anomalies, discrepancies and hardships among these men are not so great as some of us feared they would be. It is easy for hon. Members opposite to seek trouble and ensue it and to be delighted when they find it, but it is wise to look at the facts. There are still anomalies and discrepancies, and more effort is required on the part of Ministers, such as was suggested when we were told that the Minister of Health was going to get

1755
the public assistance committees together and discuss these anomalies with them. But there is not, as far as I have been able to ascertain, any widespread or serious lack of consideration for the disabled ex-soldier. I cannot speak for other sections of the community, but that is my experience as regards that section.
I venture, humbly, to suggest to Members of the House how they can best help these disabled men in the present circumstances. If they ask disabled men who apply to them to go to the public assistance committees, and tell those committees all the facts, and if they themselves then write to the public assistance committees that they have so advised their friends, I am certain there is not a public assistance committee which will not give special consideration to those cases. It is worth commenting on the fact that I have had six cases brought to my notice since we last discussed this subject in the House. That is not a great number. I know of many other cases, but I have only had these six referred to me, and I have a very wide circle of contacts among ex-service men and I represent a London constituency which is not one of the wealthiest. In every case I have written to the public assistance committee informing them that I have advised the applicants to tell the whole facts and to point out that they are disabled ex-soldiers. In each case the applicant has got what he was entitled to and in each case the pension was taken into account on one side but compensated for on another.
I am not going to say that I like a system under which men are compelled to do this. I am not going to say that I should not prefer the particular status of these men and the particular nature of the disablement pension to be recognised by statute. When the appropriate time comes I shall press for some Amendment in the Bill which the Minister says he will have to bring in after the Royal Commission's report, giving statutory recognition to the fact that a disabled man's pension is not given to him solely for maintenance. But may we not recognise what are the facts at the present time and may we not help these men best, not by making political capital out of their misfortunes, but by representing
1756
their cases to the appropriate local authorities where I believe they will receive abundant and reasonable sympathy?
On the general position of the Unemployment Fund, it has been argued on the Opposition side that there should be no means test. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Not only hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite, whose downrightness I greatly admire, but other hon. Members above the Gangway with less fervour have argued that there should be no means test. I cannot believe that they really subscribe to that doctrine. Do they really affirm that it is fair for a person to receive relief, either from the State or a local authority, no matter what his income may be? Is there to be no limit whatever? [Interruption.] I am told by an hon. Member "if he is of an insurable class." Surely it does not matter to what class he belongs? The question is not to what class he belongs but whether he is insured or not, and when his benefit has actuarially run out, he is no longer insured. I suggest that the House is in the position of a trustee, not only for the people who are now benefiting out of the Unemployment Fund but for the people who have a right to believe that that fund will be solvent to pay them benefit should they fall out of work.
There are doubtless many who have not suffered unemployment until the last few months. They paid their contributions in the expectation that, should they fall out of work, they would receive 17s. 6d. a week during six months unemployment. That was a reasonable expectation. I go so far as to say that it was a right to which they were entitled. It was almost a contract between them and the State. But what has happened? They are receiving 15s. 3d. instead of the 17s. 6d. which they had a right to expect. Why has their contract been broken? Because the trustees of that fund during the period of Labour Government were so feckless that they spent money in extended benefit for which there was no justification. Those who are in an insurance scheme have a right to demand that there shall only be paid out of the scheme what is actuarially justified, in order that their rights may be safeguarded.
It is not merely sound logic to keep this insurance scheme pure and actuari-

1757
ally sound. I may remind hon. Members opposite that we on this side have no less sympathy with the unemployed or understanding of the difficulties of the unemployed than they have. There is no monopoly of understanding or sympathy. I do not think that we need quarrel with each other about motives. It is the method and the method only which is worthy of discussion. We have reached a stage now when we have a definite plan of economy. We all know that it will impose hardships. The Government did not say that there would be no hardships. We deliberately adopted the plan although it will mean hardships. [An Hon. MEMBER: "Shame!"] I do not think it is a shame. It is a long-sighted policy and it is better than the ruin with which we were threatened. The hon. Member opposite says, "Shame" because he is so incapable of thinking that he must always be emotional. We want a Government that will think—one that has got head as well as heart. We have in this Government one which has a plan and the plan is, by economies to make British credit better, and by tariffs to make British trade safer for British factories and British working men and women.
Surely hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot affirm that they are perfectly certain that that plan is wrong. I have never met an intelligent educated scientist or other person who was absolutely sure that he was always right. I cannot believe that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are dead sure that we are wrong and in view of the mess which they made of things may I ask them to wait a little and see? May I ask them if they cannot take the view that the country's interest lies in the direction of giving this plan a chance, because it is a definite plan and it is being pursued with vigour and courage? While they must do their duty as an Opposition, while they must be able to go back to their divisions with a record of speeches and votes, I am certain that in their hearts most of them agree with the plan which we are pursuing and, if they had had a majority Government when faced with the circumstances of last year, they might even have had the courage to do more drastic things than we have done. May I beg hon. Members opposite to try to help us in this plan rather than to hinder us, and
1758
may I ask them one thing in particular, and that is to try to help ex-service men by keeping their unfortunate position out of party politics
Mr. CHARLES BROWN: The hon. and gallant Member for North St. Pancras (Captain Fraser) has assured the House that at last we have a Government with a plan. Well, we on these benches profoundly hope that with this plan we shall get out of our difficulties, but we have our doubts. I listened to-day with a good deal of interest, as I always do, to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour. On the general question, I think he merely tried to make two points. First, he expressed, with childlike simplicity, his faith in the policy of Protection as a solution of the problem of unemployment. I can only hope that the event will justify his faith, but I am rather inclined to think that time will disillusion him completely in regard to that matter. The other observation which I will not say he took pleasure in making, but which he seemed pleased that he had to use as a debating point, was that the policy of subsidising public utility works as a solution of the problem of unemployment had completely failed. I am prepared to agree that that policy scarcely touched the fringe of the problem, and, that being so, and the policy of Protection not being yet in operation, we have to deal with the unemployed.
A good deal has been said about the policy of those of us who sit on these benches in regard to unemployment. Our policy is very plain, simple, and easy to understand, and we have always been consistent about this. It is work or maintenance, and as I always, when I listen to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), appreciate the sincerity and the eloquence with which he addresses the House, I wish that he would sometimes give credit to other people for being equally sincere. There are some of us on these benches who feel as keenly and as strongly as he does with regard to the injustices which are being perpetrated by the application of the means test.
Mr. BUCHANAN: All that I want to ask the hon. Member again is this: Does he, on behalf of his Leaders, guarantee

1759
to me that the party is for or against the means test?
Mr. BROWN: I am not in a position, as the hon. Member knows quite well—and he has phrased his question accordingly—to give any guarantee on behalf of any Leaders. The policy of the Labour party is set by the Labour party as a whole, and he knows very well that our policy is that of work or maintenance. The point that I want to put to the Minister of Labour arises out of what I consider to be a new inquisition which is beginning. I did not like the first inquisition, the first methods which have been employed to deal with the unemployed, by examining, in the minutest detail, their means and circumstances, but I am far more disturbed at the new inquisition which is beginning.
The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour has told us on more than one occasion that he considers the best bodies to which to transfer this duty are the public assistance committees, and he has paid his tribute to the ability of those committees. He did it again to-day, and he said that the task of dealing with transitional benefit cases had been deliberately transferred to these bodies because, in his judgment, they were the best bodies to deal with them. He has gone out of his way more than once, in answering questions, to pay a tribute to their ability, and I am rather disturbed by the fact that there is beginning a process of interfering with these public assistance committees. I am a member of a public assistance committee, and the specific reference that I have to make has to do with a sub-committee that functions in my own division.
The Minister to-day told us quite frankly that it was extraordinarily difficult to get uniformity. He, like myself, sits for a constituency in Nottinghamshire. I have had the opportunity of looking at the determinations which have been made by the various sub-committees of the Nottinghamshire public assistance committee, which functions for the entire county except the City of Nottingham, and between those determinations there are very great discrepancies. In agricultural Nottinghamshire as many as 40 per cent. of the applications for transitional benefit which come before the committees are receiving cuts, but in industrial
1760
Nottinghamshire the percentages are not so great.
There are in Nottinghamshire two committees—and I want to impress this on the right hon. Gentleman, because he himself stressed the fact that conditions may vary from area to area—which have made 100 per cent. favourable determinations in regard to the claims for transitional benefit that have come before them, and the outcome of that is, as the Minister of Health will probably know, that, just as in the case of the old boards of guardians the inspectors of the Ministry frequently attended those guardians, they now attend the gatherings of the guardians area committee under the public assistance committee and they attend the subcommittees themselves, which are the relief committees administering transitional benefit; and one of these inspectors has reported the action of these two committees to the Ministry of Labour, with the result that the Ministry of Labour has written a letter to the public assistance committee of the County of Nottingham asking them to deal with these committees.
Has the right hon. Gentleman lost his faith in the public assistance committees, in these people who have had experience in the administration, first, of Poor Law and now of transitional benefit? Having said so frequently in this House that he was prepared to leave these matters to the discrimination of these committees, surely he is not now going to interfere with them, but if he does, it will be only for this reason, that whatever the consequences may be, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Labour between them have made up their minds that in dealing with these claims for transitional benefit they w ill extract at any rate a certain sum of money from the unemployed.
Captain LUMLEY: The House needs no reminder that this is by no means the first Motion of its kind that has been moved on this subject by the party opposite. This question has been before every Parliament since the War. It is a question which, above all others, has haunted the back benches and baited the Front Benches of this House. It is no surprise, therefore, that once again it is brought to our attention, but what I have found surprising is that, after all their experience of the past two or three years,

1761
the party opposite has so little that is new to suggest on this subject. This question naturally divides itself into two parts. There is the question of the administration and of the payments, and the question of the policy which is being pursued to substitute work for those payments. I should like to deal with two of the criticisms which have been made about the administration of the means test. There are those who object to the principle of that test. I thought that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) was right when he claimed that he and his friends are the only Members who object to the principle. Some Members in the Labour party did not make their position very clear. I hope that the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks), who is to wind up to-night, will confine himself to the specific question which the Minister of Labour put. I should like to remind him of what the Leader of the Opposition said in the Debate on the Address:
"As to the means test ….I am not prepared to give people money year after year without knowing what is their own personal position; that is to say that if a person has gone out of ordinary benefit and has means of his own to maintain himself, I am not prepared to pay him State money."
Mr. LANSBURY: Read the rest.
Captain LUMLEY: If the right hon. Gentleman wants me to go on reading it, I will, because it supports what he said in the passage I am quoting. There was an interruption by the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) who said, "That is new." The right hon. Gentleman continued:
"That is not new. At any rate, whether it is new or old, I am stating it."
Does the right hon. Gentleman want me to go on?
Mr. LANSBURY: Certainly.
Captain LUMLEY: The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
"The question put to me was whether we are in favour of a means test, and I was asked what means test the late Minister of Health referred to when he spoke at this Box. It had nothing to do with the Anomalies Bill; it has to do with the transitional benefit of people going to the public assistance committees."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1931; col. 446, Vol. 259.]
Shall I read the rest of the speech?
Mr. LANSBURY: Yes, certainly.
Captain LUMLEY: If the right hon. Gentleman refers again to his speech, he will see that he by no means qualified that first statement. I hope that the hon. Gentleman who replies will say definitely whether or not that statement of the Leader of the Opposition is repudiated.
Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, in his judgment, the statement which he has just read bears any relation to the Poor Law destitution test, with which I dealt afterwards, and which is what we are discussing to-night?
Captain LUMLEY: We are discussing the means test.
Mr. LANSBURY: But we are discussing the means test as applied by the Poor Law authorities. [Interruption.] Certainly, and that is the destitution test.
Captain LUMLEY: I will read again what the Leader of the Opposition said:
"It had nothing to do with the Anomalies Bill; it has to do with the transitional benefit of people going to the public assistance committees."
10.0 p.m.
That is what I was discussing, and I understood that to be one of the subjects raised on this Motion. I should like to know, therefore, whether or not the Labour party are still in favour of the principle of the means test. There is one criticism of the administration with which I should like to deal. It is said that the public assistance committee should not be the body to deal with this administration. Once you accept the principle of the means test, it is obvious that there must be some form of machinery to administer it, and if you do not have the public assistance committee, there is only one alternative. That is to set up a new bureaucratic machinery. Who will benefit by that? Are the applicants for this relief going to benefit by it I do not think so at all. We have an example which may be familiar to a good many hon. Members. No doubt many of them were connected with the first setting up of the war pensions machinery during the War, and they will bear me out when I say that when it began to function, it entailed delay after delay before the right pensions went to the right men. Very often it was months and sometimes even years before it got put right. Therefore,

1763
if you want to set up completely new machinery to deal with the means test cases, you will only add, by the mistakes which a new machine is bound to make, to the hardships which are already suffered by the unemployed. You will never reach a solution of the hundred and one administrative problems on this question which will be satisfactory to all. There is only one perfect solution, and that is to substitute work and wages. What surprised me about the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite was that they had nothing new to suggest in the way of providing work. All they could do was once again to produce, not with so much enthusiasm as before, but still to produce, that old catalogue which used to come up every time a similar Motion was moved in the Parliament of 1924, and roll off all the old schemes which they said they had ready to put into operation—road, drains, bridges, telephones and so on.
Mr. BUCHANAN: The hon. and gallant Member has not given everything. There is oil from coal.
Captain LUMLEY: All that old catalogue was once again brought up. They remind us that there are 2,750,000 people unemployed, but they can only suggest the fag end of an already discredited programme. We were reminded that over a million of the unemployed were young men at the beginning of their industrial career, and yet when we on this side put forward new proposals for great new changes of policy, such as are going through the House this month, hon. Gentlemen opposite can only oppose them. The unemployed are suffering, but under this Government great changes of policy are being put through. At least, therefore, there springs the hope from this Government that these changes will bring better times. Hon. Members opposite have made their criticism, but they have given no hope of permanent work for a single one of the unemployed.
Mr. HICKS: In rising to contribute to this Debate on behalf of the Labour party I quite realise that everything that could be said about unemployment has been said in this House during the past 10 or 12 years. Members of all parties, approaching the problem from different angles, have made their contributions towards alleviating unemployment, if not
1764
to solving the problem. In such circumstances it may not be possible for me to say anything new or original, but there are certain things which I would particularly like to emphasise. No doubt we shall have reply from the Minister of Health telling us, as did the Minister of Labour, of the contributions made by his Department—of the various committees set up from time to time who have made recommendations for grants and so on, to be given to public assistance committees, but in view of the size of the problem there will be an absence of reality about our Debate if we merely confine ourselves to what the Ministry of Labour have done or what the Ministry of Health will be able to do. This is a problem which is larger than the Department of the Ministry of Labour and larger than the Department of the Ministry of Health, and therefore it should be the responsibility of the Government, and particularly of the present Government, which has an unexampled number of supporters and would find very little impediment in its way if it set about tackling the problem.
I hope the Government will tackle the problem in a bold and courageous way, and not leave their Ministers subject from time to time to hostile criticism directed against a particular Department, because the problem of unemployment is becoming so vast that, it overtakes any departmental contribution—any scheme on an insurance basis, or anything of that sort. We talk sometimes of how industry in this country will be able to help our unemployed if we get our share of world trade, but the problem of the moment is to get full time employment for the workers who are on short time, apart altogether from the question of making any inroads into the 2,750,000 or 3,000,000 people who are unemployed. We hear of someone who has been refused benefit here or there, but sad as it is, wrong as it is, and immoral as it is to concentrate on such points is not tackling the problem. The problem is getting to be a bigger one than the present system can cope with.
It is absolutely ridiculous to have any unemployment in an intelligent community where the production of wealth is necessary and the means for its production are available. Why should we have unemployment? The workers want work. Every impartial inquiry there has

1765
been has revealed that truth to impartial investigators. That is the only thing the unemployed ask for. In past years they have been subjected to all sorts of vile insults, called "loafers," "workshies" and "dole drawers," but that is not generally said of them to-day. If there is ever a demand for labour there are countless individuals rushing to apply for the job. There is no question that the people want work. Why cannot they have it?
Mr. HOWARD: On account of trade union regulations.
Mr. HICKS: It is fortunate that we have here some Columbus who can make such a great new discovery. Trade unions did a great deal for the wreckage of humanity long before the State ever thought of introducing unemployment pay or of giving sickness benefit, old age pensions, or superannuation benefit. Trade unions are now spending thousands of pounds in that direction. I do not want to introduce a personal note, but my own union is spending thousands of pounds in supplementing unemployment benefit. We have unemployment not because there is no necessary work to be done in the community, not, because there are no slums, not because the people do not want better houses, not because we do not want more schools or other buildings, but because of the positive ineptitude of private enterprise and capitalism.
Men want work—men with patiently acquired skill. I have seen them in my Own industry—bricklayers, masons, joiners; the men whose work is so much admired when we go round this House with visitors pointing out to them the lovely joinery work and masonry. Year after year I have seen these men scrambling for work and the opportunities for work becoming fewer and fewer, the periods of unemployment longer and longer. Those men go down the social ladder rung by rung until they are in a desperate position. There are over 340,000 of them unemployed—in one industry. When housewives are crying out against rack renting landlords, when slumdom is in the position it is to-day, when there are bridges and schools to be built, there is all this waste of labour. What is the position of manufacturers themselves? Cheap gibes are often thrown at those engaged in the manufacture of
1766
materials, but they are as much victims of the present day uncertainty and absence of planning as are other people. They have put down expensive plant to meet the general requirements of the community, but by reason of the vacillating, intermittent and irregular policy of Governments from time to time they find themselves in the position of not being able to dispose of their commodities and are having to discharge men by the hundreds of thousands. Therefore, I would say to the hon. Member who speaks of trade unionism as being responsible for the present state of affairs that I hope he will think a second time before he gives utterance to such a statement again. It makes no contribution to our understanding of the problem, and only provokes a little ill-instructed hilarity.
When hon. Members on the other side consider this problem of unemployment, there is none of them I am sure who does not feel some sort of mental anguish, some sort of pain, to know of the human tragedy, represented not by hundreds of thousands, but counted in millions. There are, when reckoned by our present registered unemployed, at least 2,750,000 reasons, if we want reasons, why the House of Commons should tackle this problem. If we want reasons, we know that the dependants upon those people go into many more millions. There have been discussions and Debates upon unemployment in this House and inquiries and commissions upon the subject; vast inquiries have been entered upon and much literature published, but the application of the remedy is not at the moment within the range of practical politics.
A moment or two ago when I was thinking of industry generally and the problem of the unemployed man, I remembered the proposal that has been put to this House on many occasions for the ratification of the Washington Hours Convention. So far as I am concerned, I say that nothing like that can be applied, because industry and economic conditions have marched past that. A 48-hour week is too long altogether. Unemployment is the Frankenstein of Capitalism, and it is also the Frankenstein of the present social system. It has broken Governments, as it has broken the hearts of men and women who are seeking for work. It will ultimately destroy this

1767
Government, unless the problem is tackled, and it will destroy the present social system of society too.
Every unemployed man has been made unemployed, by whom? By the employers. [Interruption.] Who gives the individual the sack? It is the employer, who says: "I have no longer any work for you." This House is full of bankers, employers and capitalists—[Interruption.] Oh. yes. If the employers who have discharged these men are here in their numbers, as representing the system that is responsible for the discharge of those men, what contribution are they going to make? I want to ask them that. They have discharged those unfortunate people. It is all very well for them to disguise their incompetence with high-sounding phrases such as "trade depression," "currency trouble," and "international competition." It may be very easy for them to defend themselves, or to try and shield themselves behind those high-sounding phrases, but, if they are responsible for unemployment and for the system, what steps are they going to take to put into industry those people whom they have put out of employment?
Before I sit down I want in the very short time that remains to me to deal with one or two points on the building industry. The Minister of Health is going to reply. He kindly gave us recently the opportunity to send a deputation to him to talk about certain features of the building industry. I desire to refer to the relationship of the building industry with the House of Commons, through the Government, particularly since 1924. Before that time, much representation was made to the building industry. I myself was occupying the position of President, and, consequently, came into direct negotiation with the representatives of the Government in order to deal with what was then called the shortage of labour in the industry, so as to meet the needs of the nation in regard to housing. Much propaganda was engaged upon, and an attempt was made to get the building trade unions to agree to relax what were called trade union restrictions for the purpose of increasing the personnel. Most of the statements made at that time originated, as, unfortunately, many do
1768
to-day, in very ill-instructed emotions, and were more emotional than reasonable.
The industry was subjected at that time to a very close examination in regard to its personnel, the materials available to it, and the demand for its labour, and a committee was set up to inquire into the possibilities of meeting the nation's needs by a general progressive programme of house building. The right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) last night was inclined to agree to something like the policy of ordered planning. He said that, unless the country was able to get a measure of its needs and of the market that would be available for commodities when they were produced, he was afraid that, whatever was done, even under the present proposals for the protection of industry, very little progress would be made. I think I might use the same kind of illustration with regard to the building industry, and its unfortunate experience in connection with the repudiation by successive Governments of the policy of the previous Government.
I may say that I am speaking now, not on behalf of the operatives only, but on behalf of the whole industry. The industry was organised with a view to finding out its capabilities of responding to the national call for its services. Employers, manufacturers of materials, surveyors, architects, operatives—all phases of the industry were brought into consultation for the purpose of measuring its strength and seeing how far it was capable of responding to the demand which was then put up. I will give some figures for the past four years, showing the numbers of houses generally agreed upon and the numbers built. In 1928, the number should have been at least 120,000 houses a year—houses that would have received some State subsidy. The number built was 102,000. In 1929, there should have been 135,000 houses; the number actually completed was 123,931. In 1930, the number should have been 150,000, but, instead of that, the number completed was 51,571. [Interruption.] In 1931, the agreed number was 170,000, and the number completed was 63,607.
I know I shall be asked what the Labour Government did when they were in office. The Labour Government was unable to move without the sanction of the Tory party. The people who opposed

1769
the Labour Government in every one of their progressive Measures were the representatives of the other parties in the House to-night. At the instigation of the Liberal party very largely a big agricultural housing policy was carried through the House of Commons last year. It was my privilege to be in at the latter end of last year to take part in it. 40,000 houses were going to be built this year. The number they have authorised is 2,000 out of the 40,000. The Minister of Health told us, when a deputation went to him, that the circular that he sent round to municipal authorities was not intended to slow them down, but I am sure those reactionary authorities that wanted to stop did stop. We have, as the result of certain inquiries, proved to our own satisfaction that over £50,000,000 worth of work which was contemplated or planned has either been abandoned or suspended as the result of the national economy campaign— £50,000,000 worth of building work, housing, schools and work of that character. Over 7,000 road bridges in the country have been shown by the Minister of Transport to be unsafe for our traffic as the result of the National Government working on roads. A reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) to-day by the Minister of Transport says:
"I refer the hon. Gentleman to a question asked in the House of Commons on 10th February with regard to discontinued road work. The review of the commitments of the Road Fund in view of schemes of road and bridge improvement and new construction which has been undertaken in the interests of economy has not yet been completed. Up to the present it has been decided to postpone or curtail just over 1,000 schemes. The estimated cost of the deferred work is £30,000,000."
An HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!
Mr. HICKS: I do not know what that means to the people who would ordinarily get employment. I should imagine there are very few on the opposite side who have experienced the reprieve which has come when the pay envelope on a Saturday has not been accompanied by notice of dismissal. That has to he experienced to be understood. Therefore the "Hear, hear" to the dropping of a thousand schemes does not spell any serious attempt to assist our people to get employment. It is almost blasphemous to speak in this House, the temple of
1770
capitalism as it were, to the gods of private enterprise. We have had experience of your system not for a year or for 20 or for 50 years and have seen its sumulative effects. Side by side with every step that you take, the power to produce outstrips your capacity to employ people. You are not going to have a reduced personnel of unemployed. There is no joy in it. There is sadness in it. There is a terrible inquisition in the home. Men and women have gone to the public assistance committees for help, and they know that the public assistance committees hold them in their hands. The ameliorative measures which have been employed are small things compared with the big job of tackling the whole problem of industrial life, of labour, of raw material, of everything that is necessary to give us happiness and comfort. I am satisfied that, however long it takes hon. Members opposite to get to it, there will be only one solution, and that is when the whole of the resources of the country and the world are taken into calculation, collectively owned and distributed, and that will be the day when Socialism will arrive.
10.30 p.m.
The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): When the leaders of the Opposition wake up to-morrow morning, I am sure that they will agree with us that the Debate upon the Vote of Censure has not been a success, in spite of the sincere effort of the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks). I think that they are entitled to our sympathy. The field was set for a general attack upon the means test, and the ranks of the Opposition were opposed to the ranks of the Government, as if it were supposed to be the case of a civilized army attacking an uncivilised army, but in a comparatively short time they were blown into complete confusion by the attack of the aborigines from the rear. Indeed, the confusion into which they threw the official Opposition finds an echo in my mind owing to the fact that throughout this Debate the official Opposition have been almost completely concerned in a desperate attempt to conceal their hard past from their all too knowing friends from the Clyde. Owing to that circumstance nothing has really been developed on the lines of what is usually

1771
considered a Vote of Censure to which the Government have to make a reply. Really, in future, and, let us hope, for the sake of that dosage of ginger which is so essential to the health even of a National Government, hon. Members opposite must compose their own differences before they pick differences with us.
Although the Debate may not have been a success as a Vote of Censure, nevertheless I think that it has served a useful purpose in another way by providing an opportunity for bringing out various matters which now need discussion, and criticisms which certainly need replying to upon a matter of such intimate, deep and tragic concern to the country as the unemployment question. Let me, in the first place, say a word in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for North St. Pancras (Captain Fraser) in regard to the matter of disabled ex-service men. I am confident that he will misinterpret my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour if he supposes that we do not recognise the decided prominence of the claims to consideration of our disabled men. But I warmly welcome the statement of my hon. and gallant Friend which, if I may say so, confirms what is my own profound conviction, that in the treatment of disabled men, consideration, generosity and sympathy would be shown by the public assistance authorities throughout the country. We welcome that view warmly as confirming what we believe to be the case.
I say that the attack on the means test as a whole failed because of certain distractions to which the official Opposition was subjected. Let me turn from the attack upon the means test in principle, to the various criticisms of the means test in practice, which certainly should be matters of substantial concern. It has always been recognised that there would be local variations in this sphere of administration which would cause concern for a time. Some of those variations are not inequitable, and are not bad administration, but simply the result of the state of the case.
The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), I think, showed a certain lack of apprehension of the fact that this is
1772
a matter in which one must expect to see wide variations between the manner in which the adjudications are made in various districts. We must expect in different districts wide differences between the percentages of those who receive full payment, those who receive part payment, and those who receive no payment at all. These variations are not evidence of difference of standard or of bad administration, but simply the result of the difference in the history of the particular neighbourhood. In a neighbourhood where employment has been bad far a long time and private means have been exhausted, one would expect to find a high percentage of those who receive full transitional payments. In a neighbourhood where employment has been comparatively good, one would expect to find a lower percentage of payments. These variations are to be expected. With the experience which we have obtained of the method prescribed, we have evidnce of the astonishing success with which the administration has been carried out.
Mr. McGOVERN: Humbug.
Sir H. YOUNG: I know that the fact that this administration has been a success is unwelcome to the hon. Member.
Mr. McGOVERN: it is the poverty and suffering that is unwelcome.
Mr. SPEAKER: I will not have these disorderly interruptions.
Sir H. YOUNG: Let me pay a tribute, first, to the stalwart common sense of the nation as a whole, which has faced up to this great and necessary reform, in spite of its unpleasant and painful side. Let me, secondly, pay a tribute to the administrative authorities who have so successfully carried out the administration. I will take a single instance, the administration in London. I do not take it because it is a big instance, and I would not let it be thought that because it is the case of London it is outstanding in contrast to other parts of the country. I take it because it is an instance of a thoroughly good bit of administration. The administration of this new and difficult piece of work in the London area has been very strikingly successful. Here, as elsewhere throughout the country, 95 per cent. of the adjudications passed without any question at

1773
all, and only 1 per cent. of the adjudications made by the public assistance subcommittees go to appeal. Is not that a very striking testimony to the success of the actual administration?
One further figure. The administration has not been a light matter in such a district as London, and one must not think that it has not imposed a heavy strain on the forbearance of the unemployed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Yes. One fully recognises that. Out of 61,000 cases adjudged here, full payment has been accorded only in 30,000 cases. That shows two things. It shows how well this great reform has been received and how necessary this great reform was.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour made reference to the advance in administration which we contemplate. I am not pretending that in a moment, in a few weeks, you can achieve perfect administration for so difficult and painful a subject of administration as this. It is to be expected that there will be found not only necessary and essential variations to which I have referred, due to different circumstances and different histories, but that there will be unnecessary variations in some parts of the country owing to such difficult questions as the amount of family income to be taken into consideration and the weight to be given to assets in calculating the means test. Our administrators would be more than human if there were not variations of this sort, and it is the function of the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health to smooth out these variations. We are engaged in doing so from day to day through the staff of inspectors available for the purpose.
It seems to us that something rather more is necessary, and there is an opportunity now of bringing about a more definite co-ordination, which I will briefly specify to the House. Where there is an area in which the line taken by the public assistance committee shows unnecessary and needless variations, variations which ought to be smoothed out, it is proposed, not to call a great central conference in London, that would be only a matter of talk not of work, but to call a conference of the public assistance authorities themselves in the area where there is a need of co-ordination, and that they shall be asked to put their heads
1774
together and arrange to bring their administration into harmony on this matter of transitional payments, so far as is necessary or practicable in accordance with the terms of the Order-in-Council. I propose, therefore, in order to make sure that there shall be an even wider co-operation between areas to call a conference with what I may call a special commission, or departmental commission, of the most experienced inspectors of the Ministry of Health, who shall attend these area conferences and spread the light of information and co-ordination from one part of the country to another. In that way we shall be able by the natural processes of administration to get rid of those variations which are unnecessary and unnatural.
Before taking any step of that kind it will be necessary, as the House will apprehend, to wait until we have all the information as to the way public assistance committees are actually working. I know one area where it would be useful to have such a conference, and that is the north-eastern area of the County of Durham and the southern part of the County of Northumberland.
Mr. LAWSON: To raise the standard?
Sir H. YOUNG: To smooth out as far as it is necessary and practicable unnecessary differences in practice between public assistance committees.
Mr. LAWSON: In favour of the men?
Sir H. YOUNG: In favour both of the men and of the community.
Mr. LAWSON: That is where there is a Labour authority.
Sir H. YOUNG: Let me pass from the question of the means test to the wider aspect of the Vote of Censure. The Government is to be censured under this Motion for its failure to initiate effective measures for the reconstruction of our economic life; and the censure has been passed by the remaining representatives of the last Government on the benches opposite. Am I right in suggesting that the leaders of the Opposition had their tongues in their cheeks when they framed this Motion, or did they really want at once to provoke such a contest with their own friends below the Gangway? Where are we to look for a monument to the effective measures for the reconstruction

1775
of our economic life which were taken by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has suggested that we should look for it in the number of unemployed when they took office compared with the number when they left office. I propose that we should look for it in an even more stately structure, the structure of the debt of the Unemployment Insurance fund—£37,000,000 when they took office and £97,000,000 when they left office.
The Government is to be censured for its economy on works of public utility. There is a certain amount of misapprehension about what the actual policy of the Government is, and as to what we call the economy campaign on capital account, and I would like to say a few words to point out what that policy really is. As specifically stated in the circular sent out to all local authorities, which is the text, the Magna Charta of the policy of economy, the policy of the Government is not a panic reduction of expenditure in all conceivable circumstances and in every possible way. Let me read what the actual recommendation given is:
"His Majesty's Government do not contemplate a local authority embarking on a wholesale and ill-considered course of cutting down expenditure, whatever be its character or its purpose. Such a policy seems to them neither necessary nor advisable."
That is the basis of the policy. Let us look at the facts, as to what it is that has actually been done in the way of economy by the Government in administration. I will deal first with the loans sanctioned for purposes other than housing by my Department during this winter. That is a very wide field of public activity, as the House knows. The loans sanctioned for purposes other than housing during this winter were £9,300,000, and that total compares with £12,800,000 in the year before, a reduction of one quarter, or £3,000,000. There has been a substantial reduction, such a substantial reduction, as, I suggest, is required by the general conditions of our national finance, but not such a reduction as suggests in any way a panic or reckless reduction of expenditure upon necessary purposes. In that £9,300,000 there has been an actual increase of the amount to be borrowed for trading purposes, that is remunerative purposes, and a reduction in the case of loans for purposes of what I might call non-productive work. That
1776
is precisely the policy which this country requires at the present time, that we should still be courageous—courage in this matter is common sense—in increasing our capital account where there is to be an immediate responding increase in our national income—a good investment—but that at the present time it is absolutely essential that for the sake of the recovery of our industries we should cease all expenditure which is not either directly remunerative or necessary for any essential public purpose, such as health services, and that we should reduce and cease for the time being any expenditure that is expenditure merely of convenience or merely of amenity.
Let us see what the actual course of the Government's policy has been. Let me turn to a matter raised by the hon. Member for East Woolwich who has addressed severe criticism against the Government on the ground that it has been needlessly creating unemployment by an unwise reduction in the housing policy of the country. That is a complete misapprehension of the actual course of Government policy. Take, in the first place, the assisted housing policy. That is the region of building activities in which the Government are most directly concerned. What has been done there is an adaptation of policy in regard to the needs of the times, not simply with a view to reduction for reduction's own sake, but in order to obtain the sort of houses that the country wants. The adaptation of policy has been to call off, as it were, the activities of building the larger type of subsidised house of which we now have a sufficiency and to concentrate on building the small house to let at a rent which the wage-earner can pay. It is not a blind economic policy, but a policy of the adaptation of our housing to the needs of the day, so as to make sure that in the present stringent financial conditions we shall get good social value and good housing value for every penny of public money spent. There will be no check on the housing activities where the need for these small houses can be shown and as a matter of fact there will be more assisted houses in progress in the course of this winter than in the course of last winter.
I fully recognise that the building trade is at the present time subject to the most

1777
severe depression. I deplore the unemployment in the building trade to which the hon. Member has referred. We recognise that its difficulties are as great as in any trade of the country, and we look forward to the relief which will be given to that trade, among all others, by such general measures for the restoration of the country's industries as the Government are at the present time taking. On this, I would point out that it is a complete misapprehension of the actual state of things to suppose that the difficulties of the building trade are due to restrictions by Government. The difficulties are due to the general limitation of the building activities of the whole industrial community of the country. For reasons which are well understood by the whole House, private building is a very much more important thing for the country than public assisted building. Last year up to 30th November there were two houses built by private enterprise to every one built with the assistance of the public subsidy. If we look at the fourth quarter of last year we see from the figures in the Labour Gazette that the building plans approved had dropped in that last quarter from £17,750,000 to £12,750,000. That is the measure of the drop in private building and that figure demonstrates that it is a general decline in this activity in the country as a whole and not to any Government policy that the present admitted severe hardships and misfortune of the building trade are due.
The measures to promote employment which the Government are taking are certainly of a totally different character from those taken by our predecessors, the Members of the present Opposition. Nevertheless, at the present time until the clouds break it will be unwise not to watch for every possible opportunity of promoting useful work of that kind defined by the Minister of Labour—work which will increase the national income—and the Government will continue to watch for any opportunity of promoting work of that sort, subject to the two conditions: first that it is work which will be definitely remunerative, and, secondly, that it is not work which might just as well be undertaken by private enterprise, or, in other words, work which would be advanced and brought to fruition without
1778
any form of Government assistance. The sphere for such openings is practically only the sphere of the great public utility enterprises. That is the field of opportunity for promoting employment in a manner which will be positively beneficial and not definitely harmful to the country. But it is a field of opportunity which necessarily is becoming more and more exhausted as time goes on. For eleven years successive Governments have been sweeping that field to find work which will increase the resources of the country and provide employment, and we cannot hope at this time of day to find anything but very small gleanings where quite substantial harvests have already been gathered.
I have pointed out the extent and the limitations of the Government's policy of economy particularly on this matter. If I may put it in a word, the policy is that all works which will be definitely remunerative, promoted by public authorities, such as housing works and so on, shall follow their normal course and shall not be restricted; that other works which are essential such as health services and so on shall continue, but that works which are not essential to the community must give way for the present. We desire to turn, once and for all, away from that policy which was followed like a will-'o the-wisp by hon. Members opposite for two years and which brought the country to the brink of disaster—the policy that the country can be made richer by continually increasing public at the expense of private expenditure. From that policy we desire to turn to the policy which we believe is essential to the welfare of the country and to the finding of employment.—the policy of diminishing public expenditure in order give private expenditure and private enterprise its chance. Too long have the resources of the country been frittered away in the form of unremunerative expenditure. Let us turn back to the traditional policy of accumulating the resources of the country, according to the expansion of the trade of the country, for the employment of the people of the country. In that direction only I believe shall we find the solution for those evils which we are called upon to face to-day including the great evil of unemployment.
Question put,
"That this House, recognising the increasing gravity of unemployment and of the condition of the unemployed and their families, regrets the failure of the Government to initiate effective measures for the reconstruction of the economic life of the country and the short-sighted economy of expenditure on works of public utility, especially housing, and on schemes of allot-
ments, whereby unemployment has been increased; and is of opinion that the administration of the means test is causing grave injustice and distress and that the machinery of the Poor Law should not be used in connection with applications for unemployment benefit."
The House divided: Ayes, 39; Noes, 415.

Division No. 64.]

AYES.

[11.0 p.m.

Attlee, Clement Richard

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

McGovern, John

Batey, Joseph

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Hicks, Ernest George

Maxton, James

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

Hirst, George Henry

Parkinson, John Alien

Buchanan, George

Jenkins, Sir William

Price, Gabriel

Cape, Thomas

John, William

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Thorne, William James

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Kirkwood, David

Tinker, John Joseph

Daggar, George

Lanebury, Rt. Hon. George

Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

Lawson, John James

Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Logan, David Gilbert

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Lunn, William

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Grundy, Thomas W.

McEntee, Valentine L.

Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Groves.

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Burghley, Lord

Dawson, Sir Philip

Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

Burnett, John George

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

Butt, Sir Alfred

Dickie, John P.

Albery, Irving James

Cadogan, Hon. Edward

Dixey, Arthur C. N.

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

Caine, G. R. Hall-

Donner, P. W.

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

Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

Doran, Edward

Anstruther-Gray. W. J.

Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)

Dower, Captain A. V. G.

Aske, Sir Robert William

Campbel-Johnston, Malcolm

Duckworth, George A. V.

Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Duggan, Hubert John

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

Carver, Major William H.

Duncan. James A.L. (Kensington, N.)

Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

Cassels, James Dale

Dunglass, Lord

Atholl, Duchess of

Castlereagh, Viscount

Eales, John Frederick

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Castle Stewart, Earl

Eastwood, John Francis

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Eden, Robert Anthony

Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

Edge, Sir William

Balniel, Lord

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

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Ednam, Viscount

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh

Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

Chalmers, John Rutherford

Ellis, Robert Geoffrey

Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

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

Elliston, Captain George Sampson

Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

Elmley, Viscount

Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton le-Spring)

Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)

Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

Chotzner, Alfred James

Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

Bernays, Robert

Christie, James Archibald

Erskine, Lord (Weston super-Mare)

Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

Clarry, Reginald George

Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

Clayton Dr. George C.

Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Clydesdale, Marquess of

Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

Blaker, Sir Reginald

Colfax, Major William Philip

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Blindell, James

Colman, N. C. D.

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Boothby, Robert John Graham

Colville, Major David John

Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

Borodale, Viscount

Conant, R. J. E.

Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

Boulton, W. W.

Cook, Thomas A.

Ford, Sir Patrick J.

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Cooke, James D.

Fraser, Captain Ian

Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

Cooper, A. Duff

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Copeland, Ida

Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

Boyce, H. Leslie

Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

Ganzoni, Sir John

Bracken, Brendan

Craven-Ellis, William

Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)

Crooke, J. Smedley

Gibson, Charles Granville

Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

Gillett, Sir George Masterman

Briant, Frank

Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

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

Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Glossop, C. W. H.

Broadbent, Colonel John

Cross, R. H.

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Crossley, A. C.

Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

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

Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

Goff, Sir Park

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Goldie, Noel B.

Browne, Captain A. C.

Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

Buchan, John

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

Gower, Sir Robert

Buchan-Hepburn, P G. T.

Davison, Sir William Henry

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland N.)

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

Graves, Marjorie

Lymington, Viscount

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

Lyons, Abraham Montagu

Robinson, John Roland

Greene, William P. C.

MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Ropner, Colonel L.

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W.)

McCorquodale, M. S.

Rosbotham, S. T.

Grimston, R. V.

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

Ross, Ronald D.

Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Ross Taylor, Waiter (Woodbridge)

Gunston, Captain D. W.

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

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

McEwen, J. H. F.

Runge, Norah Cecil

Hales, Harold K.

McKie, John Hamilton

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

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

Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

McLean, Major Alan

Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Salmon, Major Isidore

Hammersley, Samuel S.

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Salt, Edward W.

Hanbury, Cecil

Magnay, Thomas

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

Hanley, Dennis A.

Maitland, Adam

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

Harbord, Arthur

Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

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

Harris, Sir Percy

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Savery, Samuel Servington

Hartington, Marquess of

Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

Scone, Lord

Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

Marjoribanks, Edward

Selley, Harry R.

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

Marsden, Commander Arthur

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

Martin, Thomas B.

Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

Hepworth, Joseph

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Hillman, Dr. George B.

Meller, Richard James

Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

Skelton, Archibald Noel

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

Millar, Sir James Duncan

Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

Holdsworth, Herbert

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)

Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)

Mills, Sir Frederick (Layton, E.)

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

Milne, Charles

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

Hopkinson, Austin

Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Hornby, Frank

Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

Somervell, Donald Bradley

Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

Mitcheson, G. G.

Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

Horsbrugh, Florence

Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

Howard, Tom Forrest

Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

Soper, Richard

Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

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

Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

Moreing, Adrian C.

Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

Hume, Sir George Hopwood

Morrison, William Shephard

Spencer, Captain Richard A.

Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

Moss, Captain H. J.

Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

Muirhead, Major A. J.

Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)

Munro, Patrick

Stewart, William J.

Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

Nail, Sir Joseph

Stones, James

Iveagh, Countess of

Nathan, Major H. L.

Storey, Samuel

Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Strauss, Edward A.

James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Janner, Barnett

Normand, Wilfrid Guild

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

Jennings, Roland

North, Captain Edward T.

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

Jesson, Major Thomas E.

O'Connor, Terence James

Sutcliffe, Harold

Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

O'Donovan, Dr. William James

Tate, Mavis Constance

Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.(Pd'gt'n, S.)

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

Ormiston, Thomas

Templeton, William P.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Palmer, Francis Noel

Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

Patrick, Colin M.

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

Ken, J. Campbell

Peake, Captain Osbert

Thompson, Luke

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Pearson, William G.

Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

Kimball, Lawrence

Peat, Charles U.

Thorp, Linton Theodore

Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

Penny, Sir George

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Knebworth, Viscount

Perkins, Walter R. D.

Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

Knox, Sir Alfred

Petherick, M.

Touche, Gordon Cosmo

Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

Pickering, Ernest H.

Turton, Robert Hugh

Law, Sir Alfred

Potter, John

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

Leckie, J. A.

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Wallace, John (Dunfermllne)

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Procter, Major Henry Adam

Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

Less-Jones, John

Pybus, Percy John

Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

Leigh, Sir John

Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Levy, Thomas

Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

Watt, Captain George Steven H.

Lewis, Oswald

Ramsbotham, Herwald

Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

Liddall, Walter S.

Ramsden, E.

Wells, Sydney Richard

Lindsay, Noel Ker

Rankin, Robert

Weymouth, Viscount

Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

Ratcliffe, Arthur

White, Henry Graham

Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

Rea, Walter Russell

Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

Whyte, Jardine Bell

Lloyd, Geoffrey

Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. G'n)

Reid, William Allan (Derby)

Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)

Remer, John R.

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

Renwick, Major Gustav A.

Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)

Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip

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

Loder, Captain J. de Vere

Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Wise, Alfred R.

Worthington, Dr. John V.

Captain Margesson and Mr. Shakespeare.

Withers, Sir John James

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

Womersley, Walter James

Question put, and agreed to.

The Orders of the Day were read, and postponed.

DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE (BRITISH DELEGATION).
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
Mr. MANDER: I desire to call attention to a matter of which I have given notice to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, one in which a great amount of interest is taken in this country, and not in this country alone. I raise it in no spirit of hostility, but in order to give the Government an opportunity of making clear to the public exactly what the position is. The question concerns the appointment of Lord Cecil as a member of the British delegation to the Disarmament Conference. It has come as a great surprise and a shock to many people in this country to discover that he has not found it possible to accept the invitation extended to him.
I venture to say that on this matter Lord Cecil occupies an almost unique position in the country. In very wide circles, in all three parties, Conservative, Liberal and Labour, he is regarded as the leader of the peace and disarmament movement in the country. More than that, for years past he has represented successive Governments on the Preparatory Commission of the Disarmament Conference. He has worked right through the technique and the details for a number of years past, and from that point of view is as well fitted as any living individual to be there to assist, to advise and to conduct negotiations. He knows the whole technique, he knows the personalities of the different individuals with whom one comes into contact there, and he knows exactly how far one could go in this, that, or the other direction. It is difficult enough to hope for the success of a Disarmament Conference when one finds the machinery of the League of Nations functions rather feebly in the case of open aggression, when there may be a tendency arising in the world once more to regard treaties
1784
as only scraps of paper. In those circumstances, I am sure it would be the desire of everybody in the House and the country to see the British delegation as strong as it is possible to make it.
What are the facts so far as they are known to the public? We know that Lord Cecil has been invited to be a member of the Delegation, and that he has not been able to accept, and the reason given by the Lord President of the Council in this House the other day, as I understood it, was that Lord Cecil felt that he would be of more assistance outside the Conference. If a person is not in accord with the policy of a certain group, he naturally would not feel very useful inside that group. It rather makes one wonder and ask questions to get information as to what exactly is going on inside. It is clear from the statements made at the Geneva Disarmament Conference, both by the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary and by Lord Cecil, that there is a certain divergence of view. The statement of the Foreign Secretary, if he will permit me to say so, seemed to me to be in a great many respects a most admirable statement. All I would say about it is that I hope that it does not represent the last word on what the Government might be prepared to do, after negotiation with other Powers. Lord Cecil in his statement did go a good deal further. I do not know that in the long run there would necessarily be any complete divergence of view. I hope not. I hope that in due course it may be possible—and I trust that the Foreign Secretary will be able to make some indication of this kind tonight—that, although Lord Cecil is not able at the moment to join the Delegation, he is not without hope that at some later stage of the proceedings he may be brought in to the great satisfaction of all people in this country who are keen on this movement and on the promotion of the interests of the Conference.
There is only one other word I would say, that is that if it became known—and there is a chance of this in the minds of people in this country—that Lord Cecil was unable to serve the country in this

1785
capacity because he was out of sympathy or in disagreement with the policy of the Government, I feel, in all seriousness, that it would do as much as anything to damage the prestige of this Government as a truly national Government.
The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): As my hon. Friend has said, the circumstances in which Lord Cecil thought it best not to serve as an associate of the British delegation have been very clearly stated, in answer to a question put to the Lord President of the Council the other day. The statement that was then made was both precise and candid, and I do not think there is any need to embroider the matter. We are all of one mind in recognising the immense services which Lord Cecil renders, has rendered, and will continue to render, to the cause of international disarmament which we all have so much at heart.
I may, perhaps, be allowed to say that ever since I have held my present office I have been in the closest touch with him. I believe I may claim to enjoy his complete confidence, and he has been good enough to express himself to me in terms which make me think that he also has some confidence in my point of view. The question as to who should be officially connected with the Government delegation is, of course, a question which has to be determined by all the individuals concerned. Primarily, and rightly, the Government delegation at Geneva for this purpose consists, as is also the case with other Governments, of members of the Government. That, of course, is quite right, because you cannot have two policies or two separate presentations. It is a presentation of the view of the country, for which the Government of the country is responsible. An eminent French statesman, at any rate until recent events in France, was at the head of the French delegation. Dr. Brüning has made the principal speech for the German delegation. Signor Grandi has made a most striking and most important speech on behalf of the Italian delegation. And though it is true that the spokesman for America was one of the Ambassadors of the United States, and not a member of the American Government, that, I believe, is solely due to distance, and he is speaking under the instructions of the American Government.
1786
Therefore, it is clear that each delegation is presenting to the Conference the best contribution that it can, in the main, on behalf of its Government. As far as the British Government are concerned, I say, quite frankly, that we should have been very glad to have had the advantage of daily contact and association with so distinguished and sincere a friend of disarmament as Lord Cecil. I talked the matter over with him in the most friendly terms, and he came to the conclusion, without the smallest ground of quarrel, that in his special position he thought that he would be able to render more service to the cause we all have at heart if he retained his independence. I am not in the least quarrelling with that decision. It seems to have been arrived at, as we all know it would be arrived at in his case, on grounds of the highest patriotism and the most sincere desire to serve the cause of disarmament. It does not represent any division or quarrel, and the best proof of that is that at this very hour I am in the closest touch with Lord Cecil in all these matters.
I think, therefore, that my hon. Friend and this House and the country may rest assured that, although we should have been very glad to have had Lord Cecil formally as one of our members, the situation really ought not to be regarded as representing some defined cleavage of opinion. The truth is, of course, that it would be very foolish for any Government delegate to enter into a Disarmament Conference, with a cut-and-dried programme which no one is ever going to alter, which is incapable of being fluenced by any argument. That is not the spirit in which we went into the Conference.
I had the very grave and, indeed, very difficult responsibility of delivering the first address to the Conference. I was most careful to say, in putting forward a number of concrete proposals, as I did my best to do, that what we were saying at that stage was not exhaustive; that I took those matters as matters of illustration. A conference of this sort cannot succeed unless there is a certain amount of give-and-take as the result of the discussion as it goes on, and I am sure that, although Lord Cecil is not officially connected with the Delegation—which, after all, would have somewhat

1787
tied his hands—he none the less is, in his view and in mine, discharging a most valuable service by remaining, as he does, in control of the League of Nations' Union, and by being in free communication with myself throughout these proceedings. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the point, but I would disabuse his mind, or that of anyone else, that we are in the presence of any sharp difference of opinion. Governments have great responsibilities. I do not know that any Government on this matter has had greater responsibilities than this Government has at this moment. I can assure the House that we have undertaken this matter and we will continue to try to dis-
1788
charge it, not with the idea that we have laid down narrowly our exact line of progress and refuse to listen to anything else. We want to go there, as we would on entering into any conference, to try to contribute what we can and to learn from them, and I hope we shall achieve good results in the end.
Mr. MANDER: The right hon. Gentleman said we were not in the presence of any sharp difference of opinion. I am glad to hear that, but I assume he would not go so far as to say there was complete agreement.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-six Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

  NATIONAL FINANCE (FIGHTING SERVICES, PENSIONS).
  NATIONAL FINANCE (FIGHTING SERVICES, PENSIONS).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  OIL DUTY.
  OIL DUTY.
  IMPORT DUTIES BILL.
  IMPORT DUTIES BILL.
  ACROBATIC ENTERTAINMENTS (CHILDREN).
  ACROBATIC ENTERTAINMENTS (CHILDREN).
  CHINA AND JAPAN.
  CHINA AND JAPAN.
  TURKEY (PEACE TREATY).
  TURKEY (PEACE TREATY).
  OVERSEA TRANSACTIONS (CREDITS AND DEBITS).
  OVERSEA TRANSACTIONS (CREDITS AND DEBITS).
  CYPRUS.
  CYPRUS.
  GRENADA.
  GRENADA.
  TRANSITIONAL BENEFIT, NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE.
  TRANSITIONAL BENEFIT, NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE.
  EMPLOYMENT.
  EMPLOYMENT.
TRANSPORT.
  MOTOR VEHICLES (SPEED LIMIT).
  MOTOR VEHICLES (SPEED LIMIT).
  ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT (RAILWAY COMPANIES).
  ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT (RAILWAY COMPANIES).
  ROAD SERVICE LICENCES.
  ROAD SERVICE LICENCES.
  ROAD SURFACING MATERIALS (TESTS).
  ROAD SURFACING MATERIALS (TESTS).
  AFFORESTATION, THETFORD.
  AFFORESTATION, THETFORD.
  ROYAL NAVY (SHIPS, BREAKING-UP CONTRACTS).
  ROYAL NAVY (SHIPS, BREAKING-UP CONTRACTS).
  BRITISH ARMY (RESERVISTS, PAY).
  BRITISH ARMY (RESERVISTS, PAY).
  RUSSIA (MILITARY EXPENDITURE).
  RUSSIA (MILITARY EXPENDITURE).
  COAL MINES ACT, 1930.
  COAL MINES ACT, 1930.

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Forres—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

LORD ALLEN OF HURTWOOD.
Reginald Clifford Allen, Esquire, having been created Baron Allen of Hurtwood of Hurtwood, in the County of Surrey —Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD RHAYADER.
The Right Honourable Leifchild Stratten Leif-Jones, having been created Baron Rhayader of Rhayader, in the County of Radnor—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
DAGENHAM TRADING ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
NORTH METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

DANGEROUS DRUGS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day For the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, the object of this Bill is to make the amendments in the Dangerous Drugs Acts, 1920–1925, which are necessary to enable His Majesty's Government to
614
ratify the International Convention which was adopted at an International Conference at Geneva in the summer of last year for limiting the manufacture and regulating the distribution of narcotic drugs. As your Lordships will be aware an extensive illicit traffic in such drugs as morphine, heroin and cocaine is being carried on in many parts of the world, and this traffic is facilitated by the fact that the drugs have been and are still being produced in quantities largely in excess of the medical and scientific requirements of the world.
The Opium Advisory Committee of the League of Nations has advocated, as the most effective step towards suppressing the illicit trade, the limitation of the manufacture of these drugs to the quantities required for medical and scientific purposes, but such limitation can only be brought, about by international agreement between the manufacturing countries, with the co-operation of the consuming countries. There was a Conference at Geneva in 1924–25 but efforts then to secure this agreement were unsuccessful. The question was revived again in 1929 and a Conference was held at Geneva in the summer of last year. It was attended by delegates from 56 countries and this International Convention was drawn up at that Conference. Legislation now has to be passed in respect of the Convention to enable the Government eventually to ratify it. I will not go at any length into any clause of the Bill. Your Lordships will perhaps realise one reason which would make it very difficult to do so. If you look at the names of some of the drugs specified in Clause 1 you will realise the feats of pronunciation that would be required, and should any of your Lordships intervene in debate I should be glad to be told how some of them should be pronounced. If there is any further information required I shall be very glad to give it. I now beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at a quarter past four o'clock.