Sitting of 3 July 1932

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Strctford and District Gas Board Bill [Lords]
Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill (by Order),
Third Reading deferred till Thursday, at a Quarter-past Eight of the Clock.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday.
Pilotage Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.

CLOSING HOURS (LONDON).
Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: I beg to present a petition signed by 8,788 men and women resident in Chelsea, praying
2
that this honourable House will take immediate steps to ensure a uniform closing hour in the County of London.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  PEACE TREATIES.

    TURKEY (BRITISH CLAIMS).
    Mr. MANVILLEasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the total amount of money belonging to Turkish subjects now in the hands of the Public Trustee, and is the amount sufficient to justify His Majesty's Government to make an advance of 50 per cent. to British subjects having claims against Turkey, many of whom are in dire want owing to the non-payment of any portion of their claims?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Baldwin): The total amount of cash belonging to persons in Turkey at present held by the Public Trustee is about £150,000, but it is not possible yet to say what proportion of this will eventually prove to belong to Turkish nationals. The claims against Turkey which have been put in by British subjects amount to £15,000,000 or £20,000,000 sterling, so that the reply to the second part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. MANVILLEasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the value of the property belonging either to Turkish nationals or to the Turkish Government in Egypt, Palestine, or Mesopotamia, or elsewhere; whether it is vested in the hands of the Public Trustee; and whether it will be utilised to pay the claims of British nationals against the Turkish Governments and Turkish subjects?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The property in question is not vested in the English Public Trustee, and I am unaware to what it-amounts. I understand, however, that the value of Turkish property now in the hands of the Egyptian Public Custodian is somewhat less than 150,000 pounds Egyptian. Under the terms of the Treaty of Sevres, which is not, of course, in force, claims by the nationals of an Allied Power may be charged upon the property of Turkish nationals in the territory of that Allied Power, excluding territory formerly Turkish, but including Egypt.
    Mr. MANVILLE: Is it not a fact that the British Government took over two men-of-war which were being built, in this country when the War broke out, on which a very large amount of money had been spent, and is not the value of these men-of-war applicable for this purpose?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I will have inquiries made.

    FRANCE AND GERMANY.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether, before leaving London, Monsieur Poincaré signed a note to His Majesty's Government on behalf of the Government of the French Republic in which he upheld that the Treaty of Versailles gave France the right to take against Germany, in case of default, any measures of coercion she deemed appropriate; whether His Majesty's Government has sent a reply to this note; if so, what is the nature of the reply; and what is the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards this claim?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): Some correspondence on this subject has been exchanged between the two Governments. We are quite prepared to publish the relevant papers as soon as the consent of the French Govern-
    4
    ment has been obtained. In the course of the conversation which I had with Monsieur Poincaré here on 10th June, he expressed the hope that further sanctions, if they had to be applied, would be applied in common.

    BILLS OF LADIXG.
    Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take an early opportunity of introducing legislation with regard to bills of lading on the lines of the Report of the Imperial Shipping Committee approved by the Imperial Conference, with a view especially to a settlement of the differences between merchants and shipowners?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I hope that it will be possible to introduce a Bill on this subject before the end of the present Session.
    Mr. HANNON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that negotiations have been going on for a considerable time over this matter, and will he do anything in his power to facilitate the introduction of this measure?
    Mr. BALDWIN: That has been my object, and I hope to do so before the Session ends.

  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.

    PART II (COMPLAINTS).
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENNasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the House the full information supplied by the Board of Trade to the Committee inquiring into complaints under Part if of the Safeguarding of Industries Act relating to the number of persons directly employed in each of the industries to Which it is now-proposed to apply orders?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given to his question of Tuesday last, the 27th June.
    Captain BENN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the fullest information on the point should be available in the House of Commons?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I should be only too pleased to give all particulars, but the statistics of the Labour Department do not enable me to lay any more information before the House than we have already given.
    Captain BENN: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman has placed before the House all the information available to his Department on this matter?
    Mr. BALDWIN: Certainly.

    HOLLOW-WARE.
    Mrs. WINTRINGHAMasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes under the Draft Order to take powers to exempt enamel and hollow-ware articles used for children's toys, seeing that such articles are not, and never have been, made in Great Britain and that the Committee which considered the case of toys recommended that the duty should not be levied on them?
    Mr. BALDWIN: There is no need to make any such exemption as that suggested, since the Draft Order applies only to domestic hollow-ware.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he proposes to take power, under his Draft Order for imposing a duty of 33⅓ per cent. on imported enamel and hollow-ware goods, to exempt enamelled articles known as blanks which are imported for the purpose of enamelling by British manufacturers?
    Mr. BALDWIN: No, Sir. It is not intended that enamelled hollow-ware which is imported into this country for the purposes of undergoing a further process of enamelling should be exempt from the provisions of the Order.

    WIRE NAILS.
    Mr. GALBRAITHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet received any Report of the Committee appointed by him under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act to investigate a complaint as to the effect on employment in this country of the importations of wire nails from Germany: and whether, in considering such Report, he will take into account the fact that the main competition in the manufacture of wire nails arises not from Germany but from Belgium, against which country no complaint has been preferred to the Committee in question?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The hon. Member may rest assured that the Board of Trade will weigh all relevant considerations in considering the Report when received.

    BOTTLES.
    Mrs. WINTRINGHAMasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the recommendation of the Committee on glassware that cruet bottles imported by electro-plate and silversmiths for the purpose of being mounted should be exempted from the proposed duty; whether he is aware that, in the case of sets of six bottles in cruets, the vinegar bottle is not mounted, but is imported with a glass stopper, and that in such a case this bottle would be liable to duty unless specially excepted; and whether he would be prepared to take the necessary action to provide that all cruet bottles shall be free from duty?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The hon. Member is, I think, under a misapprehension. Cruet bottles are not included among the articles which will be dutiable under the draft order.
    Mrs. WINTRINGHAMasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the quantities and values of glass bottles imported during the years 1913, 1920, and 1921, respectively, for use in the perfumery trade; and if he can give statistics as to exports of perfumery from this country during the years 1913, 1920 and 1921, respectively?
    Mr. BALDWIN: As the answer is somewhat long, perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    Importers of glass bottles are not required to specify the purpose for which such goods are destined after importation, and consequently it is not possible to give the figures required by the first part of the question.
    As regards the second part of the question, the following statement shows the quantities and values of perfumery and perfumed spirits exported from the United Kingdom in the years 1913, 1920, and 1921.

    (a) OF UNITED KINGDOM MANUFACTURE

    —

    Perfumery, containing Spirit.

    Perfumery, other sorts.

    Spirits, perfumed, in bond.

    spirits, perfumed, not in bond.

    (i) Quantities.

    Lbs.

    Lbs.

    Gallons.

    Gallons.

    1913

    …

    …

    …

    (a)

    (a)

    53,643

    (b)

    1920

    …

    …

    …

    963,707

    4,744,241

    74,518

    (b)

    1921

    …

    …

    …

    137,945

    1,700,422

    15,406

    18,172

    (ii) Declared Values.

    £

    £

    £

    £

    1913

    …

    …

    …

    168,400

    204,145

    111,859

    (b)

    1920

    …

    …

    …

    615,309

    811,667

    397,719

    (b)

    1921

    …

    …

    …

    61,270

    283,468

    76,823

    144,084

    (b) OF FOREIGN AND COLONIAL MANUFACTURE

    Perfumery, containing Spirit.

    Perfumery, other sorts.

    Spirits, perfumed.

    (i) Quantities.

    Lbs.

    Lbs.

    Gallons.

    1913

    …

    …

    …

    (b)

    129,123

    2,035

    1920

    …

    …

    …

    —

    224,658

    679

    1921

    …

    …

    …

    559

    212,871

    674

    (ii) Declared Tallies.

    £

    £

    £

    1913

    …

    …

    …

    (b)

    41,967

    4,553

    1920

    …

    …

    …

    —

    103,327

    5,465

    1921

    …

    …

    …

    49

    61,778

    3,782

    The foregoing particulars include cosmetics and toilet requisites and articles used in the manufacture of perfumery, cosmetics, etc., except essential oils and soap.

    (a) Recorded by value only.

    (b) Exports, if any, not separately recorded.

    Dr. MURRAYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will request the Committee appointed by him to consider the advisability of imposing a duty on imported bottles, and to omit from their consideration all kinds of bottles which have been previously dealt with by the Committee over which Professor Sir William Ashley presided?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the nega-
    8
    tive. The advisability or otherwise of imposing a duty is a matter not for the Committee to consider, but for the Board of Trade and this House As regards the second part of the question, I would point out to the hon. Member that paragraph 5 of the Report of the Glassware Committee, presided over by Sir William Ashley, explicitly states that, products of the bottle-making industry were not brought within the purview of that Committee.

    DUTY (DISPUTES).
    Major M. WOODasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, when a dispute arises between an importer of commodities and His Majesty's Board of Customs as to the levying of a duty under Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, the importer can only obtain delivery by payment of the duty demanded, and that when the duty is so paid the applicant is not entitled to take his ease to the Referee, as the Referee will only deal with cases in which the duty has not been paid; and, if so, whether he is prepared to take action to amend the Act so as to remedy this?
    Sir J. BAIRD (for Mr. Hilton Young): The hon. and gallant Member is misinformed. The procedure in such a case is regulated by Sections 10 and II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act and Sections 30 and 31 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, under which the importer may obtain delivery of the goods on making entry and depositing the duty demanded by the Customs pending an appeal to the Referee. The law assumes the existence of a dispute at the time the duty is demanded. If the liability is not disputed at the time of making entry, but duty is paid in the ordinary way without protest, it is not possible to raise the question subsequently.
    Major WOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that most of this work is done by importing agents on behalf of traders in other parts of the country, and if the importing agent pays the duty without having time to take the instructions of his principal, will he then be allowed to go before the Referee?
    Sir J. BAIRD: I am afraid that the law is clear on the subject. If he has paid without protest, there is no power to give it back.
    Major WOOD: Does not the hon. Baronet consider it a great hardship on traders in other parts of the country, and cannot something be done to remedy this grievance?
    Sir J. BAIRD: I cannot alter the law.
    Captain W. BENN: Does the hon. Baronet mean that duties are collected on non-dutiable articles, and then a refund is refused on technical grounds?
    Sir J. BAIRD: I do not mean that.
    Major WOOD: Is not the whole question in dispute whether duty can be collected on non-dutiable goods?

    GLASSWARE SCIIEDULE.
    Dr. MURRAYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any consultations have taken place between his Department and His Majesty's Board of Customs with regard to the practicability of collecting the duties set out in the Draft Order made under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act; whether His Majesty's Board of Customs has had an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon the glassware details of the Schedule in question; and whether he has considered the desirability of calling into conference upon this question representatives of those who are specially familiar with the details of these commodities and who at present regard the proposed duties as quite unworkable?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. As at present advised I see no reason for adopting the suggestion in the last part of the question, nor am I aware to what particular interests the hon. Member refers.

    SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS.
    Dr. MURRAYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the statement in the last Annual Report of the Medical Research Committee of the Privy Council to the effect that its operations have been greatly hampered by the present high cost of scientific instruments and materials; and whether, in view of the fact that other eminent scientific workers have repeatedly stated that the Safeguarding of Industries Act is the chief factor in raising the cost of instruments and chemicals, and in increasing the difficulties of procuring the same, he will advise the Government in favour of repealing or amending the Act in the interests of the health of the people?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I have seen the statement to which the hon. Member refers. The Report containing it relates to the year ended on the 30th September, 1821, when the Safeguarding of Industries Act was not in operation, and thus confirms the view that the increased cost of

    11
    research is not due mainly, or even very appreciably, to that Act.
    Dr. MURRAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman observed that the question does not suggest what he has stated, but that the Act has increased the already high cost of this material?

    OPTICAL GOODS.
    Mr. KILEYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is able to report the result of his promised investigation into the complaint made to him by a London exporting house that their trade in the export of French optical goods had been diminished by 60 or TO per cent. owing to the duties levied under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, and also the complaint of a London bag manufacturer that his export trade in bags for French opera glasses was being destroyed?
    Mr. BALDWIN: As regards the first complaint mentioned, I would again refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on the 19th June. As regards the second complaint, I understand that the firm in question have been in communication with His Majesty's Customs on the subject, but so far have been unable to produce any evidence of substantial value in support of their claim for drawback.
    Mr. KILEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in answering a supplementary question recently, he undertook to investigate these complaints? Why should he not investigate complaints that trade has been lost to this country?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The question has been investigated, and if my hon. Friend will have some regard to amount of stores liquidated by the Disposal Board, he will find a most potent reason for the falling off in this particular trade at that particular time.
    Mr. HANNON: How much of the time of the Board of Trade is taken up in preparing answers to these futile questions?
    Mr. BALDWIN: If my hon. Friend will put down a question, I will see if that information can be obtained.

    VULCANISED FIBRE.
    Mr. KILEYasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the present
    12
    position of the inquiry as to the vulcanised fibre under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act; whether he is aware that the complaint laid before the Committee of Inquiry which he appointed does not allege that dumping from America is going on at the present-time, but merely refers to alleged dumping at a past date: whether the Committee which he appointed has any power under its terms of reference to consider a set of circumstances which has ceased to exist; and if it is proposed to proceed with the inquiry, in view of the fact that the present selling prices in this country of imported American fibre are considerably in excess of the prices quoted by the British manufacturing concern preferring the complaint?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The Committee in question heard evidence on the 20th June from which it appeared that the price of American vulcanised fibre, to which the complaint relates, had been raised. The inquiry was adjourned to a date to be announced later. The future conduct of the inquiry is a matter for the Committee to decide, but I am entirely unable to accept the hon. Member's suggestion that the Committee are precluded by their terms of reference from proceeding with their inquiry merely by reason of an increase in the price of the imported article, which may be only of temporary duration.
    Mr. KILEY: Seeing that this is a raw material for many industries which are now placed in a state of uncertainty owing to lack of knowledge of whether this Committee is to meet again or not, can the right hon. Gentleman not make some announcement so that these manufacturers will know when and how to get-material?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I quite agree that it is desirable that the Committee should proceed with its work.
    Captain BENN: His the Committee to recommend a duty, because dumping has occurred, even if the dumping has ceased?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The Committee does not have to recommend a duty.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Is it not likely that this is simply a device to dodge the operation of the Act?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I think it is more than likely.

    FABRIC GLOVES.
    Mr. C. WHITEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can supply figures showing the quantities and values of fabric used by British fabric-glove makers imported from Germany during the 12 months ended 31st March, 1922; whether the imposition of a duty on glove fabric imported from Saxony will operate to the detriment of the fabric-glove manufacturers in this country; and why, when the latter are endeavouring to secure Government assistance, he is asking Parliament to consent to a duty which will advance the price of raw material to these manufacturers?
    Mr. BALDWIN: Separate particulars relating to glove fabric have not, up to the present, been required to be furnished by importers to the Customs authorities. I am, consequently, unable to supply the information asked for in the first part of the question. With regard to the second and third parts, I have no reason to suppose that the imposition of a duty on glove fabric will operate to the detriment of the fabric glove manufacturers, since the applications in favour of the imposition of a duty on fabric gloves and on glove fabric were put forward jointly by representative associations of the two industries.
    Mr. KILEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the claim for a duty was not made on behalf of all the glove makers, but only of some?
    Mr. BALDWIN: Unanimity is a very rare thing.

    DUTY (REFUND CLAIMS).
    Mr. C. WHITEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to cases in which duty has either been improperly collected under the Safeguarding of Industries Act or paid under protest, in which cases His Majesty's Board of Customs say they are unable to refund the sum so collected; and whether, in view of the amounts involved, he is prepared to take action with a view of enabling such sums to be returned when improperly collected?
    Sir J. BAIRD: I assume that the hon. Member refers to the duty collected under
    14
    Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act on goods which have been subsequently removed from the Board of Trade lists. Under the provisions of Sub-section 1 (5) of the Safeguarding of Industries Act no repayment of duty can be made in such cases. As regards the last part of the question, I cannot anticipate the debate on the new Clause to the Finance Bill standing in the names of the hon. Members for Whitechapel and Central Aberdeen.

    BRITISH SHIPPING.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether, in view of proposed legislation in another country which will greatly affect British shipping, he will state if any preference is given to British-owned ships in any ports in the United Kingdom: whether all foreign ships enter these home ports on exactly the same conditions as British ships;
    (2) whether any preference, as regards charges or dues, is given to British ships in any of the ports of any of the British dominions; and, if so, can he state what dominions give such a preference and whether it is given against the ships of any special nationality?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The general position is that in British ports all over the world foreign ships are at present on a footing of entire equality with British ships.

    FOREIGN SEAMEN.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether there are any restrictions or penalties imposed on foreign seamen arriving on foreign steamers at any ports in the United Kingdom, or are such seamen allowed to enter such ports on similar conditions to British seamen?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Baird): I have been asked to reply. Under the provisions of the Aliens Order no alien can land in the United Kingdom without the permission of an Immigration Officer. Where the alien seamen in a foreign ship arriving at a British port are remaining on the Articles, a general permission is given to enable them to

    15
    land during the stay of the ship in port, but where any such seaman desires to land for discharge in the United Kingdom, he must obtain the special permission of an Immigration Officer.
    Mr. LINDSAY: Do the words "United Kingdom" now apply to the Irish Free State?
    Sir J. BAIRD: I should like notice of that question.

    POET OF LONDON (GRAIN WEIGHING MACHINES.)
    Sir A. SHIRLEY BENNasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a specification recently issued by the Port of London Authority describing the installation of eight automatic grain weighing machines to be erected in the Port of London, in which makers are specified of British, American, and German nationality; whether the British makers are named first in the specification: and, if not, will he indicate to the authority that preference must be given in the purchase of such machinery to British manufacturers employing British workmen under the standard conditions of employment the same as in the case of other public bodies administering public funds'?
    Mr. BALDWIN: My attention has not been called to this specification. I have no power to require the authority named to purchase its plant from British manufacturers, but I have no doubt they are aware of the arguments in favour of doing so to the fullest possible extent.
    Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of making representations to the Port of London Authority on this matter, as he has already made representations to the same authority on other matters?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I will think of that.

    WAR RISKS COMPENSATION (MERCANTILE MARINE).
    Sir J. BUTCHERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that there is dissatisfaction amongst members of the mercantile
    16
    marine and their dependants as to recent decisions of the body which administers thh War Risks Compensation Scheme, by which decisions the pensions and allowances originally awarded to members of the mercantile marine under that scheme have been drastically reduced and the claims of widows and children under that scheme have been, as it is alleged, improperly rejected; and whether, in view of the fact that there is at present no medical appeal tribunal in existence for the purposes of the scheme, he Will take steps to set up such appeal tribunal?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I am nor aware of any general dissatisfaction in the mercantile marine as to the administration of the War Risks Compensation Scheme. Such increases and reductions as have been made from time to time in disablement allowances have resulted from the medical reports, which have to be obtained periodically, as to the degree of impairment of earning capacity. If in any case there is good primâ ground for appeal, an appeal to a special hoard will be arranged. As regards the admission of new claims, I am sending the hon. and learned Member a copy of the statement made in the House on the 9th November last regarding the appointment of a special Advisory Committee to deal with claims of doubtful admissibility.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question, as to setting up a regular and not a casual appeal tribunal?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I v ill consider that matter after seeing what is likely to be the result. My information at present is that what I suggest will be sufficient, but I will look into the question.

    OIL REFUSE IN NAVIGABLE WATERS.
    Colonel BURNasked the President of the Board of Trade it his attention has been called to the pollution of the sea round our coasts by oil refuse in large quantities being thrown overboard from steamers; and will he take immediate steps to prevent the continuance of this objectionable practice?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I would call the hon. and gallant Member's attention to

    17
    the Oil in Navigable Waters Bill now before the House, which deals with the matter in question.

    DYESTUFFS (IMPORT REGULATION) ACT.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the President of the Board of Trade how many meetings there have been of the licensing committee appointed under the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Act; and what quorum, if any, is necessary for the consideration and the refusal of requests for li ences to import?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first part of the question is 40, and to the second part, one independent member, one dye-maker representative, and two dye-user representatives.

    RUSSIA (MILITARY FORMATIONS).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he has now ascertained whether the formations massing on the Russian frontier have been in any way reduced as a result of the truce of peace agreed upon at Genoa?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on the 26th June. There has been no further information except that the movement of troops towards the frontiers which was taking place before the Genoa Conference and during the earlier part of the Conference has been arrested.
    Mr. HOGGE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that steps should be taken to get that information? In the debate about a month ago we got information about the situation. How is it, after his statement of a month ago, that it has taken a month to find out whether these formations have been reduced?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The information I then used was that troops were massing towards the frontier before the Genoa Conference. That was correct. The hon. Gentleman asks me now what has happened since. There is no information of what has happened since, except that the movement has been arrested.
    Mr. HOGGE: How is it that the Prime Minister should know so accurately before that debate that these troops were massing, and yet cannot take the trouble inside a month to find out what reductions have taken place?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have given to the House the information I have. The information was from the Rumanian Prime Minister and from the Polish Foreign Secretary. That is good enough information for us to act upon. The information I have had since has come from the same quarters, and it is that that movement has been arrested.

  IRELAND.

    GERMAN SUBJECTS (DOMICILE).
    Mr. GIDEON MURRAYasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that under Article 3 of the Draft Constitution of the Irish Free State it is possible for a German subject who has been domiciled in the area of the jurisdiction of the Irish Free State for not less than seven years to become a citizen of the Irish Free State; whether, if such German subject becomes a citizen of the Irish Free State in such circumstances, he will automatically be regarded as a British subject; whether there is any Overseas Dominion in which a German subject can become a subject of that Dominion, and ipso facto a British subject, without taking out naturalisation papers, implying, as these do, investigation of that person's suitability to become a British subject; and whether he will make representations to the Provisional Government to amend Article 3 of the Drart Constitution so as to bring it into conformity with the naturalisation conditions in the Overseas Dominions?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative and to the second in the negative. The definition of Irish Free State citizenship in Article 3 of the Draft Constitution is not the definition of a national status. There is nothing in this Constitution, or in the Constitution of any other self-governing Dominion which enables an alien to become a British subject otherwise than by naturalisation. The last part of the question does not, therefore, arise.
    Mr. G. MURRAY: Are we to understand that in this particular case no Ger- man subject who becomes an Irish citizen under Clause 3 of the Draft Constitution can become a British subject in this country without taking out naturalisation papers?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That is what I endeavoured to say in my answer. I consulted my legal advisers, in order to make the point plain beyond all doubt.

    SOUTHERN IRELAND PARLIAMENT.
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether the Assembly which was recently elected in the South of Ireland to serve either as the third Dail of the Irish Republic or as the House of the Parliament of Southern Ireland is considered by His Majesty's Government as being in any way bound by the Clauses and Schedule of the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act; and, if it is not so bound, what authority will the Crown possess in that part of Ireland over which the elections have been held during the lifetime of the recently elected Assembly?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The House of Parliament which has recently been elected is the House of Parliament referred to in Section 1 (2) of the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act and its powers are such as are defined in that Act. The second part of the question does not therefore arise.
    Colonel NEWMAN: Then the Irish Republic has ceased to exist, as far as this country is concerned?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It never had any existence so far as this country is concerned.
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has been able to ascertain if those who were successful at the recent General Election in the Irish Free State were returned as constituting the House of the Parliament to which the Provisional Government of the Irish Free State is responsible, in accordance with the terms of the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act, or as members of the third Dail of the Irish Republic?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The House of Parliament constituted as a result of the recent general election in Ireland is the
    20
    House of Parliament referred to, and is constituted in accordance with the provisions of Section 1 (3) of the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act. If, however, the hon. and gallant Member desires further information as to the state of mind of individual members of that House, I regret that I cannot enlighten him on this point.

    STOLEN PROPERTY, COMPENSATION.
    Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonics whether he is aware that great numbers of loyalists in Southern Ireland have bad their furniture, cattle, sheep, farm utensils, bicycles, motor-cars, and other property stolen by marauding bands without any possibility of recovering them, and have thereby suffered great losses; that, owing to a recent decision of the Irish Courts, those persons have been unable to obtain any compensation for their losses under the Malicious Injuries Acts; and whether, in view of the fact that neither the British Government nor the Irish Provisional Government have for many months past been able to give protection to these British subjects or their property, he will take steps by legislation, if necessary, to provide compensation for their losses?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The: answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. The law in Ireland provides for the payment of compensation in certain circumstances for malicious destruction or injury to property, but it has not been thought proper or necessary to extend this very exceptional remedy to cases of theft, larceny, or temporary dispossession. In any case, the matter is for the Provisional or Free State Government, but, in view of the special and extraordinary circumstances which have prevailed in Southern Ireland during the last few months I shall address them on it.

    CONSTABULARY FORCE FUND (RELIEF BRANCH).
    Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the promised Actuarial Report on the Constabulary Force Fund (Relief Branch) has now been completed; and how soon it will be published?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: This Report has not been completed, and I fear that it

    21
    will not be possible to complete it for some considerable time. The preparation of the Report involves obtaining a great deal of detailed information from Dublin, where circumstances are at present unfavourable for the preparation of complicated statistics of the kind required.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: In view of the fact that I was promised this Report about two months ago, could not my right hon. Friend accelerate it?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, but I do not want to press a number of matters of that kind just at this juncture, when obviously the authorities in Dublin are coping with a very grave and difficult situation.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Am I not right in supposing that this matter is a matter for the Imperial Government, and not the Provisional Government?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. I understand it to depend upon the conditions largely in Ireland.

    SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (SPEECH AT COLCHKSTER).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to a speech by the Secretary of State for War at Colchester in which the Irish Provisional Government is told to "govern or get out"; and whether this instruction has the sanction of the Cabinet?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am informed that the statement in the question is not accurate.

    MAILS, NORTHERN IRELAND.
    Mr. LINDSAY(by Private Notice) asked the Postmaster-General whether, having regard to the disturbed state of Dublin, he will arrange that all mails for places in Northern Ireland, hitherto conveyed rid Holyhead, shall be sent rid Stranraer?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER -GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): As far as possible, the diversion of the mails indicated by my hon. Friend has already been made.

    CRIMINALS (GALLANTRY IN ARREST).
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the Prime Minister whether there is any medal or
    22
    decoration which can be awarded by His Majesty to citizens who show conspicuous gallantry in aiding the police in the arrest of dangerous criminals, or in the preservation of life, or in the prevention of crime; and, if not, whether he will advise His Majesty as to the desirability of instituting some medal or decoration, in the nature of a national service cross or otherwise, for the recognition of gallant services of this kind to the State?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The medal of the, Order of the British Empire has been given for service to the State in which conspicuous courage or self-sacrifice has been shown, and under arrangements approved by His Majesty it will be permanently available for this purpose.

    GREECE AND TURKEY.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Prime Minister what further steps have been taken, and are being taken, by the three principal Allied Powers to bring about peace between Turkey, on the one hand, and Greece and the principal Allied Powers, on the other; whether the Turkish problem is being discussed with Signor Schanzer; and whether the President of the French Council of Ministers is coming to England shortly to discuss this problem?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The question of the next step to be taken by the three principal Allied Powers is under discussion between them. The answer to both the second and third parts of the question is in the affirmative.

    LEAGUE OF NATIONS (JULY SESSION).
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Prime Minister when the next meeting of the Council of the League of Nations will take place; who will represent the British Government at the meeting; and what subjects will be discussed?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As at present arranged, the next session of the Council of the League will commence on or about the 15th July. The Earl of Balfour will probably represent His Majesty's Government. The agenda for

    23
    the meeting has to-day been received from the Secretary-General, and a copy will be placed in the Library of the House. One of the chief subjects for discussion will be the mandates.

    HONOURS LISTS.
    Captain W. BENNasked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to issue in the "London Gazette" any further statement of the reasons for which recent honours were conferred?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOAREasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the fact that more than 200 Members have put their names to the Motion of the hon. Member for Wood Green—[Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON—"That it is expedient that a Select Committee of seven Members of this House be appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords to consider the present methods of submitting names of persons for honours for the consideration of His Majesty, and to report what changes, if any, are desirable in order to secure that such honours shall only be given as a reward for public service"]—with reference to the submission of names for honours: and whether, in view of this fact and the further fact that a Debate upon a definite Motion is advantageous, he will say that the Debate will take place on the hon. Member's Motion?
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister when the Debate on the Motion standing in the names of 200 Members in regard to the submission of names for honours will take place?
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether the discussion on honours will be taken on the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the names of nearly 200 Members?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have seen the Motion referred to, and the Government are quite prepared to take the discussion on that Motion. But owing to the continued indisposition of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House (Mr. Chamberlain), I am not yet in a position to add anything further to what I said in reply to questions on this subject on Thursday last.
    Captain BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer my question?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have answered all the questions. Whatever further statements are to be made will be made in the course of that Debate.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to say when a day will be available?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am very sorry to say that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is not likely to be in the House this week. I anticipated that he would be here to-day, but I very much regret to say that he is not likely to resume this week.
    Sir S. HOARE: Is the Prime Minister aware that a further Debate is to take place in another place, and that it would be very advantageous if we could have a Debate here on that account as soon as possible, so that this House may also have an opportunity of discussing this question?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are just as anxious as any hon. Member of this House for discussion, and that the sooner we have discussion the better. But I am not in a position this week, in the absence of my right hon. Friend, to make definite arrangements, and, in any case, it is essential that we should clear certain business out of the way before we can find the opportunity.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Is it the intention of the Government to have an inquiry into the origin of all peerages?
    Mr. HOGGE: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) is only Deputy-Leader of the House, and is not the Prime Minister the Leader of the House in the absence of the right hon. Member? Is the Prime Minister incapable of finding out from the Patronage Secretary which day will be available for the discussion of this business?

    BRAZILIAN CENTENARY (BRITISH NAVAL REPRESENTATION).
    Captain Viscount CURZ0Nasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, according to present arrangements, the only great

    25
    Power which will not be represented by important naval unite at the celebration and exhibition in connection with the Brazilian centenary is the British Empire; whether he is aware that the United States and Japan are each sending three important units for this occasion; that no British warship has been seen on the south-east coast of America since the squadron on that station was withdrawn over a year ago; whether he is aware of the desire on the part of the trading community and in all sections of the House of Commons that the British Navy should be represented at this very important event; and whether the Government will, in view of these circumstances, reconsider their previous decision and send a squadron of two battle cruisers to represent the British Empire at Rio de Janeiro?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am pleased to say that His Majesty's Government have decided, on reconsideration, that His Majesty's ships "Hood" and "Repulse" shall be sent to Rio de Janeiro to represent the British Empire in connection with the forthcoming celebrations.
    Sir F. FLANNERY: Arising out of that very satisfactory reply, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Department of Overseas Trade will be requested to co-operate with the Admiralty, so as to make the most of this opportunity in the interests of British trade?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think that is a very admirable suggestion, and I will pass it on to the Department.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSON: What will be the cost of sending these two ships to South America?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Speaking from memory, I think the cost is £50,000 —perhaps a little over that sum.

    FIGHTING SERVICES (EXPENDITURE).
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Prime Minister when it is expected that the Committee of Imperial Defence will report on the allocation of expenditure to the various fighting Services, seeing that the public expenditure on these forces is nearly double that of the pre-War period?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The question of the allocation of expenditure to the various fighting Services has not been specifically referred to the Committee of Imperial Defence. The whole question of expenditure on the various fighting Services, as already announced, has been referred to a Committee of the Cabinet with a view to the further reduction of national expenditure.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the expenditure on the fighting forces is just double what it was before the War, and yet our Air Force is in a dangerous state of weakness?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think my right hon. Friend has quite made allowance for the increased cost of material, or for the fact that wages have doubled and even trebled in some branches of the Service. It does not mean that your armanents are heavier or more considerable. In fact, taking the Army and Navy, they are considerably reduced as compared with the pro-War period.
    Mr. LAMBERT: When the right hon. Gentleman signed the Treaty of Versailles, I assume he expected that armaments would be reduced?
    The PRIME MINISTER: We have done it.
    Viscount CURZON: Will the Committee, to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded, pass under review the policy embodied in the expenditure of each of the fighting Services—I mean exactly what they are doing with the money?
    The PRIME MINISTER: We must take into account what money is available, and see how it can best be spent.

    AERIAL DEFENCE.
    Viscount CURZONasked the Prime Minister whether the Committee to inquire into certain matters relating to the relations between the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy, presided over by the Minister of Education, have as yet held any meetings, and when a Report may be expected; and if the Report will be published?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No formal meeting of the Committee has yet been held, but some progress has been made by preliminary exchange of views. I am unable to say when the Committee will conclude its labours. A Report will be rendered to the Committee of Imperial Defence, of which this is a Sub-Committee. It is unusual to publish reports of Sub-Committees of the Committee of Imperial Defence.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister how long the special Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence, which was formed to consider the problem of air defence and development, has been in existence?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Sub-Committee was appointed on the 31st October last. It has already reported, and its Report is to be considered by the main Committee very shortly.

    RENT RESTRICTIONS ACT.
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the grave dissatisfaction felt by both owners of house property and tenants at the unsatisfactory working of and needless litigation caused by the Rent Restrictions Act; and whether, in view of the fact that the Act lapses in the first half of the next year and that owners are already giving their tenants notice to quit, he will definitely say that a Commission will be appointed to review the working of the Act and report before Parliament meets for the next Session?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): I have been asked to reply to this question. Considering the complexity of the matter, the Act to which the hon. and gallant Member refers has, on the whole, I think, worked well. The question whether a further inquiry shall be instituted, particularly as to the renewal of the Act, with any necessary modifications, is now being considered.
    Colonel NEWMAN: I have asked this question several times before and I have been unable to get information. When, as a matter of fact, will a decision be reached? Will it be reached before the House adjourns, say, in the middle of August?
    Sir A. MOND: I hope so.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the County Court-judges, before whom the administration of this Act has had to be conducted, have expressed the gravest dissatisfaction with the terms of the Act, which have caused great difficulty and litigation?
    Sir A. MOND: That is the case with a great many Acts.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    INSPECTORS OF MIKES (WALES).
    Mr. GEORGE BARKERasked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that in the Cardiff area there is now no Welsh-speaking inspector of mines; that a Welsh-speaking divisional inspector who has just retired has been replaced by a person who is unable to Speak the Welsh language; that a senior inspector has just been appointed who is also unable to speak Welsh; that these appointments have created considerable bad feeling among the mining community of South Wales; that Section 97 (I) of the Coal Mines Act stipulates that in the appointment of inspectors of mines in Wales and Monmouthshire among candidates, equally qualified, persons having a knowledge of the Welsh language shall be preferred; and that there are qualified senior inspectors speaking the Welsh language who have been passed over in making these appointments; and will he carefully reconsider the matter, with a view to rectifying what appears to be an ignoring of the Mines Act in filling these vacancies in the Welsh inspectorate?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): I am, of course, aware that Section 97 of the Coal Mines Act directs that in the appointment of inspectors of mines in Wales and Monmouthshire, among candidates otherwise equally qualified, persons having a knowledge of the Welsh language shall be preferred. But I do not understand how the hon. Member finds in this stipulation ground for criticism of the promotion of Mr. Carey to be divisional inspector. Mr. Carey was appointed an inspector in the district 10 years ago, and has some knowledge of the Welsh language. Nor is the hon. Member correct in suggesting that there is no Welsh-speaking inspector in the Cardiff area: there are certainly two who speak the language well. Of the three inspectors recently appointed to the

    29
    district only one, the senior inspector, is ignorant of Welsh, and he is learning it, and I am satisfied that no one otherwise equally qualified was passed over in his favour. I gave the whole question of these appointments my most careful personal attention and have been scrupulous in observing my statutory obligations.

    PRICES.
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that among miners and consumers alike there is a belief that the recent reduction of 9s. per ton for coal sold in London, following shortly upon the coal merchants' statement that they were only receiving a profit of 5d. per ton sold, reveals a system of exploitation; and whether he is prepared to set up an inquiry into the whole facts?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: For the explanation given by the coal merchants of the recent reduction in the price of household coal in London, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to him on the 29th June. I do not think that Parliament has entrusted me with any powers that would enable me to set up such an inquiry. The regulation of prices could not be effected by the Mines Department without the reimposition of control.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have looked up the answer referred to and all the other answers, and the more I look at them the more I am convinced that a serious state of things exists; and is the right hon. Gentleman not prepared to take powers to deal with the state of things revealed in the answers given?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not think it is possible to know how much attention the hon. Gentleman has given to the answer, but if he peruses it I do not think he will find that it necessarily proves the charge which he insinuated against the coal owners. In any case, I have no power to set up an inquiry into the question without legislation.
    Mr. LAWSON: In view of the strong feeling which exists upon the question in the mining areas, where people who are starving feel that they have been robbed, is the right hon. Gentleman not prepared to defend these people and set up an inquiry to investigate the facts?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It cannot be done without legislation.
    Mr. LAWSON: Then why not take step3 to legislate upon it?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That question should be addressed not to me, but to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House.
    Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: As the right hon. Gentleman informed us the other day that 7s. out of the 9s. reduction had been granted by the colliery companies on the pit-head prices, can be tell us when these reduced contracts were entered into and with whom?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, Sir. What I said was, that the information from the Merchants' Federation was that they had made arrangements with some—I think they said most—of the collieries with which they dealt for a reduction of 7s. in the pithead price of household coal. That, I understand, was after the announcement that the retail price had been reduced.

  EDUCATION.

    TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION.
    Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in the consideration of individual claims for superannuation of teachers who, being physically unfit for active service, have rendered such services in connection with the late War as might be considered essential to the national safety, it is proposed to exclude all services other than actual naval or military service?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): The Board, in pursuance of Section 15 of the School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1918, and the relative Rule (19 (1)) treat as service for the purposes of the Act such service in connection with naval or military operations in the late War as they consider may properly be treated in the same manner as actual naval or military service. Each case has to be considered on its merits.

    SPECIAL SCHOOLS.
    Mr. MALONEasked the President of the Board of Education what steps are being taken to arrange for the

    31
    education and care of blind, deaf, physically defective and epileptic children in those areas where no special schools exist?
    Mr. FISHER: Local education authorities of areas where no special schools exist can send their children to schools in other areas. I am issuing a circular this week to the effect that in the case of nearly all types of defective children no restriction will be placed by the Board on the number of children sent to special schools by individual authorities so long as the accommodation of existing schools is not exceeded.
    Mr. MALONE: What arrangements are made where there is no school within suitable or convenient range?
    Mr. FISHER: That is a matter for the local education authority. It frequently happens that the local education authority sends a defective child to school in the area of another authority.

    UNIVERSITY OF LONDON (SITE).
    Sir CYRIL COBBasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is contemplating the reconsideration of the question of the site for the University of London; whether he regards the Holland Park site as a possible alternative to the Bloomsbury site; whether, in the event of the Senate of the University of London failing within the prescribed time limit to fulfil the conditions under which it is agreed that the Bloomsbury site shall be handed over to them, he has any intention of advising the purchase, either out of money provided from the sale of the Bloomsbury site or otherwise, of the Holland Park site or any other site for the purpose of providing a permanent home for the University?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Sir Robert Home): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part, therefore, does not arise. The third part relates to a hypothetical situation with which I am not prepared to deal at this stage.
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Would it not be worth while to throw over the whole of the Bloomsbury site proposition at once, seeing that many authorities who understand the thing are convinced that the Bloomsbury site is never big enough for this purpose?
    Sir R. HORNE: That is a matter of opinion.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the London County Council is the local education authority and has passed three strong resolutions asking the Government to reconsider this matter, and does he not think it is desirable for the Government to act upon those suggestions of the local education authority?
    Sir R. HORNE: That is a matter of opinion.
    Sir R. BLAIR: Has the right hon. Gentleman been informed by the President of the Board of Education that the Bloomsbury site is insufficient even at present?
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: IS the right hon. Gentleman not aware that if this Bloomsbury site scheme is proceeded with the whole thing must end in disaster sooner or later, and is it not in the interests of the country, and not only of the ratepayers of the London County Council, that the matter should be looked into without further delay?
    Sir R. HORNE: That is just a matter of opinion and controversy.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the arrangement made with King's College on which the whole acceptance depends, has taken place?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should put that question down.

    NORTH-WEST LONDON POLYTECHNIC.
    Major BARNETTasked the President of the Board of Education when the North-West London Polytechnic, the scheme for which was formulated in 1892, and the land for which Was purchased in 1893 in the Prince of Wales's Road, Kentish Town, is likely to be erected; and whether he will represent to the London County Council the need for the early erection of this polytechnic to serve an area in the North-West of London which is without adequate facilities for technical instruction?
    Mr. FISHER: I am unable to state when the premises for the North-West London Polytechnic will be provided, and in present financial circumstances I

    33
    do not propose to make any representations to the London County Council on the subject.
    Major BARNETT: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the land was purchased 29 years ago, and that the district is greatly in want of technical education?

  EGYPT.

    MURDERS OF BRITISH SUBJECTS.
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMESasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any arrests or convictions have yet occurred in connection with the recent murders of British subjects in Egypt?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): An inquiry into the matter is still proceeding, and several persons have been detained on suspicion of complicity, but no one has yet been charged.
    Mr. G. MURRAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say who is conducting that inquiry and whether it is being conducted solely by the Egyptian Government or in consort with representatives of His Majesty's Government?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I should like notice of that question.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the statement in the Press that 13 British citizens have recently been murdered in Egypt and that no one has been brought to justice?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: No, I have not seen that.

    FIREARMS.
    Mr. SWANasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the military court in Cairo which condemned an Egyptian to death on the 14th June for being found in possession of weapons, who was found guilty of no other offence, acted under the British military proclamation prohibiting Egyptians to possess firearms?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have no information as to any trial or conviction which may have occurred under the military proclamation designed to assist the Egyptian Government in putting an end
    34
    to the long series of dastardly outrages which culminated in the recent murder of Bimbashi Cave.

    MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (FINANCE DEPARTMENT).
    Major HILLSasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many women, and of what rank, it is proposed, under the re-organisation scheme, to employ in the Finance Department of the Ministry of Pensions?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I have been asked to reply. It has not yet been finally decided what established posts for women will be provided under the re-organisation scheme for the Accounts Division of this Ministry.

    BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.
    Mr. MOSLEYasked the Minister of Labour how many persons resident in the localities of Wembley, Sudbury, and Alperton have been employed on work in connection with the British Empire Exhibition at Wembley?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for Bradford East (Captain Loseby) on the 27th June, of which I am sending him a copy. As the bulk of the labour already engaged for the Exhibition was not recruited through the Employment Exchanges, I am unable to furnish the desired information.
    Mr. MOSLEY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Labour stated that local labour would receive priority?
    Sir M. BARLOW: That is so, so far as the applications are made through the Employment Exchanges; if they are not made through the Employment Exchanges, we have no means of dealing with the matter.
    Mr. MOSLEY: They all are.

    EDMONDSLEY PARISH COUNCIL (EXPENDITURE).
    Brigadier-General SURTEESasked the Minister of Health whether his

    35
    attention has been called to the improper spending of money by the Edmondsley Parish Council to the extent of £1,135, the whole of which was incurred in various schemes and in unauthorised relief: and whether he will take steps to bring home to the chairman and councillors the fact that they cannot incur unauthorised expenditure without rendering themselves personally responsible?
    Sir A. MOND: I have received no information as to this case, except what I have derived from the Press report which my hon. and gallant Friend was good enough to send me. The accounts of the parish council will come before the district auditor, and the action to be taken must, I think, depend upon the result of his examination of these accounts.

    UGANDA RAILWAY (LOCOMOTIVES).
    Major BIRCHALLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonics whether he is aware that the Crown Agent for the Colonies has recently placed a contract for locomotives for the Uganda Railway with a Lancashire firm by private treaty instead of by public tender; whether other locomotive builders were denied the opportunity of tendering; and whether, since this is opposed to the stated policy of his Department, he will give instructions that for the future all locomotive builders are to be placed upon an equal footing when his Department are purchasing?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The Crown Agents' ordinary practice is to invite competitive tenders from the firms on their list, which, in the case of locomotives, includes practically all the firms in the United Kingdom which build locomotives. This procedure was followed in the case of five locomotives for the Uganda Railway, and the lowest tender, which was accepted, was accompanied by an offer to reduce the price by £30 a locomotive if the order was increased from five to seven. This information was telegraphed to Kenya, and, as it had become possible to order? an additional 15 locomotives, which were to be of identical design with the original five, the Crown Agents were instructed to take advantage of the firm's offer to reduce their price. As a result of
    36
    negotiation with the firm, the Crown Agents were able to secure not only the reduction of £30 per locomotive for the first five, but a reduction of £150 per locomotive for the additional 15. In my opinion, the Uganda Railway authorities and the Crown Agents have acted prudently in this matter from the point of view of economy.

    GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS (COST).
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the reason for the increase in price of the Annual Report of the Registrar-General for Scotland from 5s. to £2 17s. 6d.; if, in fixing (he latter price, regard has been had to the restricted circulation that will result and the lessened use of the findings of the Registrar-General's Department by local authorities and by the public at large; whether it is proposed to increase similarly the cost of the Annual Report of the Registrar-General for England and Wales and other official publications: and whether, before fixing prices, he will consult the Ministers concerned in regard to the value of the publications to the public welfare?
    Sir J. BAIRD: I am making inquiries into the matter, and will communicate with the hon. and gallant Member in due course.

  TRANSPORT.

    CYCLES (REAR LIGHTS).
    Viscount CURZONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the very serious accident which occurred at Enfield on the 21st June, resulting in two deaths, where the coroner stated that the accident was caused by a cyclist not carrying a rear light, and that the sooner the rear light Regulation was imposed, the better it would be for everyone concerned, which was further endorsed by the coroner's jury; and whether, in view of these facts, he will take steps to reimpose the carrying of rear lights by cyclists, either by regulation or legislation, at the earliest possible moment?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): I am aware of the serious accident

    37
    referred to and of the statements made by the coroner and the jury. There is no power to make Regulations requiring pedal bicycles to carry rear lights, but as the hon. Member is aware, the First Interim Report of the Departmental Committee on Lights on Vehicles recommends that rear lights should be carried. I fear that it will not be possible to secure time for the passage of legislation this Session.
    Viscount CURZON: Does not the hon. Gentleman's answer amount to this, that, pending his Department doing something in the matter, the road users have got to run the greatest risks possible?
    Mr. NEAL: No, it is not a question of the Department doing something; it is a question of finding time for the House to do something.
    Mr. HOWARD GRITTEN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there were more accidents when the rear light was carried by cyclists than since it was abolished, and is he also aware that more accidents and deaths are caused by rash and un-conscientious motor road hogs, commonly called "kill-and-run-cads," in three days than by the 4,000,000 cyclists in a year?
    Mr. NEAL: No, I am not aware of either of those things.

    MOTOR DRIVERS (TESTS).
    Mr. HANNONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether, in view of the serious accidents which have recently occurred, he will consider the advisability of instituting special tests for drivers of motor chars-à-bane; and whether a qualifying period as a motor driver will be made an essential condition to the issue of a licence to the driver of a motor char-à-banc?
    Mr. NEAL: The Minister has no power to require special tests for drivers of motor chars-à-banc. The question of requiring tests in the case of drivers of these vehicles licensed to ply for hire is being considered by the Departmental Committee on the Licensing and Regulation of Hackney Vehicles.
    Sir F. FLANNERY: Is it not a fact that the drivers of taxicabs have to pass an examination before they are allowed to ply for hire, and will the hon. Gentle-
    38
    man state what distinction there is, as regards public safety, between the drivers of taxicabs and the drivers of chars-à-banc?
    Mr. NEAL: It is a fact that the drivers of hackney vehicles have to pass certain tests in the Metropolis and some other places, but unfortunately the law and practice vary very much in different parts of the country.
    Viscount CURZON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that chars-a-banc drivers are among the most careful of drivers on the main roads, whereas taxicab drivers are among the worst?

  POST OFFICE.

    WIRELESS BROADCASTING.
    Mr. MALONEasked the Postmaster-General whether any special Regulations have been made, or are contemplated, to deal with the wireless broadcasting of political copy, either generally or in particular, during an election campaign?
    Mr. PEASE: No Regulations have yet been made, and no occasion has so far arisen for making them. The question will be considered when an occasion arises.

    LETTER DELIVERY (LONDON).
    Mr. MALONEasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that his proposal to abolish the 6 p.m. delivery of letters in certain suburbs of London is unpopular with the general trading community and that it will seriously handicap those business men who deal with their private correspondence during the evening; that the 8 p.m. delivery is usually completed at such a late hour that it is impossible to deal with the correspondence in time for the last post; and whether, in view of all the circumstances, he will reconsider his decision to curtail the postal facilities and endeavour in this way to secure the economy in some other way?
    Mr. PEASE: About one-third of the letters affected by the change in the suburban deliveries will be accelerated and delivered within business hours and the remaining two-thirds will be delivered about two hours later than at present. I have considered the representations

    39
    which I have received, but I do not think that the interests of the business community will, on the whole, be prejudiced. The deliveries in the London suburbs will be as frequent as in the largest provincial cities, and, inasmuch as an economy of £50,000 per annum is attained, I regret I am unable to reconsider my decision.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE WAR MEDAL.
    Colonel MILDMAYasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Territorial Force War Medal is being withheld from certain officers and men of the l/5th Devoirs who volunteered for service overseas considerably before 20th September, 1914, the limiting date prescribed, on the plea that they did not sign Army Form E 624 before 20th October, 1914; and whether, seeing that on this later date they and their battalion were already actually on their way overseas on the transport "Nevasa," in consequence of their having volunteered at the earliest stage of the War (no previous opportunity of signing the above-named Army Form having been afforded by the authorities), he will arrange that they shall not be deprived of the medal due to them in the intention of the military authorities?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. Sanders): No, Sir; I am not aware of the circumstances alleged. General instructions in the contrary sense were given some time ago. It is possible, however, that some applicants for the medal are ineligible on other grounds, and if my hon. and gallant Friend will send me further particulars of the cases he has in mind, I will look into them and see that any misunderstanding is cleared up.

    TANGIER.
    Major CHRISTOPHER LOWTHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is now the position of affairs as regards the status of Tangier?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The status of Tangier will be discussed by representatives of the British, French and Spanish
    40
    Governments during the latter half of the present month.

    ROYALIST MOVEMENT, GERMANY.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether any advice- has been given to Lord D'Abernon as to the attitude he should take up in the event of any rising in Germany of the nature of the Kapp putsch likely to be injurious to the continued existence of the German Republic?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. And gallant Member may rest assured that His Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin is in close touch with the Foreign Office on all matters of interest to His Majesty's Government. But if a reactionary movement hostile to the Treaty engagements of Germany happened to be successful, no doubt a serious international situation would arise, and the Allied Powers could not be indifferent to such an event.

    DEATH SENTENCE (A. L. CROCKFOKD).
    Mr. A. T. DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to the sentence of death passed on Archibald Lionel Crockford, aged 20 years, at the Old Bailey for murdering his five-months-old baby, after he had been out of work for 12 months; whether he is aware that it was submitted by counsel that he was in a state of semi-starvation and that his mind was unhinged at the time of the murder through worry; and whether, seeing that he was recommended to mercy by the jury, his case can be reviewed and a decision made without delay?
    Sir J. BAIRD: My right hon. Friend must decline to answer any question as to the advice which it may be his duty to give to His Majesty in capital cases. I may point out, however, that it is open to a prisoner within 10 days of his conviction to apply to the Court of Criminal Appeal for leave to appeal, and that my right hon. Friend cannot come to any decision in a case of this kind until that period has expired.

    GERARD LEE BEVAN (EXTRADITION PROCEEDINGS).
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the Home Secretary what steps have been taken for the extradition of Gerard Lee Bevan, who has recently been arrested in Vienna?
    Sir J. BAIRD: Applications for the arrest of Bevan with a view to extradition were made to the Governments of several countries. When Bevan was arrested in Vienna, steps were at once taken to obtain his surrender, as soon as all the charges against him have been formulated, and the necessary documents relating to each prepared and submitted.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Can the hon. Member say when these proceedings will be completed, and when it is likely that Bevan will be put on his trial in this
    country?
    Sir J. BAIRD: It is impossible to say that.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. CLYNES: May I ask the Prime Minister how far it is intended to proceed with the business on the Order Paper at this Sitting?
The PRIME MINISTER: We hope to take the first seven Orders on the Paper. I understand that, on the Second Reading of the School Teachers (Superannuation) Bill, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education will make a statement. If time permit, it may be possible to take as well Orders 8, 9 and 12. It is not intended that the House should sit late, and I hope Members will assist in expediting the various stages of the Bills on the Paper, which, I understand, are in the main non-controversial.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 187; Noes, 40.

Division No. 200.]

AYES.

[3.40 p.m.

Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Hurd, Percy A.

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

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

Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

Ainsworth, Captain Charles

Dockrell, Sir Maurice

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

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

Doyle, N. Grattan

Jodreil, Neville Paul

Armstrong, Henry Bruce

Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)

Baird, Sir John Lawrence

Ednam, Viscount

Joynson-Hicks, Sir William

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

Barlow, Sir Montague

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)

Evans, Ernest

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Barnett, Major Richard W.

Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

Barnston, Major Harry

Falcon, Captain Michael

Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Faile, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

Lindsay, William Arthur

Beckett, Hon. Sir Gervase

Fell, Sir Arthur

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

Loseby, Captain C. E.

Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Bethell, Sir John Henry

Ford, Patrick Johnston

Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

Betterton, Henry B.

Fraser, Major Sir Keith

M'Lean, Lieut-Col. Charles W. W.

Birchall, J. Dearman

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

McMicking, Major Gilbert

Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Ganzonl, Sir John

Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

Blair, Sir Reginald

Gardiner, James

McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

Bowles, Colonel H. F.

Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

Manville, Edward

Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Brassey, H. L. C.

Glyn, Major Ralph

Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

Breese, Major Charles E.

Goff, Sir R. Park

Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

Broad, Thomas Tucker

Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)

Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Nowb ry)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar

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

Bruton, Sir James

Greer, Sir Harry

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

Greig, Colonel Sir James William

Murchison, C. K.

Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

Gritten, W. G. Howard

Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh)

Butcher, Sir John George

Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)

Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

Murray, John (Leeds, West)

Casey, T. W.

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Neal, Arthur

Cautley, Henry Strother

Hamilton, Sir George C.

Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Lady wood)

Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Harris, Sir Henry Percy

Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Hills, Major John Waller

Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

Cohen, Major J. Brunei

Hinds, John

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.

Pain, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. Hacket

Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

Hopkins, John W. W.

Parker, James

Cope. Major William

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Home, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

Pennefather, De Fonbianque

Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

Phillpps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

Pratt, John William

Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

Preston, Sir W. R.

Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)

Steel, Major S. Strang

Williams, C. (Tavistock)

Remer, J. R.

Stewart, Gershom

Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)

Remnant, Sir James

Strauss, Edward Anthony

Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Windsor, Viscount

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

Wise, Frederick

Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesail)

Sykes, Colonel Sir A. J. (Knutsford)

Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

Samuel, A. M, (Surrey, Farnham)

Taylor, J.

Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge and Hyde)

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

Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

Thomson, P. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Worthington-Evans. Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D

Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Tryon, Major George Clement

Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

Seddon, J. A.

Turton, Edmund Russborough

Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

Vickers. Douglas

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Simm, M. T.

Wallace, J.

Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)

Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

McCurdy.

Smithers, Sir Alfred W.

Waring, Major Walter

NOES.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Kennedy, Thomas

Sitch, Charles H.

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Kiley, James Daniel

Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

Briant, Frank

Lawson, John James

Spoor, B. G.

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Lunn, William

Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)

Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

Mosley, Oswald

White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

Galbraith, Samuel

Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

Gillis, William

Naylor, Thomas Ellis

Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

O'Grady, Captain James

Grundy, T. W.

Raffan, Peter Wilson

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Hirst, G. H.

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Mr. C. Edwards and Mr. Isaac

Holmes, J. Stanley

Rose, Frank H.

Foot.

Irving, Dan

Royce, William Stapleton

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to consolidate, with Amendments, the existing enactments relating to, and to confer further powers upon, the River Wear Commissioners; to authorise those Commissioners to execute works; and for other purposes." [Wear Navigation and Sunderland Dock (Consolidation and Amendment) Bill [Lords.]
WEAR NAVIGATION AND SUNDERLAND DOCK (CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords].
Read the First time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [16th May], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  Which Amendment was, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."—[Mr. Stephen Walsh.]
  Question again proposed, "That the word now stand part of the Question."
  Mr. ACLAND: I should like to speak for a few moments as having been Chairman of the Select Committee which the House appointed to investigate, and, if possible, elucidate the question of whether an undertaking was given or implied by the Government or Parliament that the provisions of the Superannuation Act, 1918, should not be modified so long as the Burnham scale of salaries remained in force. The Committee, under considerable pressure as to time, did investigate the question, but as to whether or not we elucidated it, it is not for me to judge. We all agreed in regard to certain matters, and that to a very considerable Extent. We agreed that Parliament did neither give nor imply any pledge of the character suggested; and we further agreed that the Government had actually given no undertaking that they would not modify the provisions of the Act so long as the Burnham scales were in force. We differed as to whether the Government had implied any undertaking. Five of us held that there was such an undertaking and five that there was not. The question as to whether an undertaking can be said to be implied must always be a rather narrow one, and from its very nature one on which reasonable people may take a different line. Upon this the Committee did differ, as was said by one hon. Member, only in opinion! We were united in the way we approached it, and—if I may respectfully say so of my colleagues—we all tried to approach it with an open mind, and tried to give the fairest consideration we could to the arguments on both sides. Although the majority of the Committee took the
  60
  view that personally I did not take, I have no sort of complaint at the way the decision went, for it might have gone the other way because of its difficulties and complexities.
  The arguments which most influenced us, if I may very briefly summarise them, and on which the question turned for the minority of the Committee, including myself, was that the Government were admittedly pledged as long as the Burnham scales remained in force not to reduce the proportion of their contribution to the salary expenditure of the local authorities, whereas in effect this Bill, if passed, will, as it seemed to us, simply reduce the State contribution from 60 per cent. to 55 per cent., and will in effect bring about a simple reduction of 8i per cent. in the estimate of the amount to be paid on account of salaries. That will take place without any real relation to pensions at ail and without in any way establishing a contributory pension fund. In fact., it was simply a cut into the salaries, which was the very thing the Government had pledged themselves not to do.
  On the other hand, the majority of the Committee held that the question of salaries and pensions had been all along the line kept distinct by Ministers speaking on behalf of the Government, and if the moving cause for the action of the Government was that the burden of pensions had become much greater than was anticipated, then they could not be debarred from asking for a contribution towards those pensions from the salaries, even if they pledged themselves that they would not vary the actual contribution towards salaries from State funds. On the financial aspect of the matter with regard to the burden which was likely to fall on State funds on account of pensions, the Government seemed to me to have been very badly advised. They might have known long before what the burden would be, and they must have known what the salaries were bound to go up to and therefore it was only a simple calculation as to what the burden of the salaries would be. That, however, is not material for the moment. Having tried to indicate the line of thought that is the last word I wish to say as to our disagreement. The Report of a Select Committee is always recommended as one Report. If the division of opinion on the Committee had

  61
  been five to four in the teachers' favour they would rightly have claimed that the Government were not justified in proceeding with the Bill, but the balance of opinion was the other way, and no good House of Commons man can dispute that fact, and therefore the Government are entitled to proceed, as they are now proceeding, with the further stages of this Bill.
  It is more as to the spirit and not as to the letter of this controversy that I venture to offer a few observations. I would like to say with real seriousness that the longer this dispute goes on the worse it is for education all over the country. While people are disputing as to these things they are not thinking about the question of how to do better for the children, which, after all, is their main business. I feel, and I think most other hon. Members will feel, that in many of our educational offices at the present time the atmosphere is not as fully educational as it ought to be just now, and even in the Board of Education itself I have a feeling that there might usefully be more time given to education and less to educational controversy, which are by no means the same thing. Certainly in conferences in other places teachers are tending to talk more of their own injustices than the welfare of the children. That is all to the bad, and we ought to get beyond the field of controversy as soon as we can, and emerge into an atmosphere of trying to do the best we can for the children on the reduced amount available for the State and local authorities. The teachers are, after all, a very important part of the community, and they ought to be a very honoured part, and unless they are generally regarded as doing the fair thing by the community it will be all the worse for them in the long run and certainly the worse for the children, for whom, in a great majority of cases, they care very intensely, and they put the interests of the children first in their thoughts. Nothing could be worse than that the education of the children in this country should suffer because the community have a feeling of friction with regard to the action of the teachers, and even if the teachers were on this Bill or elsewhere to gain a temporary victory for them-
  62
  selves, if education suffers, then the teachers themselves will also suffer in the long run.
  I think there is a danger in the present position that if the teachers fight too vigorously, even for what they believe to be only justice and fair play to which they are entitled, they may put themselves against the whole spirit and feeling of the community, and I suggest in the long run that even if they were to gain a temporary advantage that would react adversely against themselves and their cause. May I say how very unfortunate for the teachers, from their own point of view, is the position in which in a great many cases they find themselves? The rate payer finds the position to be this: He finds that the salary of the teacher has not begun to go down, and that in many cases it is still rising because of the carrying over of the old scale to the better scale, and he further says, "How intolerable it is that whereas salaries and profits in almost every other walk of life have begun to go down, that there should be this class of public servants whose salaries are still stationary, and in some cases actually going up." He forgets how long it took in the case of the teachers before there was any increase in their salaries at all.
  For example, he forgets that the engineer, the miner, the farmer and the business man were all getting increases in pay or profits, whereas the teacher during the War and in many cases after the War got no increase at all, or at any rate a very small sum to compensate him for the very greatly increased burden of the cost of living. Many thousands of people all over the country were extraordinarily hard put to it in order to get along at all during the years which were so exceptionally lean, whereas for other people at any rate there was some sort of compensation given for increased prices. That is what is generally forgotten. That is the present position in regard to the teachers and the ratepayer and the taxpayer, and friction undoubtedly results. From that point of view I think the teachers will take the wisest line. If they are now so statesmanlike as to modify the claim they have on consistent grounds of justice in order to show a real spirit of good citizenship in the interests of the country at a whole.

  63
  4.0 p.m.
  That being so, what about the attitude which we might take up towards this Debate? Can those who sympathise with the teachers' position and who speak on their behalf rightly withdraw their opposition to this Bill? I think they and their friends would be well advised to look towards some amendment of the Bill rather than to its rejection. I am not an advocate of the teachers, I am not even in their counsels, and I do not know the exact line of modification they may feel they ought to have in the Bill, but one or two things obviously occur to anyone who has tried to look at this question as a member of the Select Committee, and I will try and indicate them. First, the Bill ought not to be a permanent one. What will happen with this 5 per cent. cut in the contribution of the State towards the local authorities will be that when it comes to the time for the local authorities to review their salaries, which will be next year in the case of London, and 1925 in the case of the rest of the country, they will be inclined to say, if this Bill becomes the law of the land, "Now then, how does this matter affect us? Whereas before the Bill was passed we used to get 60 per cent. of our expenditure on salaries provided from State funds, we now only get 55 per cent., and we have to bear 45 per cent. of the cost instead of 40 per cent. as we used to do, and consequently we must make a reduction in our scale of salaries commensurate with the decreased cost of living. We will do that, but we will also make another cut in salaries to compensate us for the fact that we are getting a less proportion provided from central funds than we were promised we should go on getting when the scales were agreed to." You cannot help it with regard to London. If we pass the Bill now, nobody proposes that it should not be the law of the land next year when the London scales come up for revision. But it is reasonable, I think, that the teachers should ask that the Government should be prepared either with a real contributory scheme of pensions or, at any rate, some other solution of the question before 1925, when the scales of salaries under all authorities, except London, come up for revision. The second point was one to which my right
  64
  hon. Friend gave very favourable consideration. When he was bring examined before the Committee he promised that great care should be given to cases in which people are able to allege that the effect of the Bill will be to put them in a worse position than they would have been in if the schemes in force at the time the Act of 1918 was passed had been continued. That is under Clause 3 of the Bill. My right hon. Friend knows the point. He went a long way in saying he would go carefully into those cases. It is right and just that we should know that when the Bill finally passes nothing has been done to put a teacher in a worse position than he would have been if the Act of 1918 had not been passed.
  There ought also to be special consideration for teachers employed by local authorities who have not yet occupied the position on the Burnham scales that was indicated to them they should occupy. What will be the actual effect of the Bill if it passes? Parliament will practically be saying to the teachers: "You have a good salary. You have a good pension guaranteed to you by the State. The necessities of the country at the present time are very great. Therefore the State is going to ask you to make a contribution to those necessities and forego 5 per cent. of this salary of yours on the Burnham scale, which seems to us to be a good one." That argument may have some sort of justice in the case of the teachers who are on the Burnham scale, which it is right that their authority should adopt, but it has little application to the teachers who are not working under an authority which has come into its indicated place on the scale. I have a letter from the head teacher of a secondary school in Cornwall explaining to me, perfectly rightly, that he is now £130 below the salary which would have been his if the local education authority had adopted the Burnham scale. It is rather hard to make the same cut in his salary as if he were in his proper place in the scale and was getting a salary £130 higher. Although I know it is difficult, I think it is just that an attempt should be made by the Government to see whether they cannot deal specially with the teachers in those areas who have not come into their proper indicated place in the scale. I believe that this Debate can be shortened, and it ought not to be controversial, but I think it is on those lines I have ventured

  65
  as quickly as I can to suggest that we should now face this adjourned Debate with the best hopes of making real progress in the interests of the education of the children.
  Major GRAY: Very seldom have I had to face a more difficult problem than than which confronts me at the moment. I dislike intensely the principle underlying this Bill. I have never wavered in my dislike. At the same time, I am conscious of other considerations deep and abiding in importance, which must not be excluded in determining the issue now before the House. Teachers regard this as an unjust imposition, but I have to recollect that in the strict course of justice none of us shall find salvation, and I have to realise that we have to seek something more in regard to popular education than even the strict letter of justice between the State and a great public service. There are the two positions, and I am bound to say it is more than a little difficult to reconcile them. May I just say a word or two about the Hill itself, and about the principles to which I have expressed my strong objection. It is called the School Teachers (Superannuation) Bill. It might just as well have been called a "School Teachers (Super-tax) Bill," or a "School Teachers (Income Tax) Bill." In my thirty years of Parliamentary life, it is the first Measure of its kind. It is a special Measure imposing an Income Tax of 5 per cent. on a special class of the community. It is not a Measure to place special contributions to the benefit of a superannuation fund, because no such fund exists. It is a Measure to hand the receipts over to the Board of Education for general education purposes, or, as it expressly states in the Bill, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not know any one of the taxes upon which we have been engaged during the last few days which have not had the same object in view. We have taken money from various sections of the community and handed it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the general expenses of the State. But they have all found their places in various Clauses of the Finance Bill. Here in this particular Measure we have an express and separate provision for imposing a 5 per cent. Income
  66
  Tax upon a certain class of the community. The money is to be used for national purposes. That may be justified—I will deal with that point in a moment—but do not let us camouflage it by calling it a superannuation contribution. As the Select Committee said in their findings, there is no superannuation fund in existence, and this is no contribution to that fund. It is not contemplated at present to establish any such fund. Indeed, the money which will be gathered by this 5 per cent. tax is mentioned in the Education Estimate for this year as an Appropriation-in-Aid. It has diminished the amount which the taxpayer otherwise would have to provide for the ordinary purposes of education.
  There is another fact of significance. The amount which will be received under the 5 per cent, contribution is in excess of the total demand made upon the State on account of the superannuation of teachers. For superannuation £1,880,000 will be required. This Bill will secure for the Treasury £2,300,000. There is an addition, therefore, during the present year of about £500,000. I call it a special tax. I am not quite sure it would not be more appropriate to call it a special levy. I have been rather interested in the attitude of my Labour Friends opposite. I was intensely interested in noticing that they moved the rejection of the Bill. I would have thought that, instead of moving its rejection, they would have moved a resolution of thanks to the Government for providing them with a precedent which they could use to great advantage in the years to come. If to-day yon may make a levy on the teachers to meet the necessities of the State, why not a levy on other classes of the community if the necessities of the State become sufficiently urgent? Why not ultimately reach their great goal, and have a special levy on capital to liquidate the National Debt? The same principle is involved; it is merely a question of degree. Then, I am told: "Ah! but one reason for singling out teachers is that a few years ago they were granted a scheme of pension to which they did not contribute, and, therefore, we are now justified in coming upon them for a substantial contribution in order that that particular burden may be lightened." But there are other classes of the community enjoying a non-contributory scheme of

  67
  pension. What about the civil servants'; Are they going to be raided next? It would be interesting to know whether those who drafted this Bill, all of whom are enjoying pensions to which they do not contribute, will be called upon to pay 5 per cent. The teachers all over the country are asking: "Why should we be singled out for this special treatment? Why should not the officials of the Board of Education, also on a non-contributory scheme, be called upon to pay towards the national charge which is involved?"
  I suppose it is somewhat due to my old Tory up-bringing, but I do not like singling out a special class of the community and raiding their property to meet national emergencies. If we are to be raided, let us be raided all round. Let the House just picture what the results will be. The Finance Bill passes, and a large majority of the community will be relieved of Income Tax to the extent of 1s. in the £1. Immediately 5 per cent. is deducted from the teacher's salary to meet the demands under this Bill. What relief is he getting? It is worse in the case of the man who has never earned enough to be liable for Income Tax. He will be called upon under this special levy to pay 5 per cent. They feel that very strongly, and I do not think anybody can blame them. They have also felt, and I think quite rightly, that the questions of salaries and superannuation were tied up together. They constituted the emoluments for service. They were their reward for services rendered. In a great measure the pensions were nothing but deferred pay. They were taken in consideration in determining their salary. Fortunately, I am absolved from saying much about the proceedings of the Select Committee, because my right hon. Friend has already dealt with them. But I would like to remind the House that during the earlier stages of the Second Reading debate, the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil) used these words:
  "What I say is that a meeting of teachers was called to consider whether they would or would not accept the Burnham scale, that at that meeting the three representatives of the teachers—I think there were three on the Burnham Committee-represented to the teachers at that meeting that in deciding whether or not they would accept the Burnham scale, they must consider the fact that they had a non-contri-
  68
  butory scheme of pension. That shows two things. It shows that the body of teachers accepted the Burnham scale on the faith of these non-contributory pennons, and it shows, which is even more important, that in the minds of those who were negotiating on behalf of the teachers, the existence of this non-contributory pension scheme was an important consideration when they accepted the Burnham scale."—[OFFICIAL RRPOHT, 16th May, 1922; col. 305, Vol. 154.]
  I said at the time that the teachers were prepared to prove up to the hilt the truth of that statement, and that they could go beyond it. We have heard to-day from the Chairman of the Select Committee that that statement was abundantly proved. Whether or not it constituted an implied undertaking was a matter, of course, for the Committee. On the facts, there is now no doubt. It is said that the majority which the Government secured, five to four, was but slender. I believe the four who voted against the Report, were present during the whole time. I am not quite sure about the five who voted for it. Still, the Government technically had a majority. I cannot dispute that, but it does not remove my initial objection to the principle of this Bill. I put it with all sincerity to the House—Why are the teachers specially selected for this tax, and why are not the proceeds of this arbitrary tax to be set aside specifically for superannuation purposes? Why are they to go into the coffers of the State for general purposes?
  May I deal with the Bill for a moment apart from its underlying principle? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Camborne Division has drawn attention to the desirability of its provisions being restricted to a period of two years. I gather from the President of the Board of Education that he is prepared to adhere to the undertaking which he gave in the early part of the Second Reading Debate, that he would accept an Amendment to that effect. The Bill proposes to take 5 per cent. from the salaries not only of the teachers who are receiving the Burnham Award but also from those who do not receive it. I cannot believe the House of Commons will ever sanction an arrangement of that kind. The whole plea of my right hon. Friend when he submitted this Bill was this. Since we introduced a non-contributory system of salaries the salaries have been substantially improved. The right hon. Gentleman quoted averages which are

  69
  always misleading, and he said that because the salaries had been largely raised, therefore it was fair now to ask for the contribution. That may be, but what about the individuals, the thousands in areas where the salaries have not been improved? Are they to contribute also? I gathered that the Leader of the House, when he spoke briefly on the short Debate we had on the establishment of the Select Committee, intimated that the cases of these people would be sympathetically considered. I am going to press my right hon. Friend this afternoon to give an assurance that they will be; that he will give something more than a mere anæsthetic reply for the purposes of facilitating the passage of the Bill, and that he will give a firm offer to the effect that there shall be special treatment for the people who are not drawing salaries which justify these contributions being made, and also that there will be special treatment for the comparatively few men, mostly ex-service men, who by the nature of their war service, are not able to reap the benefits which the superannuation scheme provides. Some of them have come back damaged from the War, and will never be able to reap the full benefits. There is no reference to them in the Bill, and they are to be called upon to pay their 5 per cent. It may be that death at an early date through sickness or wounds contracted during the War will mean that everything is lost to them, including their contributions. Such cases the House will, I am sure, desire to meet.
  There is also the provision that a woman, on marriage, if she makes a declaration that she does not propose to return to the profession, shall receive back what she has contributed and shall henceforth have no interest in the fund. I would beg for a, revision of that. Many a young woman, when everything seems bright and rosy, may be quite prepared to make the declaration that she has no intention of returning to the service. But she may be left a widow in a few years. She may have children dependent on her, and she may find that the teaching service affords her the only means of supporting her family and herself. Her needs become greater than ever. Her responsibilities are increased, and I think some arrangement should be made whereby, either on repayment to the fund of what she has taken out of it,
  70
  or by a diminished benefit, she may be able to re-enter the fund and receive something of its advantages. The fact that she got married, wisely or unwisely, and under the excitement of the event gave her declaration that she would not return to the profession, should not shut her out for all time from the benefits of the fund, and I urge this not merely in the woman's interests and in the interests of the children, but because such women make most admirable teachers, particularly in the infants' department, and it is most desirable that they should come back to the service. Then there are those who are worse off by virtue of the operation of this Bill than if there had been no alteration in the scheme of 1918. I refer to teachers who, like those in London, were receiving the benefits of the London superannuation scheme. They threw them up in order to come under this non-contributory scheme, and they now find themselves worse off by virtue of this 5 per cent. contribution. I hope all these cases will be dealt with generously and justly by the Board of Education if this Bill passes, as I presume it will.
  I have said that I am conscious of interest wider, deeper and more enduring than those which are represented by a mere deduction of 5 per cent. from the salaries of the teachers. The teachers are accused of being an unpatriotic body of people. In 1914 their salaries were miserably inadequate. That was a time when they were seeking improvement and when conflicts were in force between groups of teachers and local authorities. But the period of national trouble came and they dropped their fight. Was that unpatriotic? When the national call came, there was no section of the community that rallied more readily to the Colours than the young men in our schools, and the fact that teachers had gone led many a young lad to follow his example. Was that unpatriotic? Women readily filled the places vacated by the men and discharged duties for which they were not trained. Was that unpatriotic? Every hour of their spare time was occupied on national duty. Ask the Food Controllers. Ask those who had to do with national registration, and they will tell you that these women worked readily and without thought of reward. Surely that was not unpatriotic. Those who accuse a quarter of a million

  71
  of men and women, for that is roughly the number involved in this matter, of a lack of patriotism have very, very short memories indeed. I make of that no virtue. They looked upon it as their duty. I found nothing on it. Thousands did the same. I only use it to resent the charge of unpatriotism which I do not think can with justice be hurled against these public servants.
  There is something else. I know there has grown up an uncomfortable feeling between the teachers and the ratepaying parents which is not to the advantage of one party or the other, and is a distinct disadvantage to the schools. I know that the wisest among our teachers realise that. We know that the full progress of the schools cannot be achieved unless there be the most friendly co-operation between the parents and the teachers with regard to the care of the children, and if there be this friction to which my right hon. Friend opposite referred, if it be said, "Other salaries are falling, why should not those of the teachers also fall?" then I have to say to my teacher friends, let us look ahead. There are other troubles in store for us during the next few years. I am sorry to say my right hon. Friend the President of the Board has not yet taken from the bag all the troubles that were handed over to him by the Geddes Committee, and it may be that the teachers and the ratepayers will have to co-operate in tightening the strings of that bag, so that he shall not let them loose on the public to the injury of the common weal. There are other educational problems which we have to face. There are special professional problems which will have to be faced.
  I urge this in conclusion. If the Government will help us over our dislike of this Measure, if it is ready to go fully into the question of Amendments so as to make that dislike of the Measure to some extent tolerable, then we shall be wise in withdrawing our opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill. I know there are many who will prefer to maintain hostilities to the very last. There are always the die-hards. There are always those who shout for fighting to the very last ditch, but when you come to the last ditch those people are generally to be found among the baggage. Their dupes may have come to grief by the way, but they generally take care of themselves.
  72
  I am one of those who prefer to make terms with mine enemy while in the way with him rather than leave it until it be so late that I am hauled before the judge who may east me into prison, and verily I shall not come out until I have paid the uttermost farthing. The only statesmanlike course, regarding the Bill not merely from a professional position, but looking on it from the point of view of the people as a whole, is to try to take the broadest educational view one can, looking forward to the future of our schools, and I think I should be justified in asking the House to press His Majesty's Government for a sympathetic answer with regard to Amendments to the Measure, and, if we get that, then we can allow it to take its Second Reading. I said at first that I was faced with a difficult task, and wherever I found that the interests of the public conflicted with the interests of the teachers, I have always set before my mind one single test —what is the course which will, in the long run, tend to the greatest good of the children? They have to be our largest care, and I am confident that, in the course which I am now recommending to the House, the interests of the child will ultimately predominate; and, as the interests of the children are safeguarded, the interests of the teachers will naturally follow.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): I can only speak again with the leave of the House, but, after the two speeches to which we have listened from my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) and the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington (Major Gray) it may, I think, abridge our discussion— which, in any case, will, I hope, not be greatly prolonged—if I intervene at this juncture to explain very briefly the attitude which His Majesty's Government are disposed to adopt towards the Bill. May I, however, in the first instance, dispel a misconception that exists with respect to the procedure which the Government has adopted in the handling of this acutely difficult matter. The Government has been criticised in many quarters for not having taken the teachers into counsel, and for not having attempted to arrive at agreement with the teachers before this Bill was introduced into the House.

  73
  That charge rests upon a misconception as to the facts. There was an interview between the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself, and the leading representatives of the teachers before this Bill was introduced —before it was drafted. It was a meeting held in the early part of February, and we did ask the teachers whether they would be prepared to make any suggestion with a view to the reduction of teaching cost. The meeting was confidential, and I should not allude to it now were it not for the fact that it has been mentioned in the course of the proceedings of the Select Committee over which my right hon. Friend presided with such ability, and the letter of the teachers in reply to the overtures of the Government has been printed on page 95 of the Select Committee's Report. If hon. Members care to look at that letter they will see that the teachers did not find it possible or practicable, at any rate at that stage of the proceedings, to offer any suggestion which might help the Government in its difficulty. I do do not complain of that; I merely mention it in order to explain to the House that we were very anxious all along to carry the opinion of the teachers with us if possible.
  I am delighted to gather from the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and from the speech— the admirable speech, if he will allow me to say so—of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Accrington, that at present there is a feeling abroad to the effect that we should conduct this matter, if possible, in a spirit of amity and conciliation. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Accrington that on the part of His Majesty's Government there will be every desire to look with sympathy and consideration into the various points which he has mentioned. Let me take the first point, mentioned, I think, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne as well as by my hon. and gallant Friend, namely, the question of the limitation of the period during which this Bill is to run. I gave an undertaking, during the earlier part of the Second Reading Debate, that the Government would be prepared to introduce an Amendment, or to consent to an Amendment, limiting the currency of this Bill to a period of two years, and that
  74
  undertaking we are prepared to implement. Therefore there will be no difficulty on that point.
  Then I come to the second question which has been raised, that is the question of the teachers who are not receiving the salaries allocated to them by the Burnham Committee. That, of course, raises a point which may be one of considerable administrative difficulty; but, speaking for the Government, I may say that we are very anxious to meet the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member. We shall be very glad to consider proposals, not too costly and not involving the Government in too great administrative difficulties. Of course, when we are considering a Bill that is only going to run for two years, we do not wish to impose an intolerable burden of administrative difficulty on the shoulders either of the Board of Education or of the local authorities, but if we can have proposals put before us of reasonable simplicity and not too costly, we shall look at them with sympathy; and, so far as I see, I do not think it ought to be difficult to find a proposal which will meet those two tests.
  I must, however, point out that although there is a considerable number of authorities who are not paying their teachers upon the scale of salaries recommended by the Burnham Committee, all the authorities are at least paying salaries on the provisional minimum scale, and the provisional minimum scale does represent a very considerable advance, not only on pre-War salaries—that, of course, is natural and quite right-—but also upon the pre-]919 salaries. If, for instance, one takes 39 areas, employing 14,000 teachers, in which salaries are paid upon that scale, one finds that in those areas there is an increase in the salaries of pensionable teachers amounting to 144 per cent. over the salaries paid in 1913–14, and amounting to 101 per cent. over the salaries paid in 1917–19. It must not, therefore, be thought that there has not been a very considerable advance in salaries in the areas which are only paying on the provisional minimum scale. Still, I realise that there is considerable force and weight in the considerations which have been urged by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Accrington, and I hope we shall be able to satisfy him and his friends on this matter. Then

  75
  my hon. and gallant Friend raised a further point with respect to women teachers who go out of the profession on marriage, whose contributions are consequently returned to them, and who then change their minds—perhaps they lose their husbands and find themselves in great pecuniary difficulties—and wish to revert to the school. If that is the case, I think it is worth looking into; but the hardship in those cases would not arise immediately, and I would suggest for consideration that that is a point which might very well be referred to the Departmental Committee which will be set up to consider the whole question with respect to the permanent settlement of pensions.
  Sir EDMUND BARTLEY-DENNISS: That question is not within the Preamble of the Bill.
  Mr. FISHER: I doubt whether it is. Then there is a further question which my hon. and gallant Friend raised, namely, the question of teachers who, by reason of disability suffered during the War, would be unlikely to earn their full pay. That, again, is obviously a point which the Government would be prepared to go into. Finally, my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne very properly raised a question as to the adequacy of Clause 3 as an instrument for conserving to teachers, who had abandoned their old pension scheme in order to come in under the Act of 1918, the full measure of the benefit which they had abandoned. I have already pointed out that, if Clause 3 be not sufficient to secure to them an adequate measure of compensation in these cases, we shall be prepared to consider Amendments to fortify the Clause. My own view is that the Clause is adequate to its purpose, but we shall, as I have said, be very glad to improve upon it if improvement is possible.
  I hope that with these observations I have given my hon. and gallant Friend and those whom he represents a sufficient indication of the spirit in which we shall meet Amendments when this Bill goes to Committee, and there, I think, I may conclude. Let me only say how very heartily I re-echo the desire expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and by the hon. and gallant
  76
  Member for Accrington, that these disputes with respect to salaries and pensions should be terminated as soon as possible. They inflict unspeakable injury upon the cause of education. They divert the minds of teachers from their proper task, and they injure the reputation of the education profession in the minds of people who have no personal acquaintance with it. In the interests of the teaching profession itself, I earnestly hope that this Measure may pass without further opposition. Of course, I must not be understood to assent to all the propositions with respect to the general principles of the Measure which were enunciated by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Accrington, but I have expressed my own view with respect to the Measure so fully in an earlier stage of this Debate, and the House has listened to me with so much patience and has been so indulgent as to give me the opportunity of expressing myself once more, that I think I ought not to inflict myself longer on the House, and I content myself, therefore, with the observations which I have made.
  Mr. L. MALONE: I want to raise one question with regard to this Bill before it passes its Second Reading. I do not know whether the House is entirely satisfied with the statement of the President of the Board of Education in regard to those teachers who are not yet up to the Burnham scale. I feel that, before the Second Reading is passed, we ought to get a more definite assurance that something definite will be put before Parliament with regard to them, either before the Report stage or before the Bill comes up for Third Reading. In order to illustrate what I mean, I should like to lay before the right hon. Gentleman an example of the peculiar anomalies with which certain sections of the teaching profession are faced to-day. In the administrative County of Essex at the present time, we find that, while the assistants in the secondary schools have-the provincial Burnham scale, and while all the elementary teachers in the administrative County of Essex are on the agreed Burnham scale, most of the heads of secondary schools have no scale at all, either Burnham, agreed, or otherwise. In my constituency of Leyton, which is a section of the County of Essex, headmasters to-day are in two cases being paid at £50 below the minimum Burnham

  77
  scale, which amounts to £600, and recently another vacancy has been advertised at £550, that is to say, £50 below the Burnham minimum. In this anomalous County of Essex the average of secondary school headmasters is £608, while the average salary of headmasters in the other home counties, i.e., Bucks, Kent, Middlesex, and Surrey, is £808, or over £200 more than that which secondary school headmasters are receiving in Essex. I believe, if I were to compare these with secondary school headmasters in London, I should find that they were receiving something like £300 more than they are in Essex, or £900. This levy of 5 per cent. on this class of teachers is an anomaly which penalises them out of all proportion. The Board of Education might take powers to compel these laggard authorities either to pay the 5 per cent. or to raise the salaries up to a reasonable level. These people are suffering unduly, and I think we might get an assurance that something definite and specific will be brought before the House before either Report or Third Reading.
  Captain BOWYER: I want to bring to the right hon. Gentleman's attention a point about which I asked a question, and he referred me to this Debate. Under Clause 2, as far as I understand it, there are four classes of people who, under certain circumstances, may have the contributions that they have paid towards superannuation returned to them in a lump sum. There is, first, the class of men who are too old when they get to 65 to qualify. There is the class of secondary teacher who is not a British subject. Thirdly, there is the class of women teacher who definitely decides to retire from the profession within one year of marriage, and lastly, there is the teacher who reaches 65 without having qualified. I submit that there is a final class who deserve serious consideration, and that is the class of teacher who, after a loyal service of 10 or 15 years, has paid contributions during the whole of that time but has not qualified for a pension. If owing to illness, either of the teacher or of someone who is dependent upon him, the teacher is forced to give up teaching, can it be said to be fair that all the contributions which he has paid towards superannuation, which he is never going to enjoy, should not also be returned to him, or a portion of them,
  78
  in a lump sum'? If the right hon. Gentleman cannot make a general rule in that respect, at least he might make some arrangement whereby after a definite period of service those who do not qualify for superannuation should have the contributions which they have paid returned in a lump sum. I wish to draw attention to the pathetic position of those teachers who do not now come under this Act and who retired before the 1918 Act. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to pass this Bill without dealing in any way with their position? Does he realise that there are very many cases of men, who have been the backbone of the teaching of this country, who are now trying to subsist on an annual sum of something like £40 a year, which, until about two years ago, was to a large extent a sum of £30 a year? I do not know whether I am in order in mentioning this subject, but I want to do so in order to ask whether in Committee the right hon. Gentleman, if it is at all possible, will listen to Amendments on their behalf?
  Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: On behalf of the Labour party I want to move that the Bill be read a Second time upon this day three months.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That Amendment was moved on the last occasion, and that is the Question now before the House.
  Mr. EDWARDS: That answers my purpose. I have listened to the discussion, and I listened to the Debate the other day, and I find that the objection we took then has not been removed in any sense-that is the question of breaking faith with the teachers. We are opposed to breaking faith with anyone. We have on several occasions, during the last year or two especially, condemned the Government for breaking faith in more than one case. In the case of the miners we condemned them, and we say the troubles that are upon that industry to-day came about because the Government broke faith with them. The same thing applies to the agricultural labourer. We opposed the Government at that time, and condemned them for breaking faith. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, when this was discussed before, talked a lot about breaking faith, but on looking up the Divisions that took place in other cases I find that he was always in the Lobby against us, so that he supported the Government in

  79
  breaking faith with other sections of the community, but believes it should not be broken with the teachers. We agree with him to this extent, that faith ought to be kept with everyone. If anyone should keep their agreements it is the Government. I suppose there are thousands of agreements entered into every day, and if we get into the way of looking lightly upon agreements entered into, where should we finish up? The hon. and gallant Gentleman has been telling us, the Labour party, that we ought to be thanking the Government for bringing in this Bill. I do not know what we have to thank them for It is not a question of superannuation. If it was a question of superannuation we should be supporting them, because I am living in hopes that some time superannuation will be brought in for every person who works in the State. I was talking to a man a week or two ago who had worked underground for sixty-two years, and he told me he was finishing in a week or two, and he was going to live with the children and live upon his old age pension the best way he could. It never ought to be like that. There ought to be, long before that time, a sufficient pension to enable a man at least to finish his days in comfort. But that is not what is before the House. It is not a question of superannuation at all but whether a deduction is to be made from the teachers' salaries, and we contend that as long as the Burnham scale is in force the position ought to be left exactly as it is to-day. If it had been a contributory scheme there would have been a difference in the rates of pay which were agreed upon. There was a lot of difficulty in getting many of the teachers to accept those rates, knowing that it was a non-contributory scheme under which they worked. However, they were finally accepted, and we say the term of that scale ought to be allowed to run out. It would then become an open question, and the Government, or anyone else dealing with the school teachers, would be at liberty to talk about a contributory or a non-contributory scheme. I am passing no opinion as to which it ought to be. I should welcome a superannuation scheme for all classes, whether it was contributory or not. However, we feel that faith ought to be kept with this section of the community, and that
  80
  the scale ought to be allowed to run its proper term, and let it then become an open question, and on those grounds we shall divide the House, as we have divided before on the question of keeping faith, and I think we are in a very strong position on that, because, more than everyone else in the world, the Government ought to do that.
  Mr. FOOT: I wish to ask the Minister if it will be possible in Committee to deal with a number of anomalies which have arisen, particularly in relation to secondary teachers—the headmasters and assistant masters and mistresses in our secondary schools. Whilst a certain number of difficulties and anomalies have arisen as far as elementary teachers are concerned, the greatest possible disaffection exists amongst the secondary masters and mistresses, and assistant masters and mistresses because of the unfair way in which they have been treated. I am not attributing unfairness to the Minister or to his Department, but the Bill was so drawn, and the Regulations under it have been so drawn, that considerable hardship has been inflicted upon a large number of these mistresses and masters, and I am wondering if it is possible that these difficulties can be considered in Committee. I think hon. Members would be rather disturbed to know how many men and women who are working in secondary schools are struck out of what this Measure intended, because of the interpretation of the Act. I have had a number of instances put into my hand only to-day which have been surprising to me. It bears mainly upon the two Clauses as to recognised service and qualifying service. In order to be eligible for a pension, a teacher must have served at least 10 years in a grant-earning school, and that is called recognised service, and a total of 30 years of either recognised or qualifying service. It is in the interpretation of qualifying service that so many difficulties have arisen. One of the Sections of the main Act of 1918, for instance, excluded all schools which were run for profit. I should like the House to see how that applies. Some of the best schools in the country have been established and run by limited liability companies, the money having been put into the concern by the people of the locality, with no interest of their own to serve, but simply to run an educational

  81
  establishment in their locality. It may be that during the course of years a small dividend has sometimes been paid, perhaps not more than 3 per cent., once or twice in the course of 20 years. That dividend has been carried into the school. No penny of it has gone into the pockets of those who promoted the undertaking. Because of that it is looked upon as a school run for profit, and a teacher in a school where that small profit arises is deprived of the advantages which are secured by a teacher working in another school in the same town. That will apply to such a school, for instance, as Queen's at Taunton or Tettenhall at Birmingham, a well known school in which really the principle of private profit has not entered at all, and to schools which have been maintained and established by those who have been anxious to secure only educational interests in their own localities.
  5.0 P.M.
  The difficulty that occurs to me in looking at this subject is that a great many of these secondary mistresses and masters will be asked for a contribution of 5 per cent. upon their salaries, when they will not know whether they are pensionable or not. There are a large number of masters and mistresses in secondary schools who could not tell you whether they will receive a pension or not at the end of their service. I believe when the master or mistress comes to the time when his or her pension accrues, all these questions are gone into, and it may be that he may not be able to satisfy the authorities, when he reaches 60 or 65 years of age, that he is entitled to a pension. So far as I can see, it is proposed in this Bill to come down upon these people and to make a deduction of 5 per cent. from their salaries, when they cannot be sure that at the end of their period of service they will or will not receive a pension. These difficulties arise a great deal more so far as secondary teachers are concerned than in the case of elementary teachers. The teachers in secondary schools are anxious that their colleagues in the elementary schools should not be deprived of any advantage, but they do regard the original Act, in its working, as being very unjust, and they say that that injustice has been intensified and exacerbated by the proposals in this more recent Bill.
  Mr. FISHER: Is the hon. Member aware that, before the Act of 1918 was passed, secondary teachers had no pension whatever, and that the Act of 1918 gave the secondary teachers a most generous system of pension, without adding to their responsibilities?
  Mr. FOOT: When I said that the Act of 1918 was unjust, I did not mean in its introduction, but in its working. I think the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to admit that there are a number of incidents arising in the interpretation of that Act which shut out certain of the teachers in secondary schools who have in their record of service just as good a claim as those who are working side by side with them. One condition of which they complain is that it makes it essential for them to prove that they have been working in an efficient school. That proof is very often most difficult to bring forward. I know from the representations made to me, and the representation made to-day by the responsible society representing many thousands of secondary schoolmasters and mistresses, that the secondary teachers look upon this general levy of 5 per cent., having regard to the anomalies which have arisen under the 1918 Act, as being an unfair levy upon them. It ought to be possible for Amendments to be considered in Committee sympathetically, so that as far as possible these injustices may be remedied. It will be recognised that if a man is receiving his salary at the present time he ought not to have that salary so substantially reduced, unless he can have a reasonable assurance that later on he will participate in the pensions that others are to enjoy. If he is not to participate, then a reduction of his salary by 5 per cent. is a gross injustice, and he is entitled to complain. I do not think that I shall vote against the Second Beading of the Bill, but I should be glad to have some assurance that there will be opportunity in Committee for this matter to be cleared up, affecting as it does so many people, and that there may be brought about that amity and conciliation which the right hon. Gentleman desires.
  Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I regret that I had not the advantage of listening to the statement of the President of the Board of Education. I had the honour of sitting on the Select Committee which reported on the question whether the Government had given a pledge to the teachers. I do

  83
  not know what may have transpired since this House declined to proceed with the first Measure, but it appears to me rather strange that the teaching profession, having made such an attack on the Government at that time, should now, apparently, through their representatives in this House, have climbed down from their original position. I would like to know from the Minister what has actually transpired in the meantime, because the Bill now presented is almost exactly in the same form as the Bill which was presented to the House a short time ago. I was rather astonished at the evidence brought before the Committee, and I was convinced that the Government had broken faith with the teachers. The Burnham scale of wages are implicated in this Measure, and I am surprised that the Bill is again brought before the House apparently without any explanation as to any new negotiation between the Government and the teachers.
  There are three parties to a Bill like this, Parliament, the teachers, and the local authorities. The negotiations which may have taken place in the meantime have been exclusively between the Government and the teachers. The local authorities ought to be consulted, because this Bill means that in future it will be more difficult for local authorities to secure the requisite supply of teachers, and the standard of the teaching profession will be reduced. The right hon. Gentleman will have learned already that local authorities are finding that the number of young men and young women entering the teaching profession is growing less every year. I know of one large local authority where prior to the War the number applying for teacher ships each year was, approximately, 350. Last year it was only about 90. Out of 368 applications for teacher-ships in that same city this year only 24 of them were boys. It will be a bad day for this country when the teaching profession becomes exclusively a feminine profession. This Bill makes an attack directly on the scales of wages laid down by the Burnham Committee, by a deduction from salary. It is another way of reducing salaries, and I have been wondering whether the right hon. Gentleman, in his negotiation with the teachers, has made a bargain, which is said has been
  84
  proposed to him, that the teachers would agree to this Measure, provided the Board of Education would layit down that all local authorities in the country are to be compelled to pay the Burnham scale of wages. There are about 17 per cent. of the local authorities who have declined to adopt these scales.
  There is another point: that weighs with me, and I hope that we shall divide the House on the Measure. Both the local authorities and teachers are concerned in this Bill, and this House, when the Government has made an agreement in connection with the Burnham scale of wages, ought to stand firm for its own honour. It has been hinted that the Government have broken faith with other sections of the community, and I am surprised that the teachers are ready to accept this Bill, with some slight Amendments in Committee. I fail to understand why the Board of Education distinguishes between teachers contributing to a superannuation scheme and civil servants. The right hon. Gentleman will find that very few civil servants make any contribution to their superannuation fund. I do not criticise that. If I had my way, every man and woman who has done useful service to the community would be in receipt of a superannuation allowance at a given age. Every man and woman, whatever their social position, ought to be entitled to superannuation at a given age, provided they have done useful service, and I do not like the distinction between teachers and members of the civil service. Neither do I like the distinction that is made between scores of municipal employés and the teachers employed by the same local authorities.
  I want to deny the right of the Minister to proceed with a Bill of this kind without regard to the opinions of the local authorities. There have been consultations between himself and the teaching profession, but not with the local authorities. The Board of Education pays 50 per cent. of the cost of education, and the local authorities pay the other 50 per cent. Surely on that basis the local authorities ought to be consulted.
  Mr. FISHER: The local authorities pay nothing towards the pensions.
  Mr. DAVIES: Irrespective of what the local authorities pay with regard to superannuation, they arts the employers of the people with whom we are dealing

  85
  in this Bill. The Board of Education do not employ the teachers; the local authorities engage them, and are responsible for finding the requisite number of teachers each year, and I do think that, whatever may be the proportion of payment by the local authorities to any superannuation scheme, the local authorities ought to have a say in this matter. The Government, whenever they launch a scheme of superannuation should call in a Government actuary to give them a statement as to the soundness or otherwise of the scheme; here is a scheme based upon something that is totally unknown. I am not aware that the Government actuary has been consulted in this matter. Whenever the Minister of Health proceeds with any scheme to extend health insurance benefits he consults the Government actuary. I have not seen a report of any kind in regard to the scheme in this Bill, although it must be easier to deal with actuarial calculations in respect to the superannuation of teachers than of any other section of the community. I am surprised that the Government propose to call for 5 per cent. from the salaries of the teachers, when it is quite possible that 3 per cent. or even 2 per cent. may be sufficient for the purpose. The right hon. Gentleman ought to give us some idea of the financial basis of this Bill, because he will probably find in 12 months' time that he has either got too much or too little money. I believe I am speaking the mind of everybody connected with schemes of this kind when I say that it is unfair to call for a levy from salaries of teachers and to expect them to pay 5 per cent. for, say, five years, when 3 per cent. might have been sufficient, with the result that teachers employed 10 or 15 years hence will benefit by the payments of teachers now employed. Having sat on the Select Committee, having heard the evidence from men of repute engaged in this business, and having voted as I did on the Select Committee I shall go to a Division against this Bill.
  Mr. D. M. COWAN: Although this Bill is devoted to England and Wales it does, in a sense, affect Scotland. We have been told that a Scottish Bill is to be introduced, making it necessary that there shall be a levy of 5 per cent. on teachers' salaries with a view to helping to provide for the superannuation benefits at present enjoyed. I was interested to hear the
  86
  President of the Board of Education say that there had been a preliminary conference between himself, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the representatives of the teachers before any proposal of this sort was put forward. It is one of the grievances we suffer from in Scotland, that there was no such conference with the Scottish teachers. Otherwise I am sure that they would have taken a reasonable view of what might be expected of them at this time.
  It is worth noting what has been the position in Scotland in regard to superannuation. Scotland came under the Act of 1898, just as England and Wales did. Scotland objected to that Act from the beginning and was successful in having it repealed so far as Scotland was concerned in 1912. In that year Scotland set up on its own account a contributory superannuation scheme. It was an excellent scheme. There were three contributories. The teachers gave 4 per cent. of their salaries, the education authorities 2 per cent., and the Scottish Education Department approximately 4 per cent., besides undertaking liabilities to meet the case of the older teachers. That scheme continued for seven years. So far as I know, and I think that I was in a position to hear, there was no complaint against it from any of the contributing bodies. But in 1918 the English superannuation scheme was passed on a non-contributory basis. That made it necessary to alter the Scottish scheme. It was with great regret that the Scottish teachers parted from their contributory scheme, because it gave them a say in what should be the benefit under that scheme. Their scheme disappeared and a non-contributory scheme took its place. There might be no objection to a non-contributory scheme but here we have such a scheme, well thought out presumably on the part of those who introduced it, which is now being practically scrapped.
  It is said that this Measure is only a temporary Measure, but it cuts at the essentials of the non-contributory scheme. It is said that the teachers should not object to making some contribution to the needs of the nation at the present time. They do not object, but they have a right to ask that understandings should be kept and a right to know exactly where they stand. At present Scottish teachers are squeezed at both ends. On

  87
  the Government side they are to be subjected to a levy of 5 per cent. They have only a minimum scale of salaries to start with, which is not sufficient for the country as a whole, with the result that the authorities have gone a bit beyond that minimum national scale. Now they are cutting off 5 per cent. here, and 10 per cent. there, with the result that the cut in the teachers' salary is going to be something like from one-eighth to one-sixth. I am not sure to what extent this Bill will be amended in Committee, but I would like to make clear that the salaries scales were drawn up in Scotland after this non-contributory scheme had been in operation for several months, and this non-contributory scheme was taken into account when the terms of those national scales were laid down. That was openly admitted. Through the courtesy of the Committee which investigated the subject of an undertaking on the part of the Government I was able to make a short statement with regard to the Scottish case, and I produced a statement from the Scottish Education Department that the superannuation benefits which come to Scottish teachers under the Act of 1919 were taken fully into consideration when the terms of the scales were laid down.
  That involved a direct understanding between the teachers and the authorities and the Education Department that until some other conference was called to deal with the matter the position as it then was should stand. I agree that superannuation schemes, like everything else, are subject to change according to changing conditions, but I do not think that things in this case are being done in the best way, or the way that would lead to the least friction. It would have been not only more businesslike but also consulting the feelings of the parties if the Government had waited until they had the Report of the Departmental Committee, which it is proposed to set up. I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer requires all the money that he can get, but he might have found some other way that would not have been felt so much as this. Be that as it may, I take this opportunity of stating the Scottish case. Scotland will have a separate Bill dealing with the same matter, but England, as the bigger country, always has the first consideration, and
  88
  when we come to have Scotland's case considered we are told "You cannot have this done. It is not in the English Bill. "Scottish teachers are willing to take their share in helping the nation in its present need, but they say that there has been a distinct breach of an honourable understanding in this case, and that is not only their opinion, but it is the opinion of one of the most important organs of the Scottish Press. The "Glasgow Herald," which says the Scottish teachers' understanding was that the superannuation scheme was taker into account when the salaries scales were fixed, and that it is very unwise that the matter should be re-opened now. I hope to discuss this question more fully on the Scottish Bill.
  Mr. AMMON: Like the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington (Major Gray), I have the honour of being a member of the London Education Committee, and I have there seen the hon. and gallant Gentleman put up a strong case against this proposed change on behalf of the teachers, as also in this House, and I was more than astonished when I heard him give some intimation of a change in position, and that he was going to support the Government on the Second Reading of this Bill. It would be interesting to know what transpired in the interval to bring about that change of opinion. So far as I am concerned, I intend to go to a Division in this matter. It is true that the hon. and gallant Gentleman does represent one section of the teachers' organisations, but the information that has come to me through different organisations, and especially during the last week when I was addressing a meeting of head teachers in London, was that they hoped that we would do all we could to oppose this attack on their salaries under the guise of a new Superannuation Act. The Minister of Education, said that there had been some sort of conference between himself, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the authorities on this matter, but we know what those conferences are. There was no conference in the real sense. There really is no conference if you go in and talk with people who have already laid down the terms from which they will not depart. All that the Minister of Education and those that represented the Government went there to do was to find some alternative way, perhaps, but still they intended to get the money somehow or other out of the teachers.

  89
  The hon. and gallant Member said something about people who fought to the last ditch and then were found with the baggage. He is very much with the baggage this afternoon. He has been putting up a fight to the last ditch, and now he has fallen back with the baggage. It would be our duty to keep him to those principles which he professed hitherto, and that he should demonstrate to those for whom he is concerned how far he is prepared to go. To all intents and purposes, there is no alteration in this Bill as compared with the Bill that was brought in some time ago. That makes it all the more indispensable that those who have talked so loudly about supporting the teachers should now establish the position. This special tax of 5 per cent. is being imposed upon teachers to relieve the Exchequer of certain payments, which it is bound under honourable obligation to make as part of the scheme of the Burnham Committee, from which it is now seeking to run away. It does not stop there. All over the country education authorities are cutting down salaries. In some cases they are dismissing their teaching staffs and re-engaging them at lower salaries. There is the disgraceful position at Southampton, where for many weeks all the elementary schools have been closed, and no teaching has been going on, owing to the local authorities acting in this high-handed manner, backed, no doubt, by the inspiration of the Board of Education.
  There is no more pitiable spectacle among the public men of the country than the Minister of Education, who made such great professions with regard to education, and never had the courage to stand up against the Government in support of those professions, but clung to office when the principles for which he stood were being attacked. One is sorry for that sort of thing. Many of us who have made this fight on behalf of the teachers have been urged by them, and by many of their organisations who still stand where they were, to continue this fight. This cut in their salaries, with the additional reductions, is making it more difficult to recruit the profession than it was before. For some time there did seem to be a hope of rehabilitating the teaching profession and attracting the best sort of people to it. I hope that when we come
  90
  to a Division those who have hitherto expressed their objection to the tax upon the teachers will vote against the Second Beading of this Bill. If they had reason to go against the Bill some weeks ago, that reason still remains, unless there has been some underhanded negotiation between certain people and the Minister. One would like to know what is the price that has been paid by reason of which the teachers are going to be let down. I hope that we shall carry with us the majority of the House, who will show that they have some regard to a bargain when it is made, and some regard to the obligations of honour which we owe to the teaching profession, and will defeat this proposal of the Government.
  Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I agree with the hon. Member that there has been a distinct broach of faith. As a member of a very large education authority, I entirely agree with him, and I also agree as a member of the Education Association Committee, with which I have been connected now for some years. They were represented on the Committee which set up the Burnham scale, and they know that in what the Government now propose there is a distinct breach of faith with the teachers, because the benefits of the non-contributory pensions scheme were fully placed before the Committee when the scales were being set up, and were always in their minds when fixing these scales. Breach of faith is made more distinct when you take into consideration that 5 per cent. of the teachers' salaries is not in any way required for a superannuation scheme such as that which the Government propose. Actuarial figures have been obtained by the teachers, and they show that any insurance company of standing in this country would be only too glad to give to every teacher insured under such a scheme, with 5 per cent. of their salaries deducted, no less than £700 down, with an annuity of something like £270. That being the case, I unhesitatingly say that this is a backdoor way of securing a reduction of the teachers' salaries.
  We have heard from practically all parts of the House that before 1914 the teachers of this country were a miserably paid class. After leaving college, and having spent all their lives in fitting themselves for teaching, they were, before the War, paid about £90 a year. To-day that £90 is £182 10s. We have to take

  91
  into account that the increased cost of living is something like 80 per cent., and remember that teachers were miserably paid before the War. With those facts in mind, can any hon. Member assert that what teachers are to receive in future is anything like adequate for the services they render? We are not dealing honestly by the teachers. It would have been far better to have gone to the teachers and to have said, "We made a mistake in fixing the Burnham Scale so high, and we ask you to accept a reduction of salary, and we shall leave this superannuation business severely alone." As the Minister well knows, before 1914 the applications for teacher ships were declining steadily, and it was impossible to get the number of candidates required. The Minister himself described the state of things as alarming, and said that there were entering the profession only about one-third of the teachers that would be necessary to meet the requirements of the 1918 Act. I believe that the action of the Government in bringing in this Bill will re-establish that condition in the near future.
  Let the Minister examine the statistics relating to those who now seek to enter the teaching profession. Ho will find that, on the male side, the numbers are steadily declining. It is true that on the female side there is some improvement. I see no change whatever in the position to-day compared with the position as it was when this Bill was last left in abeyance. I wish to ask the Minister a question. There are people whom the local authorities have found to be good men amongst the teachers. They have been promoted to directorships of education or to local school inspectorships. Will they be allowed to come under the provisions of this Bill? I hope the Minister will reconsider the whole position, and that if this Bill becomes an Act there will be no deduction for superannuation. I know only too well that it is not the Minister who is behind this Bill, but the Department over which the Chancellor of the Exchequer presides. If necessary, let the Minister get again into conference with the teachers and see what they have to say. Surely they have a right to a voice in the matter as well as other people.
  Colonel Sir J. GREIG: I would not have intervened in the Debate but for
  92
  some remarks which fell from the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. D. M. Cowan). Unfortunately, he dragged in the question of the teachers in Scotland. We in Scotland are only indirectly interested in this question, and the statement made by the hon. Member was not as full as it might have been. I shall not now give the details. I wish merely to point out one matter which differentiates the Scottish case which may have to be argued here sooner or later. I want to enter a caveat against that case being gone into on the English case. The way that we in Scotland are interested in this Bill is this: Of course, if the amount of money that will go to the education authorities from the English Exchequer is reduced, there will naturally be a reduction in the amount going to Scotland. Our Scottish Superannuation Act was quite a different Act from the English Act. In Scotland the scales which were fixed were not the Burnham scales, but what is known as the Craik scale. The scale is final only in the sense that until the Scottish Education Department sees fit to alter it no authority can pay less. It is not final in the sense that either authorities or teachers have agreed to abide by it. To show that that is so, the teachers, through their central body, have applied to the Association of Education Authorities to re-open the scale. That differentiates the whole case, and when we come to argue it, as we may have to do, we shall go into that matter in detail. It is rather a pity that the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities tried to jump the claim on this matter, which has an entirely different bearing, and must be argued on a different series of facts.
  Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: I greatly regret the findings of the Select Committee on the question whether teachers' pensions had been taken into consideration when the Burnham scale was settled. That Report, with its findings, having been issued, the Government feel, naturally, that this Bill must be continued. If the Government insist on the Bill, I hope they will allow several Amendments in order to make the Bill as good as possible. If a contribution be necessary—I think there is a good deal to be said for a contribution—5 per cent. is too much. A teacher with a salary of £550 will pay a contribution of £27 10s. a year. That would be considered heavy by any insurance com-

  93
  pany. Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 of the Bill apparently leaves it to the Board of Education and the Treasury to decide what deduction is to be made by the local education authority. Sub-section (3) is very vague. It will mean that all the recognised service of teachers begins from 1st April, 1922, the date of the Act. I do not think it is intended to do that. At any rate, it is necessary to make it clear that recognised service before the passing of the Act continues to count as such. Otherwise many would be pensionless. The 1918 Act allows only the service in recognised schools to count for pensions. This Bill does exactly the same. Secondary education has been a public business only since 1902, the date of the Balfour Act. If a school is recognised now, this past service counts, and not otherwise. There are many hard cases of masters, and particularly of mistresses, who have taught in schools not recognised, and yet they were some of the best teachers in the country. Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 suggests that the marriage of a woman teacher should not be the only recognised cause of retirement. Any teacher who leaves the profession should have his contributions repaid. They are his property and that is the essential characteristic of any contributory pension scheme. In Clause 4 the calculation of salaries is taken into account. This affords an opportunity of raising the question of a statutory salary, not subject to the variations of local authorities. The object of the Burnham scale was to avoid these local variations. The intention was to make a flat rate of salary throughout the country. Instead of lowering the contributions to those authorities which do not pay the Burn-ham scale, I hope every inducement will be given to the authorities to bring their salaries up to the Burnham scale, so that there will be a flat rate throughout the country, and contribution towards pensions would in that way become a flat rate also.
  Mr. C. WHITE: I cannot understand the attitude of the hon. and gallant
  Member for Accrington (Major Gray). Every argument adduced is an additional argument for rejecting this Bill. Yet it appears that some arrangement has been come to with the Minister of Education, or the Government Department responsible, behind the backs of the teachers, who, I know perfectly well, were, on Saturday last, just as strongly opposed to this scheme as they have been at any time since this Bill was introduced. I want to know for whom the hon. and gallant Member speaks, when he comes to an arrangement like this. Some arrangement evidently has been come to, for the Minister at the conclusion of the hon. and gallant Member's speech immediately got up and agreed to the suggestions made. I do not know what power the hon. and gallant Member had to consent. What is the value of the promises given by the Minister 1 We know what Government promises are worth. They are honoured in the breach more than in the observance, in almost every case: and so it will be in this case. We know that the Committee reached its findings by a majority of one on the merely technical ground that no agreement was come to or implied. It was quite understood by the teachers, and is understood to-day, that the pension scheme was to be a non-contributory scheme, and the scale of salaries was passed on that understanding. I do not know what the party to which I belong is going to do with regard to the Second Beading of this Measure. Whatever they do, I am going into the Lobby against it. I did so before, and every Member who voted for the Adjournment some weeks ago ought to go into the Lobby this afternoon to oppose the Second Heading of a Bill which should never be allowed to go to a Committee, but should be rejected with contumely by this House.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 210; Noes, 54.

  Division No. 201.]

  AYES.

  [5.47 p.m.

  Agg-Gardnar, Sir James Tynte

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)

  Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell

  Armstrong, Henry Bruce

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert

  Birchall, J. Dearman

  Baird, Sir John Lawrence

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Blair, Sir Reginald

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon, Stanley

  Beckett, Hon. Sir Gervase

  Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

  Berwick, Major G. O.

  Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)

  Bellairs, Commander Cariyon W.

  Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

  Barlow, Sir Montague

  Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

  Bowles, Colonel H. F.

  Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

  Haslam, Lewis

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Brassey, H. L. C.

  Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)

  Pinkham, Lieut. -Colonel Charles

  Breese, Major Charles E.

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Pratt, John William

  Broad, Thomas Tucker

  Hills, Major John Waller

  Purchase, H. G.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. Cilfton (Newbury)

  Hinds, John

  Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.

  Bruton, Sir James

  Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.

  Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)

  Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Reid, D. D.

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Holmes, J. Stanley

  Remnant, Sir James

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

  Burdon, Colonel Rowland

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir p. (Chertsey)

  Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Sir Alan Hughes

  Home, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

  Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

  Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

  Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

  Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Casey, T. W.

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Jodrell, Neville Paul

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

  Joynson-Hicks, Sir William

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill

  Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

  Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

  Churchman, Sir Arthur

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Coats, Sir Stuart

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

  Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

  Cohen, Major J. Brunei

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Seddon, J. A.

  Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

  Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

  Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)

  Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

  Lort-Williams, J.

  Simm, M. T.

  Cope, Major William

  Loseby, Captain C. E.

  Smithers, Sir Alfred W.

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

  Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoin)

  Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C, (Penrith)

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Lyle, C. E. Leonard

  Stewart, Gershom

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Ednam, Viscount

  McMicking, Major Gilbert

  Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

  Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

  Macnaghten, Sir Malcolm

  Sutherland, Sir William

  Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

  Evans, Ernest

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

  Thorpe, Captain John Henry

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Tickler, Thomas George

  Faile, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Tryon, Major George Clement

  Fell, Sir Arthur

  Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

  Middlebrook, Sir William

  Vickers, Douglas

  Fiannery, Sir James Fortescue

  Molson, Major John Elsdale

  Wallace, J.

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

  Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

  Forestier-Walker, L.

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Morris, Richard

  Waring, Major Walter

  Gardiner, James

  Murchison, C. K.

  White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh)

  Williams, C. (Tavistock)

  George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

  Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)

  Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Murray, John (Leeds, West)

  Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

  Neal, Arthur

  Wilson, Capt. A S. (Holderness)

  Glyn, Major Raiph

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

  Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

  Goff, Sir R. Park

  Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

  Windsor, Viscount

  Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

  Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hackn'y, N.)

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Winterton, Earl

  Grenfell, Edward Charles

  Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Wise, Frederick

  Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

  Pain, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. Hacket

  Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Parker, James

  Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge and Hyde)

  Hall, Captain Sir Douglas Bernard

  Pearce, Sir William

  Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

  Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Liv'p'l,W.D'by)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

  Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

  Hamilton, Sir George C.

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Younger, Sir George

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Perring, William George

  Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

  Philipps, Gen. Sir I. (Southampton)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Harris, Sir Henry Percy

  Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

  Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. McCurdy.

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

  Ammon, Charles George

  Grundy, T. W.

  Rose, Frank H.

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

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

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Halls, Walter

  Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

  Br ant, Frank

  Hirst, G. H.

  Spoor, B. G.

  Bromfield, William

  Hogge, James Myles

  Strauss, Edward Anthony

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Irving, Dan

  Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)

  Cairns, John

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

  Cape, Thomas

  Lawson, John James

  Waterson, A. E.

  Clynes, Rt- Hon. John R.

  Lunn, William

  Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Lyle-Samuel, Alexander

  Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)

  White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

  Wignall, James

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Naytor, Thomas Ellis

  Wintringham, Margaret

  Foot, Isaac

  O'Connor, Thomas P.

  Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

  Galbraith, Samuel

  O'Grady, Captain James

  Gilbert, James Daniel

  Rendall, Athelstan

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Gillis, William

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. Kennedy.

  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL.
As amended (in Standing Committee,) considered.

CLAUSE I—(Provision as to cost of medical benefit and administration expenses.)
(1) There shall be paid in each year out of the funds hereinafter mentioned—
(a) to insurance committees in England, on account of the cost, and the expenses of the administration, of medical benefit, by way of addition to the sums payable under Sub-section (1) of Section seven of the National Health Insurance Act, 1920, and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, a sum at such yearly rate as may be prescribed, but not exceeding two shillings and fourpence half-penny per year, in respect of each of the total number of the persons in respect of whom payments are made under the said Section seven; and
Major MACKENZIE WOOD: I beg to move in Sub-section (1, a) to leave out the words "and the expenses of the administration."
This Bill has undergone great changes since it was last before the House, and I hope before the Report stage is completed we shall have some explanation from the Minister of Health as to the changes which have taken place and the reasons for them. In this Amendment I am raising a question of some importance which I raised briefly in Committee. The object of the Bill is to transfer to the approved societies the burden of providing an extra sum of money for medical benefit. That was given as the reason for the Bill, and that we understood to be its meaning. But if the words of this particular Clause are scrutinised carefully it will be seen that the money is not going to be applied solely for medical benefit, but that a certain proportion of it is to meet the extra cost of administration. We are all for economy at the present time, and it is particularly necessary that the expenses of public bodies should be carefully supervised. Hitherto it has been the custom to put a limit on the sum which may be expended by a particular body on office expenses. That custom has always been recognised in connection with the National Health Insurance scheme. It has been, and is, recognised with regard
98
to the approved societies themselves, and previously it was recognised with regard to the insurance committees with which this particular Amendment deals. I wish the House to realise that this Amendment does not touch the question of the administration expenses of approved societies. They have already been fixed at so much per member by Act of Parliament. No society is allowed to go beyond that particular sum, which was fixed, as I say, in a previous Act of Parliament and which it is not proposed to alter now.
6.0 P.M.
It is, however, proposed by the Bill to make an alteration in the case of the administration of the insurance committees. Under an Act of 1920 the amount which an insurance committee was allowed to expend in administration was fixed at 4d. per member. In the following year that allowance was increased by 50 per cent. At the same time an increase was made in the sum allowed for the administration of the approved societies. Now it is proposed to make a further increase applicable to insurance committees. I object to the increase on two grounds—first, because no adequate reason has been given for it, and, secondly, because of the form in which it is proposed, because if an increase is justified at all it should be to a certain specific sum beyond which no insurance committee should be allowed to go. I hope the HOUSE will remember that since the last increase was made in the administration expenses allowed to insurance committees the work of those committees has decreased, because the administration of sanatorium benefit has been taken away from them. In spite of the fact that their work has become less, the Bill proposes to give them more money to spend in office expenses. I say that that is bad, because no reason has been given for it, and it is bad in principle because there ought to be some limit, whatever it may be, so that a spendthrift committee may not be allowed to waste money. In Committee upstairs the right hon. Gentleman said there was a limit of 2s. 4½d. Of course, there is a limit to the amount of expenses allowed, because if you swallowed up in office expenses all the money that you had to pay out, naturally there would be a limit there, but that is no real limit at all, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that no one would suggest that any committee would

99
ever reach that limit. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us some assurance that when this Bill becomes an Act there will be some real check upon spendthrift insurance committees, that each one will be given some sort of limit, and that there will be no incentive for wasteful expenditure.
Mr. RENDALL: I beg to second the Amendment.
Sir GODFREY COLLINS: The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health is aware that the cost of administering the National Health Insurance Acts is rising steadily year by year. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Aberdeen (Major M. Wood) pointed out that for 1920 the cost was 4d. per member, and that in 1921 the cost had risen to 6d. It may be within the recollection of the Minister of Health that when the 1921 Act was being passed in, this House we raised two subjects during the Debate—first, that the National Health Insurance Acts should be consolidated into one Act; and, secondly, that he should take steps to review the working and administration of that Act. I will not, on this occasion, trouble the House with figures to show the high cost of administering the present Act. It is generally admitted, and although the Minister of Health will no doubt carry this Bill through, yet it will be ultimately to the injury of the insured person, to the millions of men and women who are paying their weekly contributions throughout the length and breadth of this land, that the cost of administering that Act is rising steadily week by week and year by year. Therefore, we appeal to the Minister to give the House some assurance that during the coming months the administration of the many Acts may be inquired into, with a view, not only to safeguarding the public purse, but ultimately to benefiting the insured person.
The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): The hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) mentioned the general question of the cost of administration of the Insurance Acts. I do not think that he is correct in saying that the cost of these Acts is rising year by year. As a matter of fact, I think the cost of the central administration has
100
been reduced by no less than 3d. per head. The matter is receiving our best consideration, and I will not enter into it further at the present time, but I will deal more directly with the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Aberdeen (Major M. Wood) in moving an Amendment which he had already moved in Committee upstairs, and for which he found little support. What we are dealing with here is very simple. We are dealing with the question, not of the administration of the approved societies, but of the administration of the insurance committees. What the hon. and gallant Member has overlooked is this fact, that the cost of the insurance committees up to now has been partly borne by the Treasury and partly borne by the approved societies, and that is why his figures are not really accurate. In 1920–21 the total cost, excluding the cost of the Central Index scheme, was about 7¾d. per insured person per annum, made up of 4d. from the societies and 3¾d. from the Exchequer. In 1921–22 the cost was about 7d., namely, the 6d. to which it was raised from the societies and 1d. from the Exchequer. Under the Report of the Geddes Committee we proposed that the Central Index scheme should be abolished and that the Exchequer grant for this purpose should cease. We had no particular interest in the Central Index scheme, but the approved societies whom we consulted on the subject said that they found the Central Index of very great value.
Major M. WOOD: Not: in Scotland.
Sir A. MOND: Scotland, I suppose, is interested in that question as much as any other part of the country.
Major WOOD: It has not got one.
Sir A. MOND: We said that if the societies wished it to remain, we could not pay for it, and they would have to find the money. That is all the money that is being found, and it amounts to about ¾d. a member. I pointed out that now, instead of the 7d. for 1921–22, the cost of administration is estimated at 6¾d. for 1922–23. The hon. and gallant Member has got the idea, which I have not yet been able to fathom, that the insurance committees can spend on expenses anything up to 2s. 4½d., but he is quite mistaken. Of this 2s. 4½d., 2s. 3½d.

101
is allocated to the doctors under the present agreement, and therefore there is only 1d. left, and this 1d. is wanted for the Central Index scheme. That is why these words which the hon. and gallant Member proposes to excise are in. If he succeeded in his Amendment, the only result would be that the Central Index would go, and that would inflict a great deal more expense on the approved societies in other directions than if the Central Index were maintained. The hon. and gallant Member said that formerly we had a statutory limit up to which insurance committees could spend, but that is not quite correct. What we had was a statutory limit of what the approved societies contributed, and the balance came from the Exchequer. That statutory limit still remains, but this is only a temporary Bill, lasting for some 18 or 19 months, and under the arrangement made not more than 1d. at the outside figure can go for administration expenses. From the financial point of view, I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend he has nothing to fear, and neither has the insured person. I do not know why insurance committees should be supposed to be expensive bodies, but, however expensive they might be, all that they would have to spend would be 1d. These words in the Clause are absolutely necessary.
Mr. R. DAVIES: Has the right hon. Gentleman received a communication from approved societies with regard to the arrangements between the Ministry and the doctors? The approved societies are very dissatisfied that the Ministry itself makes the arrangements with the doctors rather than that the approved societies should be consulted in the matter.
Sir A. MONO: I have received a communication.
Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 5.—(Application to Scotland, &c.)
(1) In the application of this Act to Scotland two shillings and ninepence shall be substituted for two shillings and fourpence halfpenny, the Scottish Board of Health shall be substituted for the Minister of Health, and twopence halfpenny shall be substituted for three halfpence, and Section one of this Act shall have effect as if there were inserted after the word "benefits" in paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) thereof the words "and the provision of a medical service for insured persons in such districts of Scotland (other than the Highlands and Islands within the meaning of the High-
102
lands and Islands (Medical Service) Grant Act, 1913) as may be determined by the Scottish Board of Health to be necessitous."
Major MACKENZIE WOOD: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words
"two shillings and ninepence shall be substituted for two shillings and fourpence halfpenny."
This Amendment, in conjunction with the next one on the Paper—to leave out the words "and twopence halfpenny shall be substituted for three halfpence"—raises a matter of very great importance indeed, both to Scotland and to Wales. I have already tried to get the right hon. Gentleman to see the importance of this and the disastrous effect which it may have on National Health Insurance, but he apparently is not impressed, and I do not desire to go into it as fully as I did before, but I think the House ought to realise what it is doing if it is going to pass this particular Clause, and if it consents to pass the Clause, it ought to do so with its eyes open. The whole basis, as I take it, of National Health Insurance was that all insured persons were to be insured at a flat rate, wherever they were, and that the benefits which were to be conferred by the scheme should be given to each at the same price. That, I thought was a fundamental principle of the whole scheme of National Health Insurance. If this Bill be passed with this Clause in it, that particular principle will have gone entirely. This particular Clause proposes to charge more for medical benefit— and it deals only with medical benefit— to insured persons in Scotland and also in Wales. Scotland is going to pay 2s. 11½d., if you take the increased cost of administration for medical benefit, whereas England is going to pay 2s. 6d., taking the cost of the medical benefit and the administration together, and Wales 3s, 1d. This is a very important change in the whole system of National Health Insurance, and I feel quite certain that if it be adopted it is going to lead to other things which will make it difficult to work the National Health Insurance, and may indeed strike at the whole system itself.
Take the case of international societies. There are many approved societies in the country which draw their members from all the three countries. In future, every

103
society which draws its members from Scotland, England and Wales is going to have its members paying for medical benefit at three different rates, and that in itself is going to create a great deal of additional work for the societies, but that is not all. We know perfectly well that insured persons are a floating and moving population. They are continually going from county to county, and from country to country. If this Clause be passed in its present form, we may have one particular insured person paying three different rates for his medical benefit in one month. If he crosses the Border from Scotland to England, he will at once come under a new rate of medical benefit; if he goes to Wales, he will come under another; and if he goes back to Scotland it will change again. You will have insured persons chopping and changing continually all the year round. This means additional book-keeping, and it opens a vista which might frighten any secretary of an approved society.
Sir F. BANBURY: Does it mean that additional Scotsmen will come to England?
Major WOOD: I do not think it will have the slightest effect on the number of Scotsmen who will come to England, so that the right hon. Baronet need have no fear. I suggest to the Minister of Health that this is a very great difficulty which has not been considered, so far as I can see, and certainly it was not mentioned by anyone in the Committee upstairs. I hope he will give special attention to this very difficult question of administration. It has been represented that this Amendment is directed at doctors, and directed with the object of reducing their remuneration. I have no wish to reduce the remuneration which may be paid to doctors. I do not know whether the present remuneration is too much or too little, but I think we are entitled to some statistics from the right hon. Gentleman as to what they get, and what they do for it, before we consent to a change. I said before that I thought there was a good deal of money which, until the arrangement was made a short time ago, was unallocated, and I feel quite certain the right hon. Gentleman could make any adaptations which he thought necessary, so as to give doctors who are in special positions more
104
remuneration for their work than they get at the present time. I want the right hon. Gentleman also to tell us whether he proposes that this differentiation between Scotland, Wales and England is to be a permanent part of National Health Insurance, or is only to last until the present agreement with doctors expires at the end of next year? I think he said a moment ago that this Bill was a temporary Bill. I do not know if that is in the Bill, or if there is anything to show in the Bill that it is temporary. As far as I know, there is nothing to show that, and if the right hon. Gentleman really means that this is only to apply for a certain limited time, why should he not put that in the Bill, so that the matter may come up before this House at the end of the temporary period to which he referred? It was stated in Committee upstairs that the Government had been making a special grant to Scotland, in respect of the fact that the rural districts there—
Sir A. MOND: Will my hon. and gallant Friend look at Sub-section (5) of Clause 1?
"(5) This Section shall come into operation on the first day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, and Sub-section (1) of this Section shall continue in force until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-three."
Major WOOD: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. That disposes of that particular point, but it does not dispose of the other point, as to whether the right hon. Gentleman means to get back to a flat rate for all countries as soon as possible at the end of the present agreement? I hope that we shall get some definite statement on that point. The right hon. Gentleman knows the case that I tried to make out on this point, and I do not want to elaborate it more than is necessary, but I do ask the House to face the fact that this is going to introduce a great change in National Health Insurance —a change which was never contemplated, and which, if adopted, would extend, because there is no reason why, if you differentiate between. Scotland and England, you should not differentiate between Yorkshire and Lancashire, or the North of England and the South of England, or between one particular occupation and another. All sorts of possibilities arise immediately you have taken the first false step away from the scheme of the

105
Bill, which was to give medical benefit at a flat rate all over the country. I hope, therefore, the House will realise the importance of the change, and will see that, before it is assented to, it is thoroughly discussed.
Sir G. COLLINS: I beg to second the Amendment.
Sir A. MOND: I do not want to renew the, discussion we had in Committee at any length, but I would like to point out again that this is one of the first fruits of the Scottish Home Rule movement. When the Act of 1918 was passed, Scotland, as well as Wales, insisted on having separate benefit funds, and this is part of the national movement of Scotland and Wales. It is a separate fund out of which these payments are made which necessitates the action we are now taking. The medical payment to doctors for Scotland and Wales has always been more than in England, for the simple reason that the population in those countries is more scattered and sparse, and doctors have to travel more miles to visit their patients. There are greater mileage rates in Scotland and Wales than in England.
Major WOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman any figures?
Sir A. MOND: This differentiation is made from established figures. There has never been a fiat rate in the sense that the hon. and gallant Member has stated. The State has borne the difference between the rates in England, Scotland and Wales. That grant comes to an end. You are faced, therefore, with the following alternative—either that poorer people in the sparsely populated districts in the Highlands or in Wales shall have no medical treatment, or much less adequate medical treatment than they receive today, or you can reduce the mileage rates to those paid in England, because you cannot pool them, as you can only indent on the Scottish fund for the Scottish medical benefit, and only on the Welsh fund for the Welsh medical benefit. For once you cannot indent on the English fund for any of the additional expenditure. The idea, no doubt, that Scotland cannot indent on the English fund is a novelty, but, under the Act of 1918, they insisted on having a separate benefit fund. You must, therefore, either have the medical profession in Scotland brought under an arrangement by which
106
they will receive less money, or the patients receive less benefit. I observe from a letter I have here that panel doctors in Scotland are becoming a little anxious, and my hon. and gallant Friend has added to their anxiety. It is a letter which was addressed to the Secretary of State for the Colonies on the 29th June, as follows:
"DEAR SIB,—It has come to the notice of this Committee that an Amendment by Major Mackenzie Wood has been made to the Bill at present before Parliament providing for payment of the extra cost of medical benefit out of approved societies' funds. The effect of this Amendment is to reduce the extra sum to be paid in respect of Scotland to the same sum as is to be paid in England. This Committee urge you to use your influence and vote to defeat this Amendment on the grounds that the larger amount in Scotland is due to the mileage grant and the Necessitous Districts Grant, which, owing to the sparsity of population, amounts to a larger sum per head of the insured than it does in the case of England.
Yours faithfully,
GEORGE A. RORIK,
Secretary,
Dundee Panel Committee."
Major WOOD: Is that not due to the fact that the Treasury undertook to pay a sum to these doctors for mileage rates, and is now threatening to withdraw it?
Sir A. MOND: It has not threatened to withdraw it; it has withdrawn it.
Major WOOD: Was it not an undertaking given to the doctors?
Sir A. MOND: After all, the hon. and gallant Member does not mean to say that the Treasury is to go on paying this sum for medical benefit for Scotland?
Major WOOD: No; I do not say that.
Sir A. MOND: Or that they should go on paying the difference?
Major WOOD: I only want the Treasury to go on paying it for the period during which they promised to pay it.
Sir A. MOND: The hon. and gallant Member raises one bogey, which, I think, I had better lay. He draw a picture of an insured person, apparently living in a caravan, and residing in England, Scotland and Wales alternately, and having to pay a different contribution. The hon. and gallant Gentleman must surely be aware that nothing of the kind will be the case. It will make no difference to

107
the insured person's contribution whatsoever. It will merely make a difference to the way in which the fund of the approved society is being kept. I am afraid I cannot lift the hon. and gallant Member from the horns of the dilemma on which he has been impaled by the national enthusiasm of his countrymen when a separate benefit fund was made part of the scheme.
Mr. ADAMSON: The right hon. Gentleman, in his reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Aberdeen (Major M. Wood), has told us that this is one of the first fruits of the Scottish Home Rule movement. If that be so, it has taken a considerable time to come into operation, because the National Health Insurance Act has been in operation for a number of years, just as the demand for Scottish Home Rule has been in existence for a considerable number of years. But when this National Health Insurance scheme was put on the Statute Book, there was no demand then for any distinction being made between the insured person or the approved society in Scotland as compared with England. An insured person in both cases paid the same contribution, and the approved society was subjected to the same charge. It is perfectly true, as the right hon. Gentleman stated, that the cost of medical service has always been higher in Scotland than in England, but the difference was met by the Treasury. That was in keeping with the many statements that were made by the Prime Minister and by others when we were discussing this National Health Insurance scheme in 1911. All sorts of glowing pictures were painted as to the benefits to come to the insured person through the medium of this National Health Insurance scheme, and, among other things, it was pointed out that the insured person would get the advantages of the scheme on equal conditions from one end of the United Kingdom to the other. So that in making this change it simply amounts to another breach of faith on the part of the Government, because, undoubtedly, since the beginning of the National Health Insurance Act, the insured person and the approved society in all parts of the United Kingdom have been on an equal footing. I am glad, as the right hon. Gentleman
108
has said, that this is a temporary Measure, but that is all the more reason why the Minister of Health should have maintained the status quo ante. If this is only going on for another year or eighteen months, he ought to have been the more anxious to allow the matter to remain as it was, because if the whole question of medical benefit is to be discussed next year, what he is doing by the arrangement he is making under this Bill is that he is tying the hands of the approved societies and insured persons in Scotland when they come to discuss the question of medical benefits.
My hon. and gallant Friend (Major Wood), in moving his Amendment, pointed out that whether or not the question of the amount of money that was to be paid was involved, undoubtedly the amount of money to be paid to the doctors is involved. By making the arrangement he is making now the Minister of Health is simply putting it into the mouths of the medical profession to be able to say to the approved societies in Scotland: "You have already been consenting parties to the distinction being drawn between the approved societies in Scotland and the approved societies in England." By this proposed change the Minister of Health is touching vital principles in our scheme of National Insurance. Was there ever any intention at the inception of this scheme to make any distinction between contributions paid by insured persons and the conditions under which the approved societies were to work in one part of the country compared with the other? It was recognised at that time when we discussed the scheme of National Insurance that there was the difficulty as to mileage in Scotland and Wales as compared with England. That was recognised as a national responsibility, and should be made one. Consequently I hope the Minister of Health will give favourable consideration to the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend, for this is not a question of Scottish contributors or Scottish approved societies wanting to dip into the funds of the approved societies in England. Nobody knows that better than the Minister of Health. What he is seeking to accomplish in this matter is to lift from the shoulders of the Treasury that little extra that they have taken upon themselves in order to equalise the difficulties and to

109
put it on to the shoulders of the contributor or approved society in Scotland. I think that is a dishonourable transaction on the part of the Government. They are seeking to evade responsibility in that way.
Mr. HOGGE: As a Scottish Member I have been trying to find out whether Scotland is being done an injury by this Clause. It is a great pity that there is no representative of any Scottish constituency either in charge of the Bill or directing the criticism, because to that extent we would be both desirous of getting the best possible out of the Government. But there are one or two things I am not quite clear about, and about which I should like to be clear about before I am prepared to vote. The hon. Member for Central Aberdeen (Major M. Wood) put a question to the Minister of Health who said that the existing arrangement would go on for the period for which it was promised. I would ask the Minister of Health—as I am not clear —whether there is any printed evidence that there was a contract? Is it or is it not a fact that there was a definite contract made between the Minister of Health and all the doctors in England, Wales, and Scotland in regard to amongst other things this question of mileage, and that that contract has not yet expired? Can my right hon. Friend say straightaway whether that was so or not, because that is a point of information that I should like the Committee to know.
Sir A. MOND: The present contract was made for two years.
Mr. HOGGE: And has not expired?
Sir A. MOND: Not till next year.
Mr. HOGGE: Then that alters the situation to what we have been told, because if that contract was made and there still is another year to run then what this Bill is doing—it may be right or wrong— I am not discussing the morality of it— is that it is tearing up that contract.
Sir A. MOND: Not that contract. This Bill does not affect the contract made with the doctors. This Bill transfers the payment from the Treasury of a certain part of the medical benefit to the societies.
Mr. HOGGE: Then clearly the contract made between the Minister of
110
Health and the Treasury guarantees the payments, and substitutes for the Treasury the approved societies.
Sir A. MOND: Yes.
Mr. HOGGE: At last the common-sense man, the ordinary man in the street, who does not sit on that Front Bench opposite, knows that this is tearing up a contract made by the Minister and the medical men of England, Wales and Scotland!
Sir A. MOND: Really I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot allow him to put forward a statement of that kind. This contract regarding the remuneration of the doctors is not affected by this Bill, and refers to England, Scotland and Wales. It is not the approved societies who actually pay the doctors, but my Department through the Paymaster-General.
Mr. HOGGE: If the Paymaster-General, who pays my salary, and that of every Member of the House, said that in future the salary was going to be paid by somebody else, if I did not know who that somebody was—
Sir A. MOND: It is not anybody else who is paying the doctors. The money is paid by the approved societies to the Government, and by the Government to the doctors.
Mr. HOGGE: If my right hon. Friend, representing the Treasury, makes an agreement for the Treasury with the medical men, and then puts it on to the backs of the approved societies, that is altering the payment under the contract which existed before the introduction of this Bill.
Sir A. MOND indicated dissent.
Mr. HOGGE: I only wanted to get it right. Shall I try again? We want to get at the bottom of this. First of all there was between the Minister of Health and the doctors an arrangement made which runs to the end of 1922. There was paid out money according to the scale of costs in the approved societies which are going to be put under this Bill, so that the doctors are now placed under the approved societies instead of being guaranteed by the Treasury.
Sir A. MOND: Not at all. What I would point out is that payment is made

111
by the Government and not by the approved societies, and the Government is responsible for the money.
Mr. HOGGE: In some respects the speech of the right hon. Gentleman has not made things clearer to us. His complaint is that Scotland wants to get something to which she is not entitled, because she had the management of her own national schemes. I do not make that criticism. I am quite prepared to carry on in Scotland any scheme which operates in Scotland; that we in Scotland shall have a scheme to operate nationally. I do not for a moment begrudge any extra cost that may fall upon us on that ground. The injury to Scotland is surely quite obvious. Up to December, 1923, the doctors operating under the approved societies are to receive from the Treasury what they now receive from the approved societies, although the man who is insured in Scotland has contributed more to the medical benefit than he did before. As a matter of fact when you are making a bargain with Scotland you have to remember that presumably the Government contribute of the whole benefits two-ninths towards those insured under the Insurance Act, but the difference in Scotland in the health of the people who are insured is a great saving to the Government, and therefore when Scotland claims some benefit a fact of that sort should be put on the other side when you say that Scotland is chafing against that which she ought to pay. What is going to happen after this Clause has passed? Take the date on which this Bill comes to an end, namely, the 31st December, 1922. After that date the doctors in Scotland will be receiving more remuneration than their confreres in England, and then you will have the whole medical profession in England coming to the approved society for increased remuneration.
There again you will be throwing the cost on the Insurance Fund. I should very much like to know if the Minister of Health can say what will happen when this particular arrangement runs out in December, 1923. Further, I want to know how far the scheme of the Highlands and Islands Medical Service is still operating. That service was specially introduced because of the enormous geographical difficulties which obtain in the West of Scotland and the Highlands of Scotland.
112
Everybody who knows the geographical situation of that portion of Scotland knows the difficulty of any doctor covering his work even when there is only one patient demanding his attention. I do not know how far that service operates in relieving that difficulty in the Highlands and Islands, or whether, under this Bill, there will be any diminution of the benefits that obtain there now. Those are points on which I think we should have some more information.
Mr. R. DAVIES: On the point at issue, I rather agree with the Minister of Health that when the Insurance Act gave Home Rule to Wales and Scotland, those countries had to decide upon the agreements to be made with their own doctors. The point I wish a reply upon is that the Minister still makes the agreements with the doctors both in Scotland, Wales and England in spite of the fact that the Department is taking money from approved societies' funds in order to pay the doctors. The approved societies are very agitated on this subject, and I would like a promise that in future, before the right hon. Gentleman enters into any arrangement with the doctors, the approved societies will be consulted.
Sir A. MOND: On the Second Reading I made a very full statement on this question and also in Committee upstairs. When I made this arrangement with the approved societies, I gave them clearly to understand that they would be consulted in the fullest sense before the Ministry entered into any further arrangement with the medical profession, and I wish now to repeat that statement. Most certainly the approved societies will be taken into consultation.
Mr. PRATT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of Health, Scotland): The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hogge) has made some reference to the Highlands and Islands medical service. That service still applies, and the funds are still available in that statutory area. The extra mileage for which this Bill provides applies more to the necessitous areas outside the districts I have mentioned, and they are districts just as widely separated and sparsely populated. I understood my hon. Friend to say that if the Bill passed during the coming year the Scottish doctors will be receiving pay at a higher rate than the doctors in Eng-

113
land. I can assure my hon. Friend that while the sum paid to medical practitioners in Scotland will, as a matter of fact, be somewhat higher than in England, this extra payment is for the extra mileage.
With regard to the other point raised as to whether individual members of approved societies will be called upon to pay an extra contribution, that is not contemplated under this Bill. The extra sums required for these purposes are taken out of the funds of the approved societies and out of the central fund. I would like to remind the House that the Amendment we are discussing would have the effect of reducing the amount that the Scottish Board of Health could take from the funds to which I have alluded, to 2s. 4½d. per member instead of 2s. 9d. The result of that would be that the Board of Health would have at their disposal just half the sum necessary to meet the extra mileage charges which in Scotland represent something like 9d. per member, while in England it is about 4id. That is why we are asking for an extra 4½d. in Scotland. The Treasury say they are not going to give us this grant, and the Board of Health must find it in some other way. The only method by which we can make that deficiency good is by charging this extra 4id. For these reasons I hope the House will reject this Amendment.
Mr. WALLACE: I hope my hon. and gallant Friend who moved this Amendment will not press it to a Division, in view of the statement which has just been made by the Minister of Health. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend, in view of the fact that this Bill is to be a temporary measure, whether he will not apply his mind, when the larger Measure comes before us, to attempting some uniform system for the three countries. It seems extraordinary to me that this has not been done before. In all these national services we are quite aware of the inequalities, so far as charges are concerned, in the various countries. We are all aware that it costs far more than 1½d. to deliver a letter in the Orkney Islands, although the same charge is made for the postage upon a letter to this House or to an address in Whitehall. I think, however, that there should be, in a national service of this kind, some attempt at uniformity. For
114
these reasons I hope this Amendment will not be pressed to a Division, because if it were passed it would have a most unfair effect upon the medical profession in Scotland, more especially in rural areas. The Minister of Health, in his reply, said that this was one of the first effects of home rule for Scotland. What I suggest is that we should have a few of the advantages of the new system before the disadvantages are visited on us in this particular manner. If it is possible for the right hon. Gentleman to give us an undertaking that he will inquire into the possibility of adopting a more uniform system, I feel sure it will be greatly appreciated in England, Scotland and Wales.
Major WOOD: The Minister of Health says that this is one of the first effects of Home Rule for Scotland, but I would remind him that the whole of this difficulty has arisen simply because we have not got Home Rule for Scotland. It was the right hon. Gentleman himself who carried through all these agreements, and he never consulted Scotland at all. I hope the Minister of Health will give me an answer to the question which I have put to him. I do not desire to press this Amendment to a Division, but I think we are entitled to some statement from some-representative of the Government as to what is the policy to be pursued when the present agreements run out. We believe that there is quite enough money being paid for medical benefit in Scotland to provide ample remuneration for the doctors all over the country. It may require a little re-organisation, but that can be done easily. I would like the right hon. Gentleman, or some of his colleagues, to give an undertaking that when this particular agreement has run out an attempt will be made to bring back the different countries to their former level, and place them all in the same position, so that an insured person in Scotland will pay exactly the same as an insured person in England or in any other part of the Kingdom. If the right hon. Gentleman will give that undertaking I shall not press this Amendment to a Division.
Sir A. MOND: I do not know how I can give such an undertaking because the terms of the agreement with the Scottish doctors are made by the Scottish Board of Health. I will undertake to consider

115
the whole matter most carefully when the question comes up for reconsideration, as it must do next year.
Major WOOD: After what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY (PAYMENT OF CALLS) BILL.
Not Amended (in the Standing Committee,) considered.
7.0 p.m.
Mr. SPEAKER: Two Amendments on this Bill have been handed in by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson). Both of them are outside the scope and title of the Bill. In the title of the Bill "Payment of Calls" has quite a limiting purpose.
Mr. ADAMSON: The Amendments I had intended to move on the Report stage were moved in Committee, discussed, and divided upon. Evidently, they were thought to be within the scope of the Bill on that occasion, because they were permitted to be moved and discussed.
Mr. SPEAKER: I think I shall have to have a word with the Chairman of the Committee.
Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

HARBOURS, DOCKS, AND PIERS (TEMPORARY INCREASE OF CHARGES) BILL.
As Amended (in the Standing Committee,) considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Application of the principal Act to railway docks. 10 & 11 Geo. 5, c. 21.)
(1) Proviso (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section one of the Harbours, Docks, and Piers (Temporary Increase of Charges) Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act) shall not apply to any port, harbour, dock or pier
116
forming part of the undertaking of a railway company, but in considering any modification of the statutory provisions regulating the charges to be made by any railway company in respect of any such port, harbour, dock or pier, regard shall be had to the charges in force at similar ports, harbours, docks or piers (whether forming part of the undertaking of a railway company or not), and to the cost of labour and materials, and no modification of such statutory provisions shall be authorised which would increase the charges beyond such amounts as the railway company were at the passing of this Act entitled to charge by virtue of Section three of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919.
Mr. HANNON: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "shall" ["regard shall be had to"], to insert the word "also."
This is a manuscript Amendment, of which I have given notice to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport. Its object is to bring the Bill into conformity with the principal Act, and it has relation to a subsequent Amendment which I shall move.
Major M. WOOD: I beg to second the Amendment.
Mr. NEAL (Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport): This Amendment and the subsequent one are, in my opinion, merely drafting Amendments. Therefore I am prepared to accept them.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In Subsection (1), leave out the words "and to the cost of labour and materials."—[Mr. Hannon.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
Sir D. MACLEAN: This Bill went up to a Committee, and I agreed that the Amendment that was there inserted went a considerable distance towards meeting the point made here on the Second Heading. I want to bring to the notice of the House and of the Minister a point I made on the Second Beading, namely, the real importance for the whole of the commercial community of keeping as close an eye as possible on the operation of the very high charges at harbours, docks, and piers. The suggestion I make, which I think was slightly misunderstood during the course of the Second Beading, was

117
that next year the Ministry of Transport or the Board of Trade, if by that time it has resumed its normal and proper functions in this respect, should come to the House and ask for this Bill again; so that the House would keep its annual control over this question until that happy day—may it come as swiftly as possible— when the charges, not only on our railways, but at our harbours and docks, are commensurate with the ability of the trade to pay them. There is not the slightest doubt that the charges are still far too high to meet the commercial needs of the country at the present moment. It may be that the companies have to exact these charges in order to maintain their position. But a broader outlook and a wider policy of providing transit facilities at a cheaper rate would, in my view and in the view of the commercial community as a whole, result in no loss but in greater trade, with the necessary revenue to meet all the proper overhead charges on this great increase, and, after paying the cost, would unquestionably confer a real benefit on the community as a whole.
Mr. NEAL: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the statement that he thinks that the Amendment made in Committee will have the effect he desires. I am glad to think that, for more reasons than one, because I am thoroughly in agreement with him with the object he has in view. There can be nothing worse than that the charges should be kept, as a handicap upon industry, at any higher point than is necessary to preserve the financial stability of the undertakings concerned. The Amendments made in the Bill, I think, really meet the whole of the points which the right hon. Gentleman made on the Second Reading.
Sir D. MACLEAN: I do not admit that.
Mr. NEAL: No. I am saying that I think so. The Bill now provides that these charges shall be revised at least once every 12 months; there may be revision much earlier and much more frequently should the occasion arise. For that reason, I think we have in substance met the point my right hon. Friend had in mind. I should like to add that I received a deputation from the Mining Association of Great Britain. They
118
pointed out, in extremely cogent terms, the very serious handicap upon our export trade of dock charges, particularly in South Wales and on the North-East Coast. As those were largely matters with which the railway companies were concerned, I got into communication with the railway companies. They consented, without any difficulty, to an Amendment being made in the Bill which brings their charges under review at an earlier date than would otherwise have been the case. That may be taken as a very friendly act on the part of the railway companies, and I have no reason to doubt that they, along with all other dock and harbour authorities, will desire to bring the charges down within reasonable limits at the earliest possible date.

INDIAN HIGH COURTS BILL [LORDS.]
Not amended (in the Standing Committee,) considered; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.
SALE OF TEA BILL.
As amended (in the Standing Committee,) considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Conditions to be observed on sale of tea.)
(2) A person shall not, either by himself or by any servant or agent, sell or have in his possession for sale by retail any tea packed ready for sale unless the package bears thereon or on a wrapper band or label affixed thereto a true statement of the net weight of the tea contained in the-package.
(3) If any person acts in contravention of this Section he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding, in the case of a first offence five pounds, in the case of a second offence fifty pounds, and in the case of a third or subsequent offence one hundred pounds.
(4) This Section shall not apply to any sale of less than two ounces of tea, which-does not purport to be a sale of two ounces or more, or to any package which contains less than two ounces of tea, and which does not purport to contain two ounces or more.
Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "any" ["sale by retail any tea"], to insert the words "package of."
The series of Amendments which are down in my name and in that of the hon. Member for South East Southwark (Mr. Naylor) cover two particular points. With the general object of the Bill I am in complete agreement, because unless some safeguard such as is here provided were introduced, the consumers of tea undoubtedly would continue to be largely taken advantage of by those who supply our necessities in that respect. Our national consumption of tea amounts to no less than 410,000,000 lbs. yearly, and it will be seen, if this Bill is not carried, that when a little is added to each quantity of tea sold—the weight of the paper —a very large sum of money indeed will be extracted from the pockets of the consumers of tea. It is absolutely necessary that the same protection as was granted during the War by the Order of the Food Controller should be continued, and that is the object for which the Bill has been introduced. It is a well-known fact that a very large proportion of the tea sold in this country is sold in large quantities, but as the Bill does not offer the necessary protection to a large section of the consumers who are in the greatest need of it, I have put down these Amendments.
The first Amendment seeks to introduce two words into the second Sub-section of the first Clause, which will then read, "sale by retail any package of tea for sale," whereas the Minister, in the Bill, has provided for "sale by retail any tea packed ready for sale." The Bill, as framed by the Minister, would only protect those who buy their tea in larger quantities, ready made up by the grocers and other retailers. It would leave out that section of the people who buy in small quantities and across the counter. At least 10 per cent. of the tea used is purchased in that way. Consequently, a considerable proportion of the consumers of tea are unprotected by the Bill as it has been introduced. These persons are the very poorest of our people, and, as the House well knows, to them tea is an important article of diet. Consequently these people stand more in need of protection by this Bill than any other class. I have no doubt, when the Minister comes to reply, he will point out, as he did in
120
Committee, that if my Amendment is given effect to there will be a great danger of that very section of the community suffering a loss instead of obtaining a benefit. When we were discussing the matter in Committee he pointed out that in all probability the price of tea would fall. Suppose, however, that it fell below 1s. 4d. a lb. say to 1s. 2d. The poorer members of the community would be in danger of losing the opportunity of getting 1⅛ oz. for 1d., instead of 1 oz. for 1d.
Mr. SPEAKER: I fail to understand which Amendment the right hon. Gentleman is moving. He seems to be arguing the second Amendment on the Paper, and not the first. Is he moving the Amendment to insert the words "package of"? That raises a different point to the Amendment dealing with the number of ounces.
Mr. ADAMSON: As a matter of fact, I was putting the whole of my arguments for a series of Amendments which largely hang together, but I have no desire to run counter to your ideas of Order, and, consequently, I will confine myself to moving the first Amendment which stands in my name for the insertion of the words "package of."
Mr. NAYLOR: I beg to second the Amendment.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): I quite appreciate what my right hon. Friend has said with regard to the Bill. I do not think there is any serious difference of opinion in any quarter of the House as to the general principles of the Bill. I quite recognise the right hon. Gentleman has put very fairly the view which he represented in the Committee. I am sorry I can only give him, I am afraid, the negative answer which I gave on the Committee stage, and I will tell the House briefly why. The effect of the right hon. Gentleman's first Amendment, and I think of his second Amendment, which is consequential—the effect of the insertion of these words would be to make it compulsory, not only to put a label on every package of tea which is sold or exposed for sale already packed, but it will also make it compulsory to put the same sort of label on every portion of tea sold across the counter. There are two reasons why I invite the

121
House not to accept the Amendment. The first is that the general principle which we have followed throughout this Bill is to try and preserve the existing Order with regard to the sale of tea. That Order has been in force for five years. We have had experience of its working and know that it does work well, and therefore we feel strongly that any permanent legislation should not depart from the lines of that Order. The second reason why I suggest to the House it is undesirable to accept the Amendment is that you have already a protection for the consumer in cases of sale across the counter which does not exist in cases of sale in ready-made packets. The difficulty in regard to sale in ready-made packets is the abuse which led to the Report of the Short Weight Committee, on which the Order was founded—the abuse of having tea packed in packets in which the weight of paper or wrapping was unduly heavy in proportion to the amount of tea, with the result that when a person thought he was buying a pound of tea, he was in fact only getting 15 ozs. But in the case of sales across the counter you have the protection that the buyer sees the tea actually weighed.
Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Not always by any means.
Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: He has the opportunity of seeing it, and if he is not alert enough to do that, if he is not quick enough to see that he gets his full weight, this provision will not help him, because the putting of the label on the package will not ensure that the full weight of tea is therein contained. The buyer's real security is in Sub-section (1) of the Bill. It is an easily operative provision which applies to all sales of this character, whether sales in packets or across the counter. Sub-section (2), the labelling Section, only applies to packets ready for sale. I suggest we had better stick to the lines of an Order which we know will work, and of the working of which we have had five years' experience.
Mr. WATERSON: I am sorry the hon. Baronet cannot accept this Amendment. I do not think the arguments he has put forward meet the case advanced by the right hon. Gentleman who moved it. I want to prove to the hon. Gentleman that there is a possibility of evasion. As the hon. Gentleman says, Clause 1 deals with
122
the question of tea—not merely with the question of tea in packages, but also with tea sold over the counter. I have had some experience in the tea trade. When I was quite a boy I gained some knowledge of the inner working of it, and for two or three years was engaged in a portion of a tea warehouse where packing was carried on. This Bill deals with packages of tea sold over the counter. My hon. Friend says it is easy for an individual to see his tea weighed. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has never gone into a shop to buy an ounce of tea, I hope he never will have to make a purchase of such a small amount. But when one goes into an ordinary grocer's shop it will be seen that when tea is sold in these small quantities it is not weighed in the ordinary scales by itself. It is put on a piece of paper on the scales, and the one ounce includes both the weight of the paper and of the tea. In nine shops out of ten it will be found that the paper is put on the scales first. Then the canister it taken down, and the tea taken from it and put on the paper. We want to avoid that We say that a poor person should have the full weight of his tea, even if he is buying only half an ounce, in addition to the weight of the paper. It is a very common thing in scores of shops for the tea to be already wrapped up in half-ounce or ounce packets in the canister. It is not weighed over the counter. We say it should be weighed in front of the customer, and that the paper should never be weighed with it, and that is the object of this Amendment. There is a great hardship where the individual buys tea by the seven lbs., two Lbs. or one lb. if the paper is weighed in with the tea. Paper to-day costs roughly from 6d. to 8d. per lb. The tea is sold at 2s. 6d. per pound, and, therefore, when the paper is weighed in with the tea, a portion of the sale is represented by paper at 6d. or 8d. the lb., instead of by tea at 2s. 6d. per pound. I hope the hon. Gentleman will see his way to meet us in this matter. He will admit that during the Committee stage there was no obstruction.
Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Hear, hear!
Mr. WATERSON: We tried to work harmoniously, and certainly met the Government on several points.
Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I know that my hon. Friend has had certain experience in the trade with which we are dealing, and it is due to him, therefore, that I should at once reply to what he has said. I really think his criticism was largely directed to the Amendment which I understand is going to be moved later on with regard to the sales of tea by the ounce or two ounces, and I must again repeat that that case is covered by the provisions of Sub-section (1), which enacts that tea shall only be sold by net weight and not in any other way. That applies to all sales of tea, whether already packed, or sold over the counter. All my right hon. Friend's Amendment does is to provide that a person who buys tea over the counter shall have it scooped into a bag, and that bag shall bear a label designating the weight of tea. I submit that that really affords no protection to the buyer. With regard to packets of tea already weighed up in the canister, I hesitate to give a legal opinion, but I imagine that such packets would come under the provisions of Sub-section (2).
Mr. WATERSON: Suppose an ordinary grocer who deals in this commodity in quiet moments, for the purpose of doing
quick business in busy hours, weighs up half-ounces or ounces of tea and places them in a canister ready for the customer. Does the hon. Gentleman say that those packages must be labelled so as to give a guarantee that they contain a certain weight?
Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have no right to give a legal opinion, but I conceive it would he held that tea sold under such circumstances would be tea packed ready for sale, and would have to be treated as such.
Mr. WALLACE: Have the Law Officers of the Crown been consulted on the point?
Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: They were consulted as to the Clause generally, but as to this particular point, I can only guard myself by making the statement of what I conceive would be the effect of the Clause.
Mr. WALLACE: As I read the Clause, I think it really covers the Amendment of my right hon. Friend.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
The House divided: Ayes, 55; Noes, 180.

Division No. 202.]

AYES.

[7.30 p.m.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

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

Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Hallas, Eldred

Robertson, John

Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

Halls, Walter

Royce, William Stapleton

Bromfield, William

Hayward, Evan

Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Hirst, G. H.

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Cairns, John

Hogge, James Myles

Sitch, Charles H.

Cape, Thomas

Holmes, J. Stanley

Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Irving, Dan

Spencer, George A.

Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

Kennedy, Thomas

Swan, J. E.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Kenyon, Barnet

Thomas, Brig. Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)

Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

Lawson, John James

Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)

Lunn, William

Waterson. A. E.

Foot, Isaac

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Watts-Morgan. Lieut.-Col. D.

Galbraith, Samuel

Myers, Thomas

Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

Gillis, William

Naylor, Thomas Ellis

White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)

Nowbould, Alfred Ernest

Wignall, James

Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central]

Rattan, Peter Wilson

Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

Grundy, T. W.

Rendall, Athelstan

Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. Amnion.

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

Bruton, Sir James

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

Bellairs, Commander Cariyon W.

Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

Armstrong, Henry Bruce

Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Baird, Sir John Lawrence

Birchall, J. Dearman

Campion, Lieut-Colonel W. R.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)

Carr, W. Theodore

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)

Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

Borwick, Major G. O.

Casey, T. W.

Barlow, Sir Montague

Bowles, Colonel H. F.

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)

Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

Barnett, Major Richard W.

Breese, Major Charles E.

Coats, Sir Stuart

Barnston, Major Harry

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert

Broad, Thomas Tucker

Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

Beckett, Hon. Sir Gervase

Brown, Brig,-Gen. Cilfton (Newbury)

Cope, Major William

Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

Jodrell, Neville Paul

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)

Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoin)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Dawson, Sir Philip

Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Maryiebone)

Doyle, N. Grattan

Kidd, James

Seddon, J. A.

Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)

Elveden, Viscount

Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

Evans, Ernest

Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)

Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

Lort-Williams, J.

Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

Lyle, C. E. Leonard

Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

Fell, Sir Arthur

Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

Fannery, Sir James Fortescue

Macqulsten, F. A.

Stewart, Gershom

Ford, Patrick Johnston

Manville, Edward

Strauss, Edward Anthony

Foreman, Sir Henry

Meysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Forestier-Walker, L.

Middlebrook, Sir William

Sugden, W. H.

Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

Sutherland, Sir William

Fraser, Major Sir Keith

Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

Taylor, J.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Morrison, Hugh

Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

Gardiner, James

Mosley, Oswald

Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

George, Rt. Hon. David Lioyd

Murray, John (Leeds, West)

Tickler, Thomas George

Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

Nall, Major Joseph

Townley, Maximilian G.

Gilbert, James Daniel

Neal, Arthur

Tryon, Major George Clement

Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

Vickers, Douglas

Glanville, Harold James

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

Wallace, J.

Goff, Sir R. Park

Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

Ward, William Dudley (Southampton;

Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

Gretton, Colonel John

Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

Gritten, W. G. Howard

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Williams, C. (Tavistock)

Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

Parker, James

Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

Gwynne, Rupert S.

Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

Windsor, Viscount

Hamilton, Sir George C.

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Winfrey, Sir Richard

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Pilditch, Sir Philip

Winterton, Earl

Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

Wise, Frederick

Haslam, Lewis

Pratt, John William

Wolmer, Viscount

Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)

Purchase, H. G.

Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Ramsden, G. T.

Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

Randies, Sir John Scurrah

Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

Hills, Major John Waller

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

Hinds, John

Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

Hopkins, John W. W.

Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

Younger, Sir George

Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

Roundell, Colonel R. F.

Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Kurd, Percy A.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. McCurdy.

Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), to leave out the words "two ounces" ["shall not apply to any sale of less than two ounces"], and to insert instead thereof the words "one ounce."
The hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill seemed to think that this Amendment would affect but a very small quantity of the tea sold, but I can assure him and the House that at the present time there is a considerable sale of packets of tea, the value of which is as low as 2d., so that the Question is one of more substance than the hon. Gentleman and the House seem to think. If we are to get the full advantage of the protection of this Bill, it must be applied to the case of those who purchase their tea in very small quantities. As I have already said in connection with the previous Amendment, the section of the community that really requires protection most is the very section that is to be left outside the pro-
126
visions of this Bill—the section who buys in small quantities, like 2d. packets or even less. The value of tea to that section of the community is even greater than to the other sections who can buy in larger quantities, and it enters into their food bill to a greater extent. Consequently, we are very anxious that this poorer section of the community should have the protection provided for in this Bill.
The Bill as it stands applies to quantities down to two ounces, but we think that that is not carrying it down to the extent that is necessary, and that, if the very poorest of the poor are to be protected by the terms of the Bill, it requires to be reduced to one ounce at the most. From what the hon. Gentleman said in Committee, he seemed to have the idea that if this Amendment were made it might have an effect the very reverse of what I intend. He pointed out that if the price of tea went down below 1s. 4d. per lb.—

127
say to 1s. 2d.—the poorer members of the community might lose the opportunity of getting l⅛ oz. for 1d., and that the retailers of tea would see that they got no more than their ounce. May I point out, however, that that process of reasoning is completely and entirely against our experience? If there had been that generous disposition on the part of the retailers of tea that the hon. Gentleman indicates, there would have been no necessity either for the Food Controller's Order or for this Bill. It was because of the fact that tea and paper were weighed together, and that the consumer was fleeced as a result by the retailers of tea, that the Food Controller's Order had to be made, and that it had to be followed by this Bill. We have had a reduction in the Tea Duty amounting to 4d. per pound, but there is no indication as yet of any increase on the weight so far as these 2d. packets are concerned. I think the danger is the other way. I think the danger is that the poorest of the community are not going to get the protection of this Bill, and, consequently, I hope the hon. Gentleman will give favourable consideration to this Amendment. In the course of his reply on the last Amendment, he was pointing out the difficulties which would be imposed upon the retail trade. They would have to have packages for very small quantities and the weight would require to be placed on the packages, as provided for in his ready-made packages. But already packages of tea of very low value are being sold. There is a considerable trade being done in packages of tea of the value of 2d. The tea trade will require to get these labels with the weight printed on in large quantities. They will have them available. It would impose no hardship on them. The labels could be put on the smallest quantities that were made up and I think I can assure the Minister that, if the Amendment were given effect to, instead of making it up in two ounce packages, as is the case now, the tea would be made up to a considerable extent in packages of one ounce. We seek by this Amendment to afford the same protection to the very poorest section of the community as we are giving to those who can afford to buy tea in larger quantities. The poorest section of the community is that which, in our opinion, ought to have this protection.
128
Consequently, I hope the Minister is not-going to leave them at the mercy of the tea trade. He knows what happened in the tea trade before the protection was afforded, and I hope he is going to give favourable consideration to the Amendment.
Mr. NAYLOR: I beg to second the Amendment.
I also hope the Minister may see his way clear to concede this Amendment for two special reasons. One is that advanced by my right hon. Friend, that hundreds of thousands of poor people are affected by this difference of one ounce or two. Large numbers of people purchase their tea by the one ounce rather than two, and if the Minister adheres to the terms now standing in the Bill, if he still insists that it must be the two-ounce packet to secure a guarantee, a great injustice will be done to many poor families. I am sure that has had, and will still have, his consideration. But there is another reason that ought to make him agreeable to the acceptance of the Amendment. The paper is weighed with the tea, and in many cases it is paper specially made for the packing of tea. The paper is more or less heavy, and is sometimes even weighted with lead lining, which is supposed to be for the preservation of the tea. My second reason is the effect that that shortage of weight in the retailing of small quantities will have upon the revenue. In these smaller packets the full weight of tea will not be given, because there is no guarantee, and that means that less tea in the bulk will be sold than otherwise would be the case with the guarantee in existence, and when that deficiency is multiplied some thousands of times it must mean a considerable loss to the revenue in tea taxation. I feel confident that if the experts in the Board of Trade were set to work to find out what that difference in the loss of taxation was, it would be of itself a sufficient inducement to him to meet us on this Amendment.
Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I need hardly say, having regard to the attitude which the two hon. Members and the House generally have taken towards the Bill, that if I were honestly convinced that the arguments which have been put forward merited consideration I should not hesitate to accept the proposal,

129
because our objects are the same. We want, as far as we can, to see that justice is done to all classes of the community and that all classes are protected, but where I think there is a little misconception in the minds of hon. Members opposite is this. The difficulty is that when you get down to these very small quantities—and hon. Members who are interested in the subject and care to pursue their researches further will find it dealt with in the Report of the Short Weight Committee, on which the Order and the present Bill were founded—the purchaser does not really buy by quantity at all. He deserts quantity as a standard. It is not a case of a man coming into a shop and asking for an ounce of tea. When you get down to the very poor they have to balance their weekly budget by pennyworths, and they have to buy tea by pennyworths or twopennyworths. Once you grant that that problem exists and that you cannot get away from it, the fact that you have tea bought and sold by pennyworths and twopennyworths, and not by any known standard of weight at all, I think the House will recognise how very difficult it is to apply. Consider how it would work. The lowest price, roughly speaking, is, I am told, 1s. 6d. or 1s. 6id. Take twopennyworth of tea sold at 1s. 6½d. If the right hon. Gentleman had his way, and the exception in the Bill of two ounces was reduced to one ounce, see what would happen. The retailer, when a man came to buy twopennyworth of tea, would solemnly have to label the packet, "This packet contains 1832 ounces of tea." I am sure that would not convey anything to the buyer, and I doubt whether it would convey anything much to the seller. Not only is it really impracticable, but I honestly adhere to the opinion I have expressed, that it would, in fact, operate to the detriment of the purchaser. I hesitate to commit this or any future-Chancellor of the Exchequer, but you have the possibility that some day there may be a further reduction in the Tea Duty. If there is there will be a corresponding fall in the price of tea which sooner or later—I admit sometimes it takes some time before it reaches the consumer—will be passed on to the consumer. It is quite obvious that in order that tea may sell at 1d. an ounce it has got to get down to something below 1s. 4d. Exactly what
130
that point is, what the cost of packing is and what the profit ought to be for the retailer, is a matter for argument, but let us take it at the equivalent of 1s. 4d. Say the price falls to 1s. 2d. The consumer ought to be able to get the extra eighth of an ounce for 1d. The right hon. Gentleman says he will not get it. It is quite certain that if his Amendment is accepted he will not get it because it would positively be a statutory offence under Sub-section (1) to give that extra eighth of an ounce. Not only is that so but I think in these very small quantities the force of competition is more keenly felt than it is in larger quantities, and if one tea dealer in a street takes to giving an extra eighth of an ounce, within a few hours every other tea dealer in the street has to give the extra eighth of an ounce too. The reason is than when you get down to these very small quantities it is not by weight that you calculate but literally by measurement. You can visibly see how many spoonfuls go to an ounce and how many you get for the extra eighth of an ounce. Therefore it is in these very small quantities that you get competition operating and a certain advantage inures to the consumer. Those are two reasons. The first administrative, that I think it is impracticable, the second economic, because I think it would be to the detriment of the consumer. The third reason why I resist the Amendment is because we have had five years experience of the working of two ounces. We know we can work with two ounces. If in the future experience goes to show that there is a case for further reduction, when the time comes that will be considered, but I suggest that in making the Order statutory we should stick to the limits which have already been worked. Finally as regards the evidence of those engaged in the trade, I was turning up the evidence given before the Short Weight Committee and I find that Mr. Turner, Secretary of the National Amalgamated Union of Shop Assistants, Warehousemen and Clerks, stated that the limit he preferred was the limit of two ounces. In questions 38 and 39, on page 73, he was asked: "Your minimum would be two ounces?" and his answer was "Yes." For these reasons I suggest, taking all things into consideration, that it would be wise to adhere to the figure we already have in the Bill.
Mr. SPENCER: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us—he has given us the exact weight for a penny—what will be the price of two ounces at 1s. 6½d.?
Question put, "That the words 'two ounces' stand part of the Bill."
The House divided: Ayes, 165; Noes 46.

Division No. 203.]

AYES.

[8.0 p.m.

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

Pratt, John William

Ainsworth, Captain Charles

Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

Purchase, H. G.

Armstrong, Henry Bruce

Gilbert, James Daniel

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Baird, Sir John Lawrence

Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

Ramsden, G. T.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Goff, Sir R. Park

Randies, Sir John Scurrah

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

Rankin, Captain James Stuart

Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Barlow, Sir Montague

Gritten, W. G. Howard

Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

Barnett, Major Richard W.

Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

Barnston, Major Harry

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Roundell, Colonel R. F.

Beckett, Hon. Sir Gervase

Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)

Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

Haslam, Lewis

Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)

Samual, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Birchall, J. Dearman

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)

Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

Hills, Major John Waller

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Borwick, Major G. O.

Hinds, John

Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

Hogge, James Myles

Seddon, J. A.

Bowles, Colonel H. F.

Holmes, J. Stanley

Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

Hopkins, John W. W.

Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

Breese, Major Charles E.

Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

Broad, Thomas Tucker

Hurd, Percy A.

Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

Jodrell, Neville Paul

Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

Bruton, Sir James

Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Stewart, Gershom

Buchanan, Lieut-Colonel A. L. H.

Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)

Strauss, Edward Anthony

Buckley, Lieut.-Cotonel A.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

Sugden, W. H.

Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

Kidd, James

Sutherland, Sir William

Casey, T. W.

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Taylor, J.

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Lort-Williams, J.

Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley'

Coats, Sir Stuart

Lyle, C. E. Leonard

Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

Macquisten, F. A.

Townley, Maximilian G.

Cope. Major William

Manville, Edward

Tryon, Major George Clement

Davidson, J.C.C. (Hemel Hempstead)

Middlebrook, Sir William

Vickers, Douglas

Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

Molson, Major John Elsdale

Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

Dawson, Sir Philip

Moreing, Captain Aigernon H.

White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

Doyle, N. Grattan

Morrison, Hugh

Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

Mosley, Oswald

Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

Murray, John (Leeds, West)

Williams, C. (Tavistock)

Elveden, Viscount

Nall, Major Joseph

Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

Evans, Ernest

Neal, Arthur

Windsor, Viscount.

Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

Winfrey, Sir Richard

Falls, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

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

Winterton, Earl

Fell, Sir Arthur

Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

Wise, Frederick

Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

Foot, Isaac

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen. C.)

Foreman, Sir Henry

Ormsby-Gore. Hon. William

Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

Forestier-Walker, L.

Parker, James

Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

Fraser, Major Sir Keith

Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Pease, Rt. Hon, Herbert Pike

Galbraith, Samuel

Pilditch, Sir Philip

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Gardiner, James

Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. McCurdy

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)

Robertson, John

Ammon, Charles George

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Royce, William Stapleton

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Grundy, T. W.

Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

Hal as, Eldred

Sitch, Charles H.

Bromfield, William

Halls, Walter

Spencer, George A.

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Hayward, Evan

Swan, J, E.

Cairns. John

Hirst, G. H.

Waterson, A. E.

Cape, Thomas

Kennedy, Thomas

Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Kenyon, Barnet

White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

Lawson, John James

Wignall, James

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Lunn, William

Wilson, James (Dudley)

Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)

Myers, Thomas

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Gillis, William

Naylor, Thomas Ellis

Mr. Frederick Hall and Mr.

Glanville, Harold James

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Walter Smith.

Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
Mr. WATERSON: To some extent we appreciate the attitude of the Government towards the question of giving the consumer some protection. The attitude of the Government in introducing the Bill was justified by the Report on Short Weight. We feel exceedingly aggrieved, however, that the Government have not met us on the Amendments we have put forward. The loss to the consumers will, I understand, be very severe. I am speaking particularly of the poor consumers. I have in my possession one or two facts, which perhaps the hon. Gentleman has seen, and I trust that between now and the time when the Bill is discussed in another place he will review the whole position, in order that some Amendment may be made in another place. On the general question of the Bill I am advised that, taking the annual national consumption at 410,000,000 lbs., if this Bill had not been carried, and the trade had reverted back to the old system prevailing some years ago, weighing tea and paper together in the package, the loss to the consumer would be £3, 587,000—that is why we support the Government, and we only regret that they cannot go further—with a corresponding gain to the wholesaler, who would be selling paper at 2s. 6d. per lb. which only cost him 6½d. per lb.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.

BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."—[Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson.]
Mr. MOSLEY: Before assenting to the passage of this Bill, I desire to raise a question which I mentioned this afternoon, without receiving a very satisfactory reply from the Minister of Labour. As the House is aware, this Bill extends the period of time of the liability which we assumed in the original Act in guaranteeing this exhibition against loss. In view
134
of the circumstances we are entitled to define in some measure the conditions under which labour shall be employed in connection with this undertaking. The Minister of Labour, I understand, went so far last January as to enter into an arrangement with contractors for securing a preference for ex-service men.
Sir W. MITCHELL - THOMSON indicated dissent.
Mr. MOSLEY: The hon. Member shakes his head. I have an answer which was given to a question on the 27th June last relating to this matter. On that occasion the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour said:
"In order to secure a preference for ex-service men, arrangements were made with the contractors last January under which all labour, other than that transferred by the contractors to Wembley from other contracts, should be engaged through the Tavistock Street Employment Exchange. I am informed, however, that out of a total or several hundreds employed, only 26 men in all have been engaged through this Exchange. I am making further inquiry into the matter."—[OFFICIAL REFORT, 27th June, 1922; col. 1859, Vol. 155.]
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): How can this argument be in order now? The sole operation of this Bill is to postpone the date.
Mr. MOSLEY: In this Bill we are asked to extend the liability, in point of time, into which we have already entered, and I submit that, under the circumstances, before assenting to the extension of the period of our liability, the House is entitled to ask whether the conduct of the work is in keeping with the proper advantages to the State which we were led to suppose would accrue when we originally assented to this proposal.
Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: On a point of Order. The object of this Bill is not to extend the operation of the original Bill but to define the precise operations to which the guarantee of the Government should apply. What happened was that the Government guarantee was given in respect of an Exhibition in 1923. The state of trade was such that it was considered desirable to postpone that Exhibition until 1924. Doubts were then expressed by those learned in the law as to whether a Government guarantee given for an Exhibition to be held in 1923 would be valid for an Exhibition

135
actually held in 1924. The sole purpose of this Bill, as shown by its title, is to remove those doubts.
Mr. MOSLEY: I submit that whether it is a question of the Board of Trade having found it necessary to introduce a Bill asking leave to continue this guarantee to the year 1924, at any rate there was a very grave doubt whether their existing powers did not confine them to the year 1923, and in a Measure of this kind, which admittedly asks for an extension of time for the guarantee, am I not entitled to inquire whether the obligations which the Government incurred to the House when it was assenting to the original Measure have been fulfilled? Those obligations were that ex-service men and local labour should receive a preference in the work in connection with this undertaking. I want to argue, if I am in order, that those undertakings have not been fulfilled. Only 26 of such men have been engaged. Am I not entitled to ask before the period of time is extended whether these obligations are to be fulfilled?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It will not be out of order for the hon. Member to ask as to the progress of the work.
Mr. MOSLEY: That was the whole point. I merely want to ask whether the preference which we understood was to be given to ex-service men and local labour is going to be given. I addressed a question to the hon. Member early this afternoon as to whether any local labour had been employed in the work, and he referred me to a question which had been previously answered, which had nothing to do with the point at issue, but was concerned with ex-service men. I admit that the two things are connected, because most of the local unemployed are to be found among ex-service men. But the point is that the contractors are importing into this neighbourhood great masses of labour from other parts of the country. Many of them, I understand, have no connection with the services, and many of them, I am given to understand, have come from Ireland, while the local men and the ex-service men have not been taken on at all. In fact he says in his answer on the 26th June that only 26 men in all had been engaged through the exchanges under the special arrangement which was made in January last for the
136
employment of ex-service men. Surely we are entitled to ask, in connection with an undertaking which is guaranteed by public money, that the labour employed shall contribute in some degree to the solution of the national question of unemployment. We are entitled also to ask that proper economy should be exercised in the conduct of this work by the employment of local labour which in the unskilled categories must of necessity be an economy through saving housing accommodation and travelling expenses. I would ask the hon. Gentleman whether before Third Reading he would be able to give the House some assurance that the obligations which the Government undertook in the original Act will be fulfilled in the very near future.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): I am sorry from one point of view that the hon. Member did not give me a little longer notice that he was going to raise this point. I do not complain personally, but if I had a little longer notice I should have been in the position to give the House possibly a little more information on the point. It is true that the hon. Member asked me a question this afternoon. We have got to keep clearly in mind on this question of employment in connection with the exhibition the difference between two issues. One is the issue of employing ex-service men and the other the issue of employing local labour. The hon. Member has asked questions lately both as to local men and as to ex-service men. Sometimes they are the same, but very often they are not. There was a question asked a little earlier, the answer to which was given by the Minister of Labour:
"In submitting men to contractors for employment at Wembley, the exchanges will select those applicants who are industrially most suitable, subject to the usual preference for ex-service men. I cannot undertake that residents in Wembley shall have any special priority, but in the nature of things they would presumably have a better chance of obtaining employment."
That answer clearly laid down the distinction between the ex-service men issue and the local men issue. So far as ex-service men are concerned there was to be an arrangement. So far as local men are concerned, not being ex-service men, being on the spot they would naturally have, from the mere fact of geography, a certain priority. I promised that I

137
would look into the question of the contractor and the ex-service men. I am sorry that I have not been able to supply the hon. Member with information. I will do so as soon as possible. It is not proposed to take the Third Beading to-night, and I will endeavour before then to go into the particular point as to how far the contractors are engaging ex-service men and furnish my hon. Friend with a report.
Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

CELLULOID AND CINEMATOGRAPH FILM BILL [Lords.]
Order for Second Reading read.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Baird): I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill is to give effect to the recommendations of a Departmental Committee which sat in 1913. I think that there will be general acquiescence in its terms, because the effect of it is to apply once more Regulations which were in force under the Defence of the Realm Act for securing safety in connection with celluloid. I have been asked several times in the course of the last year when I proposed to introduce legislation dealing with this matter. This Bill deals with the cases of places where raw celluloid is stored, and the premises of persons who let out cinematograph films. It does not deal with cinema theatres. They are dealt with under the Act of 1909. Nor does it deal with shops, because their case seems to be more appropriate to the general regulations for dealing with fire, which are now under the consideration of a Royal Commission. The way in which the Bill works is as follows: The premises to which the Bill applies must be notified to the local authority, and that local authority will have power to inspect them. The local authority will be empowered to require reasonable means of escape in the case of fire from the said premises, and the premises must be so constructed and situated as to minimise the danger to adjoining premises. Proper precautions,
138
as set out in the Schedule, must be observed in workrooms and in store places. Those are the main provisions of the Bill. Factories are already dealt with by regulations under the Factories Acts. The Bill gives effect to what would have been an Act of Parliament if the War had not intervened.
Mr. FOOT: I see that under Clause 4 local authorities are required to see that the provisions of the Bill are complied with. What officers must be appointed for this purpose by the local authority, and are the expenses associated with the appointment of that officer to be placed on the shoulders of the local authority? It is well known that local authorities are making strong and bitter complaints about the additional expense placed on their shoulders from time to time. They complain that this House is constantly passing Measures which mean that their expenses go up and up, whether they like it or not. I suppose there is no escape for the local authority in bearing the expense of carrying out the provisions of this Bill? Which of the officers now employed by a local authority will be asked to see that the provisions of this Bill are carried out?
Sir J. BAIRD: As to expense the hon. Gentleman will notice in Sub-section (2) of Clause 4 that the expenses incurred are to be defrayed in the same manner as expenses incurred in the administration of the Public Health Acts.
Mr. FOOT: Those expenses are already borne by the local authority. This means adding to them?
Sir J. BAIRD: I should not like to say definitely whether the whole cost will fall on the local authority or whether this does not imply that a grant will be received. I cannot state definitely at this stage. These are all points which obviously will have to be settled in Committee. All I ask now is that the House approve the general principles of the Bill.
Mr. LAWSON: Does this Bill merely confirm what has been the practice during the War, or does it make more stringent the rules for the storing of films? I ask because I was a witness of a fire, during which there were some terrible scenes, as the result of an outbreak in a place where films had been

139
stored. A basement was cut off and the people there had no hope of rescue. That was since the War. If thi6 Bill makes the rules more stringent it will ease the public mind.
Sir J. BAIRD: The Bill, generally, is based on the experiences gained in the course of the operation of Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act. I suggest that details ought to be thrashed out in Committee. Whether or not the Regulations go far enough is a matter which can be established only when the regulations are discussed. We are all aware of the great danger surrounding the handling of films, and there can be no two opinions about the need of safeguarding those employed in the work and those who live in the neighbourhood against a conflagration which might start in such a factory or store. Details have been framed with a desire to meet a very important need, and we hope they will be regarded as adequate by those who have had experience in these matters.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Sir EVELYN CECIL: When the Post Office Estimates were being discussed I had not the opportunity of referring to the question of telephone administration or the work of the Committee of which I had the honour to be Chairman. Although, after the discussions that have taken place, I certainly do not intend to make precisely the sort of speech I might have made in an earlier Debate, yet I notice that there are two or three points which are somewhat fresh and which were not mentioned, and to them I wish to refer now. In the first place, I wish to note the different spirit which has now come over the telephone scene, to a great extent. There is much less acute mistrust on the side of the public, and there is less official dogmatism on the side of the Post Office. The Post Office seems
140
now to appreciate that it was not established to rule the public, but rather to be its servant. I want to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General on this change of spirit. It is not a little due to his judicious administration, and perhaps the effect of the Telephone Committee's Report has been to get both sides to realise better the difficulties that face the one and the other, and that it has; in consequence combined both sides into striving for a better telephone administration. There is a perceptible improvement in telephone operating. Speaking from personal experience, when telephoning from this House, I find that the time occupied is certainly less; there is more prompt answering and more prompt operation generally. I believe the public hold the same view as regards the operation of the system as a whole.
The Postmaster-General has taken serious note of most of the recommendations made by the Telephone Committee. He realises there should be a more commercial system of management, and he has already, on the first of the present month, put into operation a tariff of lower rates, which I believe is largely due to the recommendations of the Committee. He has foreshadowed lower rates for residences, and he is occupying himself with the subject of rural development, which is one of immense importance, and upon which this country has a good deal to learn. We can learn a good deal from various places, and not least from Ontario in Canada, from which I have received a very interesting pamphlet on rural development there, which I shall be glad to place at the disposal of the right hon. Gentleman. He is also engaged in providing for more trunk lines, for which this sum of money is largely asked, and I am certain that is one of the developments which will produce more rapid telephone communication and make telephone communication more popular. He is establishing more exchanges, which is also the outcome of the Telephone Committee's inquiry, and he is directing his attention to automatic exchanges with a circumspection which is justified by the opinions of scientific experts, although I believe that, provided the capital expenditure on automatic exchanges does not prove too prodigious, they should be a valuable asset in improving the communications of the country and cheapening operation.

141
I believe that extensions of the system, under commercial management and run with common sense, will ultimately pay. It is necessary to make a certain amount of experimental advance; it is not all in a day one can achieve much real development, or still less do so with a certainty that it will pay. But we have before us the example of the Bell Telephone Company, in Canada, paying 8 per cent., and the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, in the United States, which pays 9 per cent. dividends, and from that it does not appear as though in those countries there was any serious danger of running rural development at a loss. There is no reason why we here should not follow in their footsteps. We may congratulate the Government on the advance we are making, and I should like to congratulate the Committee on the unusually large number of their recommendations which the Government is adopting. Indeed, it is not so much a question of how many of their recommendations are being adopted, as of how few are being turned down. The Postmaster-General might usefully review the general working of the changes and bring up a comparison of the results obtained when the next Post Office Estimates come before the House.
I pass to points which I do not think have been very fully brought out or discussed. One is the question of accounts. A good deal was said about keeping the accounts in a more commercial way and under a more special supervision and examination. I am not quite sure how far steps have been taken in that direction. There is no doubt, so far as the Committee's examination of the accounts was concerned, that the present reductions in telephone rates do not absorb the whole saving, and, if that be so, I should like either now or at some subsequent time to hear from the Postmaster-General how he proposes to deal with this subject and whether he is hopeful of applying the money that can be saved to granting further reductions of telephone rates. There is another recommendation to which all the members of the Committee attach considerable importance, and that is the separation of the telephone and telegraph service from the mails. I am not clear that that has been perfectly understood by either the Post Office or the public. There are three paragraphs
142
in the Report which especially deal with it, and require to be read carefully in order that their object may be fully appreciated. These are paragraphs 4, 5 and 6. In some quarters it has been gathered that the Committee desire, in the separation of the mails from the electrical services, to put up a whole new set of buildings for each branch and employ an entire new staff for each branch. It is objected that this will evolve considerable expenditure rather than achieve economy and efficiency. If these paragraphs are carefully read, it will be seen that is not accurately the recommendation of the Committee. The Committee do not contemplate entirely new buildings. It is quite practicable to use the same building with different Departments in it. They do not contemplate having entirely new staffs running right through the two branches, but rather that at the head of the Post Office there should be expert directors-general for each Department. This is important. Similarly at the other end of the scale we should be able to appoint, in smaller places where there was not much business, the same official to look after the letters and supervise the electrical services. Therefore there is not the expenditure involved which some critics seem to believe, and the reason why the Committee' advocated this recommendation was because of a study made of the working of this system in Scandinavian countries and elsewhere—for instance, Canada and the United States. There is no question that it has worked for efficiency, in a general way, in Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Of course, where you have separate telephone services by companies distinct from the Post Office, as in Canada and in the United States, it goes without saying that the system there seems to work very well, and the secret of it largely is that you have a director-general who is thoroughly conversant with the technical side of the question, as well as its being a commercial management. I cannot but believe, after sifting a great deal of evidence in connection with those countries, that that system is the better system of the two—better than keeping them under one common Secretary of the Post Office. Our system has grown up here rather by chance than otherwise, as is noted in one of the paragraphs of the Report, but it stands to reason that all

143
these countries would not tell you quite candidly that theirs is the better system unless they had been satisfied after considerable experience that that was really true.
I know my right hon. Friend will probably tell me that what I am saying is all correct, but that it is quite a different story now that he cannot start ab initio. You cannot plaster on to our present system, he will say, this alleged better system of the Scandinavian countries. My reply is that I am sure his permanent officials so advise him, because permanent officials have a way of giving advice of this kind very frequently. They are used to the old practice, they believe it works well enough for their purposes, and they do not readily admit that they know of anything better. I recall, on that subject, the experience of Lord Buxton when he was Postmaster-General —I think it was in 1907—and that he overruled a decision of his predecessor, who was the present Lord Derby, and of the permanent officials, in establishing the Canadian magazine post. That arrangement was exceedingly beneficial for establishing closer links with the Empire, particularly with Canada, bearing in mind its close proximity to the United States, and I should like here again to express my praise of the action which Lord Buxton then took, for it was a courageous one, and one in opposition to some of his best advisers. I should rather like to throw out these facts for the consideration of my right hon. Friend.
I said he would tell me they cannot do it because they are not starting ab initio, and my further answer to that argument would be that I should like to direct his attention to the experience of Italy. I happened to be in Italy in connection with the International Railway Congress a month or two ago, and I had an opportunity of seeing the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, and also another Minister, and I asked the former very particularly about the alterations which have been recently made in Italy in connection with the administration on these points. In the years 1919 and 1920 new laws were passed which established a Director-General for Posts and another Director-General for the electric services, that is to say, telegraphs and telephones. Both
144
these Directors-General are under the Minister of Posts, and both are heads who have a great deal of independent authority so far as their Departments are concerned, and are working on the lines precisely, so far as I could learn, of the Scandinavian countries, so that there is a case where there is no starting ab initio, and yet this arrangement has been introduced. The present Minister, Signor Fulci, said he was very satisfied with it. He said further that in a new reform which he was preparing regarding the personnel he was maintaining the separation of the telegraphs and telephones from the mails, and he was convinced he was right.
That is not all. I also called upon the present Minister of Public Works and Railways, Signor Riccio, and he, I found, was former Minister of Posts and Telegraphs from 1914 to 1916, in part of the very critical time of the War. He frankly said that he had turned down, like my right hon. Friend, the separation of posts from the electric services when in office, but that since he had seen it working he had changed his mind, and he said that I might say so in public. I wish to call my right hon. Friend's very special attention to the experience of Italy in this regard. It is, I can assure him, not an uneconomical arrangement, but quite the contrary. High technical knowledge is applied directly and not tortuously under it, and there is therefore a saving of money and of energy. I inquired of one or two representatives of the genera public in Italy who were large telephone users what they thought since the change had taken place, and one of them writes to me: "Personally, I am greatly in favour of it; it helps to speed up the work." So I cannot but say that I trust my right hon. Friend will not finally make up his mind to go on with the old method of administration without giving much more examination to what goes on abroad. He has all the channels of information, and perhaps more than those that I have, I do not think I need lengthen this discussion, in view of what has been said in previous Debates, but I will conclude by once more congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on the large number of recommendations of the Committee which he has adopted and begging him to keep his mind still open before finally deciding

145
that our researches cannot bear even better fruit.
Captain MOREING: I want to support what my right hon. Friend the Member for the Aston Division (Sir. E. Cecil) said in regard to the separation of the postal and telegraphic and telephonic business of the Post Office. I think the Members of the Committee were most struck by the fact that in the very large business that the telephone department now represents there was no such thing as a general manager of the service. In fact, it appeared to be almost impossible to place the responsibility for any particular part of the service on any particular person, and I cannot think that that fact will recommend itself in this House. When you have a large service with large sums of money involved, a service which is of vital interest to the commercial community in this country, and, in fact, to the every-day life of this country, I think the time has come when this somewhat anomalous organisation which exists at present, and which appears to have been built up in order to fit in with the pre-existing organisation of the Post Office, should be put upon a more business-like footing. Apparently, it is designed in order to preserve intact the functions of the various surveyors of the Post Office in the various districts, and I think I am correct in saying that the only part of the Kingdom in which there is an official responsible for the telephone service is in London, where there is a special Controller-General. The Committee did not propose, and never thought to propose, a system of re-organisation which would entail increased expenditure or an increased number of officials. It merely asked that the existing system, the existing staff, should be re-organised, so as to place a definite responsible head over the whole of the telegraph and telephone service.
That was the sum total of our proposal. I must say I was rather surprised by one answer given in reply to a question by a member of the Select Committee. I am quoting from memory. The question was as to whether the arrangements at the Post Office had been much altered in recent years, and the reply was that a more perfect system could not be conceived. I think that is
146
hardly the way in which a Department should approach a question like this. We took over the telephones a year or two before the War. Admittedly during the War it was impossible to see a real organisation and development of the telephone service, but I do ask the Postmaster-General to consider a little more carefully, and away from the official atmosphere of the Post Office, whether or not it would be possible to re-organise, on a much more efficient basis, the administration of the telephone service. There is one other point which, as a Member of the Committee, was forced upon me, and that was that under official control it was almost impossible to devise a system of rates or of charges which is readily adaptable to commercial needs. Unfortunately, the Department seems to have to decide everything by their rules and regulations, and I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether it would not be possible even now to devise a somewhat more elastic system of charges, which would lead to the development of telephones in this country, and especially in the rural areas.
9.0 p.m.
Mr. FOOT: The Postmaster-General, when this matter was discussed in Committee a week or two ago, spoke of the rather extraordinary progress which had been made in recent months in the rural telephone service. I do not know if the Postmaster-General has any figures available, but I should be glad to know if the progress made in the installation of rural telephones has been well maintained since the month of April; and, further, whether he would inform the House what steps are being taken by the Post Office to familiarise people in the country districts with the additional advantages that were announced by him when he introduced his Post Office statement. Speaking a week or two ago in Committee, he stated that everything would be dons on his part to bring home to the people in the countryside, not only the ordinary advantages of the telephone, but the advantages of the party-line system, and it would be of some interest if we could learn what actual steps are being taken in that direction. I believe that if there can be a substantial improvement upon that line, and if those who live in distant parts of the country, not merely in villages, but in farmhouses which are miles away

147
from villages, could be linked up with the telephone system, it would be one of the biggest strides that could be taken to assist people in rural areas, and the popularising of the telephone in that way-would not only be a great social amenity, but of commercial advantage.
Sir EVAN JONES: I should like to join with my right hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Sir E. Cecil) in congratulating the Postmaster-General upon the extent to which he has already gone in regard to the recommendations of the Committee on Telephones, and I should also like to endorse the view which has been expressed on the subject of the separation of the telegraphs and telephones from the mails. My right hon. Friend has brought forward cogent reasons, which weighed very definitely with the Committee in arriving at the decision to which they came, and I would add my request to the Postmaster-General not to cast aside the suggestion of the Committee in that respect. The Committee had on it some men who are accustomed to the management of large business concerns in this country, and I think they felt very genuinely and very strongly that there is something lacking in the present system. There is another point I would like to mention, and that is on the question of the money which is being asked for in this Bill. We all welcome the fact that in this Bill there is very considerable evidence that the Post Office is arriving at a state where it combines vision for the development of the future with, perhaps, what has been in the past too much routine of a Departmental nature. So far as that is concerned, I think everyone would like to give the Postmaster-General and his very able administrative staff all the support and assistance which the endorsement of their views enables us to do.
There is, however, one matter to which I should like to draw attention. A very large amount of money has been asked for. Fifteen millions for development purposes is a very considerable sum. No one will begrudge the money if it results in a cheapening of the service to the public, but I do not think we have very strong grounds for believing, or hoping, that the best will be made of the expenditure of this money. What has happened? A very great deal has been made
148
of the fact that the Postmaster-General has been able, by what has been described as administrative efficiency, and the cutting down of expenditure, this year to reduce the telephone charges. We are thankful for small mercies, and for a reduction in the telephone charges. But according to the evidence brought before the Select Committee, that reduction ought to have been at least 2½ times what it is. That is perfectly clear on the figures given to this House by the Postmaster-General himself, and on the direct evidence given by his own officials to the Select Committee.
The Postmaster-General told us that out of an estimated surplus of £9,300,000 for 1922–23 on the commercial accounts, he proposed to devote something like £840,000 to the reduction of the charges on the telephone system. The Select Committee indicated the possibility of a considerably greater saving than that in addition to the automatic saving that would come about by the automatic reduction in the payment of bonuses on wages, etc. The Secretary of the Post Office, in his evidence before the Committee, admitted that the whole deficiency which resulted in the increase of charges last year, or the year before, when the charges were put up was accounted for by the bonus paid to the staff. The amount of the deficiency was £4,250,000. The additional expenditure attributed to the payment of bonus was £4.500 000, so that the whole deficiency which was the direct cause of the increase in the charges made at that time, was more than accounted for by that one particular item of increase in expenditure.
We were further told that this year the bonus would be automatically reduced. We were given figures which showed that the reduction of the bonus would be equal to £190,000 on every five points of the fall in the cost of living. We were further told that for this year's Estimate the cost of living had been estimated at an index figure of 100 as compared with an index figure of 140 last year. Five points divided into 40 gives us the result of eight, and if you multiply £190,000 by eight you get £1, 520,000, which should represent the automatic reduction due to the bonus alone. The Postmaster-General reduced the charges by an amount equal

149
to £840,000, and he obtained a saving of £1,520,000 by the automatic reduction of the bonus! In addition to that there was a further sum of something like £350,000— arrived at from the figures of the Postmaster-General himself in the Estimates— this £350,000 being saving on the cost of material. In addition to that the Postmaster-General has told the House that he had accepted the recommendations of the Committee by which it was proposed to transfer to capital account the cost of the overhead charges on capital work which had previously been paid out of revenue. This alone amounted to £580,000. Here you have automatic reductions equal to something over £2,000,000, not due in any way to the reduction of expenditure, or to savings obtained by increased efficiency, nor to savings which have been obtained by the curtailment of services—and there has been considerable curtailment of services —but which, without counting those savings at all, show an automatic reduction of over £2,000,000. The Postmaster-General has given reduced telephone charges amounting to £840,000.
All this seems to indicate that there is a hidden reserve of a considerable amount somewhere which might be devoted to development purposes and might reduce the amount of money for which this Bill asks. This ought to have been applied to reducing the telephone charges by at least double what has been done. I think the House ought to be aware of the fact that when asking for these 15 millions for increased development purposes the Post Office have in the form of a hidden reserve a very considerable sum of money which might be utilised for this purpose. We welcome development, and I do not wish anything I say to be regarded as opposing the Bill, but there must be some justification in the results to be obtained from this expenditure. Unless the public obtain value by better services and reduced charges, then the justification for this increased expenditure does not exist. I simply wish to point out the methods hitherto adopted by which this year the telephone charges have not been reduced to the extent to which they should have been reduced, and trust it will be a warning for the future that if this money is approved and granted by the House there will be more careful administration.
Mr. REMER: I should like to emphasise the words which have fallen from my hon. Friend as to the necessity of separating the telegraphs from the mails. I have more or less expressed my views on that subject previously, and on one particular occasion I moved an Amendment to the Address which resulted in the formation of the Select Committee over which my right hon. Friend presided. My particular view is this: that the way to get the telegraphs and the mails properly and effectively managed is to take the telegraphs and the telephones out of the hands of the Government altogether and put them back again under private enterprise. It is only, I believe, by that method that we can obtain and keep an efficient telegraph and telephone service,. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend if he will take care to see that the money which is expended under this Bill is spent in employing British workmen. There is a tendency on the part of Post Office officials to think that British workmen mannot manufacture certain articles. A great deal of silk is used in the manufacture of telephones and telegraphs. The Post Office officials state that the manufacturers in Macclesfield are not capable of manufacturing silk suitable for that purpose, but I am informed that that is quite an inaccurate statement, and I hope that when the money we are voting comes to be expended the right hon. Gentleman will see that British manufacturers are given a fair chance of supplying the silk and other materials which will be required. The officials of the Post Office are very liable to run down the class of materials supplied by the manufacturers of this country. I hope my right hon. Friend will not turn the idea of trying to find some scheme whereby telephones and telegraphs can be put under private enterprise, because I am sure that this can be arranged.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This Bill is to provide money for the development of telegraphs and telephones by the Government, and not under private enterprise.
Mr. REMER: I was trying to show that all the money need not be spent by the Government if they would put some part of this undertaking under private enterprise. I hope that any enterprise which is undertaken by the Government will be on the lines of making a more efficient

151
service instead of the kind of service which has been so severely criticised by the public in the past.
Mr. ROYCE: I hope the Postmaster-General will use all the influence and power he possesses to endeavour to induce railway companies at all rural and country stations of any special importance to connect up their stations with the telephone system of this country. At the present moment there is a great amount of dissatisfaction amongst farmers and others in this connection, because railways generally refuse to connect their stations with the telephone system, and this delays very considerably such matters as the unloading of trucks. Under the ordinary system when goods arrive at a station or empties come for the farmers the usual practice is to send out a note to the farmers by the evening post, and this reaches the farmer the next morning after his horses have gone out on other work on the farm, and consequently there is a delay of two days.
Representations have been made to the railway companies to induce them to instal telephones at their stations, and in one instance the reply received was that the farmers could have the telephone installed at the station if they would go to the expense of placing it there. I do not know what steps the Postmaster-General can take to induce railway companies to do this by offering them any special facilities, but I know this is a matter of very great importance to the farming community, and I hope that some steps will be taken with regard to this question. It has been said that one means of bringing the railway companies to their bearings in connection with this matter would be to block their Bills in this House. I do not know whether that would be effective or not, but I am afraid some such steps will have to be taken to get them to come into line with the farming community.
Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Member who has just sat down has taken the opportunity afforded by this Bill, which is one to provide money to extend the telephone system, to enter a protest against what I presume he would call the misconduct of the railway companies in not providing, free of charge, telephonic communication between a railway station and the farmers within the area of that
152
station. From the point of view of the taxpayer I am rather inclined to think that possibly it would be better that the railway companies or the shareholders should provide the farmer with telephonic communication apparently for nothing. The hon. Gentleman opposite seems to imagine that the railway companies seem to exist in order to provide the people who sent him to this House with telephonic facilities for nothing, but that is quite a mistake. The railway companies exist to give travelling facilities for the people of this country, and I venture to say that no country in the world has ever been served in such a first-class manner as this country has by the railway companies.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I allowed the hon. Member for the Boston Division (Mr. Royce) to raise this point because I understood his argument was that some part of this money was to be spent to link up the railway stations with the telephone system, but I must point out to the right hon. Baronet that the general merits of the railway system are not now under discussion.
Sir F. BANBURY: I should not have referred to this subject but for the allusion made by the last speaker to railway companies, and as he was allowed to do this without being called to order, I thought it might be permissible for me to reply to his statement. However, I do not wish to pursue that point any further, beyond saying that I cannot understand how he makes out a loss of two days in regard to the unloading of trucks and the removal of empties. The hon. Member stated that the notice was sent out by the evening post and that when it arrived the horses were out on other work and consequently there was a delay of two days. It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman's arithmetic is very little better than his argument: on this point.
Mr. ROYCE: The right hon. Gentleman forgets that the day on which the notice is now posted would enable the railway company by telephone to communicate with the farmers.
Sir F. BANBURY: If the telephone was used on the day on which the notice was posted, and the horses had gone out, it would, at any rate, be useless for that day. With regard to the question of further money for the telephone, I wish

153
to say that I am in no way desirous of offering any opposition to the proposal to borrow this £15,000,000 for the development of the telephone system. I do not object to that expenditure, because I believe that the money expended will be more or less remunerative. I should like to call the attention of the House to certain figures which happened to come before me this very afternoon. I have not got the actual amount of the figures, but they were submitted to the Post Office, and are correct. They show that in the year 1920–1921 the loss on the telephone service was over £4,000,000, and on the telegraph service over £3,000,000. I forget the actual amounts over those two sums, but the loss on the two services amounted to over £7,000,000. That is a very large sum, and it is advisable that the House should let the Postmaster-General know that in any efforts he may make to secure economy and the more efficient working of the service he will have their unswerving support. I am not in any way making an attack on the administration of the Post Office. They have been face to face with a very great deal of difficulty, as is well known, and the right hon. Gentleman himself has only been Postmaster-General for, comparatively speaking, a 6hort time—I think about two years—
Mr. KELLAWAY: A year.
Sir F. BANBURY: A short time. Therefore it was impossible for him to prevent all the—I do not quite know what word to use—shall I say, mismanagement which arose owing to the War, due to circumstances over which perhaps the then Postmaster-General had not much control. I hope the Postmaster-General will see that it is quite impossible that we should continue carrying on these two services at a loss of over £7,000,000 a year. When it is remembered that in private hands the telegraph and telephone both paid their way, I do not think it is out of place for a representative of the taxpayers to point to the very great losses which have taken place during the past year.
The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Kellaway): The discussion has covered a very considerable ground, and I hope the House will feel it is of advantage that I should reply, after having had the oppor-
154
tunity of hearing the contributions to the Debate which hon. Members desired to make. There are one or two small points that I will endeavour to dispose of before I come to the larger questions. There was the difference of opinion between my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) and the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Royce) as to the relative merits of the railway companies and the Post Office. Just for once, I think, the right hon. Member for the City of London lapsed from accuracy. He did not quite get hold of the criticism which the hon. Member for Boston was endeavouring to make.
Sir F. BANBURY: I have now been given the actual figures of the losses to which I referred just now. The deficit was £4,450,000.
Mr. KELLAWAY: I was aware of that, but it was not on that point that the criticism was made. It was in regard to-the railway companies that the criticism was made by the hon. Member for Boston. It is undoubtedly the fact that some of the railway companies, not having the-advantage of that drive and enterprise which the right hon. Member for the City of London contributes to any undertaking; with which he is associated, do take rather a slow view, and a narrow view, with regard to the advantage of having a telephone box on the station premises. We have given instructions to all our surveyors and district managers throughout the country to press the stationmasters or the proper officials of the railway companies in the districts to agree to the presence of telephone boxes on the-stations. While some of them are prepared to do that, they are not prepared to have an extension from the telephone box to some official in the station who can answer a call when it is put through. Without that connection the telephone box is obviously useless for the purposes of the agriculturalist. I should be glad if the right hon. Member for the City of London would use his very great influence to get others in equal authority and position in the railway world to show the same enterprise and interest as he has displayed in this matter. I am sorry I cannot give the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) the figures for which he asks. If he puts a question on the Order Paper, I will see that the information is provided.

155
When I moved the Financial Resolution, some reflection was made on the character of the tests which were applied in order to get the average time necessary in an acknowledgment of a telephone call from an exchange. I want to make it clear that these tests were made without the knowledge of the operators, and that the period covered was between 8 o'clock in the morning and 8 o'clock at night. The tests were taken over a great number of instances, and I am satisfied that they fairly represent what is the practice throughout the country. I gave the average time as being six seconds, from the time that the receiver was taken off the instrument to the receipt by the caller of an acknowledgment from the exchange. The figures were interesting, and perhaps the House will allow me to give them. The average in the Aberdeen district was only four seconds. Why Aberdeen should be so much better than anywhere else I do not know, but my knowledge of that town is limited. The time in Birmingham was 5·2 seconds; Edinburgh, 4·1; Glasgow, 5·3; Liverpool, 6·0; Manchester, 6·4; and London, 6·1. So that Scotland appears to beat England in every one of these instances. The tests were taken over a great number of examples, and they do fairly represent what is the average practice throughout the country.
I also undertook, when I spoke on the discussion last time, to deal with a point raised by the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), in regard to a temporary telephone line that was laid along the Caledonian Canal between Inverness and Fort William. With that anxiety to protect the public interest which the hon. Member always displays, he wanted to be assured that we were not going to scrap this telephone line and bring it up to London to use it for the decoration of the General Post Office. I am glad to tell the hon. Member that instructions have recently been given to the Secretary in Edinburgh that if he can obtain 20 additional subscribers, we will afford trunk facilities. I hope they will be able to find that number of additional subscribers, but if they cannot it is quite clear that there is not a demand such as will justify us in embarking on the very large expenditure which the maintenance and working of this line will involve.
156
I think those are all the points raised to which I promised to reply when the Second Reading of the Bill was before the House. I come to the point raised by the Chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for the Aston Division (Sir E. Cecil). Since compliments are rather the order of the day in regard to the telephone service, perhaps he will allow me to reciprocate the kindly spirit he has displayed in his reference to the work of the Post Office since I have been Postmaster-General. I did find the Report of the Select Committee of great advantage in coming to a decision on a number of problems on which my mind had not been made up. As the right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, the majority of the recommendations made by that Committee have been carried out, if not precisely in the form recommended by the Committee, at least the spirit of them has been applied. There is one, however, I was not prepared to carry out, and that, naturally, is the one which the Select Committee regard as the ark of the covenant—
Sir E. CECIL: No, no.
Mr. KELLAWAY:—and the satisfaction that the Committee feel at my having adopted the great majority of their recommendations is tinged with melancholy because I have not been prepared to adopt their recommendation of the complete separation of the telephones and telegraphs from the mails of this country. I have listened to all that has been said to-night, with all the eloquence and knowledge that my right hon. Friend brought to bear on the subject, and I am bound to say it leaves me cold. It is all very well to tell me of what is being done in Norway, Sweden and Denmark, and about what Italy is going to do. We are not dealing with those countries. We are dealing with a highly industrialised country and with a system that has grown up and has become interlocked for some years. The arguments drawn from those rural districts must not be pressed too far when dealing with the sort of problems we have to deal with in London, Edinburgh, Birmingham and Glasgow or any other great city.
Sir E. CECIL: They apply to New York, Stockholm and other great cities.
Mr. KELLAWAY: Where the systems have always been separate.
Sir E. CECIL: And Rome.
Mr. KELLAWAY: I shall have something to say about Home presently. You must not try to draw argument from countries where the systems have always been separate and apply them to countries where the systems have grown into one another. This is the state of things you would have if we were to apply this recommendation to this country. You would have separate staffs under separate supervision dealing with work now common to the Post Office. If you went into a fairly large office to send a telegram, you might see a girl behind the counter doing nothing, because it was her business to look after postal work, for which at the time there was no urgency, and she would be unable to deal with your urgent telegram because she was on the other side of the service. It really would not work. We have now 1,500 offices, up and down the country, with a common staff, able to deal with telegrams and with postal matters, and to attempt to separate these and, in a comparatively small office, have one staff to deal only with telegrams and not allowed to touch stamps, while there will be another staff to deal with letters and not allowed to touch telegrams, to have that sort of thing would result in making the service hopelessly expensive and, I believe, inefficient as well. My right hon. Friend is very proud of Rome. I hope that hon. Members, who heard my right hon. Friend holding up to me the example of Italy as a place where lately they have adopted the separation of the posts and telegraphs, will listen to what I read in to-day's "Morning Post." It was under the head "Rome," 2nd July, and it said:
"The Report of the Committee appointed to deal with the Budget of Posts and Telegraphs has now been laid before the Chamber. The deficit for 1920–21, the Report says, was 471,000,000 lira. For 1921–22 it was over 500,000,000 lira, and it is estimated that the deficit for the current year will be the same sum."
We make our post office pay. We are making our telephone service pay, and my right hon. Friend must excuse me if I decline to be moved to adopt a system which has produced financial results of that kind. I have to make my system pay and we have succeeded, but I must not
158
be asked to adopt a system with regard to which we find to-day the financial result has been a loss of 500,000,000 lira. I do not close my mind to any proposal that may be made by any responsible body of men for an improvement in the organisation of the telephone service, but I think the improvements which have so far been effected far outweigh any technical advantages that might accrue from complete separation. I have been asked as to the control of the joint service. The Controller of the Telephone and Telegraph service will in future be an official who has been trained in the National Telephone Company. He is one of the ablest men we have on the telephone side. He will control the telephone and telegraph service to a large extent.
Sir E. CECIL: That goes a long way to meet the Committee's recommendation.
Mr. KELLAWAY: My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Sir Evan Jones) quoted a great number of figures in order to prove that instead of the reductions I have made I ought to have made reductions two and a half times as great. I am sorry to say I cannot follow his argument. I wish I had that "hidden reserve" to which he referred. No one has a greater interest than I have in securing very substantial reductions, but I think I went as far in the direction of reducing charges as it was possible to go. I very nearly divided up the melon to the last pip, and if any criticism is to be made it should be that I have gone too far. Let us first see what will be the result of the reductions. If possible, I would only be too glad to go further. My right hon. Friend and those who supported him said, "We have showed you a sum of £400,000 or £500,000 in your accounts which you might have used for the reduction of charges." But I have used that sum. I had already adopted that course. There is a difference between us as to the method of accounting which has to be borne in mind, but really the only amount remaining in dispute was a sum of £200,000 in the Special Depreciation Account. With regard to that, I am taking the advice of one of the most eminent accountants in the City, and if he says I can use that for revenue purposes without jeopardising the safety of my accounts, I shall be very glad to do it. But unless I can get that assurance I am not prepared to do it.

159
That is all that remains of the "hidden reserve" which my hon. Friends, in their eloquence, have put at from £500,000 to £600,000
Sir EVAN JONES: What becomes of the automatic reduction of the bonus?
Mr. KELLAWAY: That is reflected in the accounts for this year which I laid before the House. If my hon. Friend or anybody else can show me that "hidden reserve" of £500,000 or £600,000, I can assure them that the public will very soon get the benefit of it.
I conclude what I have to say on this by emphasising what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). The first interest of the telephone service is its solvency, and I cannot be a party to these methods of improving the apparent position by cutting down the amount which should be allowed for depreciation. That is the short road to bankruptcy. I would rather err on the side of making too large an allowance than of not making a sufficient allowance. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) wanted an assurance that the telephone department would employ British workmen. I think that the arrangements we have in the Post Office do secure that, even where there is a certain financial loss involved by placing the contracts in this country, they are placed in this country; but we cannot undertake that no work shall be placed outside this country. The amount of money spent outside this country by the Post Office is very small indeed. It is a very tiny percentage of our expenditure. But there are certain things which cannot be got here. I regret it, and I have used the whole of my influence, and the influence of the Post Office Advisory Council has been used, to try to get provision made in this country for producing those things which at present cannot be obtained here.
Mr. REMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman look very carefully into the silk question? I am quite sure that the trade can supply all the requirements of the Post Office in that respect, and they are now working short time.
Mr. KELLAWAY: I will certainly look into that. I remember discussing it some
160
time ago, when it was raised by my hon. Friend. The only other observation that I need make is to refer to what several speakers have called the change of spirit in the Post Office. It was emphasised by my right hon. Friend who opened the discussion. He was good enough to some extent to attribute that change in spirit to the change in the Postmaster-General. I think he is wrong there. It is not that. Two things have been chiefly responsible for it. The first is the appointment of a body of business men to advise the Postmaster-General, at whose meetings permanent officials are present; and the second is the fact that we have periodical meetings of the heads of the great Departments in the Post Office. Those two changes in administration have undoubtedly brought about a change of spirit on the part of the Post Office, and have explained, to some extent at any rate, the much more friendly attitude which the public now display towards the Post Office than they were displaying some time ago.
Sir E. CECIL: I did not want to make any comparison between my right hon. Friend and his predecessor.
Mr. KELLAWAY: I am sure that that was the last thing my right hon. Friend would desire to do. I assure the House that, in agreeing to this provision of £15,000,000 of capital for the development of the telephone service, the money is being put into a concern which has improved and is improving, but which I agree ought to be a great deal better. There is every indication that, if the House continues to provide, as in the past, capital for this Service, we shall be within a measurable distance of removing from this country what I regard as the discredit of its present telephone position. The improvement during the past year has been marked, and, if the House continues to show its confidence in the administration of the Service, I think we can promise greater improvements rapidly in the future.
Mr. AMMON: There are two points which I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to be good enough to make clear to me, as I had not the advantage of hearing the whole of his speech. I understand that he proposes to appoint a Controller of Telegraphs and Telephones. | Does that mean a new appointment, or a

161
consolidation of these two Services under one Controller? There has always been a Controller of Telegraphs, and I should like to know what it really amounts to. The other point is with regard to the cable line between Aberdeen and Fort William. I was able to supply the right hon. Gentleman—although it was not necessary, because he knew the figures already—with the numbers of subscribers demanded and of those who have already intimated their willingness to use this cable, the latter being a very large percentage of the number required. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not be in too great a hurry to close down before he gets the other 20 that he considers requisite for the continued maintenance of this cable.
Mr. KELLAWAY: I think it is only an additional 20 that we are asking for, and I certainly do not want to close it down. As to the position of the Controller of Telegraphs and Telephones, it is more in the nature; of a closer definition and enlargement of the duties which have been carried out by Mr. Dalzell. It does not mean the appointment of a new officer, because he is already in our service but we shall then have a man at the head of that branch of the Service who can be held immediately responsible in regard to the whole administration.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Sir J. BAIRD: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill is in the usual form. Clause 1 explains its purpose, which is to authorise the National Debt Commis-
162
sioners to issue loans to the Public Works Loan Commissioners, who decide whether the objects for which local authorities desire money are such as they can properly advance money for. The Bill is for £5,000,000 less than the corresponding Bill of last year, and we hope it will extend for a longer period.
Clauses 2 and 3 deal with the failure of the Eyemouth Harbour Commission to pay its loan, a rather complicated matter which is explained fully in a White Paper which is in the Vote Office. This equally is an annual matter. Clauses 2 and 3 reproduce the Clauses which have appeared in previous Bills for the purpose of dealing with a similar situation. Unfortunately the Eyemouth Loan is secured upon surplus herring brand fee?. Last year, there being no surplus herring brand fees, there was a deficit, and it was necessary to take the steps for which provision is made in these two Clauses. I do not know that there is anything special in the Bill to which reference need be made. It is in the common form, and I hope the House will give it a Second Reading.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a Second time.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow," put, and agreed to.—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.
Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Leslie, Wilson.]
Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes before Ten o'Clock.

  BEER PRICES.
  BEER PRICES.
  ALIENS.
  ALIENS.
  PASSPOKTS AND VISAS (RUSSIA).
  PASSPOKTS AND VISAS (RUSSIA).
  MOUNTED POLICE.
  MOUNTED POLICE.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (NEWSPAPER ARTICLE).
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (NEWSPAPER ARTICLE).
MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT.
  SIR G. BEHARREL.
  SIR G. BEHARREL.
WAR OFFICE.
  FINANCE BRANCH.
  FINANCE BRANCH.
  COST ACCOUNTING.
  COST ACCOUNTING.
  STAMP DUTIES (CHEQUES).
  STAMP DUTIES (CHEQUES).
  INCOME TAX REPAYMENTS (FRAUD).
  INCOME TAX REPAYMENTS (FRAUD).
  NATIONAL FINANCE.
  NATIONAL FINANCE.
  RETIRED SCHOOL TEACHERS' PENSIONS.
  RETIRED SCHOOL TEACHERS' PENSIONS.
  BRITISH DYESTUFFS CORPORATION.
  BRITISH DYESTUFFS CORPORATION.
HOUSING.
  STATE-AIDED HOUSES (RENTS).
  STATE-AIDED HOUSES (RENTS).
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES' SCHEMES (LAND PRICES).
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES' SCHEMES (LAND PRICES).
  POOR LAW INSTITUTIONS.
  POOR LAW INSTITUTIONS.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (MEDICAL BENEFIT).
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (MEDICAL BENEFIT).
  CARAVAN SETTLEMENTS, WIRRAL.
  CARAVAN SETTLEMENTS, WIRRAL.
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT (DELAY, MANCHESTER).
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT (DELAY, MANCHESTER).
  POOR LAW RELIEF, MIDDLESBROUGH.
  POOR LAW RELIEF, MIDDLESBROUGH.
  SAMSUN (BOMBARDMENT).
  SAMSUN (BOMBARDMENT).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
  MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT (MEAT).
  MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT (MEAT).
POST OFFICE.
  BASINGSTOKE.
  BASINGSTOKE.
  POSTAL SERVICE, CHESTERFIELD.
  POSTAL SERVICE, CHESTERFIELD.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE (ASSISTANT TRAFFIC INSPECTORS, LONDON).
  TELEPHONE SERVICE (ASSISTANT TRAFFIC INSPECTORS, LONDON).