Sitting of 23 June 1932

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

PEIVATE BUSINESS.
London and North Eastern Railway Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Grangemouth and Stirling Water Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read a Second time; and ordered to be considered To-morrow.

KILMARNOCK GAS PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL,
"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, relating to Kilmarnock Gas," presented by Sir Archibald Sinclair.
Ordered., That Standing Order 204 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the First time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the First time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 110.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  EMPLOYES, FOREIGN FIRMS.
  Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Minister of Labour whether any of the occupations followed by persons employed by foreign firms recently established in this country are covered by any of the provisions of the trade boards; and, if so, has he taken any steps to see that those provisions are adhered to?
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): The answer to both parts of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALLERS (BENEFIT).
    Mr. DICKIEasked the Minister of Labour whether he has issued any instructions establishing uniformity in the treatment of professional footballers who may be without wages or other means of subsistence during the summer season?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: It is not open to me to issue such instructions as the determination of claims to benefit is a matter for the statutory authorities. Certain cases affecting professional footballers are at present before the umpire for decision.
    Mr. DICKIE: May I ask whether it is not possible to establish some degree of uniformity? Is it not possible to frame some regulations giving greater discretion to the local officials to deal with cases of genuine hardship due to accidents in the field?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: No, Sir, I cannot issue such instructions. It is a matter for the statutory authorities, and uniformity will be provided by the decisions of the umpires.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Is it not the case that the professional football player is paid during the season and receives a retaining wage during the off season, and that he is entitled to unemployment benefit if through any circum stances the club has to dispense with his services?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I have looked at the papers and I gather that that is one of the questions now before the umpire.
    Mr. KIRKW00D: If the hon. Member can place any cases of hardship before him, will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to consider them on their merits?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: No, Sir. All the relevant evidence should be placed before the court of referees and the umpire.

    TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS.
    Mr. COCKSasked the Minister of Labour whether it is on his instructions that applicants for transitional payments are having their benefits reduced under the means test without being given an opportunity of appearing before the public assistance committees or of seeing or hearing the whole of the evidence upon which the determinations are made?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The answer is in the negative. The arrangements made for considering applications for transitional payments are within the discretion of the local authority concerned. I have no reason to believe that authorities do not make suitable arrangements for dealing with representations by applicants who think that their needs have not been fully taken into account.
    Mr. COCKS: Will the Minister of Labour inform the authorities of this? It is not generally known, and, to my knowledge, considerable inconvenience has been caused.
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I am not sure that I understand the question of the hon. Member. The arrangements as to the manner of considering applications are within the discretion of the local authorities concerned, and I have no power to interfere with them.
    Mr. McGOVERN: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether individuals who are summoned before the committee but who are not interviewed by the committee, have any redress?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: That, again, is a matter over which I have no control. It is a matter for the local authority.
    Mr. CHORLTONasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that public assistance officers in some cases have sent clerks to make inquiries in the district in which they reside with reference to the means test; and if he will take steps to stop this practice?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The selection of officers to make these investigations is a matter within the discretion of local authorities.
    Mr. GEORGE HALLasked the Minister of Labour the total number of persons who have lost benefit and all transitional payment since the beginning of November, 1931; and the total number of married women who have lost either unemployment benefit or transitional payment during the same period?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: As the reply is somewhat long, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    Between 13th October, 1931, and 31st May, 1932, 475,489 claims were disallowed
    1238
    in Great Britain by courts of referees, and by insurance officers under the trade dispute provisions, including 162,026 claims by married women disallowed under the Anomalies Regulations, Class (d). The figures relate to claims, and the number of separate individuals concerned is not available. Between 12th November, 1931, and 7th May, 1932, the determinations given by public assistance committees in Great Britain on applications for transitional payments included 513,770 cases in which it was held that the needs of applicants did not justify payments being made. This figure includes renewals, and the number of separate individuals concerned is not available. Apart from those given above, separate statistics for married women are not available.

    DISCHARGES (RATIONALISATION).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Labour what information he has with regard to action taken by employers in the way of compensation and pension to workers discharged through rationalisation?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: As the hon. Member doubtless knows, provision for compensation is made in legislation dealing with certain industries, for example in the Electricity Supply Acts. Apart from such cases, I understand that there have been a certain number of voluntary arrangements of the kind referred to, but I am not in possession of information in a form which enables me to answer the question.
    Mr. MANDER: Would it not be possible for the Department to secure information on this important subject, and publish it?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I have considered that, but it is very difficult, almost impossible, to say whether the discharges are owing to rationalisation or to any other cause. But, in any case, the result of such an inquiry would necessarily be incomplete.

    POOR LAW RELIEF.
    Mr. LECKIEasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the situation arising from the fact that public assistance committees are prohibited from granting unemployed single men any outdoor relief; and whether he will consider

    1239
    some relaxation of the regulations during the present period of widespread unemployment?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): The hon. Member is under a misapprehension, and no such prohibition as he suggests is in operation, the matter being one within the discretion of the public assistance committee.

    RELIEF SCHEMES.
    Mr. HICKSasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons given employment on State-aided schemes during the six months ended 31st March, 1932, and the average period of employment?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    The numbers of workpeople directly employed on the main classes of State-assisted relief schemes at the end of each month from October, 1931, to March, 1932, were estimated as follow:

    October

    …

    …

    …

    104,800

    November

    …

    …

    …

    97,500

    December

    …

    …

    …

    93,700

    January

    …

    …

    …

    92,400

    February

    …

    …

    …

    89,700

    March

    …

    …

    …

    86,800

    These figures cover schemes under the Development (Loan Guarantees and Grants) Act, 1929, and the Colonial Development Act, 1929, Ministry of Transport road works and Ministry of Agriculture schemes. To them should be added probably an equivalent amount of indirect employment provided by these schemes. Information is not available as to the average period of employment.

    WOMEN.
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELLasked the Minister of Labour what special schemes have been prepared to provide work for unemployed women since 1st January; the number that have been absorbed by the various schemes; and the total cost?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: No such special schemes have been prepared, but, as the hon. Member is aware, training schemes for domestic employment exist under the auspices of the Central Committee on Women's Training and Employment.
    Mr. GRENFELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman maintaining these schemes in full activity, or has there been a falling off?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I cannot say without notice, but if the hon. Gentleman will put down a question I will give him the particulars.
    Mr. LAWSON: Where are the Minister's hon. Friends who used to be so interested in this question?

  FACTORY BILL.
  Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when it is proposed to introduce the Factory Bill?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): My right hon. Friend regrets that he is not in a position to make any statement on this subject.
  Mr. DAVIES: If I put a question down before we adjourn for the summer, will the Under-Secretary be then in a position to make a statement?
  Mr. STANLEY: I should doubt it very much.

  ROAD ACCIDENTS (INFORMATION).
  Sir KENYON VAUGHAN MORGANasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that apprehension has been caused among taximeter-cab owners and others in consequence of revised regulations issued by the police authorities in the Metropolis and elsewhere; and whether he can give an assurance that such revised regulations will be applied in such a way as not to interfere with the procuring of the necessary evidence in cases of accident?
  Mr. STANLEY: I presume my hon. Friend is referring to the procedure now being followed in dealing with applications from interested parties for information in connection with road accident cases. I have no reason to suppose that information in regard to such cases will not be made available by chief officers of police to taxi-cab owners and others, so far as this can properly be done.

  POLICE.

    EXPENDITURE.
    Mr. JOHNasked the Home Secretary the manner in which it is proposed to dispose of the excess over the estimated saving in expenditure on the police forces of England and Wales recouped from the pay, etc., of the police and other economies?
    Mr. STANLEY: I think my hon. Friend may be under a misapprehension. The charges falling on the Exchequer in respect of the expenditure on the police are based upon the actual ascertained expenditure falling on the local police funds, and no question of the disposal of any excess saving can therefore arise.

    COMMISSIONER'S ASSISTANT.
    Mr. LUNNasked the Home Secretary whether any payment is made from the funds of the Metropolitan Police in respect of the salary of Colonel Drummond, temporary personal assistant to Lord Trenchard; if so, what is the amount; and when it is expected that the services of this officer can be dispensed with?
    Mr. STANLEY: Colonel Drummond's salary paid from the Metropolitan Police Fund is at the rate of £700 a year. The appointment is on a temporary footing, but I cannot say as yet when it will be possible to dispense with Colonel Drummond's services.
    Mr. LUNN: Could not this position be better filled by a regular police officer?
    Mr. STANLEY: I understand that this gentleman has special qualifications in regard to office reorganisation.
    Mr. LUNN: Has he ever been, a policeman?
    Mr. STANLEY: He has been in the Army.

    NEW ENTRANTS (PAY).
    Mr. LUNNasked the Home Secretary how long he proposes to continue the reduction of the gross pay of new entrants to the police force of this country from 70s. to 55s. per week; what period must elapse before the first increment takes place; and when the entrant can hope to reach the normal rate of pay he would have been in receipt of prior to the introduction of the economy proposals?
    Mr. STANLEY: Under the provisional scale of pay for new entrants, which was introduced last year, the pay of a constable is 55s. weekly on first appointment and rises to 57s. 6d. at the end of one year and to 60s. weekly a year later. The scale as a whole remains to be fixed after a full inquiry which my right hon. Friend hopes to initiate shortly.
    Mr. LUNN: Can the Under-Secretary tell me at what period the new entrants will reach the normal wage of 70s. per week?
    Mr. STANLEY: This is a provisional scale and only provides for two annual increments. It is anticipated that before the period expires the full inquiry will be made and a permanent scale established.

    SPECIAL CONSTABLES (INSTRUCTIONS).
    Mr. GROVESasked the Home Secretary how many members of the Metropolitan police force have been dismissed or requested to send in their resignations as a consequence of their refusal to instruct special constables?
    Mr. STANLEY: The answer is "none."

    OPEN-AIR MEETINGS.
    Mr. GROVESasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that it is the practice of the police in the Metropolitan area to inform chairmen of public meetings held in the open that the proceedings must terminate at 10 o'clock p.m.; whether these instructions are issued with his approval; and, if so, on what grounds?
    Mr. STANLEY: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that there is no general practice to the effect mentioned and no directions on the subject have been issued to the police. In a few places where chairmen of meetings are requested or required to terminate meetings at 10 p.m., that course is taken in the interests of adjoining residents or as a precaution against disorder.
    Mr. GROVES: May I take it that the police are not instructed and have no authority to terminate an open-air meeting at 10 p.m.?
    Mr. STANLEY: No, Sir, that is not the effect of the reply at all. No general instructions have been issued that a meet-

    1243
    ing shall be closed at 10 p.m., but the police have discretion as to whether it is advisable.
    Mr. GROVES: Is it within the discretion of the police, provided there is no obstruction, undue noise or disorder, to close a meeting at 10 p.m.?
    Mr. STANLEY: It would depend on whether it is in the interests of the adjoining residents or necessary as a precaution against disorder that a meeting should be closed at 10 p.m.
    Mr. GROVES: If there were noise and disturbance, such as would be expected from an ordinary meeting, even a religious meeting, would the police close it?
    Mr. STANLEY: I trust that a religious meeting would not make a noise, at least after 10 p.m.

    CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT.
    Mr. HICKSasked the Home Secretary whether he proposes to fill the vacancy that will be caused by the impending retirement of one of the chief constables, Criminal Investigation Department, New Scotland Yard; and, if so, whether the new appointment will be made from among experienced officers of the Metropolitan Police?
    Mr. STANLEY: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

  DOC RACING (TOTALISATORS).
  Mr. THOMAS WILLIAMSasked the Home Secretary if he can state how many mechanical totalisators were established on greyhound racing tracks during the 12 months ended 31st May last; and what instructions are given to the police to deal with them?
  Mr. STANLEY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. My right hon. Friend has not issued any instructions to the police on the subject.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Do we understand that the Home Office are taking no note of the development of mechanical totalisators at greyhound races, sports and athletic grounds, or anywhere else?
  Mr. STANLEY: The hon. Member is no doubt aware that the whole question of the legality of these totalisators is now the subject of an appeal in the High Court.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: But will not the Royal Commission, which is about to commence its sittings for the purpose of examining betting in all it forms, require such information as is sought in this question, and how is such information to be supplied to them?
  Mr. STANLEY: That is a hypothetical question, and all I can say is that we have not yet got the information.

  EDUCATION.

    SECONDARY SCHOOLS (COST).
    Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUELasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education the total over-all cost of secondary education under public control in England and Wales and Scotland for the 12 months nearest to 1930ဣ31; and the aggregate amount provided towards it by taxes and by rates?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herwald Ramsbotham): The expenditure from public funds on secondary schools in England and Wales in the year 1930–31 amounted to £8,781,566, of which £4,647,236 was met from taxes and £4,134,330 from rates. As regards Scottish education, I would refer my hon. Friend to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does not the hon. Gentleman regard this as a very sound investment?
    Sir A. M. SAMUELasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education if he will compare the figures of 1912–13 with 1930–31, or nearest dates, and state the four principal items of expenditure which have caused the annual charge on the taxpayer and ratepayer per pupil in secondary schools to rise from £9 4s. to £22?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The expenditure per pupil in secondary schools maintained by local education authorities in 1930 exceeded that for the year 1912 by £14 16s. against which has to be set an increased income from fees averaging £2 per pupil, making a net increase of £12 16s. The gross increase of £14 16s. is made up as to £10 1s. of expenditure on teachers' salaries, as to £l of contributions in respect of teachers' superannuation, and as to £3 15s. of other

    1245
    expenses of maintenance. These include rent, rates, taxes, insurance, fuel, light, cleaning, books, apparatus and stationery, repairs to buildings and furniture.

    TEACHERS (CERTIFICATES OF FITNESS).
    Mr. GROVESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that local education authorities, when proposing to appoint teachers for elementary schools, provided and non-provided, apply to the colleges where applicants were trained for certificates of fitness, and that such certificates are confidential but that they are sometimes used to the detriment of the applicants; and whether he will issue instructions to the local education authorities that where any such reports are adverse to the applicants they shall be so informed and that the reports shall be kept confidential and not disclosed by the appointing authority?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to testimonials or other similar information given by training college authorities to prospective employers with regard to their students. I understand that such information would normally be given to the local education authorities in confidence, and the matter does not appear to be one in which the Board could properly intervene.
    Mr. GROVES: How can a report which is a denunciation of an applicant be a testimonial?

  HOUSING.

    MUNICIPAL SCHEMES (MAINTENANCE COST).
    Mr. REMERasked the Minister of Health the average maintenance cost during 1931 of those municipal houses which had been erected for more than two years?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I regret that I have not in my possession the information for which my hon. Friend asks.

    COUNCIL HOUSES (APPLICANTS' MEANS).
    Mr. HAMILTON KERRasked the Minister of Health whether he will issue a circular to local authorities in receipt of housing grants that when receiving applications for council houses they should inquire whether the means of the applicants justify them in requesting preferential treatment, with the object of
    1246
    ensuring that the people who need cheap accommodation are those who obtain it?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a previous question put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor), of which I am sending him a copy. As at present advised, I do not think it would be advisable to supplement the action there referred to in the manner suggested by my hon. Friend.

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    INDUSTRIAL DEPRESSION (STOCKTON).
    Mr. MACMILLANasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the annual report of the medical officer of health for Stockton dealing with the effects of the industrial depression, and the consequent prevailing poverty, upon the health of the community; and whether he proposes to take any steps towards the extension of health services?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I have received the report to which, my hon. Friend refers. I am not sure what extension of health services he has in view, but I may remind him that local authorities have been asked, when reviewing their expenditure, to pay special regard to the services which are required on urgent grounds of public health.

    THROAT DISEASES (PETROL FUMES).
    Mr. McENTEEasked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to the report of the school medical officer for Enfield on the increase in the prevalence of enlarged and diseased tonsils among school children suggesting that this may be due to the changed transport system of this country; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be made as to the possibility that the inhaling of petrol and oil fumes is a factor in the increased proportion of throat disease amongst all classes throughout the country?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The report in question is under the consideration of the Board of Education at present. I am advised that there is not at present sufficient evidence to justify such an inquiry as is suggested, but I will have the available information on the subject examined with

    1247
    a view to considering whether further investigations are desirable.

    INCURABLE DISEASE.
    Mr. PRICEasked the Minister of Health whether he has any information as to the number of grant-aided institutions for the treatment of persons suffering from incurable disease in England and Wales, the number of persons now in these institutions, and the total number of beds available; and whether any public assistance committees have special institutions for the care of incurable patients, either on a paying or non-paying basis?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I would remind the hon. Member that direct grants are no longer paid from the Exchequer towards the cost of maintaining institutions for the treatment of disease. Apart from that point, I am not aware of any institutions which are provided by local authorities, through their public assistance committees or otherwise, for the treatment of incurable disease, except perhaps certain institutions for mental defectives. If the hon. Member desires information as to these latter institutions, perhaps he will let me know.

  COLLECTORS OF TAXES.
  Mr. YOUNGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that certain collectors of taxes who have been whole-time collectors for from 25 to 30 years and who are between 55 to 60 years of age, and who do not wish to be embodied in the new organisation, are to be dismissed without any compensation for loss of office; and if he will consider amending the scheme to provide that collectors of taxes who are over 55 years of age, and with over 25 years of service, shall have the option of coming into the scheme or receiving compensation for loss of office on the lines laid down in the memorandum?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): The terms on which compensation will be payable have been agreed with, representatives of the collectors concerned, and it would clearly not be right to reduce the economies which will be effected by the reorganisation by adding to the cost of the agreed compensation scheme. I regret therefore that I cannot see my way to accept my hon. Friend's suggestion.
  Mr. YOUNG: In view of the fact that the memorandum stated that in certain cases compensation would be granted, if substantial reasons were given for refusing to enter the new organisation, would my right hon. and gallant Friend not consider it a substantial reason that a man is 55 years of age, and that he has had 29 years' service as a collector?
  Major ELLIOT: I am willing to consider it as long as it does not add to the cost of the scheme.

  ROYAL COMMISSIONS.
  Mr. COCKSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) the total cost to the State since the Armistice of the various Royal Commissions, which have been set up during that time;
  (2) how many Royal Commissions have been set up since the Armistice; how many of these Commissions have presented their final reports; and how many of these reports have formed the basis of subsequent legislation?
  Major ELLIOT: The Royal Commissions borne on the Treasury Vote for Royal Commissions, etc., appointed since the Armistice, number 27. Final reports have been issued in 25 cases. In 15 cases the reports have formed the basis of subsequent legislation. In some cases, of course, and these not necessarily the least important, the recommendations do not involve legislation. The expenditure to date is approximately £90,000.
  Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Do these figures include Royal Commissions which are engaged in administrative duties like the Royal Commission on Ancient and Historic Monuments?
  Major ELLIOT: They include all Royal Commissions which are borne on the Treasury Vote.

  OFFICIAL WAR HISTORY.
  Mr. HUTCHISONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total cost of preparing the official War history to date; and whether any similar record is being kept of the history of the post-War period?
  Major ELLIOT: The total expenditure on salaries, wages and allowances, travelling and incidental expenses of the His-

  1249
  torical Section of the Committee of Imperial Defence, which is responsible for the compilation of the Official Histories of the War, from 1st April, 1916, to 31st March, 1932, was approximately £202,000. No official history of the post-War period is contemplated.

  INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE (PREMIUMS).
  Mr. McENTEEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the prolongation of the average expectation of life for a man and a woman aged 20, as shown by the figures for the years from 1890 to 1930, it is proposed to introduce legislation restricting the premiums on industrial insurance?
  Major ELLIOT: A Departmental Committee is at present inquiring into the law and practice relating to industrial assurance, and till the committee has reported and its report has been considered it is not proposed to introduce any legislation concerning industrial assurance.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    AUSTRIA (PROPOSED LOAN).
    Sir A. M. SAMUELasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether His Majesty's Government have considered the request from the financial experts of the League of Nations that Great Britain should be a party to the guaranteeing of a loan to Austria; and will he take the opinion of this House before committing His Majesty's Government?
    Major ELLIOT: This matter is still under consideration and I am not in a position to make any statement. Any guarantee would, of course, require an Act of Parliament.
    Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend give some undertaking that he will not commit this country to any policy of guarantee without the assent of the House of Commons; and will he tell us meantime how it is possible for this bankrupt State to be put on its feet and kept on its feet without further doles at the British taxpayers' expense?
    Major ELLIOT: I think it is clearly stated in the last part of my answer that any guarantee would require an Act of
    1250
    Parliament and that, of course, would involve the consent of the House of Commons.
    Sir A. M. SAMUEL: But will my right hon. and gallant Friend let the other parties know our view before he enters into any further discussions?

    PALACE (CONSTRUCTON, CONTRACTS).
    Mr. MITCHESONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in view of the fact that the cost of construction of the palace of the League of Nations at Geneva is estimated to be £1,200,000, of which sum the proportion to be borne by the British Empire and the Dominions is 26 per cent., he will take further steps to obtain contracts for its equipment, etc., for British firms other than the contract for £28,800, which is the only contract at present granted to a British firm?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): In so far as His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are concerned, I would refer to the answer given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald) on 15th February last. As was then explained, every possible opportunity has been created for United Kingdom firms to tender in what have been and are, in almost every case, open competitions. The decisions rest with the League of Nations; and there has been no question of awarding contracts to particular countries.

  AGRICULTURE.

    FOREIGN PRODUCE (EXPORT SUBSIDIES).
    Mr. LIDDALLasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will take action before the end of the present Session of Parliament to protect the home agricultural producer against the dumping of competing produce at prices below those obtaining in the country of origin, particularly when the Governments of the countries in question facilitate the process by means of export subsidies or any other form of Governmental action such as that taken in the Soviet Union?
    Mr. WOMERSLEY (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. I can assure my hon. Friend that the question he raises is being very carefully con-

    1251
    sidered, but I am afraid that immediate action in the direction he suggests is not practicable.

    FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
    Mr. GUYasked the Minister of Agriculture if he has considered the representations of the Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland on the question of prohibition of importation of vegetables from Continental countries in which foot-and-mouth disease is prevalent; and if he is prepared to take any action to deal with this question?
    Mr. HANNONasked the Minister of Agriculture what measures he proposes to take with regard to the resolution sent to him by the Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland regarding foot-and-mouth disease and the importation of vegetables from foreign countries?
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: The resolution referred to has been received, but the position with regard to this matter has not changed since the reply given on 7th December last to a question on the subject by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir P. Hurd). The questions raised in the resolution have been dealt with in some detail in a letter which my right hon. Friend has sent to the socety, and a copy of this communication is being sent to my hon. Friends.

  IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

    CABINET MINISTERS.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the Prime Minister if he will consider the advisability of releasing those Cabinet Ministers who are delegates to the Imperial Economic Conference at Ottawa from all their Cabinet, Departmental and Parliamentary duties for a clear fortnight prior to their departure, so that they may have adequate opportunities of discussing and considering the agenda and British proposals in regard to the various items?
    The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs explained in the Debate last Thursday, the preparations for the Ottawa Conference, which were instituted
    1252
    immediately the Government took office, are well in hand, and I do not think it necessary to consider the possibility of taking the action suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: In view of the fact that this Conference is likely to be the one hope of salvation of the British Empire, if not of the world, would not the time be well spent in giving Ministers an opportunity of getting together before the actual Conference starts?
    Mr. BALDWIN: There is nothing I should like better, but it would be impossible.
    Mr. MAXTON: Is it not the ease that Ministers get on better when they are not together?

    CURRENCIES.
    Mr. MABANEasked the Prime Minister whether the Government will now declare their intention to make the establishment of a uniform basis for the currencies of the Empire one of its objectives at the Ottawa Conference, in view of the official declarations recently made in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand in favour of the initiation by the Ottawa Conference of measures for the stabilisation of the currencies of all British countries?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Shore-ditch (Mr. Summersby) on 9th instant, and to the statement which I made in the Debate on the Dominions Office Vote on 16th instant, to which T have nothing to add.

  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE (PRIVATE MEMBERS' COMMITTEE).
  Mr. N. MACLEANasked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to grant facilities to the Economy Committee set up by a section of the Members of the House of Commons to visit Government Departments and examine Departmental books or papers and interrogate officials; and whether the same facilities will be granted to other Members of the House?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to

  1253
  the Treasury to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, North (Mr. J. P. Morris) on 15th June, a copy of which I am sending to him.

  COAL INDUSTRY (NORTH GAWBER COLLIERY).
  Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary for Mines, (1) if he is aware that the management of the North Gawber Colliery, near Barnsley, are refusing to negotiate with the trade union concerned and have ignored all correspondence on the subject, although nearly 70 men have been out of work for nine weks; and whether he will send the conciliation officer of his department to make full inquiries into the matter.
  (2) if he is aware that a dispute is in progress at the North Gawber Colliery, near Barnsley, due to the employers trying to secure a 25 per cent, cut in wage rates; and whether, as this is a breach of the undertaking given through the Mining Association, he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Isaac Foot): I understand that the dispute in question relates to a price list for certain classes of ripping. The wage rates concerned are basis rates, and these are not within the scope either of the Coal Mines Act,, 1931, or of the undertakings given by the district Coalowners' Associations which take effect as from 8th July next. On the question of intervention by my Department, I have not received any request for such action either from the Yorkshire Mineworkers' Association or from the owners; but if both sides desire our assistance, it will most certainly be given.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Seeing that this colliery company is not attached to the coal owners' association, does not the hon. Gentleman see the danger which was suggested from these benches as likely to accrue after the passing of the last Act; and does he not think, notwithstanding the fact that this non-union firm have not sought intervention, that his Department ought to intervene?
  Mr. FOOT: It is impossible for us, in present circumstances, to intervene except at the request of both sides, but certainly no action is being taken inconsistent with the guarantee which I gave
  1254
  during the discussions on the last Measure. If that difficulty arises, we shall at once take steps.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman, in the circumstances, make representations to this company to treat their employés as the rest of the companies do?
  Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the manager of this particular colliery is able to see one of the principal miners' leaders every day?
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Seeing that 70 men have been out of work now for 10 weeks and they have no means of bringing the end of this dispute nearer, will not the hon. Member make representations on the matter?
  Mr. FOOT: We are in touch with the matter, but no one knows better than my hon. Friend the danger of thrusting our intervention on unwilling parties.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE (DENMARK).
  Mr. MABANEasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he is aware that in several instances goods ordered by Danish importers from Huddersfield manufacturers have been cancelled on the ground that the Danish authorities refuse to give import licences; that, in many cases, the goods cancelled are made ready for shipment, and that, as these goods are in no ease luxury goods, the cancellations are in conflict with declarations by the Danish Prime Minister; and whether the Government will take immediate action to prevent this hardship to Huddersfield manufacturers?
  Mr. JOHN COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I am aware of these complaints. A licence has to be secured before goods can be imported, and the total importations allowed to any individual Danish importer are at present limited. When orders have been placed by any such importer without securing the necessary permit, delivery may have to be deferred. As announced it) the Press today, the Danish Government are hoping to be in a position to relax or abolish these restrictions at the end of August.
  Mr. MABANE: Does it not appear that many of these cancellations are in conflict with the declaration of the Danish Government, and that therefore the Danish importers are taking an unfair advantage of the situation in Denmark by cancelling orders which they do not want delivered?
  Mr. COLVILLE: I have no evidence of that, but if my hon. Friend has, I shall be glad if he will give it to me, and I will look closely into it.
  Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Has my hon. Friend any evidence of discrimination of this kind, and, if so, will he draw the attention of the Danish Government to a certain Section in the Import Duties Act?
  Mr. COLVILLE: We have had no evidence of such discrimination, and we should not hesitate to do so if we had.
  Mr. CHORLTON: Can my hon. Friend say if we are going to take any action ourselves to check this sort of action?
  Mr. COLVILLE: The position has been explained before, and as has been pointed out, the serious depreciation in the value of Danish currency would have a bad effect on British trade, and these regulations are designed to prevent that, but the Danish Government have been left in no doubt of our views as to the desirability of easing the position as soon as possible.
  Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the measures adopted by the Danish Government to prevent importers of British goods in that country purchasing foreign exchange so that British exporters are practically prevented from sending goods to Denmark, he will consider taking steps to impose a special tariff upon Danish imports with a view to the equalisation of the balance of trade between the two countries?
  Mr. COLVILLE: No, Sir. The position regarding the temporary import and exchange control instituted in Denmark has already been explained in answer to previous questions. There is no evidence of discrimination against United Kingdom exports.
  Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the President of the Board of Trade the balance of trade favourable to Denmark
  1256
  in the exchange of commodities between that country and Great Britain in the year 1931?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The total declared value of merchandise imported into the United Kingdom during 1931 consigned from Denmark was £46,697,000, valued c.i.f., while the total exports (including re-exports) consigned to Denmark amounted to £9,190,000, valued f.o.b. The excess of imports over exports was, therefore, £37,507,000.

  BREAD PRICES, LONDON.
  Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the President of the Board of Trade the reasons for the recent increase in the price of bread in London from 6½d. to 7d. per quartern?
  Mr. MANDERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has any information showing to what extent the recent increase in London prices of the quartern loaf by a halfpenny is due to the wheat quota system; and whether the is satisfied that this increase is reasonable in all circumstances?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: When allowance is made for the quota payment of 10.8d. per cwt. of flour, equivalent to 2s. 3d. per sack of 280 lbs., which under the Wheat (Quota Payments) No. 1 Order, 1932, millers and importers of flour are liable to make to the Wheat Commission as from 19th June, the present price of 7d. per quartern loaf is in accordance with the Food Council scale of bread prices.
  Mr. DAVIES: May we take it, therefore, that the rise in the price of bread in London is one of the first effects of the introduction of the wheat quota system in this country?
  Mr. MANDER: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that nothing will be done at Ottawa still further to increase the price of bread to the people of this country?
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Member tell us now what becomes of the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture on the Second Reading of the Wheat Bill that an increase of only one farthing for 10 weeks would be necessary

  1257
  and that for 42 weeks there would be no increase at all? Can he explain that away?
  Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: Is it not a fact that the price is simply returning to what it was two years ago?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: If the hon. Member who put the question about the speech of my right hon. Friend will put it in 42 weeks' time, he will get a satisfactory answer. It must be borne in mind that the price of bread is as low now as at any time since the War.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it not a fact that the Minister of Agriculture stated that the increase would be only one farthing per quartern loaf, and not 42 weeks hence?
  Mr. DICKIE: Is it not a fact that at the time the Wheat Bill was passing the price of the loaf fell one halfpenny?

  HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (RESTORATION).
  Mr. KIRKWOODasked the First Commissioner of Works if his attention has been called to the disfigurement of the Houses of Parliament caused by new stones being placed in the walls beside old ones; and whether he will consider employing men to clean the entire walls so as to present a uniform exterior?
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The slight disfigurement, if it may be so called, is, in any case, only temporary as may be judged from an examination of the effect of exposure during the past three years on the work carried out to the south front. The old stonework is washed when the portion of the building concerned is under repair, but no attempt is made to restore the original colour, nor does the First Commissioner consider it desirable to do so. He does not, therefore, think it necessary to incur the additional expenditure which would be involved by the adoption of the hon. Member's suggestion.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman ask the First Commissioner of Works to examine the Houses of Parliament where they have been repaired in this way, and then to go
  1258
  and look at Westminster Abbey, where they have put into force; the idea that I asked should be done here with the Houses of Parliament, and I think he will see that it should be done, because otherwise it is going to be a piebald job?
  Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I will certainly ask my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner.

  SCOTLAND.

    POOR LAW RELIEF.
    Mr. N. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of people in receipt of poor relief in Scotland on 23rd May or the nearest convenient date?
    The UNDERSECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): At 15th May, 1932, there was a total of 238,067 sane persons in receipt of poor relief in Scotland, comprising 82,788 persons with 71,096 dependants in receipt of ordinary relief, and 30,112 persons with 54,071 dependants in receipt of able-bodied relief.

    POTATOES (PRICE).
    Mr. N. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the price at present paid per ton for potatoes of the "Golden Wonder" variety to the farmers; the price per stone charged by the wholesaler; and the price per stone charged by the retailer to the consumer?
    Mr. SKELTON: Average prices of potatoes of the "Golden Wonder" variety at Glasgow during the week ended 15th June in respect of transactions between grower and wholesaler, wholesaler and retailer, and retailer and consumer, were respectively £7 per ton and 1s. and 1s. 3d. per stone. I think I may add that £7 per ton is 10½d. per stone.

    DENNY CHURCHYARD, STIRLINGSHIRE.
    Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAMasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that a number of graves in Denny churchyard, Stirlingshire, have been demolished at the instance of the Kirk Session; whether they received the approval and consent of the sheriff of the county; and what steps, if any, were taken to acquaint interested parties in the matter?
    Mr. SKELTON: I have no information regarding this matter, but I am making inquiries and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

    OMNIBUS CONDUCTORS, FALKIRK.
    Mr. D. GRAHAMasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that omnibus conductors in the employment of W. Alexander and Sons, Limited, Falkirk, are having deducted from their wages the full value of return tickets in cases where the return portion of the ticket has been lost; and, as such deductions are contrary to the provisions of the Truck Act, will he take the necessary steps to ensure a discontinuance of the practice?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): I am not aware of the practice to which the hon. Member refers. I am communicating, however, with the Lord Advocate with a view to inquiries being made by him.

  WAR GRAVES, FRANCE.
  Mr. McENTEEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will ask for a report as to the War Graves and Wreath Association, Rue d'Aveluy, Albert, Somme, which collected money for photographs and the placing of wreaths on war graves in France, but which has failed to deliver any photographs though money was sent by bereaved parents two years ago?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): The Imperial War Graves Commission is aware of the activities of this private organisation. If the hon. Member has any information that the organisation in question has received money for orders which it has failed to carry out, I should be glad if he would furnish me with particulars.

  INDIA.

    OTTAWA CONFERENCE.
    Major MILNERasked the Secretary of State for India whether any decision has been arrived at by the Government of India in the matter of the appointment of non-official advisers to accompany the Indian delegation to the Ottawa Conference?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): I have not heard whether any commercial or industrial associations are accepting the invitation to send representatives to which I referred in my reply to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) on 30th May. The Government of India have appointed three expert advisers, who are all official experts, and so far as I am aware they do not propose to appoint any others.

    CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE MOVEMENT.
    Major MILNERasked the Secretary of State for India the number of persons arrested and imprisoned in the month of May in connection with the civil disobedience campaign; the latest available figures showing the number of persons arrested and imprisoned or detained for offences in connection with the civil disobedience campaign since last November; and the total number of such persons at present serving sentences or under detention?
    Sir S. HOARE: I am circulating a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Major MILNER: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether that will show an increase or a decrease in the numbers in prison?
    Sir S. HOARE: It will show a decrease.
    Following is the statement:

    Civil Disobedience Movement, 1931–32.
    Total convictions to end of April 39,546
    Convictions during May—

    under ordinary law

    2,853

    under ordinances

    923

    Number of persona undergoing imprisonment on 31st May

    31,194*

    Number of persons detained in jail under Section 3 of the Emergency Powers Ordinance on 31st May

    110

    Number of persons detained under Bengal Regulation III of 1818 and Bombay Regulation XXV of 1827, on 31st May

    7

    * This figure is 1,260 less than the figure for 30th April.

  CHINA AND JAPAN.
  Mr. BURNETTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether

  1261
  he has yet received a report from His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires as to the cessation of the boycott and anti-Japanese agitation in Shanghai; and whether he has any statement to make?
  Mr. EDEN: My information is that the anti-Japanese agitation has recently diminished though sporadic unofficial attempts to keep up the agitation still occur. The boycott is also steadily diminishing. Japanese firms in Shanghai are resuming business, and official Japanese reports show a gradual increase in trade with China.

  INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES.
  Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of international conferences attended by British Government representatives since 1918, and the cost to the British Treasury of such conferences?
  Mr. EDEN: I am having this information collected from the records of the last 14 years, and will inform the hon. Member when the information is available.

  CHARITIES (REGISTRATION).
  Mr. REMER(for Mr. HANNON) asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that various organisations engaged in the collection of subscriptions for charities paid as much as 33⅓ per cent, of the amount realised to the collectors; and if he will consider the introduction of legislation to provide for the compulsory registration of all charities?
  Mr. STANLEY: I have no information as to the point raised in the first paragraph of the question. The answer to the second paragraph is in the negative. I may remind the hon. Member that the recent committee on the supervision of charities, after a very careful examination of the whole matter, reported strongly against compulsory registration.

  POOR LAW RELIEF.
  Mr. HICKSasked the Minister of Health the number of persons in receipt of Poor Law relief for the months of April and May, 1932?
  Sir H. YOUNG: The number of persons (men, women and children) in receipt of poor relief in England and Wales (excluding rate-aided patients in mental hospitals, persons in receipt of domiciliary medical relief only and casuals) on the last Saturday in April, 1932, and in May, 1932, were l,195,038 and 1,213,433 respectively.

  KNIGHTHOOD (STAMP DUTIES).
  Mr. REMER(for Mr. HANNON) asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the circumstances under which a sum of £428 3s. has been remitted in respect of stamp duties payable on royal warrants, letters patent, and dockets conferring knighthood on 14 persons residing abroad or otherwise unable to attend investitures; and if he will give the detailed items and the amounts thus remitted?
  Major ELLIOT: Letters Patent are necessary to confer Knighthood on persons who are resident abroad or who are otherwise unable to attend to be dubbed by His Majesty. The sum of £428 8s. represents the stamp duties payable in 14 such cases, the duties payable in each case being £30 12s. Twelve of the gentlemen in question were distinguished public servants in the Dominions and Colonies and two others were unable to attend investiture through illness. It is considered to be unreasonable in the circumstances to require payment of these charges, but the Treasury has no power to waive the statutory duties, and it is necessary therefore for the money to be specially voted by Parliament.

  FISHING INDUSTRY (MILFORD HAVEN).
  Mr. MITCHESONasked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the losses caused to the Milford Haven fishing industry as the result of landings from Spanish trawlers of a type which could not be worked from Milford, owing to Board of Trade regulations as to crew accommodation in British vessels; and whether His Majesty's Government will take steps to help the Welsh fishing industry by increasing the present 10 per cent, ad valorem duty on foreign-caught fish?
  Mr. WOMERSLEY: My right hon. Friend has received complaints regarding

  1263
  the effect of the competition of Spanish vessels at Milford, but so far as he is aware there is nothing in the Board of Trade Regulations which would prevent the use of vessels of the same type by British fishermen. If, however, my hon. Friend would furnish him with particulars on the point referred to my right hon. Friend will be glad to go further into the matter. With regard to the second part of the question, under Section 3 (1) of the Import Duties Act, 1932, additional duties can only be imposed on the recommendation of the Import Duties Advisory Committee. The Committee have given public notice that applications are before them for additional duties on fresh herrings and fresh white fish of foreign taking.
  Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: Will the hon. Gentleman inquire from his right hon. Friend whether similar conditions apply to Grimsby?
  Mr. WOMERSLEY: I can assure my hon. Friend that I am well aware of the conditions at Grimsby, and that we are as desirous of giving assistance to English fishermen as we are to Welsh fishermen.

  EUCHABISTIC CONGRESS, DUBLIN (UNION JACK).
  Colonel GRETTON(for Mr. GREENE) asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware that the Union Jack has been excluded from the official decorations in honour of the Eucharistic Congress in Dublin, whereas the flags of other nations are being flown; and, if so, whether he proposes to make representations to the Government of the Irish Free State?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The question of official decorations in connection with the Eucharistic Congress at Dublin is one for the Irish Free State Government.
  Colonel GRETTON: IS the right hon. Gentleman aware of any instances of the British flag being pulled down on this occasion?
  Mr. THOMAS: The only information that I have is what I have seen in the Press. I have no official information.
  Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there is any information as to the King's representative in Dublin being excluded from the special entertainment of the Irish Free State Government?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with this question.

  BRITISH ARMY (EGG SUPPLIES).
  Major Sir HERBERT CAYZERasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether any Belgian or other foreign eggs are being supplied to any home service units; and whether he will undertake to arrange that only British or Empire eggs shall in future be supplied?
  Mr. COOPER: Eggs do not form part of the soldier's ration. The only eggs purchased by the War Office are for hospitals and schools and all new-laid eggs so purchased are of home origin. The eggs on sale to the troops in the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes are home, Empire, and foreign and I cannot undertake to prevent the troops and their families from buying foreign eggs, if they wish to do so.

  DISARMAMENT (PRESIDENT HOOVER'S PROPOSALS).
  Mr. DINGLEFOOT(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he can give any information to the House as to the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the disarmament proposals of the President of the United States which were published yesterday?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): I have been asked to reply. These proposals are receiving the immediate consideration of His Majesty's Government. My hon. Friend is no doubt aware of the statement which I made at Geneva yesterday, to which at present I have nothing to add.
  Mr. FOOT: Will the right hon. Gentleman give any indication when he is likely to be able to add something to that statement?
  Sir J. SIMON: I have already pointed out to my hon. Friend that the proposals

  1265
  are receiving the immediate consideration of the Government, and I do not think that more than that can be said.
  Mr. MAXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman refer us to a journal where we can get a reliable report of what he did say yesterday?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Lord President of the Council if he will let us know the business for next week?
Mr. BALDWIN: The business will be:
Monday: Supply; Committee—India Office Estimate.
Tuesday: Supply; Committee—Scottish Estimates. For the convenience of Members, I may announce that the Votes on Tuesday include the Scottish Estimates for the Department of Agriculture; Register House, Edinburgh; Police; Law Charges and Courts of Law; and Public Education.
Wednesday: Report and Third Reading of the Sunday Entertainments Bill.
Thursday: Motion consenting to payments from Indian Revenues of certain charges in respect of Indian Troops employed in the Great War; remaining stages of the Public Works Loans Bill, and other outstanding Measures.
Friday: Supply, Committee—Colonial Office Estimate.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders will be taken.
Ordered,
"That the Proceedings on the Motion relating to Trade and Unemployment have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

BILLS REPORTED.

  MARRIAGE (NAVAL, MILITARY, AND AIR FORCE CHAPELS) BILL,
  Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee A.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.
  Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered To-morrow.
  ARRINGTON EXTENSION BILL [Lords].
  METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD BILL [Lords].
  SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  WESTON-SUPER-MARE GRAND PIER BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SKY-WRITING.
Report of the Select Committee on Skywriting, with. Minutes of Evidence and Appendices, brought up, and read.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Abergavenny and Newcastle-upon-Tyne) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Bridlington and Wells) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Leyton) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Oxford) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Paignton) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (River Dee) Bill,

London United Tramways, Limited (Trolley Vehicles), Provisional Order Bill,

South Lancashire Transport Company (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill, without Amendment.

TRADE AND UNEMPLOYMENT.

  VOTE OF CENSURE MOTION.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to move,
  "That His Majesty's Government, having appealed to the country for a free hand to take such action as it thought fit to restore national prosperity and to deal with unemployment, and having entirely failed in these objects as is shown by the steady diminution of trade and industry at home and abroad and the increase of unemployment, together with the deplorable conditions to which the unemployed are being subjected, has forfeited the confidence of this House."
  We feel that no explanation or apology is needed in moving this Motion. The Opposition in the last Parliament gave the late Labour Government a "hymn of hate" every week. Although we are a small Opposition, we have done our best to put our views before the House on occasions, and we felt we could not allow the Session to close without challenging in a direct fashion the whole policy of the Government on trade and industry. We say in this Motion that the Government was elected with
  "a free hand to take such action as it thought fit."
  There may be some dissent in the Cabinet about the statement as to a free hand, because I understand Members of the Government thoroughly disagree among themselves as to what the "free hand" really meant. We say it means that the Government were elected with an unparalleled majority to carry out such a policy as in their judgment would restore trade and industry. Now, after many months have passed, it is acknowledged, I suppose, on all sides of the House, that trade and industry are in a much worse plight than when the Government came into power. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] The House must agree with the official figures of unemployment. No one will deny that pauperism, as recorded in the figures issued by the Ministry of Health, has increased very considerably, or that the Ministry of Labour figures, however much we may twist them and try to explain them away, show an enormous increase in unemployment during the past few months, and especially during the last two months, when they have risen by very nearly 200,000.
  It must be remembered, in considering unemployment now, that we must take into account a whole mass of people who have been put off unemployment benefit
  1274
  and who cease to register because of the hopelessness of getting any employment. I, myself, think the total figure of the unemployed in this country is very much over 3,000,000. It was said that we might reach the 3,000,000 mark this year, and some have congratulated themselves that we have not, but I am confident that if the people who do not now register, and of whom the official figures, therefore, take no account, are included, the real total of the unemployed is well over 3,000,000. Is any evidence needed of the cruel destitution and misery prevailing in the country as a result of the policy of the present Government and the deliberate policy of the House—I do not charge the Government any more than I do the majority of the House? If so, we have only to take note of the resolutions passed, not by Socialists, Liberals or Tories, not by any people who think they will get kudos, but by conferences of religious leaders in Newcastle, Huddersfield, Hoxton and other parts of the country. Those conferences have put it on record that there is tremendous suffering and destitution arising from the terrible increase in unemployment and the very cruel treatment being meted out to the unemployed.
  Let us take another test, one of which everyone in this House ought to take note. In the East End of London there is an organisation which is carried on by certain West End ladies and others. I think Mrs. McKenna is chairman or president of it. The other day I came across their report, and found they had put it on record that, owing to unemployment, sickness and destitution were very much on the increase in the Ratcliffe and Shadwell areas. In my own division we had prided ourselves on reducing the death rate among our babies under one year, but, owing to this treatment of the unemployed, the figure is slowly rising to what it was before the Labour majority got control there. These are facts which can be multiplied all over the country, and I do not believe that any Member who represents an industrial area will deny the truth of what I am saying. I think they will all admit that in the administration of Poor Law relief, applicants and their dependants are being driven down into what Mrs. Webb called "the pit of destitution." That is one of the records of the Government's administration.

  1275
  Take another side to which I should have thought hon. Members opposite would have paid much more attention than, so far as I am aware, they have paid up to the present. We read in the newspapers of outrages in Chicago, and elsewhere in the United States, and there was a time when we rather prided ourselves that such things could not happen here. Every hon. Member is cognisant of what is happening and has been happening in this country during the last couple of years. I do not charge that against this Government, because I would not charge the responsibility for it against any other Government. According to the Home Secretary's statement made a week or two ago, the figures show an increase of crime, banditry, crimes of violence, etc., and they are rising rapidly in this country. Another sign of the terrible destitution and want is the number of suicides in the industrial areas. When I was young it was almost an unknown thing for a workman to commit suicide. We hardly ever take up a weekly local paper now in the East End of London without reading of one or more suicides, and every one of them is due to unemployment and want. About that there is no question.
  Bringing it a bit nearer home to this House, I will now refer to the hon. Member who preceded the present hon. Member for Middlesbrough West, and who was well known in this House as a Member who persistently stood up for his area, and made a big fight in order that unemployment should be made a national charge and should be dealt with in a national manner. He was the representative of distressed areas. For a short time the committee representing distressed areas went out of business, but it has been called back into business again, and there has been a meeting already in this House of representatives of the distressed areas which are finding themselves saddled with the responsibility for dealing with the unemployed which has been pushed on them by the regulation regarding transitional benefit. About that there is no question or dispute. Not merely are the Government putting on to the shoulders of the family the burden of unemployment as far as they can, but they have also pushed off hundreds of thousands of cases on to the local authorities. There is no economy
  1276
  in shifting the burden from the nation on to individuals or on to the local authorities, because you simply shift the burden. That is the case so far as the effects of the Government's policy or want of policy is concerned.
  When I said just now that trade and industry were in a bad way, there was a little hilarity in the House. I did not witness that hilarity when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Billhead (Sir It. Home) made his famous speech from the corner of the Gangway. The House was then shocked. The right hon. Gentleman told us, in the words of the Duke of Wellington, that it would be "a damn near thing" if we got through the present crisis. I did not say that, Mr. Speaker, but the right hon. Gentleman, who is much cleverer than I, said it. There are other people who have put statements on record. I am anxious that the Government shall not ride off this afternoon by saying, "These are only statements by you Socialists, and you always bring up one song on these occasions." That was the answer I got from the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day. I have only one principle to stand for, just as the Lord President of the Council, when he was Leader of the Opposition, stood for tariff reform. I stand for Socialism, and I advocate it all the time. A cry of despair came from the Economy Committee of the League of Nations a short time back. On that committee there are some of the most eminent economists, not Socialist economists but capitalist economists. What do they say? I hope hon. Members will not laugh at this:
  "The situation grows worse from day to day. We can only ask with anguish: What shall be done to-morrow?"
  They go on to say:
  "Barely four months have elapsed since the last report of the Committee, and already the fears which it expressed at that time have teen confirmed, and even exceeded by events. The value of world trade to-day is one one-half—or perhaps less than half— what it was in the first quarter of 1929."
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. Baldwin) may say, "We are weathering the storm better than other people." He may be weathering the storm better than other people, but the 3,000,000 people who are unemployed are not weathering it better. During the same period, taking the world and ourselves, the number of unemployed

  1277
  has nearly doubled. Then the "Morning Post," which is not exactly a Socialist journal, but which supports the Tory Government of the day, on 10th June— not 10th June when the Labour Government were in office but 10th June when the National Government were in power —said:
  "It is no idle prophecy of gloom to declare that, in the absence of one contingency, and one only, a crash is as inevitable as the succession of night to day."
  The "Economist" on 28th May last said:
  "The sands in the hour-glass run ominously low."
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) said:
  "We may have little to do but to share miseries and face them bravely."
  I hope that he is doing so. There is no need for me to say more on that side of the subject. No one will think that it is a matter of amusement when I say that the position of trade and industry is worse, and that the number of unemployed has been much intensified. The misery and suffering of millions of people have also been much increased during the period of the present Government. What is the present Government's remedy? I suppose that hon. Members can recall the great scene and the tremendous pœan of victory when the House carried the Import Duties Act. Then it seemed that hon. Members believed that we were starting on a new road that would lead very speedily to the promised land. We were told to "Wait and see." I think that was one statement of the President of the Board of Trade. Other hon. Friends of mine will probably elaborate this point, but the effect of tariffs up to now has been to increase unemployment throughout the country. [Interruption.] I do not deny that you may be able to prove to me that here and there industry improved greatly, or that some German dealer has come to teach the woebegone British capitalist how to run his business. You may tell me that a Swiss has done something there, but on balance you have increased unemployment. If you doubt that, you have only to read the figures of the coal industry.
  As I said when I spoke on the Import Duties Bill, both Free Trade and tariffs are issues totally irrelevant to the present situation. It may be that in some instances some protection is needed, and it
  1278
  may be that in other cases Free Trade pure and simple is needed, but to think of tariffs or Free Trade as a remedy for the present situation is, in my view, midsummer madness. There is nobody here who would say, and I challenge anyone in this Debate to get up and argue, that if the world were entirely Free Trade, and we had competitive: commercialism on the same basis as to-day, the world would be free from unemployment and distress. No such thing would happen; and exactly the same applies to the question of tariffs. Therefore, we approach this question from the point of view that, in the situation in which the world now finds itself, the application of tariffs or Free Trade will not of itself cure the evil.
  I may be told that I am not taking account of what the Government are doing with regard to the Exchange Equalisation Account, and that I ought to give them credit for that proposal. I do not want to repeat what I said the other Friday afternoon, except to say that the speeches I have heard in defence and in criticism of that proposal have convinced me that, while it may be a very tiny step towards this House getting control of the Bank of England, it is only an infinitesimal step, and if it should be carried out as one hon. Member thought it might be—if, that is to say, our Government were to commence gambling with the other international gamblers in finance—I am quite certain that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer will get the worst of it, and in all probability we may find ourselves without that £150,000,000.
  There is another point in connection with this matter that we want to make quite clear. We do not believe, and we do not accept the doctrine, that economy is a remedy for the present state of affairs. The policy of the Government is twofold; on the one hand it is tariffs, and on the other hand it is economy. What does economy mean? Economy means, as I said at the beginning, starving people. Every time you cut down a man's wages, he has so much less to spend, and the area of business is restricted to that extent. Also, every time you cut down the public assistance that a man or woman may receive, to that extent you stop their spending power. I should like to repeat here what Lord Snowden once said when standing at this Box. He said that public expenditure is not a crime if you are

  1279
  spending the money wisely and for a good purpose. He also said, and it is perfectly true, that if you take £1,000 from a millionaire and give it to a number of aged persons as pensions, you have not reduced the spending power of the country, but have only changed its form, and have probably changed the form of spending to something very much better than it otherwise would have been. It is nonsense to tell me that trade is injured when expenditure is shifted from one thing to another. The rich man might buy a motor oar with £1,000, but, if you gave the £1,000 to a number of poor people, the money would go in bread and other food, clothing, rent and so on; you would not have decreased the total trade of the country one bit.
  Further, we deny altogether that the social services have brought the nation to the pass in which we are. I shall be surprised if the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon stands at that Box and says, 12 months afterwards, that it was expenditure on social services that brought about the crisis last year. I never denied the crisis; what I did deny was the infamous lie that that crisis was brought about because of British expenditure on the poor of the country. The right hon. Gentleman knows now, and the country knows—tens of thousands of people know who did not know it a year ago—that that crisis was brought about by the gambling of the men in the City of London. [Interruption.] Hon. Members who laugh should read the Macmillan Committee's report, in which attention was called to the fact that the use of short-term money here to lend on a long-term basis to Germany and Austria would inevitably bring about a crisis such as that which arose last year, and no one outside this House will deny that who knows anything about the subject. Therefore, we do not take the view, and are not going to take the view, that these social services cannot be paid for.
  Let me say a word as to how these social services grew up, and what the need for public health services in this country was. Why was it that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) had to bring in Health Insurance and Unemployment Insurance? Why was it that Housing Bills had to be brought in? Why was it that we had to bring in Bills
  1280
  to get water supplies for whole districts? Why was it that we had to bring in Bills to take children out of the mines, out of factories, and so on? Because, under capitalism, there is only one thing to be pursued, and that is to make money at any cost; and if this House years ago had not instituted these social services, the condition of the people would have been infinitely worse than it is. The right hon. Gentleman knows that while he was Prime Minister a Ministry of Health was brought into being because we discovered during the War how much of a C.3 population has been produced by the conditions—the brutal conditions—under which masses of people toiled and laboured.
  I would remind the House, and it is worth considering, that 100 years ago, within, I think, two years, the old new Poor Law, if I may use that expression, was brought in. That new Poor Law was brought in in order to deal with similar conditions which prevailed at that time. Members of this House, and especially the younger ones, are fond of talking about Disraeli and Disraeli's policy. I recommend them to read, "Sybil, or The Two Nations," and note the scathing indictment of the Poor Law conditions that prevailed at that time. I would recommend them, and especially the 200 who are going through the Estimates in order ruthlessly to cut down the social services, to read the denunciation by the great chieftain of their party, Disraeli, of the infamous treatment of the poor and the unemployed during the days when he wrote that book. I would also recommend them to read the books of Charles Kingsley and others, like "Yeast" and "Two Years Ago," and see how those conditions are being repeated to-day, how you are bringing back the same brutal, hard treatment.
  4.0 p.m.
  On the social services we shall fight your proposals as hard, as bitterly and as ruthlessly as we can. You may perhaps kill us by all-night sittings, hut we are not going to see our people robbed of what they have fought for and won, that is the right to educate their children, the right to an old age pension, the right to maintenance when you have taken from them the right to work. We are not going to see them robbed of the new houses that can be provided for them. We are not going to see them doomed to

  1281
  remaining in the slums in which they have been doomed to live for many years. We give you full notice of our intention. Then when I come to consider the sort of situation to which all this is to apply, I recommend hon. Members who may like to get a true diagnosis of this business, to read a speech made by the Lord President of the Council. I have tried to find the speech. I believe it was made in this House during the short period of the first Labour Government. In that speech the right hon. Gentleman reviewed the whole position of the country after the War, and I thought at the time that it was one of the clearest expositions of the conditions that had arisen that I had heard from anyone.
  The right hon. Gentleman pointed out quite truthfully that during the War we had increased tremendously our power to produce, that the necessities of the War had compelled us to look round and see how we could improve our production. Then he went on to compare the difficulty to-day with the difficulties after Waterloo. After Waterloo we had the tremendous improvements brought about by steam and machinery, we had the whole world to deal with and we had markets everywhere. To-day markets are all restricted, and all of them competitive, some of them competitive by our own people, some of them competitive by foreign nations, financed by British capitalists. About that there is no question whatever.
  That is a condition of things to which this House has not yet faced up. But we are obliged to face up to it to-day, because we see that through the operation of the Peace Treaties Europe itself has been cut up into different pieces as it were, each forming an economic unit, and this has resulted in such a stagnation of industry and exchange that the world apparently cannot move. I think that this House will very shortly be obliged, not because of the workmen but because of the moneyed interests of the country, to face up to the further fact that millions and millions of pounds have been lent abroad, to Chile, to the Argentine, to Bolivia, Brazil and Greece. At the beginning you could collect your interest, you could take it because you were sending out goods representing the loans for a loan is not merely money but goods. But to-day, even if these people could pay, you could not take the goods,
  1282
  because if you did you would choke yourselves with goods. That is why you are crying for tariffs all the time. You have to face the fact that you will not have that huge sum of £250,000,000 to £300,000,000 coming in, partly for such services as shipping, insurance, etc., partly as interest on debt. You have not merely to deal with War debts and reparations but with these huge commercial debts all over the world. This paltry petty policy of crushing the poorest does nothing to help.
  What I want to press home is that, while it is perfectly true that there is collapse in other countries, or that other countries are on the verge of collapse, while it is true, as the "Times "kindly says to-day, "We are in favour of international co-operation and we must ultimately get international co-operation," we say that, pending that time, we ought to be doing something entirely different from what the Government are doing in regard to our own country. The party opposite continually talks of wanting to help British industry. I believe they have done nothing of any worth to help British industry. Let us see what we might do—and we are going to fight for this. Mr. Snowden did his best to befoul his own principles, or what we imagined were his own principles, at the General Election. We are going to advocate the Noble Lord's own policy on this matter, in spite of the fact that the Lord President will tell us that we shall win no elections and that we shall always be in the wilderness. My colleagues who are much younger than I am will face the wilderness on this subject.
  I will tell the Lord President of the Council what our policy is. We say, first of all, that before this nation can be free to reorganise and rationalise the great basic industries in the service of the nation, we must take control of the citadel in the City of London; we must have absolute ownership and control of the finances of this country. We maintain, and I think the Lord President will have a job to controvert it, that the Governors of the Bank of England are not the right people to decide whether or not an industry shall be rationalised. We do not think we ought to be forced to go cap in hand to the City of London and to ask, "Please may we use our own national credit?" After all, what credit has the City of London outside

  1283
  the natural resources of the country and the bone and sinew of the workers of the country? What have they to offer to us? When you think of it, why should you leave yourself in the hands of these gentlemen'? You judge a steward, a servant, anyone that you employ, by results. What are their results?
  Read Sir Arthur Salter's book on investments, on the sort of gerrymandering that has been done in the matter of loans. I remember that when I was a boy the bead of the Egyptian State borrowed millions of money, and in the end the British Fleet had to go to Alexandria in order to collect the bondholders' debts. Those debts were created through the corruption of the man who happened to be ruler of Egypt for a time. Here is the City of London. I notice that the Lord President of the Council laughs. What about Mr. Kreuger? Could a set of Socialists have been taken in more than that lot were taken in?
  The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that Sir Arthur Salter said that we wanted more men like Mr. Kreuger.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Yes, that may be perfectly true. As long as you have a good clever rogue and keep him under control he probably will be of some service. I advise the right hon. Gentleman to keep one to look after that £150,000,000. It will go west if he does not. The Government are dealing with a, lot of gentlemen whom I do not want to call hard names, because if they get away with it they get to the House of Lords. Sir Arthur Salter, I am sure, did not want a lot more gentlemen who would blow their brains out or go to heaven some other way, with debts of £50,000,000 that they had got from someone or other. We consider that if the present Government had been in dead earnest they would have taken control of the finances of this country right away. They would have seen to it that, whatever money there was, whatever wealth there was in the country, it was invested along lines which would prevent the Kreugers "doing them down" and swindling them. As to swindling I do not want to take time in giving instances. Hon. Members opposite know them better than I do; they are their friends, not mine.
  1284
  But there are other things we can do. We think that instead of reducing wages you should increase wages. I heard Mr. John Wheatley in this House one day give a story of money and money's worth, and he finished by saying what was perfectly true. He said, "The warehouses are full of goods." Does anyone deny that? There is not a single thing that is needed but what we have, abundance of it. Does anyone deny that? Is there any single thing that men and women need for their daily sustenance of which we have not got abundance? Does anyone deny that? Too much coal, too much cotton, too much wool, too many clothes, too much everything. I sat one day to be educated by half a dozen cute business men on the question of the development of this country and of the Dominions. I had the wild notion that it was rather absurd that there should be millions of acres in the Dominions and in this country, untouched wealth, and that there should be millions of men anxious and willing to produce from that natural wealth. After a discussion for two hours I was asked: "Suppose that we adopted your proposal what would you grow in this country?" I said, "One or two things. We have too much." One said, "What would you do in the Dominions?" I said, "We might grow food; we might possibly get coal; we might build a railway or two. We might do everything that you do when you develop a new country." They said, "We do not need anything." I said, "You are giving the Communists their case. Within capitalism there is no way of escape. You have to have these terrible periods of destitution and misery." Their answer was—I have heard it said in this House; Philip Snowden said it to me privately—"We must have patience, George." It is easy to have patience when you have a full stomach.
  Sir Josiah Stamp has told us what we want—a few national bankruptcies and a few individual bankruptcies. Stocks will rot away and will be burnt sometimes. They will gradually go out of use, and then we will start all over again. No one outside Bedlam would believe that intelligent men could talk in that way. I do not understand it. Surely to goodness, if men put their toil and labour into the production of goods they ought to be used and not kept from use. We believe that masses of the unemployed

  1285
  could have been put to quite good, useful work at proper wages. I travelled to Yorkshire at the week-end, right across the Fens to Cambridgeshire and, although parts of Cambridge, Huntingdon and Lincolnshire are better cultivated than others, there are still miles of land where there is not a human being. You never meet anyone. You can go hundreds of miles. [Interruption.] I will repeat that so that you can laugh again. You can go hundreds of miles and scarcely meet a human being. You can ride on the North-Eastern Railway from London to York. [An HON. MEMBER: "I have done it."] I invite you to skin your eyes next time you are travelling and you will see what I have seen— hundreds of miles of land—[Interruption.] I can only give you argument; I cannot give you anything else. [Interruption,] The hon. Member who says, "Go on," is one who believes in agriculture. I happen to believe in agriculture, too, and I think it is a confession of the abject failure of statesmanship and of any sort of imagination that, with a country like ours, there should be miles of land uncultivated and 3,000,000 unemployed.
  The House had before it to-day a number of questions about Denmark. I visited Denmark because Sir Horace Plunkett persuaded me years ago that we ought to have a system of that kind operating here. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman why our Government do not take the sort of broad view that the Danish Government did and reorganise agriculture by bringing education to it, by insisting on a co-operative system of collection and distribution and also upon the proper grading and bringing to market of their goods in such a fashion that people know when they buy Danish bacon that it is the same to-day as to-morrow, and so on. Butter and eggs are the same. The reason is not that it was left to private enterprise, but that the Government took it in hand. Why should not we?
  Then I want to know why, instead of allowing all these young miners to eat their hearts out, it should not be considered an economic thing to reclaim land already almost derelict through sinkings and floodings, or to take the necessary steps to prevent flooding. When I was in Yorkshire the other day I went through
  1286
  the Bentley area. To allow the condition of affairs that you can see in that district to have occurred and to take no steps to prevent it occurring again when the next high tide conies, is also sheer madness. I cannot understand any Government saying in the name of economy, "We will not spend this money." I represent a division typical of hundreds of others where we have a number of slums. A site came into the market almost on top of a slum area. The London County Council bought it. We should have bought it ourselves had they not done so. We imagined that houses would have been put there by now, but the work is all stopped. The Government may say they are not responsible, but the local authorities think they are doing the Government's will by not going on with the building.
  I believe that can be matched anywhere. Does anyone imagine that you are saving anything by not getting on with the work? You say you cannot afford it, but you cannot really afford not to do it. There are a hundred and one good useful things which would provide work for the unemployed. It is proposed that the iron and steel industry shall be reorganised. As I understand it, the scheme is, as it were, to replant the industry in, perhaps, half a dozen centres in the country. If that is left to private enterprise, it means the wiping out of certain industrial areas, leaving them derelict and allowing the toil of years to go to ruin. I call that decadence. This party will never again support any sort of reorganisation or rationalisation except that which is done under public control and public ownership, and which, first of all, provides for the people who are going to be squeezed out. We are not going to see the workers treated as they have been treated for a century and squeezed out of their work. If the job of a public servant is abolished, he is compensated for loss of office. Why should a workman be the only one who has to suffer? We think they need not suffer. We believe you could reorganise these industries as social services if you took care to control the money side of the business, and did not have to pay out huge sums for watered and other capital. We think you could, if you would, reorganise them in such a fashion that you could pay better wages, making the workmen bigger consumers, and work them shorter hours, which is the

  1287
  only logical reason why workers should support machinery and reorganisation.
  We believe that, it that were done, this country could, without looking to the outside world, to a very large extent restore its life. With regard to agriculture, the right hon. Gentleman will say, "What of foreign competition? "If this nation owned the land and had agriculture organised on the basis of social service, we would take good care that that was not ruined either from the outside or from the inside. But we are not going to have prices raised in order to keep rents up or in order to pay profits to anyone. We believe the Government ought to set up, here and now, a board of men, not imbued with, the idea of profit-making, but charged with this principle, that they are reorganising the industry on the basis of social service, and we say that there ought to be not only short-term planning but long-term planning. My friend, Lord Marley, in another place last night, called attention to the fact that there was only one country in the world which has no unemployed, and that is Russia. We may all have our views as to the political system that is operating in Germany, France, or Russia. If we are to believe Mr. Selfridge, all the systems are wrong except one of which he would be dictator. We may disagree as to how things ought to be run, but it is a fact that that country, rising from the ruins of war, revolution and Tsardom, is creating a new life. You may not like it, but everyone who goes there—[An HON. MEMBER: "Would never stay there!"] I have friends who are very glad to stay there, but that is all beside the point. They are planning their industries. They have before them an ideal.
  What have we before us? No one on those benches has an idea outside competing with someone else. Let us beat someone else in the market. We say that, instead of that, there ought to be co-operation, but we say, first of all, clear our own doorstep. Let us develop our own industries. If the Dominions want to come in with us in the business of developing their countries, let us do what we can, but not shut ourselves out from the rest of the world.
  4.30 p.m.
  The last thing I want to say is this, and I ask the House to forgive me
  1288
  because I know that in this case, probably, I ought not to say it; but I am my age, and I have not a long number of years, perhaps only days or weeks—[An HON. MEMBER: "Oh, no! plenty of time "]—I want to say something which is very much on my mind and which, I hope, the House will take in the spirit in which I am going to say it. I sit at home occasionally on Sunday evenings and hear Pat McCormick. I heard previously a doctor, whose name I forget, lecturing on the subject which is now before the House. Both of them said that what was needed was a new spirit in life, something which would bind men and women together in the bonds of comradeship and brotherhood. I said to my wife, "I wish all the House of Commons could hear this," and I meant it, because, believe me, that is the root thing I wish to say this afternoon. This old world is in its present condition because we have all been living—all of us, you and I and everybody—the wrong way. We thought that we did the best for ourselves by only thinking of ourselves. We believed that the aim of life was what we got and not what we gave.
  I believe that the British Parliament and the British nation, if they really believe in the Gospel and in doing to others as they would be done unto, could lead the world in a new campaign. I have tried to put this point of view to meetings all over the country for 20 odd years or more. The poor people listen to it. Lots of people believe it, but they do not see their way to do it. You believe it, and if you have the will, believe me, you can do it. We can do it if we have the will, but it must be done on the basis of working in the service of one another, and none of us asking from the world more than we are prepared, according to our ability, to give back to the world.
  Mr. BALDWIN: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman need make no apology to the House for the concluding words of his speech. I know that they will find an echo in many hearts throughout the House, and, I think, I can say that I have advocated, perhaps not so ably as the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon; the general principles of what he has said on many platforms during the last 12 or 14 years. I have this after-

  1289
  noon for a short time to devote myself, as far as I am able, to dealing with the case brought against the Government in the Motion which is upon the Order Paper. Before I do so, and as I had no opportunity last Friday, I should like, as the Leader of the House for the time being, to tell the right ton. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) how pleased we are to see him back again. He could not have made a more auspicious entry because, as he reminded us in other words, he was sent to this House by the bailiwick of Carnarvon, and he came as Balaam. He came intending to curse, but remained to bless. I am so thankful that he followed the analogy no further, for Balaam, having blessed, went home and was seen no more. The right hon. Gentleman went home, and we are glad to see him back again.
  The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken will doubtless remember that in my innocence, when I saw this Motion on the Paper, I said that I was astonished, and he said that it was his duty to astonish the Government. It was an innocent remark, because I remember Mr. Asquith once saying to me that he had got to a time of life when he was neither astonished nor disgusted at anything that could happen to him in this world. Disgust passes, but astonishment persists. Really, I can think of no other case in which a small group of shipwrecked mariners, the orphans of the storm, as the silver-tongued Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) said the other day, moved a Vote of Censure on the very lifeboatmen who saved them. I have no doubt that Mr. Asquith might have added to those words the word "gratitude." I do not expect to be astonished or disgusted or to receive gratitude for anything which I do in this world. I will get on with my task.
  It will be the duty of the Government, as far as they are able, to explain to the House what they have accomplished— what they have failed to accomplish will doubtless be put before you from the other side—since they came into office last autumn. As the ground is rather wide, and as I think that this may be the only Debate of the kind we shall have before the House rises, it is very important that the House should examine every aspect of the problems which are before us. I propose to confine myself
  1290
  mainly to the questions of trade and industry. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour wilt deal mainly with the question of employment, and a question closely connected with it—the question of the coal trade as affected by what is happening in the world outside. So many hon. Members on the opposite side of the House have peculiar knowledge of that subject that they will be bound to make frequent reference to it in their speeches, and I think that it is far better that whoever speaks for the Government should speak on that subject after he has heard what has been said, rather than speak early in the afternoon.
  I do not seriously complain of a Motion like this being put down. It is perfectly natural in the work of Parliament, and I have no complaint of the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman discharged his task. He naturally dwelt, as we should expect him to dwell, on the human side of these problems, and if we may judge from what I said when I first stood up, that human side is not absent from any of us on this side of the House. But it is not a side to which I can devote much time this afternoon, or I should be making too large a claim upon the time of the House. Nor do I propose to say anything in detail about the changes which have been made in the fiscal policy, or what we had to do in the way of balancing the Budget and in imposing increased taxation for that purpose. I will only observe that no one who studied closely the conditions which prevailed in this country and in the world last autumn would have imagined that either this country or the world would attain any position of normality in six months or nine months.
  It is a very long row which we have to hoe, and I do not mind frankly admitting to the House that it was difficult during the time that one was in Opposition and had not access to all the sources of knowledge which one has in office, to realise the appalling deterioration in all the world conditions which had taken place since I was last in office. I knew that they were bad; I knew that they were very bad; but the reality of what we had to face was worse even than I had expected, and justified the phrases which were so often on the lips of the right hon. Gentleman a year ago, as to the "economic blizzard" and "world conditions." I ask hon. Members who

  1291
  censure us to-day to bear that in mind and remember what they said a year ago.
  One of the first things to which we devoted our attention was the matter of the balance of trade, and it was to deal with the balance of trade primarily that the Government came to the decision to impose import duties. I have never been an extremist, and I have never made elaborate claims as to what a tariff would do in a short space of time. Today the whole tariff system is on its trial. It is a great experiment, and in my view the right experiment and the only experiment, but it will be two or three years, certainly before this Government goes out of office, before we shall know whether it has fulfilled our hopes and expectations or not. I think that the country was determined that the experiment should be made, and that an enormous majority in the country are satisfied to give fair play to this experiment for such a time as they think not unreasonable to see what is the effect of that experiment. That is my view, and I believe that it is the view of a great number of people in the country.
  With regard to the balance of trade, our efforts there have not been unsuccessful. In the first five months of this year the excess of imports has decreased from what it was a year ago by £30,000,000, which a little exaggerates the figure because of the fall in prices. The curious feature is that in the first quarter to the end of March the adverse trade balance was decreased by only a little over £4,000,000. So that the large difference between those two figures is the result of the trading in April and May, and that shows that we are gradually working off the effect of the forestalling of goods which came into this country in February. In the first quarter there was practically no change in the volume of trade—of course, the volume is by far the more important—and the apparent improvement was due to price changes. But while we have not yet got the figures completely worked out for April and May, by all the indications, which we have, the reduction in the unfavourable balance of trade is due both to an increase in the volume of our exports and to a decrease in the volume of our imports, particularly the latter.
  1292
  One further satisfactory feature is that in the five months the statistics regarding raw materials are practically stationary, whereas the value of manufactured articles is down by over £32,000,000, in spite of forestalling in February. All that I would say on that is that the result of a few months—of course, I would never claim that a few months taken as it were haphazard is a conclusive proof of the case—as far as it goes, and that is as far as we can go to-day, is that the policy we are pursuing is effecting what we desired to do in relation to the balance of trade. In the present state of the world and having regard to the conditions of foreign countries and their trade, on which I shall say a word or two by and by, that, I think, as far as it goes, is satisfactory.
  We have to look at and consider carefully in any Debate like this the kind of foreign restrictions which exist to-day, because they are restrictions comparatively new in our trade, restrictions which did not exist the last time that I was in office. They have mainly come about as a result of the crisis in Germany last summer. All the restrictions, taken together—and I propose to say a word about the different kinds of them— will show the House what an appalling amount of grit there is in the whole machine for the circulation of goods, and until that grit is removed and the machinery is lubricated little progress can be made. I do not propose to do what would be only a waste of time, and that is to argue whether we should recover more quickly under a Capitalist or a Socialist system. I have to take the environment in which I find myself and do the best that I can in it, and I do not feel that we have time to conduct such an experiment as would be necessary if the right hon. Gentleman opposite and his friends were to take charge of the whole financial machinery of this country, before we could make any step forward.
  Another important thing to remember is that these restrictions in foreign countries have been put on owing to their own domestic conditions. It is a kind of game of the devil take the hindmost. They are put on sometimes to balance the Budget, sometimes to try and save the employment of their own people, and that is particularly the case in regard to coal, sometimes to help the adverse

  1293
  balance of trade, sometimes for the protection of their own currency and sometimes for an object in which all these motives are linked up together. Such restrictions are not retaliatory, whatever hon. Members opposite may say. They have been put on by one individual country after another which has got into a panic as to what is going to happen inside its own borders.
  Mr. LAWSON: I understand that it is discriminatory in the case of coal.
  Mr. BALDWIN: My hon. Friend will have an opportunity later on of saying what he likes. These restrictions are not only enforced in Europe. In South and Central America, countries with which we do a great deal of trade, they have been introduced. Some of our own Dominions have got increased duties. There are no fewer than 30 foreign countries to-day that have some kind of exchange restrictions, and in many cases those restrictions are such that it is almost impossible to bring currency from one country to another. I have said that it started with the German crisis in July of last year. Germany, with her restrictions, was immediately followed by Hungary. In turn, in the early autumn, Bulgaria, Greece, Norway, the Baltic States and Czechoslovakia all joined in this mad race. It had nothing to do with any policy of ours. All these things were done before our policy was declared. All these restrictions applied not only to us—who, you may like to consider, have a double dose of original sin—but to all countries alike, and perhaps these restrictions, because of their different nature in different countries, are telling to-day more against the recovery of trade than even tariffs themselves.
  Another form of restriction, and on this probably a good deal will be said in the course of the Debate, because it touches a question which is in the right hon. Gentleman's mind, is the question of quotas. The quota is a very dangerous weapon. I advocated it myself in regard to wheat at the election, but I said at the time that it was a very powerful weapon. It is not one that I am anxious to see in general, universal use. I regard it as one for an emergency. Of course, many of these countries are using it genuinely, because they believe it is helping them to face an emergency, but they do not think for a moment what the effect will
  1294
  be on other countries; and they are disastrous. You cannot consider Russia in this question, because in Russia alone you have the whole of the trade system at present controlled by the Government. So long as that be the case in Russia, or any other country that may follow her example, you have, at any rate, in that system an absence of certainty, because no one can tell what a Government with a free hand will do and that absolute uncertainty in itself is most liable to militate against regular and steady trade.
  Take Denmark. One or two questions have been asked about Denmark. Denmark has gone in quite recently for a very severe limitation of trade. I am perfectly certain that Denmark would not have done it had she not felt that it was necessary for her own economic salvation, because the last thing that Denmark wants to do to-day is to do anything that will annoy us. She is most anxious to do business with us and most anxious to come to some arrangement with us in regard to our tariffs, and she has distinctly said that she has no desire at all to make the regulations that she has enacted any more troublesome to us than they need be. We have been told formally, our Minister in Copenhagen has been told by the Danish Government, that all possible care will be taken that the Danish exchange control shall be used in a way to cause the least possible difficulty to British traders. Of course, we are grateful for that; but there you are. There is one more barrier, and a barrier in a country that has been a good customer of ours and I hope in time will be better.
  Perhaps we have had as much difficulty in regard to this matter with France as with any other country. With France, curiously enough, we have no Most-Favoured-Nation Treaty, but for half a century we have had a kind of recognised agreement that in all our deals we do the best for each other. When we have remonstrated with her, France has explained that the steps she took were steps to prevent her own industries from being flooded by cheap importations, not from this country but from Belgium and Germany. As a matter of fact, investigations show that the goods subject to the quota there are goods that have been in-the past chiefly coming from those two countries. France is one country whom we induced to remove the surtax on coal.

  1295
  We were successful in getting France to remove that. It is only fair to say that she has always protested that she has taken no step against us alone. The surtax that was put on was put on against the countries with depreciated currencies and applied to every country which found itself in that condition. On the top of quotas and restrictions we have had, practically all through the world, increased duties, and they have been increased against the goods of all countries. There is nothing in the increases of duty that have been made that is directed chiefly against us, or has been effected because of the change in our own policy in this country. They have been put on for the same reasons as the other restrictions that have been put on. In Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, France and some of our Dominions, tariffs have been raised and raised until in places they have got to a height that it is almost impossible to climb.
  That is the position, and it is extraordinarily difficult to see how that position is going to be broken. At the present the conference which is taking place at Lausanne naturally affords us some hopes, but we know how difficult it is at these great conferences. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as any of us, in regard to these conferences, when the interests or the supposed interests of various nations are brought together, how difficult and how slowly they work, but I am perfectly clear in my own mind, as the British Government is, that the course we want to see pursued, the complete cancellation of all reparations and debts in Europe, between ourselves, is an essential step, and I believe a long step, towards giving the countries more confidence and helping them to get on with their business, and is the first step to the removal or, shall I say, would lead to a day nearer the time when we may hope to see the beginning of the removal of such restrictions as I have alluded to.
  At this point I should like to say a word about our own export trade. Our export trade, tariffs or no tariffs, for so long as we can look ahead, must be a trade of vital importance to us. It would have been of some interest to the House—it was alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition
  1296
  —to see the attempt that is going to be made for a thorough rationalisation of the steel trade. I have no doubt that if that can be carried through that trade in this country can compete with any country in the world. Our exports are vital to us, and I believe that the effect of that rationalisation will be to make us more and not less efficient in export.
  5.0 p.m.
  But however efficient we are, there is another thing that we are up against, and that is the impoverishment of the world and the impoverishment of consumers in foreign countries. There are many cases, of course, in which the producers of primary goods have become impoverished in every country in the world and their markets have been made far less possible to sell in. Many of them can only buy very cheap goods, and some of them not that. Yet it is some encouragement for us to see that through this time we are holding on to our export trade. In the five months just past we have had a 15 per cent, increase over a year ago in the amount of cotton yarns and cotton manufactured goods which have been exported. There has been a considerable percentage increase in the export of woollen and worsted yarns and semi-manufactures such as tops, noils, and wastes. In the heavy woollen worsted goods—I think they call them worsted tissues—plush, flannel, and druggets, there has been a substantial increase.
  I said something a short time ago about the figures of value being a little misleading because of the fall in prices. You see that very markedly in the result in these past months in carpets, where you have a very slight decrease in the sterling value of the amount sold, but you have actually an increase in the yardage sold of nearly 200,000. Chemicals, tinplates, and the paper and cardboard trade have all either held their own or increased the amount which has been exported. On the other hand there has been a serious decline in the trade in locomotives, railway carriages and trucks, and the reason for that is a world reason. That does not make it any easier to bear; but the world reason is this, that in such times as are prevalent throughout the world to-day, the first thing to be shut down is large capital expenditure on new railways, docks and works of that nature which employ plant of that kind.

  1297
  With regard to the home trade, there again, as I said, manufactured imports have declined, and in the first quarter of the year there has been actually a small percentage increase in the volume of manufactured goods. I may say here—and possibly the right hon. Gentleman may have something to say upon this later on—that you have the rather curious phenomenon that the figures show that in spite of what is happening in the world, upon which I will give one or two figures later, the actual volume of production in this country is holding its own or is slightly increasing, and yet at the same time you have an increase in the unemployment figures. That is probably due to the appalling condition of the export coal trade and to the fact that in a great many industries which are getting to work now, they have been getting greater production with fewer men at work.
  That is, of course, one of the big problems which we run up against, one which we all recognise, and one which will have to be met. It is satisfactory to know that there has been, as I have said, an increase in the manufactured production in the United Kingdom for the first quarter of the year of just over 1 per cent., so that it has just more than held its own, while the comparative figures for Germany and the United States are decreases of 22 and 15 per cent., respectively. Do not let us misunderstand; these decreases in the world are tragic, and they all affect our trade. That is perfectly true, but we can take comfort in this, that in the very heart of this economic blizzard, this old country of ours is holding her own. It may not be a holding of our own which makes people happy or keeps all our people employed, but relatively we are facing the blizzard better than any other country in the world to-day.
  Mr. MAXTON: We are losing ground.
  Mr. BALDWIN: The hon. Gentleman will be able to make his case upon that later, perhaps. I was speaking about unemployment and the increased production of goods. I will say one word, and one word only, upon that point, not to go into the details of the figures, but with regard to an aspect of it which the right hon. Gentleman discussed. Even now, after what has been done in the way of cuts, and with the number of unemployed that we have in this country, it is satis-
  1298
  factory to feel that though what we do may be far short of what the right hon.. Gentleman would like to see done, we have nothing to fear from any comparison of what we do with what is done by any other country in this world. There is only one other country which can be compared with us in the magnitude or the scope of what it does for the working people of the country, and that country is Germany. It is interesting to see that Germany has a system—an older system than ours, and one which probably the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs studied very closely—of unemployment insurance, health insurance, and contributory old age pensions.
  At the end of April, Germany had nearly 5¾ millions of registered unemployed, and of these only about one-half were receiving unemployment insurance benefit or transitional payment. In Great Britain at the end of May there were just under 2¾ millions unemployed, and of these over 80 per cent. were in receipt of insurance benefit or transitional payment, as compared with Germany's 50 per cent. Moreover the German rates of benefit, which in June, 1931, were reduced by about 10 per cent. on an average, are about to be reduced again by an average of 23 per cent., and when those reductions are made the rates of benefit in Germany will be substantially lower than in this country. The period during which ordinary insurance benefit is paid without the application of a means test was reduced last year in Germany from 26 weeks to 20 weeks, and is in future to be only six weeks, as compared with 26 weeks in Great Britain. As I say, there is no one who would minimise the hardships of this present time, but do not let us lose sight of the fact that with all our difficulties—and they are great, as we all know—we are yet relatively and comparatively better off, I believe, than any other country in the world.
  I must make an observation upon another subject. There has been some talk in this House of a conference. The question was raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). There are Members who are very anxious to see wholesale prices get back to where they were in 1929. Of course the surest way of getting prices back is to get the circulation of goods which will stimulate trade. Other

  1299
  methods may or may not be successful; I am not going to hazard any prophecy, but I will say this, that, after all, the success and prosperity of this country depends upon the fellow responsible doing his job. Those people cannot wait for conferences or for any artificial means of raising prices; and I rejoice at the many instances which have come to my knowledge of men in different parts of the country who are sitting down to face this problem, using their brains, consulting their own workpeople and taking them into their confidence, and who are able to carry on in these times, and to carry on without any cut in wages.
  I will give the House two instances of what I mean which have come to my notice. One is concerned with the export trade and one with the home trade, but I give them as being typical. I have not yet had time to study a most interesting report which has apparently just been made by Sir Gerald Bellhouse, the senior Inspector of Factories, upon what is being done in this country in new industries which have been established, where people are producing more efficiently and more cheaply. My first case, in the export trade, is that of a man in the Midlands who makes buckets. He could not wait until prices rose to the 1929 basis; he found that he could not sell his buckets because the people who used to buy the buckets were not able to afford the prices which they used to pay, but that they might buy something cheaper. He sat down with his own people and they worked at the problem until they had solved it. They are to-day producing a considerably cheaper bucket, and he has got a very large order from a most competitive part of the world, in North Africa, which will enable him to put his place on full time at the old rates of wages for many months to come.
  The other case which I have is a case which concerns a large Provincial store with its own clothing factory. They manufactured suits of clothes which were sold at 70s. per suit, and they found that in the impoverished state of the country they could sell very few. The overhead charges went up; so these enterprising men consulted with their own folk and with the cloth manufacturers, they used their brains, and they produced a suit, not perhaps quite so good, but quite good, at 60s., with the result that the factories are
  1300
  working full time and are likely to do so for a long time to come; and they are paying exactly the same rates of wages as they paid previously.
  Now that is the spirit, and the only spirit, which is going to overcome difficulties. If you have not got that spirit, you may have all the artificial remedies which can be applied to the body politic without their having any effect at all. Both those men no doubt would have been happy if some means of rapidly raising prices had been applicable; but they could not wait, and they solved the problem themselves. Great harm may be done, I always think, in holding out hopes that the Government may be able in a moment, as it were, to raise price levels. It arouses false hopes, and many people—I except men like those of whom I have spoken—will just sit down and wait until a finer day comes. The Government will do what it can. It is perfectly willing to enter into conferences and to consider anything that may be arranged between the countries of the world, but in the meantime the garden has to be cultivated, the work has to be carried on, and I say, all honour to those people who will do it.
  There is only one word I want to say about foreign conferences. One of the great objects of Ottawa, as I said last Thursday, is to help to break down these barriers and restrictions which are crippling trade. I have always believed —time alone will show whether I am right—that tariffs serve a double purpose: they protect your own people against the competition of lower standards of life, and at the same time they are an invaluable weapon for breaking down extreme protection in a foreign country. When we return from Ottawa we shall be free to see what we can do in that direction with the countries of the world. These barriers have to be broken down; these restrictions have to be removed, the sand has to be got out of the machine. Time alone will show which of us is right.
  Let me turn for one moment to the terms of the Vote of Censure. It says:
  "His Majesty's Government, having appealed to the country for a free hand to take such action as it thought fit to restore national prosperity and to deal with unemployment, and having entirely failed in these objects as is shown by the steady diminution of trade and industry at home and abroad

  1301
  and the increase of unemployment, together with the deplorable conditions to which the unemployed are being subjected, has forfeited the confidence of this House."
  I still think that it is a little early to bring in a Motion of this kind. I should like it to be brought in when our policy has had time to justify itself, or to fail. May I remind the House of what I said in the early part of my speech? That is that we have maintained in this country, indeed slightly increased, the volume of our trade and diminished the volume of competitive manufactures coming into this country. We believe that in a world where trade has been falling rapidly, where the difficulties of conducting it have made it in many countries almost impossible, we have held our own better than any country in the world. We cannot expect at the moment to do more. We are doing our best. We are conscious of these problems. We continue to wrestle with them day by day, and all day, and we have every confidence that in time we shall win through. But it is a hard struggle for all of us. I know as well as any hon. Member opposite—we need not consider any foreign countries at the moment—how the economic struggle bears on those who are least able to bear it, and there is nothing which acts more as a stimulus to us to do all we can internationally and domestically to keep the wheels of industry revolving once again than the thought that the only permanent solution for those who are so unhappily situated to-day is a complete revival of trade.
  Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: Although I have only a comparatively short experience of the House, there is a certain family likeness about all these full dress Debates on official Votes of Censure, whichever Government is in power. The procedure is much the same. The Opposition marshals a deplorable lot of figures regarding unemployment and trade—and, unfortunately, they have been deplorable for some time—and imputes the blame for everything to the Government of the day. The Government of the day retorts by calling attention to the world causes over which they have no control. Really one might shut one's eyes and wonder who is speaking. It. is somewhat like the duel in the last scene in Hamlet, where the duellists have exchanged rapiers. In this case the poisoned rapier is in the hands of
  1302
  the Opposition; but they are making an early and a very clumsy use of it. The only suggestion that has come from the Leader of the Opposition as to what should have been done instead of what the Government are doing, is that we should have complete Socialism. Yet in the matter of the Exchange Equalisation Account he is reluctant to trust the unfortunate Chancellor of the Exchequer not to be "done down" by every competing private speculator throughout the world. If he is going to be "done down" in that comparatively small sense, how can any Government official be trusted with the running of the whole banking system? It is an entirely inconsistent attitude for the right hon. Member to take up.
  We agree most cordially with the Lord President of the Council that in considering what the Government have done we must not imagine that we can reach a final conclusion on the figures of trade and employment for a few months. The views of those members of the Liberal party who think as I do on the subject of tariffs have been expressed by the Home Secretary, and I should be serving no useful purpose if I attempted to restate the case in my own inferior language. We may all have different opinions about a Protectionist policy and its final effects. The country as a whole is not interested, because at the moment they are in the region of experiment. They are going to wait and see what is going to happen. By its results the Government will be judged. It cannot be judged on the comparative figures of unemployment and trade for the last few months. Indeed, if we were to look at these months only we should come to the conclusion that tariffs were not producing any of the results which have been foretold by their supporters or by their opponents. Prices have not on the whole gone up, and, on the other hand, employment has not substantially been increased. It is too early to judge, and we shall have to wait before passing a final verdict on the matter.
  No Liberal Member will have seen very much enthusiasm for Free Trade in. this Vote of Censure as moved by the Leader of the Opposition. Clearly the ultimate ideal of the right hon. Gentleman is complete Socialism; and at the same time the most rigid form of Protection on the top of it. During all our Debates on fiscal

  1303
  policy I have noticed that practically no use has been made of the Free Trade case by Labour Members, except as a stick with which to beat the Government. The only Free Trade speeches which have carried with them any ring of conviction have come from the hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major G. Lloyd George). From the Labour party we have had nothing which upholds the Free Trade case as we on these benches understand it. [Interruption.] I 'am glad to have that emphatic assent. It proves that no Liberal need be under any temptation to vote for this Vote of Censure. In the last Parliament, when Votes of Censure were moved by the Conservative Opposition, the Liberal party did not support any of them during the whole of the two years, and many of us were blamed in our constituencies for not doing so. But we refused to hold the Labour Government responsible for all the results of world depression, and it is not reasonable for us to vote for this Vote of Censure, moved as it is after such a short space of eight months and at a time when world conditions are probably more difficult than they were when the Labour Government was in office.
  The real, substantial sting in the Vote of Censure is the feeling, sincerely held, I have no doubt, on the various cuts and economies, with the effects of which we who sit for industrial districts are painfully familiar. I say that the necessity for these cuts and their probable effect and justification, were fully canvassed at the last General Election, and every hon. Member will remember that every ounce of political capital was made out of the proposed cuts, the most serious parts of which were already in being at the time of the General Election. [Interruption.] I say that the most serious parts were in being, and the imagination of our Labour opponents amply supplied all the prophecies with regard to the future. They went beyond anything that has actually happened. But all this was fully canvassed at the last General Election, and the country gave its verdict.
  Mr. ANEUR1N BEVAN: The means test did not operate at the time of the General Election.
  Mr. GRIFFITH: If the hon. Member had done me the honour of listening to me with more attention he would realise
  1304
  that I did not say that the whole of these cuts, but that the greater part of these cuts and economies were already in being, or were announced before the last General Election. The country has given its judgment on these very points. This Government was elected by the popular voice to do unpopular things, and nobody can deny that they have done them. Whether the people will continue in the mood of sacrifice and readiness to nerve themselves to the ordeal at the next election depends entirely on the amount of success which the Government will be able to achieve during its period of office. But the Government cannot be blamed for doing these things, however unpleasant they are. They have a direct mandate from the country to do them. Having said that, may I say that I do not think that the mandate is indefinitely elastic; it cannot be stretched indefinitely? Already very painful reductions in the standard of living in the great industrial centres have been made; and they have been borne with a patience which is almost miraculous. But it must not be supposed that this patience is inexhaustible.
  When I hear of voluntary committees being set up to consider further reductions in expenditure I am rather uneasy. I am always suspicious and nervous when I see the axe in the hands of an amateur, and I hope that the Government, while paying attention to the need for economy, will realise that in a great part of our social services there is no margin for further reductions. The people are now living at a rate which cannot be further reduced. For hundreds and thousands of families the essential part of the social services is their only means of living at all and any further attempts at economy in that direction will, I am sure, be undertaken very reluctantly indeed by the Government.
  5.30 p.m.
  I think that in the matter of the means test, which is of the greatest importance in the great industrial centres, the Government will at some time have to make a change. They will deserve censure if they let the years go past without adopting full responsibility, themselves, for the administration of that test instead of leaving it to the local authorities who are doing their best in most heartbreaking circumstances. I hope that before long, whether as a result of the report of the

  1305
  Commission, or for any other reason, we may get a substantial reform in that direction. While I am dealing with the subject of economy I want to say that economy may be absolutely necessary in an emergency. It may be a necessary foundation for a national policy, but it is not itself a policy and it must not be treated as if it were an idol that could be worshipped. If it is regarded in that way it can become a very false and very dangerous idol.
  It is true that trade may be strangled for want of capital, but trade may also be strangled for want of customers, and what any Government has to try to do is to preserve the balance between that saving out of which capital is provided, and that spending out of which customers are provided. Unless attention is paid to both sides of the problem industry will suffer. The last thing we want to do is to freeze up the circulation of our national wealth so that, in the end, for all our savings, we might find ourselves in the position of the miser, living in squalor and brooding over hoarded and useless gold. We want to keep our trade going on the two sides—both saving and spending—and although there is still a great deal of truth in the old Gladstonian saying about leaving money to fructify in the pockets of the people, it is none the less true that that saying does not apply in quite the same way to-day as it did when Gladstone said it. In Gladstone's time if the money was left in the pockets of the people one might be pretty certain that it would fructify. There were many openings for its employment so that it would fructify, for the benefit not only of those who owned it but for the benefit of the workers in general by giving employment and increasing the standard of living.
  It is not so easy to say that to-day. Now, when money is left in the pockets of the people, some of them have doubts as to the way in which they are going to make it fructify. Sometimes they seem to be left with the rather difficult choice between buying tickets in a hospital sweepstake and investing the money in Government securities—perhaps the two extremes. The great desire of everyone to become creditors of the Government, to lend to the Government, or to buy Government securities, is not altogether a healthy feature of our present
  1306
  economic conditions. It means, undoubtedly, that the people of the nation have considerable confidence in the Government. If they had not that confidence they would not invest in Government security at all. But it also means that they have very little confidence in anything else and that is one of the great difficulties of our time. I can only suggest that the Government ought to take advantage of this tendency, whatever its evil effects may be in some ways. It would seem as if the time were ripe for the floating of a Conversion Loan, when people are so eager to become creditors of the Government. One would imagine that there could be no more favourable opportunity for a Conversion Loan.
  When we talk about economies, we must recognise that there are little economies of administration which are not to be despised, but, all the same it seems to me that the really great economies which can be envisaged at the present moment are only two. One is a Conversion Loan and the other is following up, if we can, the suggestions of President Hoover in regard to disarmament. Those represent two large slices of economy and not merely crumbs. If we could get along on those lines the situation would be eased far more than it can be eased by more or less cheeseparing efforts at cutting down a redundant official here and there. But let me make it clear that I am not trying to found a rival organisation—a Society of Foes of Economy. I believe economy to be most valuable, but I believe that it can be overdone and that it would be disastrous to overdo it at present. Economy should be regarded not as a cure for our social evils, but as a kind of first aid, as a bandage which may have to be applied in order to save the patient from bleeding to death, but not something which is to be worn permanently. To overdo economy might lead ultimately to stagnation and there would be no future for our people and no hope of a better standard of living for them.
  All I am doing is to ask the Government, under all the pressure which is brought upon them to reduce in this and in that direction, to regard these questions with a certain amount of balance, proportion and humanity and not to be led away by the tendencies of the moment. But none of the considerations

  1307
  which I have indicated would lead me to support the Vote of Censure. Hon. Members opposite will recall the critical times which they went through during the last Parliament when, sometimes, they did not know from day to day whether they would continue in office or not. They will also recall a famous occasion when they were saved by a certain Naval Conference. The present Government have at least three times that excuse. Three Conferences are meeting or are about to take place on just as vital matters. Nearly everybody, including even hon. Members opposite, would agree that in those Conferences— at Lausanne, for instance—the Government are tackling the most vital matters that any Government could possibly be called upon to deal with. If hon. Gentlemen opposite were still in office they would be there trying to do so.
  One of the advantages which I foresaw from the formation of a National Government was that if foreign nations were convinced that such a Government did represent the nation they would be more inclined to give our representatives real authority and to give due weight to the words of those representatives. We ought to say and do nothing at present which would weaken the authority of those representatives who have been sent out on our behalf, on behalf of this House and the nation, to take part in deliberations which are going to affect the future of the whole world. I cannot imagine a more unsuitable, indeed a more mischievous time for tabling a Vote of Censure on the present Government than the exact time when every ounce of authority that can be given to the Government of the day is needed for the good of the nation. A Vote of Censure at such a time reminds me of an incident reported in the newspapers last week. We are told that some kind of infernal machine was placed by some mischievous person under the chair of a bishop. The infernal machine is alleged to have made a loud whirring noise but to have produced no other result. I think that will be the result of this Debate.
  Mr. MAXTON: The hon. Member for West Middlesborough (Mr. K. Griffith) does not intervene very frequently in our Debates but, when he does so, he always puts his case clearly
  1308
  and succinctly. I thought his speech to-day rather critical of the Government, and it seemed to indicate a deeper note of criticism unexpressed. I regret very much that that deeper note of criticism is not going to compel him to go into the Lobby with hon. and right hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway this evening. While I can make my criticisms and, probably, before I conclude, will make my criticisms of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway now when they are in Opposition, just as I did in the past when they formed the Government of the day, I certainly will not allow any antagonisms which I may have with them to prevent me from doing what I regard as a necessary public duty, namely, to go into the Lobby in support of this Vote of Censure on the Government.
  I listened carefully to the Leader of the House in his defence of the Government. I think, from the Parliamentary point of view, it was a very feeble defence, and from the point of view of the country a very dangerous defence. Everyone in the House will agree that few statesmen have the same public standing as the right hon. Gentleman. Few men have the same reputation for simple sincerity and genuineness as he has, but he stood there to-day using that prestige and that reputation to soothe the country into the belief that the nation's affairs are proceeding reasonably well and that, as the months go by, they will become progressively better. He used what the Chancellor of the Exchequer used on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill, that curious type of statistical manipulation so frequently employed nowadays, which says in effect, "Our affairs must be all right because so-and-so's affairs are ever so much worse. "It reminds me of the conversation among prisoners in a gaol. One says to another, "How long are you in for"? and the reply may be, "I am doing six months. "Then the first prisoner says, "I am only doing three, so that I am all right." Everything is all right—relatively. But they have all lost their freedom; they are all living on "skilly"; they are all having a rotten time. Still they find satisfaction out of realising that somebody else is worse off than themselves. I hope that the Government will throw that kind of plea overboard once and for all, because it has been the stock-in-trade of successive Governments all the time that this crisis

  1309
  has lasted and it blinds their vision to the real nature of the problem which has to be dealt with.
  Then, the right hon. Gentleman, speaking presumably on behalf of the united party, says that it is an effort in the country which is required—the quiet steady effort of the man who is working at his job—and he has cited two examples of the spirit that he wants to see. One is the example of the man who was producing buckets but was producing them too dearly. So he applied his own brains to the problem and got the collaboration of his workers and, now they are producing cheap buckets for North Africa. Substantial orders are coming from some place unspecified in North Africa—whether it is Morocco, Tangier or Tripoli I do not know, but it is some place, evidently, where they want to kick buckets. So the British nation is going to be saved by producing cheaper buckets. The other example was of a similar kind—that of the man who was producing suits at £3 10s. He could not sell them at that price, so all the business capacity of Britain was put on to the problem.
  Mr. PIKE: The right hon. Gentleman did not say that.
  Mr. MAXTON: Well, I never misrepresent people in this House and I think I am giving a correct description of what the right hon. Gentleman said. I am putting a little more vigour into it. My voice is a little louder than the right hon. Gentleman's and perhaps, also, there is a greater amount of gesture of which I am unconscious. But what he said was to the effect that this typical business man of Britain, who should be an example to all the rest of the business men of Britain, gathered round him the heads of his staff, and they discussed the problem of how they could produce a £2 10s. suit instead of a £3 10s. suit. Now they are going ahead merrily selling £2 10s. suits. I know of a works which was working overtime, with night shifts, producing flannel trousers and light flannel jackets for those fellows who could not even buy £2 10s. suits, and the next stage in this business procedure will be to devise some form of loin cloth for the people who cannot even afford flannel trousers.
  This is the National Government. Cheap buckets and shoddy suits, after
  1310
  having produced standards among the people that make it impossible for them to buy suits at £3 10s. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that if either in the manufacture of buckets or in the manufacture of suits there is a real, genuine increase of what is called efficiency in their production to get that lower price, it means that at some point in the productive process human labour has been dispensed with, that some men have gone out on to the street— [Interruption.] Hon. Members have a great habit of interrupting, and I so seldom interrupt anybody, unless he is a Cabinet Minister. Necessarily either men are being put out on to the street or more goods are being produced by the same number of people, and ultimately in the long run, when putting goods on to the world market, it amounts to the same thing. It may show great cleverness and spirit on the part of the individual owner or manager of a factory, but it makes no contribution to solving the general, national, unemployment problem, and there is yet no realisation whatever, on the part of the National Government, of the nature of the problem with which they are confronted.
  The right hon. Gentleman objected because this Vote of Censure had been brought forward at the expiry of nine months. He said that he was making no complaint, but he complained about three times in the course of his speech, and one of his supporters said just now that this was a most inopportune time for a Vote of Censure. When a Vote of Censure is introduced, it is always inopportune for the people on that side of the House. However, the right hon. Gentleman makes no complaint, and he says, by implication, that it will take three or four years until we see whether this policy is to be successful or not; and, of course, there ought to be no Votes of Censure meanwhile. During the period of the last Labour Government, I think, there was a Vote of Censure every week, and when the Prime Minister Was announcing business, he always left Thursday blank—[Interruption]. The supporters of the present Government themselves sowed the seed, and the official Opposition now are the tree they planted. My quarrel is that they should have known what fruits would spring from such a seed. That is not Maxton, but Byron, I think.

  1311
  They started it, most indubitably. They opened the gate to the idea that a problem of world superfluity was to be met by an economy policy. They opened the door, and the only policy that could logically follow was the nomination of the May Committee. Then there are the gallant 200, who are going to rampage through the Government offices during their summer recess—I do not think they will rampage very long—looking for more economies. They are carrying to its logical conclusion the policy that was initiated by the May Committee, which was set up by the Labour Government. [An HON. MEMBER: "NO!"] Who said "No"? These be historic facts, my masters. The master mind of Sir George May, as a public servant, was the discovery of the late Labour Government, and we are now to-day engaged in going along what was to me from the beginning a foolish and a fantastic road, a road that could only lead to a steady deterioration of national standards of life, and that will ultimately end in complete catastrophe.
  I know that the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council said to-day that that is not the course that events have taken, but, remember, it is only a week ago since the Government came into the House and insisted that the situation was so much worse than it was 12 months ago that reductions had to be made in what the State could allow to the sick workpeople. [An HON. MEMBER: "It was only this week!"] It was Monday of this week when it was finished, but last week they came forward and told us that our national situation was so much worse to-day than it was 12 months ago that the payments and arrangements that were then made for the sick were not possible now. That is after nine months of National Government and progressive improvement. I was looking at the Trade and Navigation Returns while the right hon. Gentleman was speaking, and he talked about the increase in exports and the diminution of imports. I take the documents and the figures that are available to Members, and I find that in May, 1932, the last available month, our imports were £55,000,000, which was £2,000,000 more than in the previous month, and our exports were £30,000,000, which was more than £4,500,000 below the previous
  1312
  month, and the lowest on record, so far as the three years given here were concerned, with the exception of the two crisis months of August and September last year.
  Here we have the deterioration in working class standards of life, unemployment benefit, means test, cutting of sick pay, cutting of wages and salaries, a steady insistence from a large, proportion of the Members of this House that the meagre educational facilities of working class children shall be reduced still further, a steady insistence that large numbers of underpaid civil servants shall be turned out on the streets; and the Government come along and try to suggest that it is unfair for the Opposition to censure them. If ever there was a Government due for censure, it is this one, and if ever the time was appropriate for it, that time is now.
  The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough talked about the hopes of disarmament. I am an enthusiastic supporter of disarmament. I hope that the conference now meeting will decide on the most drastic disarmament step, though I did not gather—I was asking the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs where I could get a reliable report of his speech on the matter—when I read two or three journals, that his acceptance of the Hoover proposals on behalf of Great Britain had been of the most enthusiastic kind, and I am still wondering just exactly what the attitude of the British Government is on this important issue. But while I am an enthusiastic supporter of disarmament, I have never deluded myself into the belief that that is going to be any contribution to the solution of the unemployment problem, nor do I believe that it is going to throw money into the national Exchequer, because speedy, drastic disarmament, involving a cessation of the production of clothing for the Army, food for the Army, implements and equipment for the Army, the Navy or the Air Force means definitely throwing many men out of employment, it means displacing many men who are presently drawing incomes in one or other of the Services.
  That social problem, when it has been created, has got to be met, and it seems to me that in the early stages at least anything that you are going to save on armament expenditure is going to be almost used up in meeting in a reasonable way

  1313
  the social problem that your disarmament creates. Nor do I believe that the cancellation of War debts is going to make any impression on unemployment. Let us have the cancellation of War debts, let us wipe them off the slate entirely—it is a preposterous piece of stupid book-keeping —but do not let us delude ourselves into believing that when we do it, and when we have done it, we are doing anything whatever to tackle the trade problem or the unemployment problem. My hon. Friends and myself on these benches have sung one theme steadily and regularly— one theme. The only brilliant Parliamentary exponent we have heard of it was my late Friend the right hon. John Wheatley, the former Member for Shettleston, who, Parliament after Parliament, Session after Session, drummed into the ears of this House the view that you cannot gain prosperity for the nation on the basis of increasing the poverty of the individual members of the nation.
  6.0 p.m.
  All attempts to lower working-class standards of life, whether it is for moral reasons such as those for which the Anomalies Act was produced, or for economic reasons like the means test, or for actuarial reasons as in Health Insurance— all these so-called economies, to the extent that they take effective purchasing power out of the pockets of the mass of people, tend to accentuate the problems that successive Governments have vainly tried to solve. I nearly always feel at a loss when taking part in these Debates, because I try so hard to get over to those who are responsible the essence of what I want to be done. I have never asked that I should be put on the Front Bench to do it. Heaven knows that I do not want to go on to that Bench. I have seen how it plays havoe with the moral of a whole lot of people for whom I have tremendous respect. I have no desire to be there at all, but I have a desire that the people who are sitting there will first of all show some realisation of the problems that they are facing, and show some realisation of the general principles that must guide a solution. If I have weighed up this Government correctly, they have no feeling, they have no common purpose, they have no community of intention, and they have no common understanding of the problems that are confronting them. I go further—and this is the most deadly criticism and the most
  1314
  damning criticism of all. They have no desire to try to get to a common understanding of the problems that are confronting them.
  This nation elected a National Government; there were all sorts of conflicting reasons why people cast their votes for them, but this was generally in the mind of the whole population—that these men would go into a Cabinet and put aside Liberalism, Conservatism and Socialism and pool their brains; that they would start, as it were, de novo, so far as political beliefs and antagonisms were concerned, and tackle the problems confronting the nation as a practical job to be tackled by practical men in a practical way, not being tied by doctrines of one kind or another. That is what the nation thought they were getting when they elected a National Government. They have not got that, and so far as this Government are not doing that they have been elected on fraudulent grounds.
  My hon. Friend opposite said that the National Government were elected to do unpopular things by a popular vote. They are not doing unpopular things. They have only struck the poor. That is not unpopular. They have every organ of public opinion at their backs. They have the pulpits and the platforms of the country singing their praises. The only note of criticism is that they are not hitting the poor hard enough. The Government which will really get this country into a decent place for people to live in, where people can have some confidence about to-morrow, next month, and next year; which will make it into a place where people can have some joy in life instead of a miserable place where they fear life and fear death—the Government which does that will have the courage, not to attack the poor, but to attack the rich.
  When has this Government attacked the rich? They are just as crawling as the last Government in their approach to the financial interests. There was some excuse for the last Government in that they were inexperienced and did not know the ropes, but the present galaxy of talent are cringeing and crawling before the financial interests of the country at the same time that they steal maternity benefit from the poor women on the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow. I do not mind that being their attitude of mind, but I do mind very much their

  1315
  trying to represent themselves to the nation as people who are tackling a difficult problem in a courageous and fearless way, because that is a complete misrepresentation of the facts as they are.
  Mr. PEARSON: May I crave the indulgence of the House in rising to address it for the first time? My first words must be words of congratulation to the Government for what they have accomplished. Notwithstanding what has been said by the Opposition, I believe that the great mass of the people are satisfied that problems are being tackled in the right way, inspiring feelings of hopefulness and confidence. I represent an area that has probably suffered more than any other area in the country, where the people have shown remarkable courage, great patience and wonderful forbearance, and I reflect the feelings of that area when I say that the people recognise that the difficulties are worldwide, and that prosperity cannot be determined by a wave of the wand. After all, we have had two-and-a-half years of Labour administration with all its complications, and that is our heritage; but I am certain that the people of the country are giving our statesmen credit for doing the best possible thing to get the country out of its difficulties. They have accomplished a great deal; they have won greater confidence of other nations in ourselves, they have introduced the Import Duties Act, they have encouraged economy, and in the conferences that are in being and are yet to be, we shall find results that will be for the good of the country.
  The times in which we are living demand a new approach to all the problems that confront mankind. Nations are linked together as never before. The wireless and other scientific developments have brought nations which were in close contact with each other into almost immediate contact, so that the difficulties and problems of each have become the difficulties and problems of all. If it be true that no man lives to himself, it is true that no nation lives to itself, and our statesmen are being called upon to solve problems so complicated and far-reaching that they require the sympathy and support of every Member of the House. One is inclined to ask what the Opposition hope to gain by this Vote of Censure. I suggest that it loses in effectiveness
  1316
  by reason of its repetition. People are not deceived by these gestures which are made from time to time. For the Opposition to suppose that by censuring the Government they are likely to gain adherents to their cause is to underestimate the intelligence of the electorate. Our people have been politically educated and the return of the National Government showed how wise had been that education. They are now by bitter experience undergoing an economic education, and the more they become economically educated the less will Socialist theories appeal to them.
  Every nation is up against economic realities. The nations of the world are groaning and travailing together; I believe that they are experiencing the birth pangs of a new order, and that we are passing from the political into the economic sphere. Everybody is now beginning to understand that the ignoring or the breaking of economic laws brings retribution just as surely as the breaking or ignoring of physical laws. I have listened to the speeches of the Opposition with interest and, I must confess, with some surprise, as they have debated questions of high finance and its relation to unemployment. I am reminded of the rebuke administered by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Snowden, to them. We have heard the Leader of the Opposition to-day quoting a certain Newcastle clergyman. May I quote the words of one of the friends and leaders of the Labour party, Mr. Straker, who is the secretary of the Northumberland Miners' Association. I quote from the Newcastle "North Mail" of 6th April, remarks which are taken from Mr. Straker's monthly circular to his members. It says:
  "A great weakness of the Socialist party in Parliament is the ignorance of the majority of its members of matters of international finance and relationships."
  The newspaper continues:
  "Mr. Straker recalls the helplessness of many representatives when confronted by the financial crisis of last year. 'For the first time,' he writes, 'many of us realised, how much our everyday welfare depended upon international finance. Yet how helpless we were. … we floundered about, and are floundering still. I have always believed that the greatest weakness of the Labour party in Parliament was its lack of knowledge of great international problems, especially finance. It is true that we have always had a very few Members of the party who knew a good deal about these problems;

  1317
  but the knowledge of the overwhelming majority was of a very elementary kind. … Labour demonstrations have their place; but they will never save the people. The man who only shouts has little influence as compared with the man who knows.'"
  The Opposition cannot shirk responsibility for the serious problem of unemployment which is due in a large measure to the ignoring of economic laws. They may wash their hands in public, but that does not absolve them from guilt. Let me be specific on one point. In Jarrow, which is part of my Division and is an industrial area, unemployment was 32 per cent. of the employable population when the Socialist Government came into office. When they left office it had risen to almost 80 per cent.
  Mr. BATEY: What is it now?
  Mr. PEARSON: It has now gone down to about 70. It is significant that all the industrial areas returned National Government candidates. That is surely a sign that Britain has awakened to the realisation that we were drifting to disaster, and that Socialist theories and promises were not to be trusted. What have the Opposition to offer? When they were in office they had nothing constructive, and now they are out of office they have nothing immediate. I have here a publication, issued by Socialists, which is called "The New Clarion," in which they quite definitely state that their policy of undiluted Socialism means the control of the Bank of England and of the Joint Stock Banks, and that:
  "No industry or business will be able to carry on unless we allow it to get credit."
  On another page they are recommending people to spend their holidays out of Britain. I wonder whether that will help the unemployed problem here. They declare their disbelief in the capitalist system, but they themselves have capitalised discontent, and I suggest that that is both a heartbreaking and a soul-destroying business. A superstructure reared upon that foundation will not be able to withstand the storms that beat against it. The great thing in life is to produce harmony and not discord, and in the present grave crisis we need the co-operation of all people. The unemployed question should be above party consideration. The trained artisan, with all his skilled knowledge, cannot find an outlet for his abilities and that will lead to an undermining of his abilities, and
  1318
  will be a serious thing for industry in the days which lie ahead, a national loss which the country cannot afford.
  One of the most serious aspects of the unemployment problem is the effect it has upon the youth of the country. Boys who are leaving school can find no outlet. They have no chance of serving an apprenticeship. Industry will not be able to draw upon its apprentices, as was the case in the past, because no one is being apprenticed to-day to any particular trade. As chairman of a juvenile advisory committee I know the difficulties of dealing with lads who are leaving school and desire a certain training. At the present time we are unable to offer them anything. I urge this aspect of the problem on the attention of the Government. They ought to see whether something cannot be done to help the youth of the country, because, after all, the youth of the nation are the masters of posterity.
  What about the effect on the morale of the people? With the inevitable deterioration which accompanies this enforced idleness, who can visualise the future with equanimity? What Government can be indifferent to these things? For the Opposition to charge the Government with indifference, which is, in effect, what this Vote of Censure means, is unfair and unwarrantable. It shows a lack of appreciation of the problems which have to be faced. I think the Government have tackled the difficulties both promptly and courageously, and the conferences at Lausanne and Ottawa will, we hope, bring good results so far as the unemployment problem is concerned. This is a serious attempt to deal with the situation. Ottawa, viewed in the light of Imperial economic unity, will, we hope, lay the foundation of Empire prosperity; viewed in the wider sense, its effect upon the economic life of the world will be great. After all, the British Commonwealth of Nations is a family, and the contribution which each part of the Empire makes to the social and economic life will determine to a large extent the condition of the world.
  The object is to restore trade and to lessen unemployment, and every avenue, we have been told, will be explored. The other day the late Solicitor-General used rather scathing language about the open mind. Surely the open mind with which these gentlemen will approach the prob-

  1319
  lem of unemployment is the desirable state of mind, because it does not prejudge things. I should have thought that the open mind would have appealed to a legal gentleman, because a judge, in trying a case, keeps an open mind, and a jury, when considering evidence, keep an open mind, and when our statesmen go to Ottawa and to other conferences, if they go with an open mind, they will perhaps be able to view the problems in a new light. We all recognise the malady from which the country is suffering. A good doctor, after diagnosing the illness of his patient, does not tell him that he is so ill that he will not recover. Rather, he does what he can to keep his patient hopeful while he is applying the necessary remedies. The National Government is like that good doctor. It got a mandate, it talks hopefully, it acts courageously and it applies remedies; and I believe that by its efforts it will bring the country back to health and lessen the burden of unemployment.
  Mr. CHARLES BROWN: May I first congratulate the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Pearson) on his maiden speech? I do not think he need fear rising to address the House on future occasions, because he has presented his case forcibly and clearly, and I am sure the House will always give him a ready hearing. It is not customary, I know, to enter into controversy about maiden speeches, but one remark made by the hon. Member compels me to reply. He held up what he called a Socialist paper and called attention to the fact that it was urging people to spend their holidays out of the country. May I remind him that the journals which support his party are full of advertisements offering luxury trips to all those who can afford them—they can travel to the uttermost parts of the earth if they so desire? The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) said that in his opinion this Vote of Censure was premature, seeing the Government have had so short a period in office. I cannot understand the hon. Member making that remark after he had heard the speech of the Lord President of the Council, because if the Vote of Censure needed any justification it could be found in that speech by the Lord President this afternoon. What did he have to tell us about the work of the National Government? Was he able to tell us of any real accom-
  1320
  plishments of the National Government? The chilly reception of that speech must have damped the spirits of many who support the National Government.
  After the country has been enjoying the blessings of a National Government for eight months we are entitled to look out over the scene of their activities and appraise the result of their efforts, so far as they have made any efforts that matter. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) made a most damaging speech, and the most damaging remark in it was his statement that among the Members of the National Government there was no common understanding or common policy. Can we detect any common understanding or any common policy amongst the Members of the National Government? Perhaps it would be as well if I were to refer, first, to what the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has called "the exaggerated and manipulated crisis," out of which the National Government was born. I cannot make a reference to that exaggerated and manipulated crisis without reminding myself that we were told at that time that the one way to save the nation was to preserve the Gold Standard. It is rather ironical, now, to be told that any attempt to return to the Gold Standard would probably precipitate a worse crisis than the one of last autumn.
  As we listen from day to day to the conglomeration of ideas of the quick-change artists on the Treasury Bench, we become more and more befogged as to the policy of the National Government. We have seen life-long Free Traders become whole-hog Protectionists over night, as it were. We have seen out-and-out Protectionists advocating what they call freer trade, and at the same time ascribing a world's ills to tariffs and trade restrictions—the very things they themselves are advocating as a is policy for this country. We have seen some of those who boast about the superlative quality of their British sentiment and patriotism glorying in the fact that foreign factories have been established in Great Britain, and that foreign machines have been introduced into some of those factories when, in some instances, those machines could have been obtained in this country. [Interruption.] I can give instances and describe the specific machines, if I am challenged. In some instances, too, foreign workmen are

  1321
  being employed to do jobs which British workmen could equally well do.
  Never has the country had a Government with such a hotch-potch of ideas as the present occupants of the Treasury Bench. Never has a country been cursed with a Cabinet so utterly opportune as the present one. Its Members seem to have an unlimited capacity for shelving all their professed principles whenever it suits their purpose. I know I shall be told, in reply to what I am saying, "We were elected with a free hand to do what we liked and our right to survival depends upon our adaptability to the ever-changing circumstances of the moment." The chameleon character of the Government is now obvious to everyone. I have heard Ministers play up to their die-hard back benchers, talking as economic isolationists so far as this country is concerned, and then, at Lausanne, they are presuming to be internationalists, and at Ottawa they will be beating the Empire drum with all the fanaticism of religious bigots, unable to see any other aspect of truth than that tiny atom to which, in Canada, they will give such slavish adherence. Thus at the end of 12 months we look in vain for any policy of a coordinated or coherent character from the occupants of the Treasury bench. It is all a make-shift, to satisfy clamant interests. A sop to the cereal farmers, another to the horticulturists, a general tariff of 10 per cent. a prolonged incubation of the Ottawa egg, which will turn out to be addled, much to the disappointment of hon. Members, in a few months time.
  6.30 p.m.
  The other day I heard the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) urging the Government to be bold enough to initiate a policy which would give 10 years of certainty to trade and industry in this country. I wonder what is thought of the speech which was made this afternoon by the Lord President of the Council. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that Ottawa is calculated to add a new element of uncertainty to the present condition of world trade and commerce. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook talked about "turning trade into Empire channels. "That process will create all sorts of cross-currents which will inevitably lead to further confusion and uncertainty as regards world trade. I think such
  1322
  statements as those are very unfortunate at the moment when the times demand, and are crying out for, a policy which will make a genuine contribution towards the integration of the world's economic life, and not towards its further disintegration or disturbance.
  It is unfortunate at such a time that many Members of the Government are thinking only in terms of Empire. I pointed out last Thursday that there were dangers in the Ottawa Conference as well as some possible advantages, and that for successful bargaining among a group of autonomous nations to be successful there must be complete identity of economic interests without any disturbing element of third parties to which consideration must be given in any arrangements which, sure ultimately made between this country and the Dominions. Though it may be true that the Dominions and the mother country may be pulling in one direction, economic interests may pull in another direction, and we know which will win in a conflict between sentiment and economic interests. The main condition on which the success of the enterprise and policy of the Government depend is the success of the Conference. The success of the enterprise to which the Government are attaching so much importance depends, first of all, on tariffs at home; and, in the next place, on a system of Empire Preferences, with probably Empire tariffs against the rest of the world. The success of that policy depends almost entirely upon forms of social control of production and distribution to which hon. Members opposite are utterly opposed, and it is because the policy of the Government is opposed to the social control of production that their policy is bound to fail. If that test is applied, then I hold that, in spite of all their efforts, the Government will not achieve any real success, because their policy is so much out of keeping with the present views of economic developments in the life of mankind.
  We have to recognise, as the Lord President of the Council recognised in his speech, that in most of our Dominions and Dependencies there are millions of people in the direst poverty. Not only is that true of our own country and of our Colonies and Dependencies, but it is true of many of the countries to which the right hon. Gentleman made reference. When our attention is called

  1323
  to that fact we are compelled to bear in mind that the power of production in this country to-day is ever increasing to an extent that has never before been known in the history of mankind, and we must do everything we can to alleviate that poverty. It is no use Ministers describing that state of things as something which has occurred by the merest chance. It is not an accidental result. The real reasons why this state of poverty is not a matter of the merest chance were put forward by the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), and the position must be faced. The position was aptly stated a short time ago in a speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home) in which he urged the Government to adopt a policy that would result in raising the price level, and in one of his speeches he used as his main justification the phrase, "Enterprise must be rewarded." At the present time those who have control of production are not actuated by the social motive of supplying in the best possible way human needs and desires, and that is our criticism of the policy which we have heard from Ministers on the Treasury Bench.
  The Lord President of the Council told us in a previous speech that before we may see any tangible results from the wider policy of the Government, we may have to wait some tune, and the right hon. Gentleman repeated in his speech to-day what he stated in his speech last Thursday when he said that the country might have to wait one, two or three years, or even longer, for any tangible results. The right hon. Gentleman said, in effect, to the masses of the people of this country, "Better days may come some time, but not yet." The right hon. Gentleman is not even sure about that, and he says, in effect, "Lausanne may succeed, and Ottawa may succeed, and now that we have tariffs things may be better. My luggage for Ottawa is labelled 'Difficulties,' and the luggage of the Secretary of State for the Dominions is also labelled 'Difficulties,' but his labels are much larger than mine." We must remember that all the luggage may come back labelled "Failure."
  We have heard something about the schoolboy's motto, "If at first you don't succeed, try again!" That is the motto
  1324
  which has been put before the House by the Lord President of the Council this afternoon, and he hopes that something may come out of it in the dim and distant future. [Interruption.] I believe that, to all intents and purposes, I am not misrepresenting the right hon. Gentleman, and I think what I have said is a fair paraphrase of what the right hon. Gentleman did say, and what he said last Thursday. The gist of his speech to-day is exactly similar to the speech which he made last Thursday. The right hon. Gentleman does not want us to hope for too much or even to expect anything, although he thinks that something may come out of the efforts being made by the Government. Nevertheless, it is problematical and questionable, and I do not think what I have said is a misrepresentation of what the right hon. Gentleman said. When we listen to such speeches we cannot ignore the fact that in this country to-day there seems to be on every hand plenty of the things that the people need most—plenty of boots and shoes, plenty of food and clothes. All the things that the people are needing exist in abundance, not only here, but in every country in the world. Meanwhile, the condition of the people of the world grows steadily worse. There can be no doubt about that.
  Let us look, so far as the condition of the people is concerned, where the National Government began. They began with the slogan, "Equality of sacrifice," in the circumstances which existed last August, and they put it into operation, first of all, by attacking the unemployed. Of course, the unemployed were the most defenceless and the easiest to get at, and so the Government began there. Then they proceeded to cut down the benefits. The next task of the Government was to embark upon the process of broadening the basis of taxation. That is another phrase by which the Government tried to carry out the principle of equality of sacrifice. To carry out this process the Government established a system of Protection under which it was claimed that even the very poorest in the country would have the privilege of paying something every day to ease the burdens of the rich. Of course, the Government did not put it that way, although that is what they meant. What the Government said was that even the poorest people in the

  1325
  country should have the privilege of paying something in order to broaden the basis of taxation. Whoever winds up this Debate for the Government to-night will be able to tell the country that they have made another successful attempt in the House of Commons this week further to put into operation the principle of equality of sacrifice by reducing the health insurance benefit of married women, by imperilling the maternity benefit of a considerable number of people, and placing in danger the old age pension of some categories of the unemployed. That is the way in which the Government carry out the principle of equality of sacrifice.
  To the student of political history there can be no doubt about the intentions of the Government in the realm of domestic politics. In the first decade of this century the disparity between wealth and poverty had become so glaring that there set in a movement actuated by two motives. The first motive was a desire to maintain the social peace, and the second motive was humanitarian considerations. That movement was an attempt to alleviate some of the most glaring forms of poverty by a redistribution of the national income, to some extent, through the instrumentality of taxation. I am reminded of a great Liberal statesman who in the years before the War said that in this country there were always about 7,000,000 people regularly on the verge of starvation, and that is why there came about efforts to redistribute the national income by means of taxation. There can be no doubt that the accession to power of this Government marks the end of a phase in the political and economic development of this country.
  The process to which I have just alluded has at least done two things. First, it has kept the social peace; and, secondly, it has humanised large areas of our social life. There is one thing that it has not done; it has not by any means removed the disparity between the rich and the poor which was responsible for its initiation. Relatively, that gap is wider than ever it was. An hon. Member shakes his head, but I say "relatively." Poverty and wealth are relative terms, and by "relatively" I mean that, as contrasted with our powers of production to-day, the poor of this country are worse off than they have ever been be-
  1326
  fore. I make the comparison between our relative powers of production then and now; we on these benches always use the terms "wealth" and "poverty" in a relative sense. If you have the power to create this wealth, it follows, in our view, that increasingly the wealth which you have the power to create should flow back again to those who created it. All that the domestic policy of this Government has done so far has been to intensify that disparity, and there is no hope, so far as I can judge, that out of the wider policy in Europe, in the Empire, and in the world, there will come anything that will materially improve the lot of the common people. Indeed, judging by what we hear about the activities of many hon. Members opposite, we are likely to find the Government taking steps further to reduce the standards of life of the people at no distant date.
  Perhaps, however, the economy enthusiasts, having seen this morning's papers, may take a new line; at any rate, I hope they will. I [suppose they will go on having their meetings, but I would suggest that the economy enthusiasts who gather in their multitudes in the rooms upstairs should call a specially urgent meeting, and I would ask them, at that meeting, to send a deputation to the Cabinet to request, say, the Foreign Secretary to return to Geneva and go one better than President Hoover in his disarmament proposals. I suggest that the economists should, through such a deputation, request the Cabinet to ask the Foreign Secretary to state at Geneva that this country will be prepared to reduce its armaments by half if other countries will do the same, or, better still, to propose the abolition of armaments altogether except for police purposes. The economists in the ranks of the Government have here a splendid opportunity, but I do not think they are likely to act on those lines.
  I have listened to Debates on the Army, Navy and Air Estimates in this House, and I do not recollect one supporter of the Government ever getting up and suggesting the reduction of armaments. Indeed, most of the speeches to which I have listened on those occasions have asked for more, and not for less. One of the most telling of them was delivered by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet (Captain Balfour), and I do not think I shall ever forget it. He

  1327
  knows a lot about the Air Force, and I remember that he described to the House very graphically the killing power of the present bombing aeroplane. He told us that it could fly from its base in the thickest fog or in thick clouds, and, by the aid of instruments, could reach its objective, perhaps 100 miles inland, drop its bombs on its objective, and return to its base without being seen. When he had described to us in vivid phrases the killing power of the bombing aeroplane, he asked for more; he asked for greater efficiency—
  Mr. PIKE: He asked whether the Ministry were considering defence against such bombing.
  Mr. BROWN: That is always the argument used by the advocates of armaments; those who sponsor a policy of armaments always use the argument of defence as a justification for what they are asking. So far as my recollection goes, that is the attitude of hon. Members towards a field in which there is large scope for economy. If a proposal to halve armaments could be accepted, that would effect about £60,000,000 of economies straight away. I urge the economy enthusiasts in the ranks of the Government to get busy along those lines, instead of making further attempts to reduce the social services, instead of reversing the engines of progress, as appears to be their intention.
  There are many other things that one could say about the policy of the Government and its supporters, but there is just one other thing that I should like to say before I sit down. I remember that, when the last Government was in office, we were taunted day after day in regard to the question of unemployment. As the figures rose steadily, the taunts became more virulent than ever, and the criticism sharper. The reply of those who represented the Government of that day usually used to be that this increase in unemployment was largely a matter outside their control, that it was due to world causes, and then we used to be taunted. It now gives us some measure of satisfaction to sit on these benches and listen to the defence of the utter and complete failure of the National Government by exactly the same argument. We are told by every Minister who speaks on general policy that they are failing
  1328
  because of world causes, that world causes are responsible for the existing conditions—
  Mr. CAPORN: Will the hon. Member deny that the policy of the Government has brought work to the hosiery workers in his constituency?
  Mr. BROWN: I at once agree with the hon. Member that, as regards a certain section of specialised operatives in one branch of the industry, that is true, and I gladly give him credit for it. In my opinion—and I am entitled to express my opinion as well as the hon. Member—they have benefited temporarily by the policy which has been pursued. [Interruption.] One of my hon. Friends asks me what has happened to the miners in my constituency, and I think it is just that that question should be put to me. I am bound to say that the benefit to a tiny few in a particular industry by the action of the Government is far outweighed by the injury which has been done to a very large number of the mining population.
  Mr. CAPORN: Are the miners in the hon. Member's division affected by the export of coal? Is it not all for home consumption?
  Mr. BROWN: Yes, they are to some extent. I think that the hon. Member will find that a considerable quantity of coal from my Division goes to the East Coast ports, and particularly to the Humber. But that does not alter the essence of my argument. The hon. Member justifies his support of the Government because a tiny section of operatives in one industry have benefited, and, in reply, I say that a very large number of my constituents have suffered ill-effects because of the activities of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  There is one phrase that we hear repeatedly from some members of the Government and their supporters. I have often wondered what is meant precisely when a right hon. Gentleman like the right hon. Member for Billhead talks about the collapse of civilisation. We have heard that phrase more than once. I wonder what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind when he uses it. Does he mean the end of an economic system which confers unlimited benefits on the few and leaves the millions in distress? I would ask who it is that maintains the mighty fabric of civilisation that we are

  1329
  afraid may collapse in existing circumstances. I would remind the House that it is really maintained by the 14,000,000 or 15,000,000 people who will leave their homes to-morrow morning for work on the land, in the mines, in the factories and workshops of the country, on the railways, and in other forms of transport. There can be no doubt that those 14,000,000 or 15,000,000 people who are so employed day by day maintain the fabric of civilisation by their efforts. The whole policy pursued by this Government must fail unless they turn their energies to the task of directing the wealth which is produced into channels by which it will reach again in ever-increasing quantities those who produce it. No other policy can succeed in existing circumstances. I do not know how it will happen—I do not know whether it will be by internal dissension, or by the rising of a popular wave of indignation—but sooner or later this Government will go out of office, and I would not have it said of them, as it will be if their policy is not altered, that they were the Government in Great Britain which, more than any other, pursued a policy which ground the faces of the poor.
  Mr. STONES: I crave the indulgence of the House on the occasion of my maiden speech. Representing, as I do, one of Lancashire's industrially populated districts, where men and women are patiently awaiting the time when the mills and factories which have been idle or semi-idle for many years will again call for their labour on the production of goods for home and foreign consumption, I think I may claim to speak on a Motion such as that which is now before the House. I have been amazed at the audacity of the supporters of the Motion in complaining that the Government have failed to restore national prosperity, and, when I am asked to support this Censure Motion, I marvel at what would be called in Lancashire the cheek and impudence of it. I was elected to this House by a working-class population because, although the Socialist who was elected in 1929 promised the restoration of national prosperity in a very short time after the establishment of a Labour Government, the people of my Division of Farnworth realised that, after two and a-half years of Labour administration, instead of prosperity being restored, the
  1330
  country had been brought face to face with national bankruptcy.
  7.0 p.m.
  We have heard a great deal about poor working-class people, and they are the people from whom I sprang as a working man Conservative candidate. I know something about the lives of colliers and other working people. I happen to be the son of a collier, who lost his sight in the pit, and whom I had to lead about the roads for something like 19 years. Therefore, I remember something about the life of the collier and the homes from which these people spring. The poor working-class people in my constituency realise fully that the policy maintained by the efforts of the National Government has gone a long way to undo some of the mischief inflicted by the Labour Government. They appreciate the fact that, had not the National Government saved the country from insolvency, their sufferings would have been intensified, and the restoration of national prosperity would have faded into oblivion. They declined to re-elect the Labour representative because they realised that the Labour leaders in Parliament were incapable and incompetent to take boldly the necessary steps to balance the National Budget. They realised also that the importation of foreign-made cotton and other goods was sapping their life-blood. They knew well that the Labour representatives in this House were more inclined to serve the interests of the foreigner than to help the Lancashire cotton operatives. They demanded a change of fiscal policy, and to-day the people of my Division are grateful to the National Government for having introduced a tariff. They know that by the introduction of the tariff the National Government have taken a very positive step towards the restoration of national prosperity. The very fact of Britain adopting a tariff has recently led to the European nations calling for a reduction in general import duties. our Lancashire people know full well that such a pleasing attitude on the part of European nations would never have been adopted had we held to our antiquated Free Trade policy.
  We in Lancashire are hopefully concerned with the great possibilities offered to our staple industry through the holding of the Imperial Economic Conference at Ottawa. Lancashire will be repre-

  1331
  sented there, and I can assure this House that if Lancashire saw no prospects of good results accruing Lancashire would certainly not be represented at Ottawa. I wonder sometimes if the Opposition ever appreciate the fact that of all countries in the world Britain alone is to-day making strides towards the restoration of national prosperity. If they do, it is to be regretted that so much valuable time should be occupied in discussing a Motion such as that which is before the House. I believe that, given sufficient time, the present policy of the Government will bear good fruit. On the other hand, I would like to say that a growing reduction in taxation, with a programme of more stringent economy, would lead to a quicker return to prosperity. Our present high taxation is paralyzing the heavy industries, and heavy local rates are causing further industrial distress. We in Lancashire do not support the contention of the Opposition that the National Government have failed to deal with unemployment. There is more prospect of employment in Lancashire to-day than at any time during the two and a half years the country was governed by the Labour party.
  I know from experience, as a past chairman of an employment exchange—and, in passing, may I say I was discharged from that job by the late Minister of Labour, Miss Bondfield, for having the temerity to become a candidate for Parliamentary honours. I accepted that decision very graciously, and I am rather pleased than sorry that I did not have the opportunity of meeting her in this House. I know that employers of labour had completely given up all hope of ever having their mills running at full pressure, and the operatives had resigned themselves to their unhappy position. To-day, masters and men are confident that things are improving. Mills are gradually being re-started, and Lancashire knows that, in the main, this change in the industrial situation has been brought about by the helpful and effective measures introduced by the National Government since last October. May I make one passing remark with respect to the Secretary of State for the Dominions? Some few months ago, in a speech—I am not sure whether it was in his constituency or in London—he said that he was the only railwayman in this
  1332
  House. May I say to him that I am a retired railwayman, after 40 years' service? May it be some little comfort to the right hon. Gentleman to know that in future, when matters are brought before this House which have for their object the improvement of railwaymen's conditions, he will have in me a stalwart supporter to assist him.
  I shall vote against the Motion because I feel, as a working man, that the Opposition can offer no remedy that will overcome present national and international difficulties. Their policy, instead of upholding the principles of economy, would result in the piling up of more and more taxation, which must eventually mean the complete stagnation of British industry and an enormous increase in unemployment among Lancashire people. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for allowing me this opportunity of making my maiden speech. It is my third attempt to make it. It has been a painful operation. I have gone through all sorts of things to-night, and I am delighted to know it has come to an end.
  Mr. LAWSON: I am sure the House was interested to learn from the hon. Member that this had been a painful operation for him. No one would have guessed it if he had not said so. I am sure the House would like me to express our pleasure at having heard the hon. Member make that speech. It is not necessary to agree with a man to enjoy his speech. His was certainly made with that forthrightness we always expect from Lancashire, and with the certainty which is always listened to in this House. The Motion deals with the fact that the Government appeal for a free hand to restore national prosperity. I have been thinking since I have been sitting here to-day, and, while the Lord President of the Council was speaking, I was particularly impressed with the thought what a change has come over the Members of the Government and their supporters since they were elected in October! I remember shortly after the election that famous speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade in which he told us how the figures had gone up in one month. He told us that was proof that unemployment figures had gone down, proof of the moral and spiritual superiority of this Government's policy. I have been looking at the Members of the Government

  1333
  to-day and I say to my friends, "Just look at them!" I am more impressed every day with the comparison with what they were when they first began, and I am reminded of the words of the old hymn,
  " Some are sick, and some are sad,
  Some have lost the love they had."
  Whatever happens to the Censure Motion, we know how the Members of the Government are going. It is a fact that the Government themselves have lost faith in the possibility of carrying out their own policy. I believe that they really did think they could do something at the time of the election, but, stage by stage, that faith, that belief and that hope have waned. One can expect that of all Governments. One thing that is certain is that the Government asked for sacrifices from the unemployed, and the unemployed unfortunately gave them those sacrifices, and the result is that there is more unemployment to-day than there ever has been in the history of this country. There are 2,750,000 people unemployed, according to the last figures of the Ministry of Labour Gazette that I saw, and it was admitted that, owing to legislative changes, you have to add 181,000 to get a proper and accurate resemblance of unemployment figures. That leaves it about 50,000 short of 3,000,000. The highest figure there had ever been in the history of this country was 2,811,000, and now the figure is only 50,000 from 3,000,000. The Government have the championship in that respect.
  Mr. PIKE: But where did they start?
  Mr. LAWSON: I do not know where they started, but I do know that, in spite of all their professions and in spite of the tariffs of which they have boasted, the fact remains that the figures are higher now than they have ever been before. That would be a regrettable fact in itself, but it is a very poor return for the sacrifice that the unemployed made, and after which they sent this Government back to power. The figures really are worse than they appear on the surface, because, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, the unemployed are being pushed back on the Poor Law. I have read of meetings among Members of the House to consider the position of the distressed areas. I am going to be quite frank. I have not been invited to these meetings, and I would not go if
  1334
  I were invited. As far as Members who support this Government are concerned, it is sheer impudence on their part to be complaining about the position in the distressed areas. They support the means test; they support the policy of the Government which has pushed people back by the thousands on to the Poor Law.
  Mr. HOWARD: The Anomalies Act did worse.
  Mr. LAWSON: I would be glad to deal with the position so far as the Anomalies Act is concerned, and I know a good deal more about it than does the hon. Member. I have not the general figures for the Poor Law, but I know the figures in 47 selected areas, and comparing these for October and May, they show an increase of 121,000 since October. It is still worse when you take the selected areas. London's increase is from 280 to 316 per 10,000 of the population. That is in. what is said to be one of the best areas. If you take the 43 specially selected towns, there is not one that shows a decrease. Gateshead has gone up from 579 to 695. That is an increase of 116 per 10,000 since this Government came in. I am quoting the figures from the Ministry of Labour Gazette for October and May. Liverpool has gone up from 595 to 723, an increase of 128; Manchester has gone up 113; Newcastle-on-Tyne, 112; Norwich, 116; and Sheffield from 775 to 1,028, an increase of 254 per 10,000 since this Government came into office.
  Mr. PIKE: That is the result of Socialist legislation.
  Mr. LAWSON: I notice that, when there is any credit to be taken, it is tariffs that have improved, the situation and, when there is any discredit, it is due to the Labour Government. The weakness of the right hon. Gentleman's position is clear. You can get two or three dozen in the 43 selected areas which bear out the position that I am putting of an increase since this Government came into office. In South Shields the increase is from 317 to 366, and it has gone up by 70 per thousand in Sunderland. The Government is under no illusion as to the feeling in these areas. It does not need Members of this House to tell them. The Manchester Corporation saw the Minister of Health and appealed for

  1335
  relief from the heavy burden which recent legislation and alterations in practice have thrown upon the local rates. They told the Minister that the cost of relieving unemployment is estimated at £200,000, over £73,000 of which is due to recent legislation. That is an indication of what the position generally is in the country.
  In the depressed areas the position is really deplorable. I would like to ask what the Government are going to do about it? Do they think it can continue? It is no reply for Members to organise and ask for economy. The only economy they have made up to the present has resulted in increased unemployment—at any rate it has gone along with increased unemployment. The hon. Member who has just spoken has dealt with those who ask for economy. I notice that last night a certain Noble Bishop, who comes from the county in. which my constituency is situated, had something very scurrilous to say about the people there.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I fancy the hon. Member is referring to something that was said in another place.
  Mr. LAWSON: I carefully refrained from alluding to the other place. All I am going to say is that we will take the first opportunity of dealing with one who has been appointed Bishop of Durham, who has never been in touch with the people of Durham, and will never in any sense of the word be, as a cure of souls should be, the Bishop of the people of that county. The Lord President of the Council kept off what he called the human side. He dealt with the financial and the business side. I have here a document which is the result of investigations in a particular area in London. I wish I had time to tell the full story of it. It deals with the cases of 3,901 applicants under the means test. There are on the average five per family, so that it covers 20,000 people, and there has been a reduction of 3s. 4d. per family. They are left with an average income of 53s. 8d. per family and the average rent is 9s. The person who made this investigation tells me that they are sometimes in one room and sometimes in three, but there is an average of two rooms. They are sometimes in a basement. They are gloomy and they are not by any means the kind of place in which
  1336
  you can bring up a healthy population. The State has cut them down by 3s. 4d. a week, leaving them 1s. 3d. a day per head to live on. Those are the people that the Government asked to make sacrifices, and they have been rewarded by being left in a position such as this.
  Mr. PIKE: Do you mean a reduction of 3s. 4d. per head, making a total reduction of over 16s.?
  Mr. LAWSON: I may not have made the position clear. They were reduced 3s. 4d. a week on the family. There were 4,000 cases investigated—20,000 people— and that was the net result. The Government make a saving of £671. Even that 3s. 4d. a week is life and death to a family like that. It makes all the difference in the world. Of single applicants there were over 5,000. Their brothers, sisters and fathers had to keep them. There was a reduction of 4s. 6d. a week in those cases. Of married people without adult children there were 1,842. They covered nearly 8,000 people. Where the wife works her income was taken into consideration. They had £821 taken off them. The rent was 7s. 1d. for two rooms, and there was 32s. 1d. on the average left for those families.
  Mr. J. JONES; Two rooms for 7s. 1d.? Where?
  Mr. LAWSON: All I can say is that it is somewhere in London. There were 11,000 cases investigated, there were 55,000 people covered by the investigation, there was an average of 4.6 in the families, and there was an average reduction of 5s. 10d. They have had nearly £3,000 taken off them in the bulk and there is an average of 45s. a week left after the reduction. I had one case put to me in which a daughter was working and earning about 18s. a week. The adult scale was 15s., and the result was that her father lost 3s. a week because the daughter happened to be working. A position like that is a disgrace to any Government.
  7.30 p.m.
  There is another point with which I want to deal. The Government claim that tariffs have improved this and that industry. I noticed the Lord President of the Council was rather chary about dealing with the mining industry. He took the line that there was no retaliation as far as coal was concerned. I have never

  1337
  been able to understand the mind of the Government on that question. One thing they do not deny is that there has been discrimination against Great Britain in the application of the German quotas. Why have the Germans discriminated against us? Because we have stopped their goods from coming in here. It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. The fact remains that whatever the Government may say, they know that in fact this discrimination amounts to retaliation. I am glad to know that even the coal-owners have felt this thing so hardly that now they have made a protest to the Government. I should like to know the result of the meeting with the coal-owners of the North Eastern ports.
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): The meeting yesterday?
  Mr. LAWSON: All we were told was that it was a meeting held some time this week. The coalowners are now feeling the draught so badly that they are making their protest against the effect of these restrictions. Have we to wait until the Government go to Ottawa and negotiations have taken place before any business is done with the Germans? We want to do business. They are discriminating against us because they want-certain goods either to come into this country free or special consideration for them. They made certain proposals to the Government. The hon. Gentleman opposite, when asked about the matter, said that he could not reveal the nature of the proposals, but it is as clear as daylight that the restrictions upon British coal going into Germany are reprisals against our policy.
  The House is entitled to know what is to be the position as far as the industry and the restrictions are concerned. It will be of interest to the House to show the extent to which these restrictions have hit the coal trade. The figures of coal exported from the whole of the areas for October, 1931, were 3,950,972 tons, and the figures for May were 3,300,000 tons, which is a reduction, since the Government came into power, of roughly 700,000 tons. It may be said that the figures for October were peak figures, but it would not be true. If it is said that it is a result of coming off the Gold Standard, the Government can also take
  1338
  credit to themselves for interfering with the results of falling off the Gold Standard by putting tariffs into operation. At any rate, October was the month during which the Government fought the Election and certain mining constituencies supported the Government. But this is not anything like the whole of the story. If one takes the areas particularly interested in the export of coal to Germany it is not a case of men being made idle for a day or two, or of a single colliery being closed. Every week-end when I go home to Durham I am told of three or four collieries having to close almost exclusively as a result of this policy.
  The Government have caused scores of thousands of men to become idle and many collieries to close. We are entitled to know exactly what the Government intend to do in reference to those areas which have had large numbers of people thrown out of work, and which are really in an impossible position. What are they going to do about this export business? It is no good trying to fob us off day after day and week after week with some academic answer. Sooner or later there will be an explosion in this House. I guarantee that there will be one if the Government do not give an explicit answer in regard to this question. The coal exporting areas are not going to suffer in silence in order to suit an agricultural policy, to suit a farmer's policy or a landlord's policy. Through all these years pits in these exporting areas have been working. There is a pit in the constituency of the hon. Gentleman opposite. West Stanley hardly ever lost a day, and I can name colliery after colliery where no work was lost whatever, and yet immediately the Government put tariffs into operation and the German reply comes by way of a discrimination against our coal, our collieries are closed by the bunch.
  Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: Can the hon. Member give the figures of unemployment among miners on the occasion of the last return as compared with August of last year?
  Mr. LAWSON: The right hon. Gentleman has asked a question on the spur of the moment, but my hon. Friend beside me says that the figures are at least 50,000 up as compared with the figures in August of last year. I did not really

  1339
  think that it was worth while troubling the House with any figures at all, because the position is becoming common knowledge. I ask the Government for an explicit answer. We cannot go on like this. If we have to wait until some decision is taken at Ottawa and the rot continues in the industry, I do not know what will happen. Areas which are being depressed will become devastated.
  I should have liked to have devoted more time to the constructive side of the position. One of the most wicked pieces of work I have ever known was that of the Government when they took £80,000 away from the unemployed in respect of the provision of allotments. It was not only wicked, but stupid. If any hon. Members supporting the Government have an intimate connection with men who work allotments, know of their love of the soil, of their passion for doing something useful, and of the love of the beautiful, even among the roughest and crudest of the workers, they must agree that to take that small amount away was almost a crime. I ask the Government to reconsider the position in order that if men have to remain unemployed they may be encouraged to do this useful work which keeps the manhood strong and virile and helps to make a man feel that he has a place in life. I agree with my hon. Friends that sooner or later some Government will have to make a better plan for this country.
  I hear Members speaking on all sides about the effect of finance, and saying, "If only we could get a new currency, or a better form of currency, or a reduction of the Services!" All these are very useful, but the keypoint is that to-day we can produce more than people can have. What is needed is that people can have what can be produced. That is the problem which has to be solved. The reduction of the hours of work, increased leisure, and organised industry are not so vague or impossible as people imagine. The coal miners had a seven hours convention. The Government destroyed the seven hours convention. The British Government have destroyed the seven and a-quarter hours convention. I wish that the hon. Gentleman the Minister for Mines had been here. I should have challenged him to produce information concerning the discussions which took place in January. Other Govern-
  1340
  ments followed Great Britain's lead. That is all that happened, so that with regard to the 48 hours convention there is no policy. All that they advocate is economy. Although the House will not give us a majority in favour of our Motion, and although the Government may last another four months or four years, one thing is certain, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. C. Brown) said, that this is the last Government of its kind. If a Socialist Government comes into power and does not carry out a mandate for the drastic reorganisation of society, it will perhaps be the last of any Government.
  Mr. MITCHESON: During the past few months I have made many maiden speeches, on the way to the House, on the way from the House, in the corridors, on the Terrace, but this is the first occasion, thanks to you,, Mr. Speaker, upon which I have been able to have an audience. If this Vote of Censure were a serious matter and anything more than audacity, if it were in any sense a menace to the Government, I should have withdrawn and made way for more able and experienced speakers, but, in view of the fact that the Government are creating satisfaction not only throughout this country but throughout the world, I think that I might safely continue especially as my constituents may be wondering whether I have been returned to the House of Commons or to the Secret Service. If unemployment could have been settled by promises and declarations, it would have been settled within a month, nay, according to one member of the late Socialist Government, within three weeks of the return of that Government to office in 1929.
  The Labour party stated in their election address that they could settle the unemployment problem within three weeks when they got to office. They got to office and discovered that great and serious problems were not solved by platform orations. They could not get "the rabbit out of the hat." It took them nearly three years to realise that there was not a rabbit in the hat. In view of the enormous increase in the unemployment figures during the regime of the Socialist Government this cannot be called a question of the "kettle calling the pot black," because the pot is proving a very good pot, a very serviceable pot,

  1341
  and a pot which is doing its job. What about the poor little kettle? The kettle has corroded and leaked, leaked and corroded until there is very little left but the spout. In fact, there is much more leak than kettle.
  It is a happy coincidence that in one's madden speech one can honestly and sincerely congratulate one's Government on its success. I am proud of our Government. I am also glad of the Opposition. I wish it were more numerous, because it is only by listening to the speeches of Members of the Opposition that one can realise what a very fine Government we have got and how fortunate the country has been in its choice. This Censure Motion might reasonably be resented by any Government, but I am sure that the Government will not, nor will any Member of it, resent constructive criticism, which I wish to offer. In my opinion very great improvement could be made in the employment figures in the shipping and shipbuilding industries and other industries relating to them. It is necessary, however, that before the cure of a patient can be effected one must got down to the cause and the circumstances of the illness and the condition in which the patient then is. I think I can prove that the Board of Trade returns concerning shipping are absolutely inaccurate and misleading. The returns make it impossible for any one to gather the true and relative position between British and foreign shipping entering into and leaving our ports, or to appreciate the true extent of the suffering of these industries from foreign competition.
  None other has suffered so much through the wiles and methods of foreign competition as has our shipping industry. To-day, we have over 42,000 unemployed seamen, we have over 800 idle ships around our coast., and we have practically every one of our shipyards empty. It is not that the shipowners are unable or unwilling to do their job, it is not a case of any inefficiency or lack of desire on the part of our seamen; it is not that the trade and every branch of the trade has not made every effort in its power to overcome the difficulties of the position, but it is because, apart from the world diminution of trade, foreign ships have free access to our coastal trade and are competing for our export trade under
  1342
  most unfair conditions, whilst we have not got similar rights around their coasts. There are successfully competing for our carrying trade to-day ships subsidised by their Governments whose coastal trade is protected and preserved to them, and ships in which the food, wages, hours and other working conditions are such as would not be, and rightly would not be, tolerated under the British flag. These ships are successfully competing and stealing our trade owing to the cheaper if less satisfactory working conditions and subsidies.
  Take the Italians. Whoever thought of Italy as a mercantile power, yet to-day Italy is one of our greatest competitors, because she subsidises her fleet to the extent of £4,000,000 per annum. That is equal to something like £1 per ton of the idle shipping we have around our coasts. That 4,000,000 tons of idle shipping we have represents something like one ton for every 10 of the population of this country. Take the Greeks. "When Greek meets Greek" they get married, they go on to a Greek ship which becomes their home, have a lot of children and the wives and families run the ship under conditions that we could not allow. When they have enough children to let out a few, they go along and take another ship. And we allow thorn to come to our ports! They are able to work under costs and conditions that enable them to compete with us, to cut our rates to ribbons and to steal our trade from us.
  I will give another typical instance of recent date. There was a British ship that had a contract to load at Blythe and discharge at Poole. The price had been cut and cut and at last the contract was for 4s. 3d. per ton. A German ship came along, quoted 4s. per ton, a price which would have meant n heavy dead loss to the British shipping company. The result is that the Gorman ship got the contract and now we have that German ship, flying the German flag, manned by German seamen, taking the bread out of the mouths of British seamen. They are doing that on the coastal trade from Blythe to Poole, from English port to English port, in the place of a British ship and British seamen. May I quote another instance that was handed to me to-day of a British steamer of 9,000 tons deadweight and having a crew of 36. It

  1343
  was recently sold to the Italians. On leaving it was found that the new owners were satisfied with a crew of 20 as against 36. That means that the new owner is running the ship at one-half the wages and one-half the victualling cost under the British flag.
  Is it surprising that in such circumstances British owners lose heart? The head of one of our principal shipping companies says:
  " We have an invasion of foreign tonnage on our coasts carrying British commerce between British ports without let or hindrance. These vessels are mostly Dutch motor ships, poorly manned and with crews' wages on a basis which would not be tolerated for one moment by our National Maritime Board. They allow extraordinary terms to the merchants, and in some cases the crews will even discharge their cargoes as part of their charter agreement. No British steamer can compete with the methods of these foreign vessels, and to-day, while these ships are trading here, the Bight can be seen of British steamers laid up and their crews on the dole."
  Practically every country in the world, with the exception of Great Britain, has flag discrimination around its own coast, in addition to subsidies or other methods which protect its own shipping industry while enabling carrying contracts to be secured by them against our ships. Is it surprising to hear, as I elicited by a question to the President of the Board of Trade on 12th May last, that even the Board of Trade statistics relating to British and foreign ships engaged in our imports and exports fail to serve any practical purpose and are, in fact, definitely and entirely misleading? In reply to my question I was informed that the figures published by the Department showing the amount of tonnage cleared by British and foreign vessels respectively are based on "nett tonnage." For the benefit of those hon. Members who are not conversant with shipping terms I may say that nett tonnage measurement has no relation whatever to the amount of cargo earned by a vessel but is merely a basis adopted for the calculation of port dues, taxes, etc., just as in the case of a motor car the horse power is used as a taxation basis. If one were asked how much goods could be conveyed in a motor car the answer would not be 20 horse power, but that is practically the answer which the Board of Trade figures give to an inquiry as to
  1344
  the amount of British and foreign tonnage engaged in our shipping.
  8.0 p.m.
  As an instance, let me take the British passenger liner "Mauretania." The "Mauretania" has 12,542 nett tonnage, but its cargo-carrying capacity, its deadweight, is only 2,600 tons. Therefore, every time the "Mauretania" comes into our ports it is given credit for 12,542 tons when actually its cargo-carrying capacity is only 2,500 tons. Take the "Dartford," a tramp steamer of 2,443 tons nett tonnage, with a dead-weight tonnage, a cargo-carrying capacity, of no less than 6,089 tons. The misrepresentation is as follows: If you take five foreign cargo steamers of a nett tonnage of 2,500 each and a cargo-carrying capacity of 6,000 tons each, those five foreign cargo ships of 2,500 tons each, making 12,500 tons nett tonnage, will bring into this country over 30,000 tons of cargo. The "Mauretania" will be recorded as 12,500 tons of shipping, though bringing in actually only 2,500 tons of cargo, whereas the five foreign cargo boats will be registered at the same amount of tonnage but will be bringing actually 27,500 tons more cargo. If you reckon the "Mauretania" as coming into this country say 20 times a year, you will visualise that there is an enormous misrepresentation of the figures of actual cargo-carrying capacity between foreign and British ships concerned with the carrying of goods to and from this country. If you reckon that this applies to every other liner, every cross-Channel steamer, and every other passenger steamer, you will realise that we must be misled enormously as to the relative condition of British and foreign tonnage.
  I reckon that every British liner has an over-estimation of cargo-carrying tonnage of something between 400 and 500 per cent., and for every foreign tramp steamer engaged in carrying goods to this country there is an under-estimation of cargo-carrying capacity by over 50 per cent., so that we are hundreds per cent. out in the over-estimation of our own tonnage and considerably over 50 per cent. out in the under-estimation of foreign tonnage. We must also remember that foreigners own the majority of cargo-carrying steamers. It might be said that the discrepancy might be balanced by reckoning in the same way

  1345
  in the case of foreign passenger ships calling in this country, but these foreign passenger liners do not come into port; they anchor outside the port, and so they cannot be brought into our consideration.
  I therefore state that there is no clear, helpful or accurate record obtainable of the relative position from time to time, though it is vital to our interests that this should be made known from day to day and from week to week. We have no knowledge of the relative values of British and foreign dead-weight tonnages respectively entering the ports of this country. The position to my mind is serious. If we had a true statement of the figures, we should find that to-day we are living in a fool's paradise in respect of our shipping industry. We must have, and I hope the Board of Trade will give us from now onwards, the deadweight tonnage of our British and foreign shipping in place of the nett tonnage figures which we are now getting.
  Another instance of the lack of precision in the statistical department dealing with shipping was a statement made in a speech on 3rd May last by a responsible member of the Government, obviously on figures supplied to him by the Department, when he stated that the shipping for the period of three months ended April was an improvement on the shipping for the three months ended January, and his reason for that statement was the fact that there were 44 fewer ships lying idle in the second than there were in the first period. But if they had gone a little further, if they had sought to get at the actual facts of the case, they would have found that of those 44 ships 12 had been scrapped and 32 of them had been sold at knock-out prices to foreigners, who could run them under their flag, and under their conditions, profitably and more cheaply than we could do under our flag, and they were therefore enabled to make the condition of our shipping still more difficult, and the possibility of an order for a ship being placed in our shipyards still more remote. We all remember the Biblical instruction—
  "If lie smite thee on the one check, turn to him the other,"
  but I think that alludes only to the first round, and that there are no instructions for the second and further rounds of the contest. I think we have had too much of the "Pardon me" and "After you"
  1346
  with the foreigner. I want us to say "After me" until we have got all the work we require for the full and adequately-paid employment of our own people. I should like to see flag discrimination around our coasts for the protection of our own coastal shipping, as is adopted, as I have said, by almost every other country in the world. I suggest an additional tax on all goods imported in foreign bottoms, or a rebate on all goods carrying a tax when shipped in British bottoms; but first and foremost I appeal to the Minister to give his urgent attention to the statistical department of the Board of Trade dealing with shipping. Do let us have the truth of the position. Let us know the actual position regarding the relative number of our and foreign ships. I want to see how far our shipping has fallen irrespective of the world diminution in trade. I want to see, regarding the balance of that trade, how far our own shipping has fallen, and how greatly foreign shipping has increased.
  May I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. Members for the very kind indulgence which has been extended to this maiden speech? I am very thankful that I shall never have to make another maiden speech in this House.
  Mr. GEOFFREY PETO: I am sure I am expressing the views of the whole House in conveying to my hon. Friend the Member for South-West St. Pancras (Mr. Mitcheson) our hearty congratulations on his most excellent maiden speech. His great and close knowledge of shipping has enabled him to make a speech which, I am sure, has interested us all very much, and on future occasions when he takes part in our Debates I am sure that he will always have the attention of the House.
  Now may I say a word about the closely-reasoned speech which we heard from the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson)? We on this side of the House, and hon. Members throughout the House, all realise the gravity of the unemployment problem, and we all know the very distressful condition of the unemployed to-day, but where we differ from the hon. Member is as to the cause and the cure. He seemed to think that unemployment was due to our economy, but surely when the Labour party were

  1347
  in office and their extravagant schemes, or most of them, were in operation, unemployment increased by one and a-half millions. We are told to-day that they object to our saying that this Vote of Censure is premature because tariffs have not yet had a chance of taking effect, or inopportune because some of our chief Ministers are at the moment engaged in very delicate negotiations abroad. I will give them another reason, which I feel strongly, against this Vote of Censure today: it is rash. Will right hon. and hon. Members opposite consider what would happen supposing this Motion were to be carried, and supposing the Government were defeated? There would be nobody more dismayed than they would be if they were called upon to take office today. They know that perfectly well. The risk is small; I dare say they do not think that it is worth insuring against; but they know perfectly well that no power would induce them to take office under the distressful conditions of to-day.
  I did not rise to enter into party wrangles; what I did rise to do was to make just one point about a section of the unemployed who I do think are harshly treated in present circumstances, and whom I think we should materially help; and I know that under our present very sympathetic Minister of Labour everything possible will be done to help them. A few months ago an unemployed man in my constituency came to see me and told me his story. It was this: He had, some years ago, got a hand badly damaged in an accident at the works. He received lump sum compensation for the accident, coupled with an assurance from his employer that he would be continued in employment. He was continued in light work, such as suited his incapacity, until last autumn, when, in the disastrous state of trade the business failed and was liquidated, and this man was thrown out of work. He said to me, "What chance have I got of getting a job to-day with a maimed right hand and absolutely untrained in the use of the other?" This is a question in which I have been interested for some time, and I promised him that at the first favourable opportunity I would raise it in this House.
  I do not propose, in the short time during which I want to occupy the House,
  1348
  to deal with the question of compulsory insurance. It is a very big question, full of great difficulties. Some day it must be tackled, but at any rate I have no time to discuss it to-day. The point I do want to make is that we in this country are very much behind the rest of the civilised world in the training of those who are maimed or crippled through accident, no matter whether the accident has been industrial, a street accident or whatever it may be. In the year 1930 there were 439,000 disablement cases under the Workmen's Compensation Act. In addition to those we are told that 182,000 people a year are injured in street accidents. I am not dealing with deaths in either case. That makes over 600,000 potential cripples produced in this country per year. We do practically nothing to train those cripples or those maimed people to make the best use of their remaining limbs and to earn up to their full maximum earning capacity. If any one of us lost a hand we should have to teach ourselves, very laboriously, to dress and feed and write, and do everything else with the other hand, or we could go abroad to the United States, to Germany, Belgium, Switzerland or Italy, where there are excellent training centres, where we could learn quickly how to use the left hand by the latest and most scientific appliances.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I have a little difficulty in connecting the hon. Member's speech with the Motion before the House. The matter he is discussing is a question more suitable for the Ministry of Labour Vote.
  Mr. PETO: I thought that under the Vote of Censure we could deal with the treatment of the unemployed; and I am stating what to my mind is a very distressing feature at the present moment, and one which could be easily remedied.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is really dealing with a matter of administration. A general discussion of the question of unemployment and the conditions of unemployment is in order, but the hon. Member is now raising a matter of administration which is a very long way from the Motion before the House.
  Mr. PETO: I want to point out that by a slight alteration in our present arrangements we could make unemployables into

  1349
  employables, and I suggest that it is worth consideration in an unemployment Debate. We do not want to hurl party recriminations backwards and forwards, but to do something constructive. The Holman Gregory report made some recommendations, but nothing has been done. The first objection to the training of maimed and crippled workmen is that of expense. Under the Workmen's Insurance Act, £5,000,000 was paid in compensation in 1930, and of this £3,500,000 was paid in weekly allowances and £1,500,000 in lump sums, and in addition large sums were paid by motor insurance companies and other accident insurance companies.
  I suggest that the Government might, by organisation or by legislation, divert some of these large sums to the training of persons who have been maimed, and make them fit to take their place in life again. The Government might form a small committee of the trade unions, employers and the insurance companies, with the Ministry representatives to investigate this matter, which in my view is a very serious question. I agree that if we want to stop the increase in unemployment we must stop all unnecessary expenditure, because the greater the burden on industry the less likely is industry to revive, but I suggest that this proposal will not cost a lot of money. The moment it receives the support of the Government and those interested I am certain that philanthropic societies and the public generally would come along and provide the necessary capital to start training centres, even during the present difficult times.
  Can we secure the support of the trade unions, the insurance companies and the employers? The employers and the insurance companies want to settle claims for the smallest possible lump sum, the trade unions want to secure the largest lump sum for their members, but the responsibility of everyone ceases when the money is handed over. No one is responsible for seeing that the money is not wasted and the man thrown into the ranks of the permanent unemployed, and thus on to the rates and taxes. That is not only unfair, but it is very extravagant, and, as to the victims themselves, everybody knows that they would welcome a restoration to full earning capacity instead of being compelled to take other jobs for
  1350
  which they are fitted. It reminds me of the story of the old lady who was knocked down in the street. When she came round a man stepped out from the crowd and handed her his card and asked to be allowed to give his professional services to secure substantial damages for her. The old lady turned round and said, "Damages! Why, man, I have had all the damages I want. What I want now is repairs." That is the feeling of vast numbers of people who have been injured in industry. They do not want a lump sum or a miserable pittance of so much per week; what they want is to be restored to their full earning capacity.
  As to the employability of these men, that is another aspect of the question. People often ask: how is it possible, with the vast number of our unemployed, to get employment for the maimed and crippled man? As a matter of fact, a maimed person has at least as much right to a fair chance as anyone else, and experience has shown that he generally shows greater skill and devotion to work within his capacity than an able-bodied citizen. The Ford Motor Company, in the United States before the crash came, employed 9,000 cripples on its pay-roll, not from any charitable motive but on an economic basis. The Western Electric Company, a large firm of the United States, found that there were 5.6 per cent. fewer accidents among handicapped workers, 7 per cent. less absence due to illness and 7.4 per cent. fewer discharges among handicapped workers owing to unsuitability of work. Physically-handicapped applicants were, therefore, given the preference on economic grounds, and it stands to reason that a physically-handicapped man realises that he has not the wide choice of employment of the ordinary citizen and, unfortunately, cannot take part in those recreations which we all enjoy. I submit that it is quite a small matter as far as cost is concerned, and it is a matter which if taken up will remove the grave reproach on this country that we do nothing to train the physically maimed, whereas nearly every other civilised nation does a great deal.
  Mr. GEORGE HALL: The hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. G. Peto) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his very interesting references to the cases with which he dealt. I can only say

  1351
  that I am rather surprised, since that he wants redress in cases such as he mentioned, that he is not sitting on this side of the House. I can assure him that we are quite sincere in moving this Motion of Censure against the Government, and we have no objection to any risk of this party being called upon to take the reins of Government in this country. If we did so we can assure the hon. Member that we would not make such a mess of it as the present Government are making. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, the Government at the last election appealed for a free hand. They got their free hand in a very large majority. No Government in the last 100 years has had such a majority. Since 1832 there has been only one Government in this country with a majority at all approaching that of the present Government. I assure the hon. Member that if this party were entrusted with the government of the country and with control and power such as this Government enjoy, we would certainly put into operation the policy and the programme which we think will right the economic and industrial life of this country.
  The present Government have not only political power. They have not only power in this House; there is another House at the other end of the corridor always ready to support them, while 95 per cent. of the financial and industrial interests of the country and, I should say, about 98 per cent. of the Press of the country, are behind them. Yet we find 10 months after this Government have taken office that the country is infinitely worse than it was when they took over control. The Lord President of the Council frankly admitted that he had no idea that the conditions brought about by the world economic blizzard were quite as bad as he found them to be when he went inside and discovered the effects upon the industry of the country. He will now probably appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) said a few weeks ago regarding the suggestion that the-Labour Government had been responsible for the crisis. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping was definitely of opinion that the crisis was not only exaggerated but manipulated and I think that statement explains the position
  1352
  better than any hon. Member on this side could explain it. I was interested in the statement of the Lord President of the Council that the difficulty as regards industry at present is that there is too much grit in it which prevents it running smoothly. The grit to which he referred is represented by those barriers raised in different countries against the interchange of world trade, but I have never known of any engineer, who discovered a small portion of grit in machinery, adding more grit to the machine with the object of getting it to run smoothly. That is certainly a peculiar doctrine. I wish there was a little more grit, but of a different kind, in this Government.
  8.30 p.m.
  I propose to examine briefly the present condition of trade and industry in the country. Reference has already been made to the speech delivered by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade six or seven months ago when he said in effect that industries were jumping over each other in their desire to become established in this country. We do not minimise nor have we ever attempted to minimise the value of getting new industries into this country, but we say that many more men have been thrown out of employment a3 a result of the Government's tariff policy than have been put into employment by the establishment of new industries. The last reply which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade gave in the House on the subject showed that something like 120 new industries had been established here, and were employing between 3,000 and 4,000 persons. I shall, I trust, be able to give the hon. Gentleman such information as will prove to him that a much greater number of workpeople have been thrown out of employment, especially in the coal industry as a result of the Government's policy.
  The iron and steel industry enjoys the advantage of a tariff but we find that in May of this year the production of pig-iron, steel ingots and castings is down considerably, compared with the figures of May of last year when there was no tariff. The number of blast furnaces in blast at the end of May was 69 compared with 89 at the end of May, 1931. In the same industry the percentage of insured persons unemployed on 23rd May this year was 51 compared with 47.6 per cent, on 25th April of this year and 44

  1353
  per cent. at the corresponding period of last year. In the tinplate industry employment has shown a decline and we are informed that trade has been very bad. There is little change with regard to steel sheet manufacture. Engineering, shipbuilding and metal industries show a decline. In the cotton trade, compared with six weeks ago there is a decline and in the spinning section it is very bad. The wool textile industry also shows a decline. Employment in the hosiery industry shows a further decline and trade is slack on the whole in the lace and artificial silk industries. The leather trades also record a decline and, as regards pottery and glass, I am informed that employment in North Staffordshire is still bad on the whole. Apart from these declines, employment has also considerably decreased among dock labourers and seamen.
  I wish, however, to deal chiefly with the coal industry, and I put it to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade that there has been a serious decline in the number employed in the production of coal in this country. At no time within the last 50 years has there been so few men employed in the coal industry as at the present time. The right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) asked my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) as to the reduction in the number of men employed in the mining industry as compared with October of last year. I have not that figure, but I have the figure showing the reduction in the number of men employed in the coal industry as compared with this time last year, and there is a reduction of 39,000—from 852,000 to 813,000—and that reduction is very largely in the exporting areas. There is a marked decline in the export of coal from this country for the first five months of this year, a reduction of well over 1,000,000 tons, as compared with the first five months of last year, and of 8,100,000 tons as compared with the same period of 1930.
  These reductions are taking place very largely in the countries which are our best customers, and those are the European countries. The right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council was almost indignant when it was suggested that the restrictions which have been placed on the export of coal from this country into
  1354
  European countries was due to retaliation. I will ask the hon. Member to put it to the Minister of Labour, who is to reply, as to how many European countries had any restrictions imposed against the importation of coal from this country until the National Government took office and declared that it was their intention to apply a policy of tariffs. France was the only one. Germany had no restrictions imposed against this country before the National Government took office, and the restriction by France was not nearly as great as that which is now in existence.
  The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the fact that, very largely as the result of negotiations which the Government had had with the French Government, the French withdrew their Surtax of 15 per cent. They did, but what did they do almost immediately the Surtax was withdrawn? They reduced the quota, and it was not a Surtax which affected the import of coal into France from this country, because going off the Gold Standard really gave us an advantage of nearly 30 per cent. in the prices of coal which we exported from this country into France, and notwithstanding a Surtax of 15 per cent., the price of coal sent from this country to France could compete with coal sent from any other European country into France. Therefore, the Government must not take much credit that they succeeded in abolishing the Surtax, because it was a question, as I say, of reducing the quota.
  One can also deal with the question of Germany, although I do not want to deal too fully with that, because my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street, who comes from the North-East Coast, a district which is more affected than any other as a result of action by Germany and Belgium, has dealt with that fully, and I trust that there will be a reply from the Minister of Labour. I want to deal with the question of Italy, one of the best coal customers which this country has, and I am sure my hon. Friend has in mind the agreement which was entered into between this country and Italy at The Hague, at the end of 1929, when Italy agreed to take from this country 1,000,000 tons of coal for three years for use upon the Italian State railways. The Secretary for Mines last week, in reply to a question, stated that Italy had taken from this country just 2,000,000 tons of coal, which coal was

  1355
  a part of the 2,000,000 tons which should have been supplied during the first two years, but as far as the third 1,000,000 tons was concerned, whilst he did not say so, we are of the opinion that it is not the intention of Italy at present to place orders in this country for the supply of that coal.
  Last Friday this House was indignant at what was called the breaking of an agreement between this country and Ireland. I wish the House and the present Government would be as interested in the breaking of this agreement for the supply of a further 1,000,000 tons of coal to Italy. The Secretary for Mines said that diplomatic representations were being made to the Government of Italy, and I would like to ask the Minister of Labour if he could tell us whether there are any results of those representations. This is a definite case of retaliation. On Friday of last week, travelling from London to my home in South Wales, I met the representative of one of the largest coal exporting companies in this country, who told me that he had then returned from Genoa. He is not a member of the Labour party—if anything, he was a supporter of the present Government—and he assured me that, as far as he could see from all the discussions which he had; had with the representatives of coal purchasers and those responsible for taking coal from this country, they were definitely of the opinion that the refusal to carry out the Hague agreement for the supply of coal was political, and it is done because of the imposition of tariffs by this country upon goods which would be supplied by Italy.
  Not only are we concerned about the question of the restrictions which are already in operation, but some of us are very alarmed as to the turn which things are taking at the Lausanne Conference. It is reported in several papers to-day that there is a possibility that there will be a moratorium put into operation for the next three years, but that it is not going to apply to reparations in kind, and that France, Italy, and Belgium will be prepared to consider the question of taking a certain amount of reparations in kind. The coalfields of this country have never forgiven the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) for what took place in the Versailles Treaty,
  1356
  and we had a good deal of difficulty with our own people in the coalfields regarding the action of the present Prime Minister in 1924. If the representatives of the British Government are going to agree to a continuation of reparations in kind, which will mean the loss of markets for millions of tons of coal from this country, then they can be assured that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street rightly said, mining Members will have to be very much more persistent in their claims upon this Government than perhaps they have been in the past.
  We would that the Government could send to their representatives at Lausanne and inform them what reparations in kind will mean to the industrial areas of this country. Those of us who come from South Wales are also a little concerned as to the policy of the Government at the Ottawa Conference in its relation to the coal industry. I have endeavoured to ascertain in the House and by meeting the Dominions Secretary whether the Government have any policy to deal with coal. I understand that there is to be no direct representative of the coal industry, important as the export coal trade is to this country, in attendance with the delegation at Ottawa. I would put this to the Dominions Secretary. It is no use his going to Ottawa and talking about increasing the export of anthracite coal from this country to Canada. We have a very valuable market in anthracite coal with Canada, and if all the other branches of the coal industry were in the position of anthracite coal, there would be very little to complain about, because it is the one part of the coal industry where production has increased beyond what it was in 1913. The falling off has been in the bituminous areas. I warn the Government that it is not a question of selling anthracite coal to Canada. We have a market for almost all the anthracite coal we can sell from this country. What we really want to sell is the soft bituminous coal.
  Let us see how far we are interested in the Ottawa Conference. There may be arrangements with regard to a quota for wheat, a quota for meat and a quota for butter from Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Australia has not taken a single ton of coal from this country during the first five months of this year. She has all the coal she requires within her own borders. New Zealand has not

  1357
  taken a single ton from this country during the first five months of this year. She, also, has all the coal she requires in her own borders. South Africa is in the same position. During the first five months of this year Canada has taken 388,000 tons of coal from this country and British India 6,000 tons; while Denmark has been a much more valuable market for coal from this country than the whole of the British Dominions put together, with the exception of the Irish Free State. Germany has taken 1,120,000 tons, France 3,723,000 tons, the Argentine nearly 800,000 tons, and Italy over 2,000,000 tons. Those of us who come from the coal export areas are concerned lest the Government, in their desire to appease the agricultural Members of this House, will forget that there are other industries which are as important to the well-being of the nation as agriculture, important as agriculture is. If the coal industry is to be further impeded there will be an addition to the number of persons who are unemployed.
  The Lord President of the Council told us that 2,750,000 persons were unemployed. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street said that he could add another 180,000 or 190,000, making almost 3,000,000. But that is not the whole story. I put a question to the Minister of Labour to-day asking him if he could tell me the number of persons who had been refused unemployment benefit since 1st November last year. I was very surprised at the figure which he gave me. He said that the claims disallowed by courts of referees from 13th October last year to 31st May this year numbered 475,489. The number of determinations given by public assistance committees where the needs of the applicants did not justify payments being made, was no less than 513,770, so that the total number of persons who have had their unemployed benefit stopped from November last year until the latest available figures is nearly 1,000,000.
  Mr. SLATER: Oh, no!
  Mr. HALL: I am giving the figures which I received in reply to a question by the Minister of Labour only to-day, and if the hon. Member will look at the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow morning, he will find that the figures which I have given are accurate. In addition to the number of persons who have been de-
  1358
  prived of their unemployment benefit, there has been this large increase in the number of persons who are receiving Poor Law relief. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street dealt with that aspect of the question. Take my own county of Glamorgan, where we have 38 per cent. of the insured persons unemployed. For the week ending 18th June this year, no fewer than 43,000 persons were in receipt of Poor Law relief. That is why we are very concerned about the position.
  I would like to ask whether the Government have any policy on the question of assisting exports. Let us see what has been done by other countries against whom we have to compete in the markets of those countries where they have no coal and where there is constant competition to supply them. Poland has nationalised and controlled the coal industry because she realises the importance of the coal export trade. Germany is heavily subsidising her export trade to enable her to compete with us in the Scandinavian market. There is no coal exporting country, with perhaps the exception of America, which scarcely counts, that can withstand the competition from this country unless it has artificial help or is subsidised to stimulate exports. We are the only country, and this is the only Government, powerful though it is, which is standing idly by and seeing its coal industry gradually go to ruin. The policy of the Government has not assisted the coal industry. It has thrown out of employment 10 times as many persons as tariffs have put into employment since the tariff policy was put into operation.
  A deputation waited upon the Lord President of the Council with a request from South Wales that the Government should do something to assist not only the export side of the coal industry, but endeavour to ascertain whether something more could be done to combat the influences which are responsible for the decline in the production of coal in this country. Though this country is so much dependent upon power, it is the most backward country in compiling statistics showing the changes in power production during the last 20 years. If we want to know how far oil or electricity or the greater utilisation of gas has displaced coal, we have to go to America for the information, because we cannot get it in this country. Some time ago we asked the Lord President of the Council whether

  1359
  the Government were prepared to set up an inquiry to ascertain how far oil has displaced coal not only in the Navy and the mercantile marine but in the industries of the country and how far it was possible for coal to be used where oil was now being employed; and we also asked whether the Government were prepared to undertake an impartial inquiry into the production of oil from coal with or without any assistance from the Government. If such an inquiry were set on foot it would give a great deal of satisfaction to those who represent coal mining areas, because I can say, without in any way exaggerating the position, that the coal mining areas of this country feel that there is absolutely no hope.
  The Act of Parliament recently passed by the present Government is typical of all Tory legislation, giving the industrialists all they ask without asking anything in return; but if the Government hope there will be "freedom from politics" in the coal mining industry in the next five years as a result of that Act, they are under a very great misapprehension. The speech of the Lord President also referred to the extent to which machinery was displacing labour. Every one knows that in every industry, including agriculture, the production per man employed has increased by leaps and bounds. We have only to look at the Census of Production returns published month after month in the Board of Trade Gazette, to see that, as a result of the application of machinery to industry, tens of thousands of men are being displaced, and, unfortunately, a very large number of them are men over 50 years of age. Many of those men have spent 30 or 40 years in a given industry, and cannot adapt themselves to other industries where employment may be available, and they are the most tragic figures in the industrial areas. I ask the Lord President to give a good deal of consideration to that aspect of the question.
  We feel justified in moving this Motion. The Government have been in office almost half the time the Labour Government were in office—the Labour Government, faced with all its difficulties, and without a majority in this House. The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) once described the Liberal Members as the patient oxen because they
  1360
  came into the Lobby to support us. He did not know the difficulty we had on many occasions in getting the Liberal Members into the Lobby in support of us. We have now had 10 months of this powerful Government, powerful only so far as its numbers are concerned, and the results are such that we shall, without hesitation, vote in favour of this Motion.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. DICKIE: When the Lord President of the Council was asked last week whether he had seen upon the Order Paper the Motion we are discussing today, he said that he had, and that he was surprised at the wording of it. At that time I did not understand whether he was surprised at its literary form or at the meaning which the words conveyed. This afternoon we have learned that it was the meaning which excited his surprise; but what has surprised me more than either of those things is the audacity of those who put down this Motion. Here is a Motion condemning the Government because they have entirely failed to restore national prosperity and to deal with unemployment, put down by a party which had four times as long to deal with the same things under infinitely more favourable conditions than exist to-day.
  Mr. G. HALL: Did I understand the hon. Member to say we were in office four times as long as the present Government have been?
  Mr. DICKIE: Exactly. [Interruption.] The Labour Government not only failed to accomplish the very things for which they are condemning the present Government, but succeeded in bringing this little country of ours to the verge of the abyss of ruin. Now, when the Government have been kept busy ever since they took office in staving off disaster and clearing up the mess left behind—the worst legacy which any Government has inherited in the last hundred years—the Opposition bring forward a Motion of this character. It is an entirely destructive Motion; not one constructive word have we heard from the Opposition benches this afternoon, save the worn-out and discredited theory of nationalisation. It finds expression in different forms in the leaflets and election addresses of hon. Members opposite, sometimes taking the form of "Socialisation of the means of production and distribution and exchange, "sometimes" Production for use and not for profit"

  1361
  and sometimes "Public ownership and democratic control"; but in every case it boils down to nationalisation,, and nationalisation, wherever it has been tried the wide world over, has always failed. The Leader of the Opposition smiles. There is not a Member opposite, from the Leader of the Opposition to the humblest back-bencher, who can point to any experiment in the nationalisation of competitive industry in peace time in any part of the civilised world which has been successful—not at any period in the world's history, past or present. That is a broad challenge.
  Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Member endeavour to explain to the House where capitalism is succeeding at this moment?
  Mr. DICKIE: I do not know whether capitalism is to blame for all the evils from which the world is suffering. If a case could be made out it might conceivably be held to blame, but I am not one of those who is prepared to risk throwing over capitalism to put in its place something which has signally and demonstrably failed in every part of the world. In my judgment the main reason for bringing forward this Motion is the fact that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite are unable to adapt themselves to the changing conditions of a changing world. In this case it takes the form of refusing to budge from the old traditional standpoint, that it is the duty of the Opposition to oppose. It does not matter what is proposed from this side of the House, or what the Government ask the permission of the House to do, because the Opposition think it is their duty of necessity to oppose anything that comes from the Government side, irrespective of its merits. That only goes to prove how very stereotyped the so-called progressive Opposition have become; their action demonstrates that they are more conservative than many of the old crusted Tories, of whom they complain so much.
  I would like to tell hon. Members opposite that I do not object to nationalisation because it is proposed by the Socialist, but because I honestly and sincerely believe, as one who has spent the whole of his life amongst the workers, that the pursuance of that will o' the wisp of nationalisation has been very detrimental to the interests of the work-
  1362
  ing classes, has hampered progress, and has prevented that advance to a higher standard of life which could have been attained but for the great waste of time and energy spent in the advocacy of nationalisation. I was surprised to hear the Leader of the Opposition say that for 20 years he had been pleading for cooperation between capital and labour.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I never said anything of the kind.
  Mr. DICKIE: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he had been pleading up and down the country for co-operation. I have lived all my life in the coalfields, and I have been associated with the workers ever since the passing in 1912 of the Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Act. Ever since that time the watchword of the Socialist party has been that capital and labour must necessarily be opposed to each other, that they cannot be reconciled, and that anybody who would not accept what the Socialists put forward were the enemies of the workers. That is what we have had to contend with in the mining areas for the last 20 years.
  I should like to reinforce the plea which has been put forward in this Debate by several hon. Members in favour of a revision of the statistical department of the Board of Trade. I consider that accurate information is one of the most vital factors in enabling this House to arrive at an accurate estimate of what is happening, not only in connection with coal, oil, and power, but also in relation to the volume of goods to which the Lord President of the Council attaches so much importance, in order to show the quantity carried in British ships. At the present time it is utterly impossible to ascertain this information from the Board of Trade.
  Having regard to the exceptional difficulties of the Government during the last three or four months it would be quite unfair to blame them for not having accomplished more than they have done. I have been a Free Trader all my life, but two years ago I saw the need for some modification of our fiscal system, and I was very glad to hear from the Lord President of the Council this afternoon that our adverse balance of trade is being slowly redressed. I made a point in a letter to the "Times" on

  1363
  3rd March which was never brought out during the course of the Debate on the Import Duties Bill. It is a point of vital importance, because it goes to the root of the whole trouble of our import and export trade. I pointed out that under Free Trade from 1859–1913 the volume of our export trade in relation to the total import and export trade never varied more than 2 per cent., and it represented from 44 per cent. to 46 per cent. of the total volume. That meant that only 12 per cent. had to be met by our invisible exports. To-day the figures have sunk from 44 to 34, and that is a difference of 66, and necessitates 32 per cent. of invisible exports. That difference cannot be met by our invisible exports unless we stem the tide of imports coming into this country.
  Mr. E. WILLIAMS: How is it possible to increase our invisible exports if the Government adopt a policy which stops imports coming into this country?
  Mr. DICKIE: We are seeking to change the character of the imports. We cannot expand our exports owing to the growth of economic nationalism, which I deplore as much as the Home Secretary, and that is a fact which we have to recollect, and which we cannot overcome. Therefore the only possible thing which this House or the country can do is to stem the imports in order to redress the balance, unless we are going to continue to live on our capital. The world is suffering to-day far too much on account of tariffs. Someone wrote that the two worst enemies of mankind were wars and tariffs. The whole world is suffering to-day from the effects of one war, and we are adding to our troubles by tariffs, which are making things much worse. Therefore, the greatest service which we can render to the world is to use the new tariffs to induce other countries to lower their tariffs in order to break down those artificial barriers which are to-day choking the channel of trade throughout the whole civilised world.
  I do not want to add anything now to what I said on the exporting areas a fortnight ago, but I wish to join with other hon. Members in the endeavour they have made to impress upon the Government the urgent and vital importance of dealing with this extremely pressing problem. I come from an area
  1364
  which is as distressed as any, and which depends entirely upon the heavy industries. The boroughs depend upon shipbuilding and engineering, but the county depends almost entirely upon coal, and the export of coal is by far the most important consideration throughout the whole county. If the export of coal diminishes, there can be no other result than an increase of poverty and hardship, not only for the miners, but for all those who are dependent on the success of the mining industry in the various communities throughout the county. Our pits are closing one after another on account of the loss of export trade. As each pit is closed down, it becomes more difficult for the rest to be carried on, because, of course, no rates are drawn from the pits which are not working, and the rates are added to those which are. The result is that we are the most heavily rated county in England to-day.
  In the county of Durham, we are paying in rates for Poor Law services no less than 7s. 9d. in the £, which is higher than the total rate in many other parts of the country. I believe there are only two districts, namely, Merthyr Tydfil and Glamorgan, which are mulcted in a higher rate than we are for Poor Law services. I submit to the Government that there is something wrong with a system which penalises industrial centres to the extent of compelling them to charge 7s. 9d. in the £ for Poor Law services, while Blackpool gets off with 6d., and Bournemouth with 10d. I submit to the Government that we ought not to have to carry this burden—and there are other areas which are almost as badly off as we are— and I appeal to them to consider this matter during the next few weeks. I can only reiterate what I said in this House in the course of the Debate on the mining question a fortnight ago, namely, that, while I agree that the restrictions imposed by foreign countries have had some effect on the export of coal, by far the greatest effect in diminishing the quantity of coal exported from this country is due to the operation of the Coal Mines Act, 1930. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Hon. Members opposite, because it was a Socialist Act of Parliament, feel compelled to back it up, but I have stated a well-known fact. [Interruption.] I do not wish to go over the ground again, but I showed in this House—I had the minutes in my pocket

  1365
  at the time—that the coalowners of the county of Northumberland were overwhelmingly against the Act, and I showed that the coalowners of the county of Durham were so evenly divided that there was practically nothing in it. There was a slight majority. [Interruption.] The percentages are 42 and 58, and, if my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) considers that that is a large enough majority to justify the infliction of such hardship and disability on the coal exporting industry, I must beg to differ from him.
  Mr. LAWSON: I do not think that that statement can be allowed to pass without challenge. As a Member of the House of Commons, I was interviewed by a gentleman representing the coalowners, who asked me, not only to support that Act, but to support the levies.
  Mr. DICKIE: I also have been interviewed by gentlemen asking me either to support or condemn it, but my hon. Friend ought to know perfectly well that the difficulty has been to get the Durham coalowners, or coalowners in any part of the country, to speak with a united voice. I appeal to the Government to reconsider this matter. The Lord President of the Council mentioned, as an illustration, the case of an up-to-date gentleman who had his eyes wide open so far as his own industry was concerned. He made buckets —[Interruption.] Hon. Members smile, but that is an industry. This manufacturer, who was alive to the situation and was a wise man, cheapened his process, consulted his workpeople, cut down his costs, and produced a cheaper article which he was able to sell in the markets of the world. Can we do that with the export of coal? No, because our hands are tied behind our backs by this wretched Act of Parliament, which establishes minimum prices and tells the foreigner the exact figure at which we are going to sell. A contract is put out for the Norwegian State railways, the Danish State railways, or any other railways. The Northumberland and Durham coalowners are asked to tender, and the foreigner in Poland, Belgium, or Germany says—
  Mr. BATEY: The hon. Member knows why we cannot compete with Poland.
  Mr. DICKIE: The foreigner in Poland, Belgium, or Germany knows that our price will be, say, 13s. 4½d., he quotes
  1366
  13s. 2d., and the order is his in the ordinary course of business. My hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) says that we cannot compete with Poland. I tell him that that is not true—
  Mr. BATEY: I did not say that. I said that you knew why we could not compete against Poland. It is because Poland subsidises her colliery districts.
  Mr. DICKIE: My tautological Friend has just repeated himself. He did say that we could not compete against Poland—
  Mr. BATEY: I said you knew the reason.
  Mr. DICKIE: I say to my hon. Friend that we can compete against Poland. If this House will remove from the collieries the restrictions as to minimum prices, we can not only compete with the Poles to-day, bat can secure contracts, and, by doing so, get out of the way of the competition of the other coal producers in this country hundreds of thousands of tons of coal. I do not want to detain the House any longer, but I should like to know whether the Government are really giving serious consideration to the point which was put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall). These quotas, restrictions, and licensing systems are doing serious injury to the coal exporting industry. During all my political life I have objected to subsidies and Government interference with industry, but we are now living in a changed world, and, if we have to meet the competition of this kind, we must, in the interests of our workpeople, find some new method of dealing with it. The experiment which is being carried out by the Cunard Company is a matter of urgent and vital importance. It has potentialities which it is almost impossible to forecast. As a marine engineer and the representative of a mining constituency, I can visualise enormous potentialities for this discovery provided that it proves successful. I earnestly and sincerely trust that, as soon as ever the necessary information is in the hands of the Government, they will not only give the process every encouragement, but will substantially assist in its development until it becomes commercially exploitable and of great value to the nation.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No one who has lived in, or who has had to do with the mining areas, can fail to have sympathy with the miners, and the whole industry and population which exist there at present, in the troubles through which they are passing. I used to live on the border between the Consett Division and the Chester-le-Street Division. I am not certain whose constituent I would have been.
  Mr. LAWSON: Mine!
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: And I am sure anyone who has had any experience of conditions there cannot fail to realise the troubles through which the miners have passed. When it comes to making that situation a reason for condemning the action of the Government then I think, without laying oneself open to any lack of sympathy, one is entitled to ask what there is in the charges that have been brought by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) and the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson)? During the Debate we have heard that the present unemployment in the mining district is to be laid to the charge of the present Government. I seldom interrupt, but I did interrupt the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street to ask him what was the increase in unemployment. He said perfectly frankly that he did not know. The hon. Member for Aberdare, without giving a positive figure, said it was about 50,000 more than at the end of August.
  Mr. G. HALL: I did not mention the figure of 50,000 as compared with a year ago. As a matter of fact I gave it in my speech. It is 39,000 as compared with last year.
  Mr. LAWSON: The reason I did not give the figure was that I had looked it up very carefully this week, but as a matter of fact it is well known there are quite a lot of men who are retained on the books as wage earners after the pits have been closed indefinitely.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am interested to hear these various explanations. I asked what was the comparison of the figure now, as against the last figure before the Socialist Government ceased to hold office? I went out afterwards and looked at the figures and I found that in each case the figure was between 330,000 and 340,000—I am not
  1368
  quite sure which was the bigger of the two. But as a matter of fact the figure at the end of August, the last date before the late Socialist Government resigned office, and the latest figure given to-day, show there has been no appreciable change in the volume of recorded unemployment. If the hon. Members will read the Ministry of Labour figures they will find I have stated these figures correctly.
  Mr. HALL: The figures which I gave were taken from the Board of Trade Gazette.
  9.30 p.m.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am taking the official figures of the Ministry of Labour. The next point laid to the charge of the Government is that if there have been difficulties as regards exports to some countries, to Germany for example, those are due to the policy of the Government. It may be a ground for regret, but before it is made a ground of accusation, perhaps hon. Members opposite will try to ascertain the whole facts of the case and the figures of German production. When you take the trouble to consult that modest but extremely valuable little monthly document of figures issued by the League of Nations you find that the decrease of coal production in Germany, comparing it with the last pre-War year, has been, on the average, 5,000,000 tons a month on a lesser production, whereas it has been about 3,000,000 tons per month in this country on a much larger production. The decrease here has been about 15 per cent. as compared with a decrease of about 40 per cent. in Germany in the internal production. It is perfectly obvious to anyone who looks at this from the business point of view that the Germans clearly have not been able to afford to import coal very largely, quite apart from anything which may have been due to action taken by this country. Therefore to put facts like this, regrettable in themselves, as a charge and accusation, really robs that accusation of any point whatever.
  Apart from the question of coal, when one takes the whole charge brought against the Government in this Motion, the first question that one would ask oneself is, What is the reason for bringing this Motion forward? I think the answer is that at the meetings which the leaders of the Labour party in the

  1369
  House of Commons have had with their colleagues outside and the party managers in Eccleston Square, probably some sort of conversation like this has passed between them: "You really must make something of a splash before the Session ends. If you do not do something of this kind, what sort of figure shall we cut when we have the Labour Conference meeting in the autumn?" Then they would say: "My dear George, it is not much of a case which you have to put. Of course, it is quite true, when you compare it with our own record you have a pretty black record on which to base your case; still, put it pretty hot and you may get away with it." It is really that fact that accounts for what I am sure every Member of the House, whether he admits it or not, must feel, the complete air of unreality throughout the greater part of the Debate to-day. It is an air of unreality which is seldom met with outside "Alice in Wonderland." Take the actual Motion. It says:
  "That His Majesty's Government, having appealed to the country for a free hand to take such action as it thought fit to restore national prosperity and to deal with unemployment, and having entirely failed in these objects as is shown by the steady diminution of trade and industry at Home and abroad "—
  mark the words "and abroad"—
  "and the increase of unemployment, together with the deplorable conditions to which the unemployed are being subjected, has forfeited the confidence of this House."
  HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: What a world of confidence there is in that "Hear, hear!" from Members opposite. But just take first of all those words "and abroad." Do hon. Members really mean that they can condemn this Government for what has been happening abroad I Why, in the hon. Member's own speech in the last Socialist Government and in the speeches of his colleague, the then Minister of Labour, Miss Bondfield, and in the speeches of practically every apologist for the then Socialist Government, you will find this sort of phrase, that it is the general economic blizzard that has come upon the world and that it is not anything which has been particularly due to this country. You get other phrases such as that it is complimentary but at the same time it is foolish to think that this country is responsible for what happens throughout the world.
  1370
  Those speeches are forgotten, but if you go back to the speeches of the former Solicitor-General (Sir S. Cripps), since the Socialist Government left office, you will find that he analysed the causes of depression throughout the world. He said that they were due to War Debts and Reparations. I wonder whether he thinks we could have controlled the policy of France with regard to Reparations. He told us it was also due to currency, and largely due to the fact that War Debts could not be paid to the United States because of high tariffs. Does he really think that we control the policy of the United States?
  Again, I hear that it is because of the way in which the loans, that have been made have been used. Of course, they were misused by Germany, but are we to be blamed for not having prevented the Germans four or five years ago from using their loans more wisely? Those are the causes of the world depression. They occurred largely before this Government came into office. They now come, with the audacity that is borne of despair, to ask the House to condemn this Government because of unemployment that has existed abroad. But let me come to the responsibility, which, is of course true, of the Government at home. Judge what has happened here and the responsibility of the Government for it. [Interruption.] There is the same enthusiasm coming from the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street. He is a confirmed optimist. [Interruption.] It is better to be a pessimist and go through with it than to be an optimist who fails to reach his goal.
  What criterion can you take? What criterion would any business person take if it was a question of a competing business and not of a different country? He would say, "How has this company fared as compared with its competitors?" How them has this country fared as compared with its competitors? Take the question of unemployment to start with. Judged by any business criterion, those who have spoken from the Front Bench opposite are not really worthy of attention because they have not considered the time-lag in the matter. You cannot have a tariff producing its effects at once, when there have been immense forestalments. You have to take a time schedule. The idea of that has not been at all present to their minds.

  1371
  Even so, what is the truth with regard to unemployment? I again commend to hon. Members opposite this invaluable little record, price 1s. 6d. monthly, and worth the money. It is entirely impartial, being published by the League of Nations. So far as figures of unemployment are obtainable in any foreign country of importance, they will find that the course of unemployment here is very favourable in comparison with any great European country which is our competitor. Austria, Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Czechoslovakia. Take the figures one and all and compare them with the figures for Great Britain. The volume of such increase as there has been here compares extraordinarily favourably with the course of unemployment in those countries. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street referred to the fact that there are 80,000 married women who are no longer in receipt of unemployment benefit, and indeed no longer registered, who ought to be added to the total, but he forgot to inform the House that the fact that they are no longer registered and are not added to the total is not the work of this Government but of himself and Miss Bondfield, the late Minister of Labour.
  Mr. LAWSON: Your administration.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I see. Now the crime is that we are carrying out the principle that he laid down. I ask anyone how much real force they attach to this full-blooded condemnation of the Government. Let them look at other figures which are at least as important in this connection. Let them take the actual figures for production. No one denies that the depression has been gradually deepening throughout the world as a whole, but take the figures of production; see how this country compares with others in the last quarter before the Socialist Government left office and in the first quarter of this year. In Germany there has been a falling off in production of 19 per cent., in France of 17 per cent., in the United States of 12 per cent., and in this country there has been an increase of seven per cent. If there is anything in the record of actual fact, it seems strange that no one on that side has thought fit to draw attention to it.
  Let me pass to the test that any business man would naturally apply. Of course, you cannot apply business tests
  1372
  to politics, but you ought to be as businesslike as you can. To start with, to anyone outside analysing this problem it is really twofold. There are two sets of points to be dealt with. There is, first of all, the situation inside this country and then there is the world situation, and unless and until both these aspects of the problem are dealt with successfully there can be no hope of real revival in this country. It is obvious that these two sides of the problem have to be dealt with one after the other, the home side first and the foreign side later. If I take what happened at home, I take a simple test. I do not believe in his heart of hearts there is anyone, whatever his politics, who would wish to see us back in the state we were in in August of last year. People inside the country may be biased, but you can get a fair basis of truth in the opinions expressed in the Press of foreign countries. There is no comparison whatever between the extraordinarily poor opinion of Great Britain's stability, power of endurance and ability to face her troubles last autumn and the opinion universally held in foreign countries to-day.
  I now turn to the second the external side of the problem. The Government here have, in conjunction with foreign countries, to face the questions of debts and reparations, currency and trade restrictions, quota regulations, exchange restrictions, tariffs and all the rest, and restoring all the creaking machinery of ordinary international trade. It is an infinitely harder business to deal with foreign countries and to get concert among them than to deal with the situation inside the country, however hard that may be. In view of that I wonder what was the real object of the Leader of the Opposition in moving the Vote of Censure today. Did he think that it would help this country in dealing with foreign countries at Lausanne or Geneva, or what was his object? Perhaps he did think that it would help this country in dealing with other countries at Lausanne and Geneva, but the only reason why he could have thought so was because it would have been very clear how extraordinarily weak any criticism would be which was brought forward at the moment. I believe that such a Machiavellian subtlety combined with altruism is perhaps a combination which only the Leader of the

  1373
  Opposition in his kindliness can possibly exhibit. At any rate, those are the points which have to be dealt with as the second part of the problem, and, until they are dealt with, there can be no revival.
  May I make this remark concerning what, I think, are the sentiments of many individuals on this side of the House? I think that the Government have made mistakes since they came into power, that they are likely to make mistakes still. No set of human beings could do anything else. I think that they made a mistake in putting on the Beer Duty at the beginning, but I do not think that they made a mistake in keeping it on. I think that they have made other mistakes. Frankly, I think they are rather too sensitive sometimes to criticism without inquiring whether the criticism is well meant or whether it is mischievous in intent. But the one thing about which I am quite clear—and I think every Member on this side of the House will agree with me—is that so long as they really drive ahead with what is essential they will get support from all those quarters of the House, whatever mistakes otherwise they may make. All that we really require is that they shall know what the essentials are—and it is clear that they do know what they are— and that they shall drive them home, and we shall support them. We are not going to turn out Charles II in order to make James II King, and we are not going to weaken them in order to return to the position of mess, muddle, and makeshift and make-believe of last year.
  There arc two points on which I would make a suggestion to the Government. We have the Lausanne Conference, and out of Lausanne are coming negotiations to try to arrive at agreements which may do good in freeing the trade of the world. It is natural that those of us who are Tariff Reformers want to see our industries protected. At this moment, however, I am convinced that there is a growing need for the international trade of the world to be freed from some of the appalling shackles which are strangling it at the moment. Speaking as a Tariff Reformer, I hope that the Government will use their tariff as a negotiating instrument to the utmost degree possible at Lausanne, in order to free the trade of the world. I would say this as well. We are infinitely affected by the condi-
  1374
  tion of affairs in the world, but still we can do a great deal from the inside. Psychology exercises an enormous influence upon the population of this country, and I trust that the Government will once again give the people here the same lead which the Prime Minister gave about five months ago, namely, that those in this country who have the means should go on making their purchases in the same spirit of confidence as they did before. Their means are less. The tax-gatherer has taken a great quota of them, but in so far as purchases can be made, it is that fact which keeps trade from collapse. If people individually economise as distinct from the Government, it would mean that the trade which is flagging would go slower still.
  In those circumstances, whatever mistakes the Government may make in minor matters, provided they drive ahead with essentials we are not going to weaken their position in order to let in another Government less able to deal with the problems which confront us. Least of all are we going to allow a Government to come in which would act upon the principles which have been ennunciated by the Leader of the Opposition. He said that things could never be put right until industry was controlled by a Government. Does he never realise that it was not individual action but the action of Governments which made the mistakes in the Peace Treaty which have been the origin of the present troubles? ft; is the action of Governments and not individuals which has led to quota restrictions and tariffs and to the greater part of the rest of the troubles which exist at the present time. If he wishes to give us double doses of the same trouble in the future the present depression will be slight compared with the depression which will follow. If the Government, having got to essentials drive ahead, I am sure that none of us will have any hesitation in supporting them in their task.
  Mr. ATTLEE: The right hon. Gentleman has certainly struck a welcome note of cheerfulness and optimism in this Debate compared to the Prime Minister—I mean the Lord President. I nearly always forget about the Prime Minister, but before embarking upon this Debate I looked up a Vote of Censure moved by the Lord President of

  1375
  the Council, and oddly enough in the course of that Debate the same question about Charles II and James II was used by the present Prime Minister. I have seen since then another likeness to Charles II in the Prime Minister, because he has made up his mind not to go on his travels again. A change has come over the Lord President and right hon. Gentlemen opposite now are quite prepared to accept the Prime Minister. The right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) indulged in a good deal of sarcasm on this Motion. He did read the Motion, but he did not understand it. But he read the Motion in quite audible tones—
  "The steady diminution of trade and industry at home and abroad"—
  and he will see that it does not imply that the whole of the present troubles abroad were caused by the present Government. But if one is making an analysis of the causes one must bear in mind that among the causes of the troubles with foreign trade are the restrictions on trading between nations. The right hon. Gentleman is a Tariff Reformer and the Government are engaged in building tariffs higher. I do not think that there is any great need to dwell upon the points made by the right hon. Gentleman except one. He and other hon. Members suggested that it was very unkind of us to move a Vote of Censure on the Government when they were trying to pilot the ship through such stormy waters. I wonder hon. and right hon. Gentlemen did not think of this last summer when they cried "stinking fish" the whole of the time. Has no one ever read the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) when he went round America telling all America that this country was down and out? Right hon. Gentlemen opposite were not ashamed to write and to speak anywhere and in every kind of country, running down this country for purely party purposes.
  The right hon. Gentleman suggests that we must not attack this Government. There is reason for our Motion. We have never had any clear statement of policy from the Government. The most we have had was the somewhat apologetic remarks of the Lord President of the Council this afternoon. We are told that we are passing through
  1376
  a crisis. This House has a right to demand what is the Government's policy, to comment on that policy and to put forward an alternative. We have no apology to make for putting forward this Motion, which we believe is entirely justified by the record of the Government. If anything more was needed to justify the Motion, it was the speech of the Lord President of the Council. I have never heard a more piano note struck. All the new hopefulness of tariffs has faded away. I notice week after week, and month after month, that the blessings of tariffs are put further and further away. At the election time they were to operate quickly, and when hon. Members opposite came to the House they were clamouring for them and painting glowing pictures. What have we now? The Lord President of the Council says that two or three years must elapse before the tariffs begin to work. The right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) says that no one suggests that they are going to work quickly, but that suggestion was made at the election.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Has the hon. Member any quotation to prove that anyone said at election time that they would work quickly? Everyone knew then and said that they would take some time before they came into effect. The hon. Member has made the statement quite definitely, and I hope that he will substantiate it.
  Mr. ATTLEE: I am quite willing to produce evidence, but I never supposed for a moment that the statement would be challenged.
  Mr. SMITHERS: I challenge it.
  Mr. ATTLEE: I shall be pleased to look it up. I take it that it is admitted that it would not work quite so quickly. We all admit that there is not quite that cheery spirit of optimism about tariffs that we had before, and the reason is pretty obvious. What is the utmost that we now get from Ministers. The Lord President of the Council, and even the right hon. Gentleman, who has less responsibility, told us, that we are not quite so badly off as other countries. What is the point of that? By common consent the whole world is slipping down to ruin, and we are slipping down a pace

  1377
  or two behind the rest. It is perfectly ridiculous. The Lord President of the Council told us that things are difficult. He said that there were important conferences on. He gave us some amiable sentiments, and then there came certain details about improvements in manufacturing buckets and clothing. He then told us of a great discovery—the iron and steel trade. That trade is to be reconstructed and, according to the Lord President, if the iron and steel trade is reconstructed we can sell in the markets of the world and meet anybody. But the trouble is, he said, that there are no buyers. That is the wonderful prospect before us. I am sorry to say that the Lord President of the Council reminded me of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's speeches always contain a good deal of general, broad statement mixed up with one or two very minor specific instances, and the rest is always a blank. I do not know whether it is a case of evil communications corrupting good manners.
  10.0 p.m.
  We challenge the whole position of the Government. We say frankly that the position of this country is not better than it was when Labour went out of office. Even if it is better, it is a very serious position, and I confirm that from what has been said by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister announced to the assembly of the world at the conference that the whole world is slipping down to ruin and that the whole system is breaking up. We are told of the Lausanne Conference, the Ottawa Conference and the Geneva Conference. We hope something may come from Lausanne, but the Lord President of the Council does not hope to get much out of it. Everybody has been singing extremely small about Ottawa lately. They have practically left the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) to keep his faith in Ottawa. In regard to Lausanne, I am very much afraid that it has come too late. We have asked constantly, right from the time that this Government came into office, for such a conference, but the months have slipped by and events have happened. We have a situation now in Germany of the utmost possible danger. We have a world situation in regard to which persons of great authority all agree that it is extremely difficult and doubtful
  1378
  whether it can be saved. We consider that in that matter the Government should have taken action much earlier. [HON. MEMBERS: "How long ago?"] Directly they came in. We shall be told that we must prepare the ground first. What is the good of preparing the ground when it is slipping from under your feet?
  Mr. SMITHERS: What did you do?
  Mr. ATTLEE: I hope the hon. Member will allow me to make my speech in my own way. I am not saying that the Labour Government did all that it should have done. I have never suggested that and I do not think anyone suggested it. I think that the actions that were taken over a number of years have been wholly' insufficient to deal with the situation in which the world and this country find themselves. I do not think the House realises the gravity of the world situation, I am not trying to raise a scare. I am merely giving the gist of articles and writings by persons of authority who write on this question. These opinions are not from Socialist papers only but from the most serious economic papers in the world and the best informed papers. There can be no doubt whatever about the gravity of the situation. The question is, how far this Government are dealing with it. There are two sides to the problem—the external condition of the world and the internal condition of this country. I do not think that anyone can doubt that one of the troubles of the world is excessive economic nationalism.
  The Government have gone on the lines of economic nationalism. It is true that some hon. Members who are Free Traders salve their conscience by imagining that the tariffs they put on are merely in order to bargain to get greater Free Trade, but I am sure that that is not the views of the majority of hon. Members opposite. The majority of hon. Members opposite believe that Protection has come to stay. They want it as a permanent system. Therefore right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite, who are carrying out their "doctor's mandate," must be homeopaths to a man; they find the world suffering from trade restrictions, and they add to those restrictions; they find international trade gradually dying down, and they add to that; and all they claim is that they are slightly better than the rest of the countries of

  1379
  the world. I do not think that Lausanne is going to get you out of that difficulty.
  But what of their home policy? At the same time as they carry on their tariff policy, they are carrying on a home policy of economy. If the tariff policy is designed for anything, it is designed to get an increase in prices. That has been stressed over and over again by almost every hon. Member on the benches opposite, with perhaps the exception of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), but certainly stressed by many of the most distinguished tariffists. They all desire a rise in prices. They deplore the deflation which has gone on throughout the world; but your economy campaign is only a form of deflation. They intend to cut down expenditure on public services. I do not quite know why this curious distinction is made between public and private expenditure, except that apparently it is made with regard to different classes. Apparently, if you manage to keep on educating your child and pay for that, if you are in the upper classes that is good expenditure and it is keeping the country going. If, on the other hand, you pay for education through public funds it is a wicked waste. If you buy your usual amount of food and so on, that is all right; it is justifiable expenditure. On the other hand, unemployment relief and so on you have got to cut down as low as you can. As a matter of fact, there arc persons in the Conservative party who recognise what the true inwardness of that is, as is shown by a speech made by a Noble Lord in another place yesterday, in which he pointed out that all these cuts in social services were, after all, only a transfer of purchasing power among the people of this country. Let them say so quite openly if that is what hon. Gentlemen opposite really mean. If they really mean that they want more money kept in the pockets of the Income Taxpayers and less to go into the pockets of the workers, let them say so quite frankly, and we shall know what they mean, but do not let them pretend that it is due to some idea of economy. There is no economy at all in that.
  I think that when you look at the state of this country you have got to consider the position vis-a-vis the world, as if there were a war on. In time of war you have just what is happening to-day: You
  1380
  have trade upset, exchanges upset, and you have to adopt entirely exceptional means for dealing with the internal situation of the country and the external situation of the country. What is now suggested is that the people of this country should sit down and draw in their belts, cut down social services, cut down education, and go in for all the greatest possible economies on the ground that that is somehow or other going to get us through this crisis. I entirely deny it. I believe that it is utterly futile and wrong to talk so. Supposing a war broke out next week, does anyone suppose that this country would not manage to get food, would not manage to get munitions, would not manage to set its people to work—that there would not be credit enough for that? Does anyone suppose that contracts could not be made for the importation of iron and steel, meat and wheat and so on? Does anyone suppose that the wheels of industry would not be turning, that there would not be munitions, that you would not have people flocking to the colours, if they were willing to fight again, that you would not be able to clothe them and put them into uniforms, arm them and feed them t Of course you would, and it is all hypocrisy and nonsense to say that you could not do it. It is simply because hon. Members opposite will not regard the matter from the point of view of the nation.
  Let us look for a moment at what happened in the War. During the War the workers of this country were, on the whole, better fed and better clothed than ever before, and this in spite of the fact that millions of men and women were withdrawn from productive work altogether, and were employed either in fighting or making munitions. How was that done? Let me quote the report of the Colwyn Committee:
  "The War, except so far as money was raised abroad, had clearly to be paid for immediately."
  As a matter of fact, as everybody knows, our borrowings from abroad were smaller than our lendings to people abroad. As a matter of fact, the whole of the expense of that War was provided by the people of this country out of the labour of this country, except so far as there may have been a small part which was raised by realising securities abroad.
  Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: A small part?
  Mr. ATTLEE: Yes, quite a small proportion.
  Sir A. M. SAMUEL: £1,000,000,000.
  Mr. ATTLEE: Yes, £1,000,000,000 is a comparatively small proportion. As a matter of fact, if you take the amount which was realised in that way and the amount which was borrowed from the United States of America, and if you set off against that the amount which we lent to our Allies, you find that they amount to about the same sum. It is therefore clear that we were, as a matter of fact, able to carry on the War, to keep our people fed and clothed, and to do all those operations out of the work of the people of this country. Whether it was done by loan or not is merely an internal transaction within the country. If you can do that when you have got four or five millions of people to be kept fighting, you can do it with that standard of life when you have got a number of people whom you are keeping unemployed, and you could do it still better if you could keep them employed.
  I maintain that what the Government ought to do in this emergency is to try to increase the circulation of the wealth in this country and production in this country. I want the Government to try to look at this country of ours as a unit, and not as a mere bundle of separate interests. Looked at as an economic unit, what this country has to do is to buy its food and its raw material with its goods and its services. If it can do that it is paying its way, and every bit of work which is done inside this country beyond that, or in the production of goods inside this country from materials produced in this country, is an addition to the wealth of the country, although it is generally described by hon. Members opposite as waste, and is generally ordered to be put down in the name of economy. Those views are not borne out by any economist of repute. In that extraordinarily one-sided view the trouble of hon. Members opposite is that they cannot see the economic life of this country as a whole; they are always looking at individual enterprises, and saying, "Here there is a profit," without counting the loss on the other side, and they say, "Here there is a loss" without counting the profit on the other side.
  1382
  Let me take one or two little instances. I gave some the other night with regard to the question of roads and bridges. The Government have got to make up their mind, first of all, whether they intend to keep the people of this country fed and clothed. Are there any hon. Members in this House who will suggest that the people of this country, existing in this country, should be starved to death, or should not have enough food? Are there any people who would suggest that they should not be clothed? When you have got your people clothed and fed, why not, recognising that you have got to do that, make use of their services? It is not possible as long as you are bound to the system, or the lack of system, which you have to-day. You cannot do it unless you are prepared, and I know you are not, to go a very long way on the Socialist road. That is just our complaint against you.
  The point was well put by an hon. Member opposite, who suggested that things have changed and that we have to take a new view on these matters. He was echoing what has been said by a number of authorities, the most recent of whom is Sir Arthur Salter, The fact is that the present system has entirely broken down; that is evident from the condition of the world, and the Government are laboriously trying now to patch it up when they should think out the inevitability of the situation and the obvious next step. The point made by Sir Arthur Salter was that we have departed from the old laissez faire system, which worked during the nineteenth century, that we are getting all the worst of two systems: that we cannot go back and had better go forward. I know what is in the minds of hon. Members opposite when they talk about economy. They think of the old Gladstonian phrase of money fructifying in the pockets of the people, and they imagine that money is always sterilised if it is in the pockets of the State or municipalities. Mr. Gladstone, although a great authority in his day, was a man of his day. In the nineteenth century we were in much the same position as the people of Russia are to-day. [Interruption.] That is so. At that time most enterprises were small and the only way in which more capital was put into industry was by the individual making

  1383
  profit and putting it back into the industry.
  The industrial supremacy of this country was built up on the profits sweated out of the labour of the people, who worked excessively long hours before the reforms were brought in, many of them by Conservative Governments, for the improvement of factory conditions. You have the same conditions in Soviet Russia to-day. They are saving an excessive amount of their production in order to pile up for the future. The only difference is that they are doing it for the whole of the community, whereas in nineteenth century England it was done for the benefit of a limited number of capitalists. That is the comparison; but that is not the position in this country. There is no difficulty in finding enough capital. This country is wonderfully well equipped with power and the means of production and the means of transport. It is wonderfully well equipped with skilled workers. The point is that we cannot get our goods consumed, we cannot bring production and consumption into relationship. I quite agree that we have to consider our foreign trade. We have to depend on our foreign trade if we want to keep a high standard of life. But while our foreign trade is upset, that does not say that we should not develop internally all our resources and all the wealth of the people.
  Our indictment of the Government is that they have no plan whatever; that they are applying an entirely out-of-date point of view, that they have made an entirely false diagnosis of the situation. Ministers contradict each other over and over again. They tell us that we must have economy, that we must not spend, and then the same hon. Member gets up and says that there is a glut of goods all over the world and we cannot sell. The Lord President of the Council says that we have to increase our iron and steel trade and the matter is committed to a wonderful Committee of three, which makes its report that the iron and steel trade ought to be reconstructed if we are to recover our markets. Then we find that there is too much iron and steel in the world and we cannot sell it. When I listened to the Lord President of the Council explaining the position in this country and in Denmark, France, Germany and the United States I felt that I was in the presence of an extremely
  1384
  kindly warder who was exhibiting to me views of the inmates of some enormous lunatic asylum. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman who is, I understand, to deal with some specific points in closing the Debate, will try to controvert this proposition.
  Is it not a fact that in the world to-day there are the means of production to enable us to provide a full life for the people of the world? Is it the fact that we have to economise because we cannot produce? Is it not really because we cannot distribute and consume our production? If the latter be true, it is perfectly obvious that all the remedies introduced and suggested by the Government are entirely beside the mark and that unless you can increase the consuming capacity of the people of this country you will not be able to get in those goods which you say you want to come from overseas at increased prices. We have a campaign to-day to cut down the standard of life, and, at the same time, right hon. Gentlemen say that we must try to give better prices to producers of food and raw materials from oversea in order to help the Dominions. So, you are going to offer them higher prices, while, at the same time, we are to have nothing here with which to pay them. A suggestion of that kind has never been made outside a lunatic asylum. We say that without a big advance in the Socialist direction, nationally and internationally, this depression is going to deepen and deepen. I do not think that hon. Members realise how serious is the position. I do not think they even realise how serious is the position of the people of this country. It is not only that people are being deprived of food and are suffering physically. It is a case of the ruin of thousands of young people who have never worked at all because they have never had the opportunity. No doubt it is an economy, but you will pay a heavy price in the future in respect of that generation.
  We on these benches are not in the least afraid of putting forward this Vote of no confidence in the Government. We have no confidence in this Government. We have no confidence in the system which they represent. We are not afraid to face the situation. [Laughter.] I expected that kind of laughter. I suppose that we shall have the old canard, "You ran away." Well, in regard to the

  1385
  subject of running away, I will only say that there are some hon. Members opposite who have been soldiers, and I think they will agree with me that the time when one is justified in disobeying the orders of one's captain is when he surrenders to. the enemy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who is the enemy?"] For five and twenty years I followed the present Prime Minister. [Interruption.] I followed the present Prime Minister in a certain policy which hon. Members opposite may think is a mistaken policy, but I believe in it—the policy of Socialism. I was sent for at a moment's notice and told by my Leader that he proposed to go over to the enemy, that he proposed to adopt—and he has adopted, holus bolus—the policy of the people to whom he was opposed, that when faced with a crisis he was going to help to save the enemy's cause, Capitalism, and not to fight any more for Socialism.
  Hon. Members will perhaps think we are a little bitter. Let me suggest a parallel, and then perhaps they will understand our position. Suppose at the time of the General Strike the Lord President of the Council had suddenly come down to hon. Members then on the Conservative benches and said, "I am sorry, but I am determined, with the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and one or two more, that the right thing to do is to go over to Labour. I have made arrangements with the Liberals, and therefore I propose to take over the. Government and socialise the mines right away." Supposing that he then proposed to have an election, and had one, in which he did his utmost to tell the people the utmost possible misrepresentation about you, and that when you were returned, a small remnant, you found that he not only did that, being cheered by the Labour men, and not only nationalised the mines and the land and abolished the House of Lords, but went in for a fairly full Socialist policy, and then, when you complained, one of us got up and said, "You ran away; why did you not follow him?"
  That is the situation, and I hope that we shall not hear any more about running away. As far as we are concerned, we are perfectly prepared at any time to accept that challenge. We believe that the only way to meet the difficulties facing this country and the world is to be found
  1386
  in our Socialist principles. We believe that your principles have brought the world to disaster and that you will inevitably bring the world to utter disaster unless you change them.
  Sir H. BETTERTON: This Debate has now been in progress for about seven hours, and we have heard, I suppose, the full case that has been made against the Government. It has been summarised by the hon. Member who has just sat down, and I am bound to say that I think the Government may be profoundly congratulated on the result of the Debate. There were three maiden speeches, and I am sure that everybody who is in the House will join with me in congratulating those who made them. There were the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Stones) and the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Pearson), and they both made contributions which were extremely welcome to those who heard them. There was also the speech of the hon. Member for South West St. Pancras (Mr. Mitcheson), who made a suggestion of rather a technical nature directly affecting the Board of Trade, and I am authorised by the Board of Trade to say that they will communicate with him on the points that he raised and will give every consideration to the facts that he put before the House.
  10.30 p.m.
  I have been in this House now a good long time, and I have listened to a good many Debates on Motions of Censure, and have taken part in some, but I confess that I have never listened to a Debate on a Motion of Censure which must have struck everybody as so hollow, so unreal and so ill-founded as this Debate. Nothing has been said to dispel that notion or to satisfy the House that this Motion should be passed. I can tell the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lime-house (Mr. Attlee) that I am afraid ha must, with such resolute reluctance as he can muster, face up to this fact, that what is in the mind of the House, what is in the mind of the country, and what is in the mind of a distracted Europe are not feelings of censure against the Government, but feelings of profound relief that the hon. Gentleman and his friends are no longer responsible for the conduct of affairs. With regard to debts and reparations, I thought—in fact, I have often been told by hon. Gentlemen opposite— that it was a matter of common agree-

  1387
  ment that the very difficult questions of debts and reparations which are being discussed at Lausanne must be settled before there is any hope of a return to world-wide prosperity. These are questions which are taxing the intelligence of the most experienced men in every country, and I will quote, because I entirely agree with it, a passage from the Manifesto of the Socialist party at the last election.
  "The Labour party has never failed to insist upon the intimate relation between war debts, reparations and economic depression. It believes that the general acceptance of President Hoover's moratorium on War Debts permits a reconsideration of the whole question."
  With that I entirely agree. It is for the purpose of considering those very questions that we have sent to Lausanne what, I suppose, is the most authoritative delegation that ever left this country, and the Prime Minister himself is the President of it. Yet what happens? Very largely through his efforts there has been made what we are encouraged to believe is a hopeful beginning towards the approach to the settlement of these matters. If ever there were a time when this country should speak with a united voice it is now, but what happens? No sooner had the Prime Minister left these shores, no sooner had his colleagues begun on their fateful task, than hon. Gentlemen opposite tabled a Motion which, if successful, would have humiliated the Prime Minister and destroyed the Government. What, then, would have been the effect on Lausanne? Lausanne would have wholly failed in achieving the objects which hon. Gentlemen opposite know as well as we do are so necessary. The truth of the matter is that the success of this Motion would have been received with consternation in every part of the world.
  The Opposition seek to condemn us because we have not in nine months restored national prosperity. The hon. Member for Limehouse told us that things are not better than when they left office. May I remind him that the first condition precedent to prosperity is to restore national confidence. National confidence, which is the greatest asset which any nation can have, was in deadly peril of being destroyed last August, and we have to-day not only confidence in ourselves, but, what is equally important,
  1388
  we have inspired confidence in others. That is something, at any rate, for which this country may be indeed grateful to the National Government. I need not remind the House that last August sterling was suspect and our credit was impugned. To-day sterling is the strongest currency in the world, and our credit is the firmest. The National Government have performed the supremely successful feat of preventing the depreciation of the exchange from being accompanied by any one of the adverse reactions with which such an event is ordinarily and almost inevitably accompanied. Can anybody say that if the exchange had depreciated when the party opposite were in office there would have been the same result? Of course there would not.
  Many of the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite have dealt with what they call our failure to deal with unemployment. I am very glad that question has been raised, because I propose to apply myself to it, but before I do so I will make one general observation to which I think no one will take exception. It is perfectly clear that this country is passing through a stage of economic development not very different from that which it passed through 100 years ago. At that time, when work passed from the home to the factory, and from hand to machine, there was a dislocation and a disturbance the tradition of which still remains in my county of Nottinghamshire, and it was accompanied by very great distress. To-day, owing to that reorganisation and amalgamation which we call by that lather barbaric word "rationalisation" exactly the same thing is taking place but just as that period 100 years ago was followed, at a not very long interval, by a period of prosperity, so I have no reason whatever to doubt that the same process which is going on to-day will also be followed by a period of prosperity.
  The conclusion I draw from that is that the figures of unemployment, about which I am going to say something in a moment, may not be the true, or perhaps the best, criterion of the position of the country, either actually or relatively to others. I am not going to repeat the figures which the Lord President gave when he opened this Debate, but there is one figure which was not given, and that is the index of industrial production. In 1931 the figure for the first quarter was 95—that is, in

  1389
  relation to 100; for the second quarter it was 91.8, for the third quarter 89.4 and for the last quarter 97.1. That shows that during the whole of last year when the Labour Government were in office there was a diminishing figure of production. For the first quarter of this year the figure was 95.6, showing that since the National Government took control we have recovered the whole of the ground we lost last year. Those are figures which the House might well consider when it is assumed that this country is going downhill, for they show that it is standing up to the impact of world forces far better than any other country in the world.
  Although I do not attach too much importance to actual figures, I am going to state one or two about which there can be no dispute at all, and am going to make some comment on the construction which has been put upon them by hon. Gentlemen opposite. In the six months -and it is quite useless for the purposes of comparison to take less than six monthly figures-from 30th March last year to 28th September, when hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office, the figures of unemployment rose continuously from 2,580,000 to 2,825,000, an increase of 250,000. In the six months from September of last year to March this year they fell from 2,825,000 to 2,567,000, or a decrease of over 250,000. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) discovered a number of 186,000 persons which, he said for some reason, should be added to the present total, and then the figures would be higher than they had ever been before. May I point out that of the 186,000 half are married women struck off under the Anomalies Act for which hon. Gentlemen opposite were responsible, and they represent the people who were on the register. What is the inference to be drawn from that fact? Those people are no longer registering or using the facilities of the Employment Exchanges, and therefore I dispute the statement that that 186,000 should be added to the total.
  Mr. LAWSON: Did not the right hon. Gentleman, in his official publication of the Ministry of Labour, say that they ought to be added for purposes of comparison?
  Sir H. BETTERTON: It must be remembered that that 186,000 represent
  1390
  people who do not register, and if they do not register the inference is that they do not want the facilities of the Employment Exchange in order to get work. Consequently, I dispute that that 186,000 should be added to the total. Making every allowance for what the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street says, this broad fact remains, that whereas the figures were going up by leaps and bounds last, year-and unless they had been checked they would probably have been between 3,000,000 and 4,000,000., and probably nearer 4,000,000 than 3,000,000-we have at least arrested that increase, and the position is infinitely better to-day than it was then. [Interruption,]
  I am going to give some other figures which I think hon. Gentlemen opposite will find equally interesting. I am going to give the figures of those in employment. The increase of those in employment between September last year and April this year is 158,000, and during the last year of office of the Labour Government the numbers in employment decreased by 353,000. What now becomes of the charge that we have done nothing to give employment to the people? It is perfectly obvious if the figures are going up when formerly they were going down, there has been an immense change for the better. We have been told that we have done nothing to restore national prosperity, but I would ask hon. Gentlement opposite to compare our record of employment with the figures of employment when the Labour Government were in office, and when those figures went down by 353,000.
  The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street and the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) raised, as I knew they would, the question of coal. I think it will be the desire of the House that I should say a word about that subject. It has been perfectly obvious to me, and, indeed, to the House, that hon. Gentlemen who, like the two hon. Members and many others, representing mining divisions, are very worried and anxious about the position of the coal trade. I entirely share their anxiety, and I am worried too, but they have formed the view, I am sure quite genuinely, that the diminution in the export of coal is due to the tariff policy and they would say-I think I am putting their case quite fairly-that this is part of the price which, whatever benefits tariffs may have in other direc-

  1391
  tions, the coal industry will have to pay. I have given the very best consideration that I could to this matter, and it seems to me to be clear that these restrictions fall, broadly, ino three categories. First, there are exchange restrictions; secondly, there are increased import duties; and, thirdly, of course, there are the quota restrictions.
  With regard to the exchange restrictions, I can find no evidence at all that they have any relation whatever to the fiscal policy of this country. Certainly, there has been a great variation in the extent of these exchange restrictions, but in all cases they have been imposed equally against all countries for the purpose of maintaining the currencies of the countries in which they are imposed, and, as my right hon. Friend pointed out at the beginning of the Debate, no fewer than 30 countries have adopted exchange restrictions. Many of the restrictions so adopted by these 30 countries were actually put into operation before the General Election, and so there can be no question of any policy of ours having any relationship at all to these restrictions, because they were actually put into operation when hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office.
  As regards the import duties, these again have been applied equally to all countries, and cannot, therefore, be said to have been put on in retaliation against Great Britain. They have in fact been put on for the purpose, as can be well understood in these days, of reducing imports and redressing the trade balances of the countries concerned.
  I now come to the third category, which is of particular interest to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and to which both the hon. Member for Aberdare and the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street referred. So far as quota restrictions are concerned, they are only in operation in three countries, Belgium, France and Germany. So far as Belgium and France are concerned, they could not have been put into operation in consequence of anything that we did in our fiscal policy, because, in the case of France, these quota restrictions were actually put on in August last, when hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office, and in the case of Belgium they were put on, I think, in October or at the end of September of last year.
  1392
  That leaves only the question of Germany. As the House knows, there have been very strong representations from this country to Germany on the matter of quota restrictions. We protested to the German Government against the fact that, while they have drastically reduced the amount of United Kingdom coal allowed to enter Germany, they have not imposed similar reductions in regard to coal coming from other countries. That is the point which was put by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street. The German Government have, however, after an exchange of further Notes between the two Governments, suggested that the question whether their treatment of British coal is a breach of the Anglo-German Treaty of 1924 should be referred to arbitration, and have intimated that, in order to expedite the hearing, the Tribunal should consist of one German and one British arbitrator, with a neutral president. At the same time, they have suggested that other treaty questions outstanding between the two Governments should also be referred to arbitration. I am authorised to say that this proposal has received the very serious consideration of the Government, and it is hoped that a reply will be sent shortly. What I have been able to say, therefore, is a very great advance on what could have been said a few days ago, and I think that it will be satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman.
  The hon. Member for Aberdare raised the question of the coal exports to Italy under The Hague agreement. As he knows, under that agreement Italy was to take one million tons annually for three years. There is at present a balance of coal due from this country of 1,200,000 tons. It is not the fact that the office of the Italian Government in Cardiff has been closed, nor is it the fact that any official intimation has been received that the balance will not be taken. The Government have no reason to believe that this balance will not be taken. That deals with the question of coal.
  There was another point which was raised by the right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate. He said that we should provide good, useful and proper work at proper wages, and that we should put the unemployed to work. He suggested the reclamation of land. I would remind the House that the right hon. Gentleman was for two years in office

  1393
  and he had to consider exactly those problems. What happened? During the time that the Labour Government were in office the Unemployment Grants Committee provided assistance for work of an actual value of no less than £80,000,000, and the Lewis Committee provided works of the value of £40,000,000. What was the result? At the very peak the largest number of persons directly employed at any one time was not more than 125,000. I only offer this as showing how infinitesimal is the number you can put into employment by relief work. During the time that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends were in office unemployment in this country rose by 150 per cent., or by 1,600,000. It is perfectly useless to pretend that relief works can solve the problem.
  I will repeat the figures I gave some time ago. If you take all that has been spent, including expenditure on housing which, of course, is not strictly relief work at all, we have spent no less than £700,000,000 since 1924 in works of this kind, and local authorities have increased their outstanding indebtedness between 1921 and 1930 by no less than £565,000,000. That burden has to be borne by the community, and we are firmly convinced that to increase the burdens on the Exchequer in the future, as they have been increased in the past, would have the very opposite result from that which is claimed, and would increase and not diminish unemployment.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I do not think I used the words "relief work" during the whole time I spoke.
  Sir H. BETTERTON: I do not remember that the right hon. Gentleman did, but they are, in fact, relief works, whether you call them relief works or not. If you spend money for the relief of unemployment that is what I call relief work. I have time to say only a word or two more. The last part of the Motion deals with what is called the deplorable treatment of the unemployed. I would remind the House that as far as standard benefit and the reduction of 10 per cent.
  which was justified last August by reason of the fall in the cost of living are concerned, the facts are that since that time the cost of living has gone down by another three points. Therefore, so far as those on standard benefit are concerned, they are actually better off, when you, have regard to the cost of living, than at the time when the Act was passed by the late Labour Government.
  So far as those on transitional benefit are concerned, I would remind the House again that we are spending no less than £41,750,000 on transitional payments, and altogether we are providing for the relief of those unemployed a sum not less than £100,000,000 a year, which is equal to the whole Budget of this country at the time when some Members now in the House first entered it. These transitional payments are, in fact, relief paid out of public funds. They are in part provided out of taxation paid by those who are in many instances little better off than the recipients themselves, and it would not only be impossible but in my view it would be wrong to ask the taxpayers to provide this money without making some inquiry whether the recients need it or not.
  I ask the House to reject the Motion by a very large majority. I hope that the size of the majority will be the measure of the contempt with which the House regards the Motion, and that it will be a measure of encouragement to the Prime Minister and his colleagues at Lausanne which will show him that we Here are determined to support him in the great work he is doing, and that we are united in our determination to extricate the country from the morass which at one time threatened to engulf it.
  Question put,
  "That His Majesty's Government, having appealed to the country for a free hand to take such action as it thought fit to restore national prosperity and to deal with unemployment, and having entirely failed in these objects as is shown by the steady diminution of trade and industry at Home and abroad and the increase of unemployment, together with the deplorable conditions to which the unemployed are being subjected, has forfeited the confidence of this House."
  The House divided: Ayes, 47; Noes, 446

  Division No. 258.]

  AYES.

  [11.0 p.m.

  Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Cape, Thomas

  Attlee, Clement Richard

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

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Batey, Joseph

  Buchanan, George

  Cove, William G.

  Cripps, Sir Stafford

  Hirst, George Henry

  Parkinson, John Allen

  Daggar, George

  Jenkins, Sir William

  Price, Gabriel

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

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

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Edwards, Charles

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Thorne, William James

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Kirk wood, David

  Tinker, John Joseph

  George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Lawson, John James

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

  Lunn, William

  Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

  Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  McEntee, Valentine L.

  Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  McGovern, John

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

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Maxton, James

  Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

  Hicks, Ernest George

  Milner, Major James

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

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

  Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

  Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

  Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G,

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

  Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

  Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

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

  Albery, Irving James

  Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

  Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

  Alexander, Sir William

  Chalmers, John Rutherford

  Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

  Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)

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

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

  Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

  Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

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

  Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

  Chotzner, Alfred James

  Falls Sir Bertram G.

  Apsley, Lord

  Christie, James Archibald

  Fermoy, Lord

  Aske, Sir Robert William

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Fielden, Edward Brockiehurst

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

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Fleming, Edward Lascelles

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Clayton, Dr. George C.

  Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

  Atkinson, Cyril

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

  Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

  Bailey, Eric Alfred George

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Ford, Sir Patrick J.

  Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Fox, Sir Gifford

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Collins, Sir Godfrey

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

  Colville, John

  Fremantle, Sir Francis

  Balniel, Lord

  Conant, R. J. E.

  Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

  Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

  Cook, Thomas A.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Cooke, Douglas

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

  Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Gillett, Sir George Masterman

  Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

  Copeland, Ida

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

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

  Courtauid, Major John Sewell

  Gledhill, Gilbert

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

  Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

  Glossop, C. W. H.

  Belt, Sir Alfred L.

  Cowan, D. M.

  Gluckstein, Louis Halle

  Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

  Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

  Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

  Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Goff, Sir Park

  Bernays, Robert

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

  Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

  Crooke, J. Smedley

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

  Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

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

  Granville, Edgar

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

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

  Blaker, Sir Reginald

  Crossley, A. C.

  Graves, Marjorie

  Blinded. James

  Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

  Bossom, A. C.

  Culverwell, Cyril Tom

  Greene, William P. C.

  Boulton, W. W.

  Curry, A. C.

  Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

  Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

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

  Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

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

  Grimston, R. V.

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Davison, Sir William Henry

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.

  Bracken, Brendan

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

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

  Denville, Alfred

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

  Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

  Guy, J. C. Morrison

  Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

  Dickie, John P.

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

  Broadbent, Colonel John

  Dixey, Arthur C. N.

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

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

  Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Donner, P. W.

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

  Browne, Captain A. C.

  Doran, Edward

  Hammersley, Samuel S.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Dower, Captain A. V. G.

  Hanbury, Cecil

  Bullock, Captain Malcolm

  Drewe, Cedric

  Hanley, Dennis A.

  Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

  Duckworth, George A. V.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Burnett, John George

  Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

  Harbord, Arthur

  Burton, Colonel Henry Walter

  Duggan, Hubert John

  Harris, Sir Percy

  Butler, Richard Austen

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

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Dunglass, Lord

  Hartland, George A.

  Cadogan, Hon. Edward

  Eady, George H.

  Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

  Caine, G. R. Hall.-

  Eales, John Frederick

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

  Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

  Eastwood, John Francis

  Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

  Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)

  Eden, Robert Anthony

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

  Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

  Edge, Sir William

  Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Caporn, Arthur Cecil

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

  Carver, Major William H.

  Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Cassels, James Dale

  Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

  Hepworth, Joseph

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Elliston, Captain George Sampson

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Castle Stewart, Earl

  Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

  Holdsworth, Herbert

  1396

  1397

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

  Milne, Charles

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

  Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

  Milne, Sir John S. Wardlaw.

  Savery, Samuel Servington

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

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

  Scone, Lord

  Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Selley, Harry R.

  Horobin, Ian M.

  Mitcheson, G: G.

  Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

  Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Howard, Tom Forrest

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

  Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

  Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

  Moreing, Adrian C.

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

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

  Morgan, Robert H.

  Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

  Hume, Sir George Hopwood

  Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

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

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

  Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

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

  Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

  Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)

  Skelton, Archibald Noel

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Morrison, William Shephard

  Slater, John

  Hurd, Sir Percy

  Moss, Captain H. J.

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

  Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

  Munro, Patrick

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

  Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)

  Nall-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.

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

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

  Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

  Newton, Sir Douglas George C.

  Smithers, Waldron

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

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

  Somervell, Donald Bradley

  Jamieson, Douglas

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

  Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)

  Janner, Barnett

  Normand, Wilfrid Guild

  Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

  Jennings, Roland

  North, Captain Edward T.

  Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

  Jesson, Major Thomas E.

  O'Connor, Terence James

  Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

  Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

  O'Donovan, Dr. William James

  Spencer, Captain Richard A.

  Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

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

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

  Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

  Ormiston, Thomas

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

  Ker, J. Campbell

  Patrick, Colin M.

  Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Kerr, Hamilton W.

  Peake, Captain Osbert

  Stevenson, James

  Kimball, Lawrence

  Pearson, William G.

  Stewart, William J.

  Kirkpatrick, William M.

  peat, Charles U.

  Stones, James

  Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

  Percy, Lord Eustace

  Storey, Samuel

  Knebworth, Viscount

  Perkins, Walter R. D.

  Stourton, Hon. John J.

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Peters, Dr. Sidney John

  Strauss, Edward A.

  Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

  Petherick, M

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Law, Sir Alfred

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

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

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

  Pickering, Ernest H.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

  Leckie, J. A.

  Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

  Leech, Dr. J. W.

  Pike, Cecil F.

  Summersby, Charles H.

  Lees-Jones, John

  Potter, John

  Sutcliffe, Harold

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

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

  Tate, Mavis Constance

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Power Sir John Cecil

  Templeton, William P.

  Levy, Thomas

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

  Lewis, Oswald

  Procter, Major Henry Adam

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

  Liddall, Walter S.

  Pybus, Percy John

  Thorp, Linton Theodore

  Lindsay, Noel Ker

  Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

  Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

  Train, John

  Lloyd, Geoffrey

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

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

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

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

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

  Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

  Ramsbotham, Herwald

  Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

  Loder, Captain J. de Vere

  Ramsden, E.

  Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

  Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

  Rankin, Robert

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

  Lyons, Abraham Montagu

  Ratcliffe, Arthur

  Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

  Mabane, William

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

  MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

  MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

  Ray, Sir William

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

  Watt, Captain George Steven H.

  MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

  Reid, David D. (County Down)

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

  Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

  McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

  Reid, William Allan (Derby)

  Weymouth, Viscount

  McKeag, William

  Remer, John R.

  White, Henry Graham

  McKie, John Hamilton

  Renwick, Major Gustav A.

  Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

  McLean, Major Alan

  Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip

  Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

  McLean, Dr. W H. (Tradeston)

  Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S)

  Macmillan, Maurice Harold

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

  Wills, Wilfrid D.

  Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

  Robinson, John Roland

  Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

  Magnay, Thomas

  Rosbotham, S. T.

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

  Maitland, Adam

  Ross, Ronald D.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

  Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

  Wise, Alfred R.

  Mander, Geoffrey le M.

  Runge, Norah Cecil

  Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

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

  Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

  Womersley, Walter James

  Marsden, Commander Arthur

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

  Martin, Thomas B.

  Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

  Worthington, Dr. John V.

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

  Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

  Wragg, Herbert

  Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

  Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

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

  Meller, Richard James

  Salmon, Major Isidore

  Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

  Millar, Sir James Duncan

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

  Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

  Captain Margesson and Mr.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

  Harcourt Johnstone.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under, the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of the urban district of Barmouth and part of the rural district of Dolgelly, in the County of Merioneth which was presented on the 26th day of May, 1932, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of the parishes of Hartington Upper Quarter and King Sterndale, in the rural district of Chapel-en-le-Frith, in the
  1400
  County of Derby, which was presented on the 1st day of June, 1932, be approved."—[Mr. Pybus.]

  DOG RACING (SUNDAY PROHIBI TION) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved,
  "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

UNEMPLOYMENT.
  INSURANCE FUND.
  INSURANCE FUND.
  TRANSITIONAL PAYMENT, LANCASHIRE.
  TRANSITIONAL PAYMENT, LANCASHIRE.
  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  HEALTH AND PENSIONS INSUR ANCE (PROSECUTIONS).
  HEALTH AND PENSIONS INSUR ANCE (PROSECUTIONS).
  CREAM IMPORTS (BUTTER-FAT CONTENT).
  CREAM IMPORTS (BUTTER-FAT CONTENT).
POOR LAW RELIEF.
  STAFFORDSHIRE.
  STAFFORDSHIRE.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  MOTOR VEHICLES (ACCIDENTS).
  MOTOR VEHICLES (ACCIDENTS).
  LONDON STREET ACCIDENTS.
  LONDON STREET ACCIDENTS.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (INLAND REVENUE).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (INLAND REVENUE).
  CIDER (IMPORTS).
  CIDER (IMPORTS).
  INCOME TAX.
  INCOME TAX.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
WOKINGHAM DISTRICT WATER BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOT TISH RAILWAY ORDER CONFIR MATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

EXTRADITION BILL. [H.L.]
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to include offences in relation to dangerous drugs, and attempts to commit such offences, among extradition crimes, and to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a —(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (ABERGAVENNY AND NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (BRIDLINGTON AND WELLS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (LEYTON) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (OXFORD) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDER (PAIGNTON) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDER (RIVER DEE) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS LIMITED (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
SOUTH LANCASHIRE TRANSPORT COMPANY (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1 [Juvenile Courts]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME, who had on the Paper an Amendment in subsection (2) to leave out the words "which is," and to insert "who are," said: My Lords, the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill has approached me privately, and asked me not to move the vast number of drafting Amendments I have placed on the Paper, because he promises to introduce a Consolidation Bill in the near future to consolidate this Bill with the Act of 1908 and other enactments. My regret is that this Bill was not brought in as a Consolidation Bill in the first place. The necessity of all these drafting Amendments is that "court" is sometimes treated in the singular and sometimes in the plural. As such an atrocity has been committed the Government should be consistent, and treat "court" as plural all through. As,

129
however, the noble Viscount has appealed to me, I respond to his appeal and do not move my first Amendment.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT SNOWDEN): My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for having accepted the suggestion that I made to him, and I want to express the gratitude of the Department to the noble Viscount for having called attention to so many grammatical errors in the Bill. It is intended that there should be a Consolidation Bill. All the noble Viscount's points have been noted and no doubt they will be carried into effect when the Consolidation Bill is produced, and we might expect that it will be freer from grammatical errors than the present Bill is.
Clause 9:
Powers of juvenile court in respect of children and young persons needing care or protection.
9.—(1) Any local authority, any constable or any authorised person (as defined in this section) who have or has reasonable grounds for believing that a child or young person comes within any of the descriptions hereinafter mentioned, that to say:—
(ii) a child or young person—
(d) who, being a female, is a member of the same household as a female in respect of whom an offence under the Punishment of Incest Act, 1908, has been committed by a member of that household,
and who, in any such case as aforesaid, requires care or protection; or
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, this is merely a drafting Amendment, and it is to insert "is" after "that" ["that to say"]. I do not suppose the noble Viscount will object to it.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 21, after ("that") insert ("is").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (1) (ii) (d), to leave out "has been committed by a member of that household." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, it does not necessarily follow, because this vile crime has been committed against a female, that the person by whom an offence under the Punishment of
130
Incest Act has been committed resides in the same house. He may be a member of another household and have access to the household in which the child is. Therefore I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 6, leave out ("has been committed by a member of that household").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: My Lords, I am afraid the noble Viscount has moved this Amendment under a slight misapprehension, because, if it were accepted, the clause would be rendered meaningless. The noble Viscount, as he stated just now, really intends, I think, to leave out only the words "by a member of that household," and thus to apply paragraph (d) to girls under 17 who are living in the same household as a female in respect of whom an incestuous offence has been committed by any person wherever he may be living. The Amendment would take rather too wide a scope. The real object here is the protection of young girls who are living in surroundings likely to have a bad effect on their morals. In the class of case to which paragraph (d) refers the danger arises from the fact that the offender is living in the same household as the young girls concerned, and, having committed an offence against one, may be likely subsequently to assault the others. If a female becomes the victim of such an offence while away from her home, or if the offender is a person whom she meets quite apart from her home life, there is no justification for taking action under Clause 9 in respect of the young girls who are living in the same household with her and who may never have seen the offender. After this explanation, the noble Viscount will perhaps be willing to withdraw the Amendment.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I have only imperfectly heard the noble Viscount. I should like to see in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow what the actual objection is. Perhaps the noble Viscount would allow me to approach him in order to come to some compromise before the Third Reading. On those terms I am willing to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10
Power of parent or guardian to bring child or young person before juvenile court.
10. Where the parent or guardian of a child or young person proves to a juvenile court that he is unable to control the child or young person, the court, if satisfied—

(i) that it is expedient so to deal with the child or young person, and

(ii) that the parent or guardian understands the results which will follow from and consents to the making of the order,

may order the child or young person to be sent to an approved school, or may order him to be placed for a specified period, not exceeding three years, under the supervision of a probation officer or of some other person appointed for the purpose by the court:
Provided that an order that the child or young person be sent to an approved school shall not be made unless the local authority within whose area he is resident agrees.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out "or young person" where those words first occur. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this clause empowers a parent or guardian to go to a juvenile court and say that the child or young person is beyond his control, and then, if the juvenile court agrees, the child or young person can be taken from the control of its parents or guardians and kept by the ratepayers. This Amendment, therefore, is in the interest of economy. On the Committee stage the noble Viscount, Lord Snowden, said this clause was in the existing Children Act, and the noble Lord, Lord Atkin, said that was a mistake, that the clause in the Children Act referred only to a child and not to a young person. In the circumstances I did not press my Amendment, but said I would introduce something of the same sort on Report, and I asked the noble Viscount whether he would consider it, and he said he would. I therefore propose to leave out "or young person," the effect of which will be to leave the law in exactly the same position as it is now. At present a parent can go to a juvenile court and ask it to take charge of a child; that is, a child under fourteen. That, as I understand it, is the law. I move this Amendment, first, in the interests of family life, and secondly, in the interests of economy. Why at the present moment we should make arrangements for taking care of persons between fourteen and eighteen I fail to see. We have got on very well in the past without that.
Amendment moved—
132
Page 9, lines 36 and 37, leave out ("or young person").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I hope you will not accept this Amendment. I speak as one who had the honour of being a member of the Departmental Committee which dealt with young persons requiring care and protection in Scotland. Our recommendations were entirely separate from those of the English Committee but very largely coincided with them, and we felt very strongly indeed that this provision was necessary and desirable. It is an extension of the provision in the existing Children Act, and we recommended that it should be so extended in order to deal with cases of young persons who are beyond parental control. Undoubtedly the matter applied principally to girls, and in order to illustrate exactly the sort of case which we had in mind in making the recommendation—a recommendation which is embodied in this Bill—I will read to you three instances which were given to us in evidence, by an exceedingly competent witness from a town in the North of Scotland:
"B, aged 15. Drank poison when told she must come in before midnight. Her most frequent companions disorderly men living in the near lodging houses.
E, aged 17. Of hawker stock. Mother kind but weak. Father frequently from home. Unusually charming. Quietly defies all control. Stays out till midnight and chooses loose friends.
G, aged 17. Had a child six months ago. Unmarried. Low minded. Mother careless. Girl has been all along very headstrong."
It was in view of such cases as these, and also occasionally cases of boys, that we urged that it was very desirable that when a parent admittedly cannot control a child it should be brought under care and protection in order that it might be saved from ruin.
I do not deal with the economic argument. That comes up more forcibly under other provisions, but I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is true economy if we can save the life of a young person from being ruined and destroyed at an early stage of his or her career. I hope you will not accept the Amendment which will limit this clause to those who really require it less. It is after the age of fourteen, at the adolescent age when the difficult time occurs, when so many begin to go astray.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, may I reinforce what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, who speaks from very special experience? I am quite certain that any one who is familiar with the difficulties created by girls about the age of fifteen or sixteen will think it is of the greatest possible importance that they should be brought under the scope of this Bill. It is precisely at that age that they very often manifest a quite peculiar degree of independence and want of restraint, often resulting, I am sorry to say, in these girls becoming the mothers of children. Sometimes they are very imperfect in intelligence and mental capacity, and, if it is a matter of economy, nothing could be more uneconomical than doing anything which makes it possible for girls of that kind to bring children into the world, often inheriting the defects of their parents and sharing their inability to control themselves. I am quite certain from my own experience, which is not inconsiderable in this matter, that it is precisely just over the age of fourteen, or between fourteen and sixteen, that there is the greatest need of bringing girls, and sometimes boys, under the provisions of this measure.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: My Lords, I am very grateful indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, and His Grace the Lord Archbishop, for the powerful support they have given to the Government in resisting this Amendment. I am quite sure that nothing I could say would add to the force of their appeal. They both have spoken out of a fulness of experience in these matters. I may add, perhaps, that the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, has moved this Amendment in the interest of economy, and he made a statement to the effect that parents—and he made similar statements in earlier stages of this Bill —would find this a very easy opportunity of avoiding their parental responsibility and shouldering upon the ratepayers and taxpayers the cost of maintaining their children. He exaggerated altogether the danger of that. In the first instance, such a young person cannot be sent to an approved school except with the permission and the authority of the local authority, and then it is not correct, as the noble Lord said, that the entire cost of maintaining these young persons will
134
fall upon the local authority or the Exchequer. The court can order that the parent should make a contribution to the cost, and I have no doubt that in its discretion the court will make such an order upon the parent.

I think the danger that the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, anticipates is altogether unfounded. May I say how strongly I agree with what the two preceding speakers have said, that to neglect to deal with young persons of this kind at that very dangerous age is the very worst possible economy? They will be the inmates of prisons in later life at very great cost to the State unless they are taken in hand at that very dangerous and impressionable age of their lives. I hope your Lordship will not accept the Amendment.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, the noble Viscount who has just sat down said that in all probability the parents would have to bear a proportion of the cost. There are clauses to that effect, but, as I said in Committee, the clauses are not very helpful, because the court can only charge the parent or guardian with a sum which they think is consistent with the parent's means, and the only remedy is the remedy which is applied in an affiliation case. They can send the defaulting person to prison, and that wipes out the debt. Therefore the remedy is not very much. With regard to what another noble Lord said, may I point out that I quite believe everything he said is absolutely correct, and that there are a great number of girls of sixteen or seventeen who do have children when they ought not to. That arises to a great extent from the fact that a great deal too much liberty is allowed to young people. They go to all sorts of places.
I think it was a right rev. Prelate who, in a previous debate, said he did not wish them to work for very long hours, so that they could go to clubs. When that takes place we know what happens. The result is a young person who probably ought not to come into the world, and I do not believe that by taking these girls and putting them into an approved school or an institution you are going to alter that. In all probability you will make it worse because, having been shut up for two or three years, they will be only too anxious to misbehave when they get out. I do not seem to have had any very great

135
support up to the present moment, and I do not intend to divide, but I will not withdraw the Amendment. I should prefer to have it negatived, unless any noble Lord gets up and supports me.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 24:
General provisions as to orders committing children and young persons to care of fit person.
24.—(1) The provisions of this and the three next succeeding sections shall apply in relation to orders under this Part of this Act committing a child or young person to the care of a fit person, and in those provisions the expressions "boy" and "girl" mean respectively a boy or a girl with respect to whom such an order is in force, irrespective of whether at the date of the making of the order he or she was a child or was a young person.
(2) Every order shall embody a declaration as to the age of the boy or girl and shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, remain in force until he or she attains the age of eighteen years.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "eighteen" and insert "seventeen." The noble Lord said: The noble Viscount will remember that on the Committee stage I had a similar Amendment, and he asked me to take it on Clause 68, which I agreed to do. When Clause 68 came on it was very late. I said I would not move it then, but would do so now. Again the object of my Amendment is in the interests of economy, to reduce the age at which these young persons shall be kept by the State at the expense of the ratepayer or taxpayer from eighteen to seventeen. I fail to see why, especially at this moment, it is necessary to deal with people at the age of nearly eighteen. There are many young people of sixteen or seventeen who are quite capable of looking after themselves, who might be doing good work for themselves and others. Why the State should interfere and become a sort of parent, and take upon itself the responsibility of a parent, I fail to see. The noble Viscount, if he will refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT, will see that he said he would consider it. He did not go any further, I admit. But he did say he would consider it, and I sincerely hope he will agree to this.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 22, leave out ("eighteen") and insert ("seventeen").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: This Amendment really strikes at one of the most important parts of this Bill—namely, the age at which a young person should be regarded as a young person. The Bill, as your Lordships know, raises the age of the definition of a young person from sixteen to seventeen.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: To eighteen.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: No, seventeen as a young person. The Amendment now before your Lordships refers not to the definition of a young person, but to the age at which he shall remain under the supervision of the local authority or the probation officer. Lord Banbury has an Amendment to Clause 70, where we have a definition of a young person, and it seems to me that it might be more appropriate if the noble Lord were to raise his objection to that age on Clause 70. Of course, if your Lordships were to alter the Bill and reduce the age from seventeen to sixteen then it would be necessary to make Amendments to Clause 70. Coming to this particular Amendment, it is necessary that a person should be kept under supervision beyond the age of seventeen because he might be committed as a person requiring supervision just before he reached the age of seventeen—at sixteen years and eleven months. It would be patently absurd that he should be detained for a month only and then be released without any further supervision. The Government, of course, cannot accept this Amendment and I ask your Lordships not to agree to it.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, I do not think my noble friend's Amendment is quite so absurd as the noble Viscount makes out. I am not expressing an opinion upon the age at which a young person should become an adult, but, as I understand the provision of Clause 70 of the Bill, it is that a young person is someone who is not a child and has not yet reached the age of seventeen. That being so, and it being contemplated that a person over seventeen should not come within the ambit of this Bill, we then find in Clause 24 (2) that certain provisions which are appropriate to a young person, this young person ceasing to be within the ambit of the Bill at seventeen, shall apply to him until eighteen years of age. It does seem to me rather extraordinary that you should

137
say a person ceases to be amenable at the age of seventeen and then say that as far as commitment is concerned he may be kept until eighteen. It seems to be very illogical.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, before the Amendment is put perhaps the noble Viscount or someone speaking for the Government would deal a little more fully with the question why it is necessary to take power to detain until the age of eighteen. I understand that the Bill defines a young person as someone up to the age of seventeen and that young person may be put under the control of a fit person because he is a young person—that is, under seventeen. Having put him under control because he is under seventeen I myself fail at the moment to understand why he should be kept under control until the age of eighteen.
LORD ATKIN: My Lords, may I raise one query? As I understand the proposals in this Bill there are three modes of dealing with a child or young person in different circumstances. You can send a child to an approved school, or you can commit a child to the care of a fit person, or you can put a child on probation. This clause deals with both children and young persons. I can quite understand its application to young persons, but it also applies to children. Clause 30 provides in subsection (1) that:
"Where a court order a child to be sent to an approved school, the order shall be an authority for his detention in an approved school until the expiration of a period of three years from the date of the order"
or until he reaches the age of fifteen. Why should there be the age of fifteen for detention in an approved school and eighteen for committal to a fit person? There may be some reason but I do not quite understand it. I thought that the provisions were alternative provisions.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: My Lords, by leave of the House I will try to explain. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin, is quite right in his interpretation, but he asks why there should be a different age in the case of a child and a young person. I must have made my meaning lamentably dull if your Lordships did not understand the reason why it is necessary
138
to have the power to keep a young person up to the age of eighteen. As I pointed out, he may come under the jurisdiction of the court and of the local authority as the fit person to control him when he is nearly seventeen years of age. It would be perfectly useless to keep him for a few weeks only, or it may be for a few months only, and then leave him perfectly free to go back to his old vicious habits. That is why it is necessary to keep him beyond the age of seventeen. A person over the age of seventeen does not come under this Bill at all when he commits some offence or is regarded as being beyond the control of his parents. I think it is most important, and I am sure your Lordships will agree, that this power to keep a young person up to the age of eighteen should be preserved in the Bill in order to deal with such cases as I have mentioned where the period of supervision is only very short and is far too short to have any effect of a reformative character.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Snowden, I am sorry to say, has not convinced me. If your Lordships will look at page 16 of the Bill you will see that Clause 24 (1) says:
"The provisions of this and the three next succeeding sections shall apply in relation to orders under this Part of this Act committing a child or young person to the care of a fit person, and in those provisions the expressions 'boy' and 'girl' mean respectively a boy or a girl with respect to whom such an order is in force, irrespective of whether at the date of the making of the order he or she was a child or was a young person."
That means under fifteen or under seventeen, because that is the definition unless I am mistaken, of a child or a young person. Then subsection (2) says:
"Every order shall embody a declaration as to the age of the boy or girl and shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, remain in force until he or she attains the age of eighteen years."
Subsection (2) contradicts subsection (1). I am afraid I must go to a Division on this.
On Question, Whether the word "eighteen" shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 22.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Selborne, E.

Gainford, L.

Hampton, L.

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Astor, V.

Harlech, L.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Snowden, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

Chaplin, V.

Marks, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Marley, L.

Reading, M.

Hailsham, V.

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Salisbury M.

Mersey, V.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Zetland, M.

Northbourne, L.

Lincoln, L. Bp.

Polwarth, L.

Airlie, E.

Winchester, L. Bp.

Rhayader, L.

Feversham, E.

Rochester, L.

Harrowby, E.

Arnold, L.

St. Levan, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Askwith, L.

Sanderson, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Atkin, L.

Snell, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Charnwood, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Stanmore, L.

Morton, E.

Strachie, L.

Onslow, E.

Clwyd, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Powis, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), L.

Radnor, E.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Templemore, L.

Rothes, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Trent, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Ullswater, V.

Hawke, L.

Hindlip, L.

Lindsay, E.

Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]

Lloyd, L.

Midleton, E.

Monkswell, L.

Munster, E.

Conway of Allington, L.

Mount Temple, L.

Poulett, E.

Cranworth, L. [Teller.]

Raglan, L.

Danesfort, L.

Rayleigh, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Darling, L.

Wharton, L.

Exmouth, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 35:
Contributions by local authorities in respect of persons sent to approved schools.
(2) A court by whom an approved school order is made shall cause a copy thereof to be served forthwith on the local authority named in the order and, if that authority desire to contend that the person to whom the order relates was resident in the district of some other local authority, or was resident outside England, they may, by notice in writing given at any time within three months after the service upon them of the order, appeal—

(a) if the order was made by a petty sessional court, to a court of summary jurisdiction acting for the same petty sessional division or place, and

(b) if the order was made by a court which was not a petty sessional court, to a court of summary jurisdiction having jurisdiction in the place where that court sat, or in the place from which the person to whom the order relates was committed for trial,

and if, upon the hearing of the appeal, the court are satisfied that the person to whom the order relates was resident in the district of that other local authority, or was resident outside England, they may by order vary the approved school order by substituting therein the name of that other authority or, as the case may be, a state-
140
ment that the said person was resident outside England. Notice of any such appeal shall be given not less than fourteen days before the day on which the appeal is to be heard to the clerk of the court and to the other local authority concerned, if any.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN VISCOUNT SNOWDEN moved to omit the last sentence of subsection (2) and insert:
"Notice of any appeal under this subsection shall be given to the other local authority concerned, if any, and to the clerk of the court, and the clerk of the court shall give to the parties to the appeal fourteen days' notice of the date fixed by the court for the hearing thereof."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, as this is the first of the Amendments on the paper in my name, may I say that nearly all the Amendments standing in my name are either consequential on Amendments made by your Lordships in Committee or of a drafting character? Perhaps with that explanation your Lordships will excuse me from doing more when we come to these Amendments than formally move them. This Amendment deals with a small point of procedure in connection with the appeals by a local authority against the determination of liability to contribute to the maintenance of a person in an approved school. As

141
the Bill stands at present, notice of the date of hearing of the appeal will have to be served by the appellant authority on the other authority concerned by way of summons. The Amendment is simply to make it possible to follow a more convenient procedure by which the clerk of the court gives notice of the date on which the appeal will be heard.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 23, leave out from ("England") to the end of the subsection, and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Snowden.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 39 [Escapes from, remand homes, and from the cure of fit persons]:
Amendments moved—
Page 33, line 3, leave out ("the court who made")
Page 33, line 4, after ("was") insert ("made by").—(Viscount Snowden.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 27, at end insert ("or to both such fine and. imprisonment").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: My Lords, this is an Amendment that I accept.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 44:
Provision of approved schools by local authorities.
44.—(1) A local authority may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, undertake, or combine with any other local authority in undertaking, or contribute such sums of money upon such conditions as they may think fit towards, the purchase, establishment, building, alteration, enlargement, rebuilding or management of an approved school.
(2) In the event of a deficiency of approved school accommodation, it shall be the duty of every local authority concerned to take, either alone or in combination with other local authorities, appropriate steps under this section to remedy the deficiency.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT had given Notice that he would move, at the end of subsection (1), to insert:
"Provided that before giving his approval the Secretary of State shall satisfy himself that the proposed expenditure is reasonable, and that before undertaking to purchase, build or establish a, new institution the local authority have used their best endeavours
142
to make satisfactory provision by arrangement with the managers of another approved school."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, since I handed in the Amendment the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill has put down an Amendment in his own name which follows on the same lines and which, he assures me, is really better and carries out the object more efficiently. Even if I thought otherwise I should bow to the opinion of the noble Viscount and there fore I will not move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 7, at end insert:
("Provided that, before giving his approval, the Secretary of State shall satisfy himself that the proposed expenditure is reasonable and, where it is proposed to purchase, build or establish a new school, that there is a deficiency of approved school accommodation which cannot properly be remedied in any other way.")—(Viscount Snowden.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
clause 51:
Power of local authority to make by-laws with respect to employment of juvenile persons.
(3) Nothing in this section shall empower a local authority to make by-laws with respect to—
(b) employment in or in connection with factories, workshops, mines, quarries, shops, or offices, not being employed in any capacity as aforesaid;
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 35, leave out ("employed") and insert ("employment").—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR moved, in subsection (3), after paragraph (e), to insert
"(f) employment in any ship, as defined in Section four of the Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act, 1920."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 3, at end, insert the said paragraph (f).—(Viscount Astor.)
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: I accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 52:
Amendment of law with respect to street trading.
52.—(1) No person under the age of sixteen shall engage or be employed in street trading:
Provided that by-laws made under the next succeeding subsection may permit young persons who have not attained the age of sixteen to be employed by their parents in street trading.
(2) A local authority may make by-laws for regulating or prohibiting street trading by persons under the age of eighteen, and by-laws so made may distinguish between persons of different ages and sexes and between different localities, and may contain provisions—

(a) forbidding any such person to engage or be employed in street trading unless he holds a licence granted by the authority, and regulating the conditions on which such licences may be granted, suspended and revoked;

(b) determining the days and hours during which, and the places at which, such persons may engage or be employed in street trading;

(c) requiring such persons so engaged or employed to wear badges;

(d) regulating in any other respect the conduct of such persons whilst so engaged or employed.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 52. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an instance of grandmotherly legislation which I hope your Lordships will reject. The clause says:
" No person under the age of sixteen shall engage or be employed in street trading:
Provided that by-laws made under the next succeeding subsection may permit young persons who have not attained the age of sixteen to be employed by their parents in street trading.
(2) A local authority may make by-laws for regulating or prohibiting street trading by persons under the age of eighteen, and by-laws so made may distinguish between persons of different ages and sexes and between different Localities."
The result may be that in one part of London a young person of seventeen may trade under the by-laws, say, of the Borough Council of Camberwell, whereas in another part, under the Westminster Council for example, the by-laws may be different.
This seems to me to be a most extraordinary proposal and I do not see why the local authority should be a better judge than the parent or even the young person of seventeen. A person of seventeen,
144
who perhaps has a father or mother ill and desires to do his best to keep the family going, is to be prevented because some busybody on the local authority—perhaps a Socialist who thinks that the Government is a better judge of what people ought to do than people themselves—chooses to say that in his district a young person may not trade except on the days and hours and in the places which are permitted. They have to wear badges, too. I do not know why they should be obliged to do that. Sometimes people do not like to distinguish themselves in that way. The clause seems so absurd that I cannot believe it can he permitted to pass. I really do not know what we are corning to. We shall soon never be able to do anything we like without the consent of the noble Viscount or somebody else. That does not appeal to me. I have been brought up to believe that it is my duty to do what I think best for myself and not to go to any local authority or even to the noble Viscount to ask what I am to do. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—

Leave out Clause 52.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I venture to ask the Lord Privy Seal to give us some account of this clause. I do so with some diffidence because it is possible that the matter has been fully discussed at another stage of which I ought to be aware. Why is the distinction made between the two subsections? I can understand a general policy of preventing people of tender years from being engaged in street trading. Sixteen is perhaps not quite tender years, but still one can understand that the age might be extended as far as that; but why is there this distinction between the case of the first subsection, which deals with persons under sixteen, where the prohibition is to be absolute, and the second subsection, where the age is eighteen and where there is a discretion to the local authority. I cannot see why the matter should be handed over to a local authority at all. If it is wrong that a person under eighteen should be engaged in street trading that is a matter to be laid down by Parliament. Unless there is some special reason which the Lord Privy Seal may be able to explain I see no reason for the distinction. I do not propose to suggest that there should

145
be an absolute rule regarding eighteen. Even sixteen is rather strong though perhaps a reasonable age. But why a person between sixteen and eighteen should not be allowed to engage in street trading puzzles me. There may be some great authority behind the Lord Privy Seal which he will be able to quote, but I do not think we should accept the clause as it stands unless there is a full defence made of it.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Marquess, and I go further. I think it is ridiculous to say that a boy aged seventeen is not to be allowed to sell newspapers in the streets. That boy is eligible for enlistment in the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, and if fit to fight for his country and go forth into the world as a member of the Services, surely he is fit to sell newspapers in the streets.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, those familiar with constitutional history will remember that in the days before the Norman Conquest the laws of Wessex and Mercia, were so different that when there was any agreement it was a matter of comment. Laws varied from district to district and it was one of the tasks of the monarchs who followed to reduce this chaos to some sort of order. It seems to be the object of the Government to undo the work of those monarchs and to restore us to the chaos of the days before the Conquest.
LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will press his Amendment if only because of paragraph (c) which requires persons to wear badges. I think badges are one of the curses of the age. There is a flag day practically for every day of the week, and no one is happy unless he has a yellow cap, a blue pig or some sort of badge in his buttonhole. This does not say who is going to pay for the badges—whether His Majesty's Government, the local authority or the unfortunate person gathered in under the clause.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, may I point out the great injury this clause will inflict on the working classes? The earnings of street boys are often, though small, a substantial part of the family income and I suggest that this application of the principle of "Go and see what the poor are doing and tell them not to" will be exceedingly injurious.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I confess I share the feelings to a great extent of Lord Banbury of Southam with regard to this clause. As to the first subsection I cannot help thinking that the age of sixteen is too high. To say that a boy of fifteen cannot go out and sell a newspaper in his spare time, when he perhaps has left school, is unreasonable. Normally he would have left school at fifteen, and perhaps would have no employment, and is it reasonable to say that he must not go and sell newspapers between fifteen and sixteen, after he has left school? It seems to me a serious innovation, and if it is not an innovation it is certainly a serious interference with the rights of children of the working classes and their parents. So much for subsection (1). As to subsection (2), it seems to me nonsensical. Why should a boy be prevented from street trading unless he can get a licence under these objectionable conditions from the local authority? Why should he have to get authority at all? Surely, boys between the ages of sixteen and eighteen are old enough, with their parents' permission, to go into the street and do reasonable street trading, without having to go to the local authority, who perhaps may know nothing about the conditions of the family and may refuse them permission to earn the few shillings which may be necessary to keep the boy. I think the whole clause should come out, and perhaps the noble Viscount will bring up a more reasonable clause if it be necessary.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF ANTERBURY: My Lords, may I a the noble Lord whether it is necessary to leave out the whole of this clause? I express no opinion about subsection (2), but I am concerned about the preservation of subsection (1). It prevents a young person under the age of sixteen from street trading, unless the parents can show the local authority that it is necessary for one of their children under the age of sixteen to assist them. I should be very sorry indeed if this clause, prohibiting street trading for boys and girls, were left out. It happens that I have had very large experience of boys and girls under the age of sixteen engaged in street trading, and I can say that the mischief done by this occupation to both boys and girls can scarcely be exaggerated. Apart

147
from the injury to morals, in the case of boys it entirely unfits them to seek or obtain that sort of regular employment which we should wish. Therefore, while not expressing any opinion about subsection (2), I hope the noble Lord will be content with moving to omit subsection (2), and not include subsection (1) in his Amendment.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, may I answer the most reverend Primate? I understand that the Question has been put that Clause 52 stand part, and therefore the clause must go out, but on the Third Reading it would be open to the most reverend Primate, or anybody else, to introduce a clause which would confine its provisions to children under the age of sixteen. Therefore he will not be in any way injured by the whole clause being left out now.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will accept the clause as it stands. This matter was considered very carefully by our Committee, which was appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I would like to tell your Lordships of the evidence given before us by the late Chief Constable of Glasgow. He entirely agreed with the opinion expressed by his predecessor, when examined by the Departmental Committee appointed in 1909:
"Do you know any other form of occupation equally demoralising for a boy? Is it in your opinion the most demoralising form of occupation?—Yes. It is a loose occupation in which they are not occupied in steady employment, and have no discipline in their lives."
He added that in his opinion street trading was an occupation which should be reserved for old or disabled men, and he was strongly opposed to its regulation by by-law in the case of young people. That was the late Chief Constable of Glasgow. Then the Chief Constable of Edinburgh, in evidence before us, definitely adhered to the evidence which he gave before the Departmental Committee in 1909:
"Do you call street trading the most resourceful apprenticeship to crime? —Unquestionably."
My twenty years of experience as Chairman of the Prison Commissioners in Scotland confirm that view. I am glad to say that we have almost extinguished street trading by girls in Scotland, but a large number of boys engaged in it drift into crime, often led to it by betting.
148
They constitute a large portion of the boys who begin a life of crime and become that most expensive of all persons, the habitual criminal. In Scotland, under the Education Act, 1918, street trading has already been forbidden under the age of seventeen, and none of the terrible consequences have ensued in Scotland which we have heard might follow from this clause, but there was an unfortunate loophole in that Act which would be remedied by this clause. It is that a boy could employ himself in street trading. As your Lordships know, the usual practice in selling newspapers is for a person to buy a number of newspapers at a discount and sell them on his own account. It was consequently found difficult to prove that a boy was being employed by anyone, although there was a system of farming out.
I earnestly hope that this clause will be accepted. I think it is extremely important that this demoralising occupation should be precluded. The number employed, according to the evidence which we have, was not great, and there will be no difficulty in absorbing these young persons in other employment. I doubt whether these boys contribute much to the family budget, because they are usually boys who have got out of the control of their parents, and left them and gone to live in lodging houses, often with bad associates. As I have said, I doubt whether they contribute much to the family budget, and it is a blind-alley occupation which leads to nothing. I hope the recommendations of the committees which have considered street trading will be adopted.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down has made another powerful contribution to our debates, based upon practical knowledge and experience, and I am sure his words must have made a great impression upon your Lordships. Many of the speakers who have taken part in the debate upon this clause appear to be under the impression that this clause is new, and makes provisions in the law which are not already, in a somewhat similar form, embodied in our legislation. The only difference this clause makes is to raise the age for prohibition of street trading from fourteen to sixteen. At the present time the local authorities make regulations in regard to street trading, and therefore that part of the clause is

149
not new. If this clause were deleted then all the local regulations as to street trading would be abolished. It would be possible then for children of any age to indulge in street trading, without any regulation or control. I would like to point out to your Lordships that prohibition of street trailing below a certain age, and regulation above that age, have been the law for nearly thirty years with most beneficial results. It would be a calamity if this clause were withdrawn from the Bill, because your Lordships would thereby only be encouraging those evils to which the noble Lord who spoke last has called the attention of your Lordships in such powerful language.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My noble friend has not dealt with subsection (2) at all.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: That is the power to make by-laws. As I have said already, this is a power given to the local authorities, and I think there are very good reasons for it. One noble Lord referred to the diversities of laws which existed in the time of the Saxons. I think there is a good deal to be said for a diversity of law in certain circumstances. I have no doubt that the Scottish members of your Lordships' House
think that it is an extremely good thing that there should be a diversity of law between Scotland and England. The conditions vary greatly in different towns. The noble Marquess said that the conditions ought to be laid down by Statute. Well, they are in the subsection to which he calls attention. It lays down the conditions under which the local authority shall make these regulations, and gives to the local authorities permission to make the regulations apply according to the special circumstances of a locality.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: May I ask if the local authority have the power to make these regulations apply up to the age of eighteen under the present law?
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: No. Up to the age of sixteen.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: My Lords, I think the answer of the noble Viscount is very disappointing, but, as he has pointed out to your Lordships that they already have these powers to a large extent, surely that shows that this clause is quite unnecessary.
On Question, Whether Clause 52 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 25.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Goschen, V.

Hampton, L.

Hailsham, V.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Mersey, V.

Irwin, L.

Ullswater, V.

Marks, L.

Snowden, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Lincoln, L. Bp.

Monkswell, L.

Reading, M.

Winchester, L. Bp.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Zetland, M.

Northbourne, L.

Arnold, L.

Polwarth, L.

Feversham, E.

Askwith, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Harrowby, E.

Atkin, L.

Rhayader, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Charnwood, L.

St. Levan, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. ClanWilliam.)

Sanderson, L.

Midleton, E.

Snell, L.

Morton, E.

Clwyd, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Powis, E.

Conway of Allington, L.

Stanmore, L.

Rothes, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Bridgeman, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Templemore, L.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Gainford, L.

Trent, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Salisbury, M.

Radnor, E.

Darling, L.

Selborne, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Airlie, E.

Harlech, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Bertie of Thame, V.

Hawke, L.

Exmouth, V.

Hindlip, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Lindsay, E.

Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]

Mount Temple, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Raglan, L.

Munster, E.

Cranworth, L. [Teller.]

Strachie, L.

Onslow, E.

Danesfort, L.

Wharton, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 57 [Provisions as to juveniles taking part in, and being trained for, dangerous performances]:
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: My Lords, I beg to move the four Amendments on the Paper.
Amendments moved—
Page 46, line 1, leave out ("boy or girl") and insert ("person")
line 3, leave out ("or her")
line 4, leave out ("boy or girl") and insert ("person")
line 5, leave out ("or her") in both places where those words occur.—(Viscount Snowden.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 58 [Licences for training juveniles to take part in dangerous performances]:
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: My Lords, the Amendment in my name is a drafting Amendment.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I do rather protest. At the request of the noble Viscount I withdrew all drafting Amendments and this is the sort of drafting Amendment I had on the Paper. Yet when this comes on the noble Viscount moves it.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: I am afraid it is due to an oversight of mine.
Clause 62:
Savings.
(4) For the purposes of this Part of this Act and any by-laws made thereunder, a child taking part as a choir boy in a religious service or in a choir practice for a religious service, shall not, whether he receives any reward or not, be deemed to be employed.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "choir boy" and insert "chorister." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the object of the Amendment is to cover both sexes. I believe in very many villages choirs consist both of boys and girls, and what is sauce for the gander should also be sauce for the goose.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 39, leave out ("choir boy") and insert ("chorister").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 65 [Amendment of S. 1 of the principal Act]
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN VISCOUNT SNOWDEN moved to add the following new subsection:
"(3) A person who at the commencement of this Act is nursing and maintaining for reward an infant under the age of nine years apart from its parents or having no parents, shall within one month after the commencement of this Act, give to the local authority in respect of that infant such a notice as is mentioned in subsection (2) of the said Section one:
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall require a person to give such a notice in any case where a notice was given by him to the local authority on the first reception of the infant."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is necessary in consequence of the provision in the clause requiring notice to be given by the local authority when a person undertakes for reward the nursing of a child. I am sure it will meet with your Lordships' approval.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 36, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Snowden.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 67:
Removal of infants kept in unsuitable premises, or by unsuitable persons.
(2) An order made under the foregoing subsection may be enforced by a constable, or by a visitor or other person appointed or authorised as aforesaid; and any person who refuses to comply with such an order upon its being produced and read over to him, or who obstructs any such constable, visitor or person as aforesaid in the enforcement of the order, shall be guilty of an offence under Part I of the principal Act.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "and read over to him." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this clause contemplates obstruction—
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: I accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 42, leave out ("and read over to him").—(Viscount Bertie of Theme.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 68:
Prohibition of anonymous advertisements offering to undertake care of infants.
68.—(1) It shall be unlawful to publish any advertisement indicating that a person whose name and address are not disclosed therein will undertake, or will arrange for,

153
the nursing and maintenance of an infant under the age of nine years.
(2) Every person who publishes any advertisement in contravention of the provisions of this section shall be guilty of an offence under Part I of the principal Act.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN VISCOUNT SNOWDEN moved to omit subsection (1) and the words "Every person who" in subsection (2), and to insert:
"(1) No advertisement indicating that a person or society will undertake, or will arrange for, the nursing and maintenance of an infant under the age of nine years shall be published unless that person's name and residence, or, as the case may be, that society's name and office, are truly stated in the advertisement.
(2) Every person who knowingly."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 7, leave cut from the beginning to ("publishes") in line 12 and insert the said words.—(Viscount Snowden.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE or THAME: I have an Amendment to a similar purpose, and I am very much obliged to the noble Viscount for moving his, because it is much better drafted and makes the thing quite watertight. As the Bill stood the provisions of the clause could have been circumvented.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 70:
Raising the age of "young persons."
70.—(1) For the purposes of this and the principal Act the expression "young person" means a person who has attained the age of fourteen years and is under the age of seventeen years, and in the definitions of "young person" in Section forty-nine of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, as amended by Section one hundred and twenty-eight of the principal Act, and of "adult" in Section twenty-four of the Criminal Justice Act, 1925, "seventeen" shall be substituted for "sixteen."
LORD BANBURY of SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY of SOUTHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out the first "seventeen" and insert "sixteen." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to leave the age as it is. I do not know that there is very much chance of it being accepted, but I move it formally. I see no reason why the age should be altered. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 11, leave out ("seventeen") and insert ("sixteen").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, after Clause 70, to insert the following new clause:
". It shall be unlawful for a person to hire or let out on hire or borrow or lend an infant under nine years for the purpose of accompanying a person while engaged in street trading."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I think it is common knowledge that children are borrowed or hired by flower sellers who are engaged in street trading to create sympathy, and it is a great abuse. I hope the noble Viscount will see his way to accept this Amendment to prevent that sort of thing being carried on. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 70, insert the said new clause. —(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: My Lords, now that your Lordships have accepted Clause 52, I think that the Amendment which has just been moved is unnecessary, because it is quite clear that a child, under regulations made by the local authority, could not be employed really for the purposes of begging and ostensibly for the purposes of street trading. 1 might also say that the intention of the clause is already fully covered by Section 14 of the Children Act of 1908, and I am informed that it is the experience of the Home Office that that section has proved quite effective in preventing begging by children in the streets. After that explanation I hope the noble Viscount will not press his Amendment, which I am sure is quite unnecessary.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, with regard to the noble Viscount's argument that Clause 52 covers the point I think he is mistaken in that. It reads:
"No person under the age of sixteen shall engage or be employed in street trading."
Can it possibly be said that an infant in arms is either engaged or employed in street trading when he cannot even speak? It is a ridiculous argument, if I may say so. With regard to the second part of the noble Viscount's argument, that Section 14 of the 1908 Act covers the point, it only shows how bad it is to have brought this Bill in separately instead of, as I have often suggested before, bringing in a Consolidation Amending Act, but as the noble Viscount assures

155
me that it is already covered by that section of the 1908 Act I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD ATKIN: Can we have Section 14 read?
THE EARL OF LUCAN: In reply to the noble and learned Lord, the section reads:
"(1) If any person causes or procures any child or young person, or, having the custody, charge or care of a child or young person, allows that child or young person, to be in any street, premises, or place for the purpose of begging or receiving alms, or of inducing the giving of alms, whether or not there is any pretence of singing, playing, performing, offering anything for sale, or otherwise, that person shall, on summary conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds, or alternatively, or in default of payment of such fine, or in addition thereto, to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for any term not exceeding three months.
(2) If a person having the custody, charge or care of a child or young person is charged with an offence under this section, and it is proved that the child or young person was in any street, premises, or place for any such purpose as aforesaid, and that the person charged allowed the child or young person to be in the street, premises, or place, he shall be presumed to have allowed him to be in the street, premises, or place for that purpose unless the contrary is proved."
LORD ATKIN: My Lords, I think it will appear now that that section, as read out, does not really cover the same point. It only applies to a child used for the purposes of begging. That has to be proved. It is not for the ostensible purpose of selling goods. The child must be used for the purpose of begging. I think what the noble Viscount who moved the Amendment wishes to prevent is the use of a child by a flower seller or a match seller engaged in selling flowers or matches in order to secure sympathy. In such a case the child could not in any circumstances be said to be begging. It seems to me that the proposal, whether right or not, is somewhat different from the section. May I make a suggestion to the noble Viscount? I have not looked through the whole machinery of this Bill as compared with the Children Act, but I would point out that in his Amendment there is no provision for a penalty. All he says is "It shall be unlawful." The ordinary procedure on that is indictment for misdemeanour in breach of some Statute. That I do not suppose is contemplated. If there is an offence under
156
some Act and a penalty provided that would do, but if not he must provide for a penalty on summary conviction.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: After hearing the noble and learned Lord I think I must press the Amendment. It can be taken out on Third Reading if we discover that the 1908 Act does cover it.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, may I suggest to the noble Viscount, as this is a question whether the offence is already covered, that it should be considered in the light of the present discussion? It seems to me that the question is whether the point is covered or uncovered at the moment and I suggest that it might be looked into to see whether it is necessary to cover it.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: I am quite prepared to do that. I would not venture to express a legal opinion about the interpretation of the clause, but as an ignorant layman I should be inclined to think that the section in the Children Act is wider than the terms of this Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: It occurred to me that that might be so and that is why I suggested that the matter should be considered carefully.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: May I be allowed to read Section 14 of the Children Act, 1908? Subsection (2) of that section says:
"If a person having the custody, charge or care of a child or young person is charged with an offence under this section, and it is proved that the child or young person was in any street, premises, or place for any such purpose as aforesaid, and that the person charged allowed the child or young person to be in the street, premises, or place, he shall be presumed to have allowed him to be in the street, premises, or place for that purpose unless the contrary is proved."
LORD ATKIN: That is if the child is permitted to be in the street "for that purpose," and "that purpose" is the purpose of begging.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: I know it is presumption on my part even to offer an opinion upon the interpretation of a clause, but I should think that a child in arms in the custody of a person who is using the child for the purpose of inciting public sympathy would clearly come within that subsection. However, I do

157
not for a single moment put my opinion against that of the noble and learned Lord, and I will adopt the suggestion of the noble and learned Marquess.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURY: My Lords, May I suggest that inquiry might also extend to the question whether the section in the Children Act would snake this offence apply not only to the woman or man with the child in her or his arms for the purpose of begging, but also to anyone who lends a child? That, as I know from personal experience, is in certain circles constantly done. Children are hired out for this purpose as a regular trade. It seems to me that the noble Viscount's Amendment is a great deal wider than the section in the Children Act.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I think it will be found that that is covered by the section which has been read out by my noble friend, but I think it is a much more convenient course to have the matter looked into by the Home Office and its legal advisers between now and Third Reading.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: On that understanding I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 75 [Institution of proceedings by local or Poor Law authorities]:
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: My Lords, the Amendment standing in my name is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 26, leave out ("Part II of the principal Act") and insert ("any part of the principal Act or of this Act").—(Viscount Snowden.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 78 [Amendment of Guardianship of Infants Act, 1925]:
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: My Lords, there are two drafting Amendments to this clause. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 58, line 23, leave out ("and be deemed always to have included")
Page 58, line 27, leave out ("and be deemed always to have included").—(Viscount Snowden.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 81:
Provisions as to local authorities.
(4) Expenses incurred under this Act by the council of a county or county borough, exclusive of any expenses to be defrayed under the last preceding subsection as expenses of elementary education under the Education Act, 1921, shall be defrayed—
(b) in any other case, as expenses for general county purposes or, as the case may be, out of the general rate.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: My Lords, there is a consequential Amendment to this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 25, leave out ("or scheme").—(Viscount Snowden.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to insert at the end of subsection (4) "to a sum not exceeding four thousand pounds per annum." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I move the Amendment standing in my name with the object of obtaining from the noble Viscount a further statement on expenditure connected with this Bill. I may say that I fully realise that the Amendment I have put on the Paper is a breach of Privilege, but I hope however that I shall obtain some satisfactory reply. I would draw attention to the speech of the Lord Privy Seal on the Committee stage, in which he said that the estimate of the London County Council (that the Bill would cost them £10,000 a year) was absurd. He gave figures which showed that the extra cost would be £4,000. I have asked various questions and I have been very careful in making certain of my facts, and I am informed that the London County Council cannot alter from the position they have taken up and that the Bill will cost them an additional £10,000 a year on a very conservative estimate. The noble Viscount assumed that there would be a saving to the local authorities on the Borstal and other institutions, but I would venture to suggest that the saving there will accrue entirely to the Home Office. In those circumstances taking the noble Viscount's own calculation I find that the increase in cost to the local authorities will be no less than £53,000. I beg to move the Amendment in the hope that the noble

159
Viscount will make a further announcement.
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 5, at end insert ("to a sum not exceeding four thousand pounds per annum").—(The Earl of Munster.)
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, before the noble Viscount replies, may I say a word or two on this subject? There may be great difference of opinion as to whether this Bill is a good one or not, but I think everybody will agree that the present is not the time when we ought to increase expenditure if we can possibly avoid it. On the Second Reading of this Bill I ventured to state—and it has not been contradicted by anybody except by the noble Viscount, Lord Snowden—that it was estimated that this Bill would cost the London County Council alone a sum of £10,000 per annum. The noble Viscount, Lord Snowden, on the 13th of this month, when this Bill was in Committee, said my estimate was absurd. I hope he will withdraw that remark when he comes to speak, for the following reasons. The extra expenditure under this Bill for approved schools will be, it is estimated, £28,000. That was the noble Viscount's own statement. The local authorities dealing with certain classes of children will have to spend £25,000 more, making a total sum which will fall on the rates—not the taxes—of £53,000. Then he proceeded to say that my statement was absurd because the saving on Borstal and other institutions would be £49,000, and therefore the actual extra expenditure would be a bagatelle of £4,000 per year. But the noble Viscount, Lord Snowden, forgot that the Borstal institution is under the Home Office and that the Home Office deals with taxes and not with rates.
The whole point of my remark on Second Reading—namely, that it will cost the County Council £10,000 a year—was that the burden on the ratepayers would be increased by that amount. You may say that it does not make much difference whether it comes out of rates or out of taxes, but I do object to having my statements characterised as absurd, even by the noble Viscount. Having explained the position to your Lordships, I think I am perfectly correct in saying that it will cost the rates of the London County Council £10,000 a year.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: My Lords, the noble Lord who moved this Amendment very wisely did not defend its terms. He did not press his Amendment because it would be regarded as a privileged Amendment. There are other and very strong reasons why his Amendment is very undesirable. If it had been put down in the interests of economy, that certainly would not have been the effect, because to encourage local authorities to spend up to £4,000 a year from the rates for certain purposes of this Bill would be a very much larger sum than they are spending at the present time. However, the noble Earl explained that he had put down this Amendment in order to draw from me a statement with regard to the financial implications of the Bill, and I respond to that appeal. I pointed out to your Lordships on a former occasion that the effect of this Bill, so far as estimates of cost can be made from the very best material available, would be a very slight saving to the National Exchequer and a slightly increased expenditure by the whole of the local authorities. The expenditure of the local authorities will, of course, vary according to the obligations which are incurred by the local authority in carrying out the provisions of this Bill.
In reply to the observation that was made by the noble Lord who has just sat down, the suggestion that I appeared to convey to your Lordships the idea that the saving on the Borstal institution would be shared by the local authorities is without foundation, because I was then dealing—it was on the Second Reading I believe—with the expenditure both from the National Exchequer and from the local rates. Although I have not had an opportunity of refreshing my memory, I believe I did point out to your Lordships that the cost of the Borstal institution was borne wholly by the Exchequer.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: The noble Viscount is wrong there.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: Well, it does not matter very much. The expenditure of carrying out the provisions of this Bill will, as I have said, depend in the main on the extent to which the courts use its provisions. In regard to approved schools, the expenditure in connection with approved schools is dependent, of course, upon the number of persons for whom accommodation must be found. In

161
speaking upon quite a number of Amendments, I pointed out to your Lordships that it is not expected that there will be any need for an increase in the school accommodation. The accommodation in these approved schools will be affected, of course, by the raising of the age of these young persons from sixteen to seventeen because it will be possible in future to send to these schools children of sixteen. That proposal is the main item of increased expenditure, an increase, I mean, upon the local rates. The proposal accounts for nearly all the contemplated increase in expenditure which amounts to £57,000 a year. This increase of expenditure is more than offset by savings amounting to £98,000 a year. There is a requirement in Clause 33 that children under ten shall not in future be sent to approved schools if they can be properly dealt with elsewhere. What is the net result? The period of detention in these schools is expected to be less. Allowing for incidental effects in respect of persons who will be sent to approved schools instead of to Borstal institutions and probation homes, the annual expenditure in respect of approved schools will be reduced by a net sum of £47,000 a year.
The effect of the Bill taken as a whole is, it is estimated, as follows. I am dealing with the National Exchequer at the moment and will come to the London County Council and local authorities later. The saving to the National Exchequer is expected to be very small, about £600 a year. When the Bill was introduced, the estimated saving to the National Exchequer was about £8,000, but there was an Amendment made in Committee in another place which absorbed the whole of that estimated saving with the exception of about £600.
As to the estimated cost to local rates, I believe that last week I gave a round figure of £4,000. Further investigations have been made and the estimate is an addition over the whole of the local authorities of the country of about £3,600 a year. As I mentioned a moment ago, the cost of carrying out the provisions of this Bill will vary very much as between local authority and local authority. There are some places in the country where there is very little juvenile delinquency and therefore the cost in these localities will be practically negligible. London is, of course, in a very different position. It
162
is the most expensive part of the country for carrying out the provisions of this Bill and, as the noble Lord who spoke last said, the London County Council have claimed that the net effect of the Bill in their area will be to place upon the ratepayers an additional burden of £10,000 a year. The Home Office do not concur in this estimate, although they would not be disposed to deny that the additional charge in London may amount, not to £10,000 a year, but to about £4,000 a year.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: That is the first year of the operation of the Bill.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: No, that is the average. The noble Lords have spoken as if the first year's operation of this Bill would involve an extra expenditure of about £10,000 to the London County Council. I am sure that must be the impression given to your Lordships. There has come into my possession a copy of an estimate prepared by the London County Council and circulated to members of the Council giving details of the estimated increased expenditure under this Bill. The first year it is only £4,000, then it rises in the second year to £9,400, and in the third year to £12,800. That is the additional cost. Deducting the net saving, it is under £4,000 the first year, under £9,000 the second, and under £12,000 the third; say an average of £10,000 a year. The London County Council estimate that the increased cost of remand homes will be £1,000 a year and that will not increase. The Council's estimate of this expenditure to be met out of rates in 1932 is, as I have said, £1,000; approved schools, £2,200; additional for neglected children and young persons, £375; and administration, £500. In regard to remand homes there will in future be a small increase in the number of children maintained in a home, but no material increase of expenditure need be anticipated so far as London is concerned, and your Lordships will notice that, covering a population of some 6,000,000 or 8,000,000 they themselves only estimate that under that item the increased expenditure will be £1,000 a year. The Council's estimate, I understand, provides for the maintenance of 60 additional children in the first year, rising to about 256 in the fourth year. This provision represents about 28 per cent. of the whole addition to the approved school

163
population in England and Wales. I do not want to use the adjective to which Lord Mount Temple took such strong objection, but I think on the face of it an estimate of this sort cannot be justified by the facts.
I need not go through all the items of alleged increased expenditure given in the London County Council's memorandum, but I can give some of them. I am still speaking of the London County Council. If, as appears to be the case, the additional expenditure under the heading of approved schools is overestimated by, say, £2500 and the saving arising under the heading of alterations and period of detention may be assessed at £3,500, the additional expenditure falling on the Council, according to the best estimate the Home Office can make, is not likely to be more than £4,000 a year instead of £10,000 as has been suggested. I admit that that is an exceptional case. That figure is just about the figure of the estimated increases all over the country. Of course there will be many districts where there will be no additional increase. I apologise to your Lordships for having gone into this matter in such detail, but I am glad that it has been raised and I hope that we shall not hear again that this Bill is going to inflict upon the ratepayers of London, in carrying out some of its provisions, a sum of £10,000 a year.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, if I had not been in this august Assembly, but in another place, I think that in view of the unsatisfactory statement of the Lord Privy Seal I should move to report progress and ask leave to sit again. I cannot do that here but I hope, in view of the statement, Lord Darling's Amendments later on may be carried. There is no doubt that the figures are very conflicting, as is evidenced by the statement of the Lord Privy Seal. I cannot see myself that the Lord Privy Seal has made out any case at all against the London County Council. On information received from that body, which is not usually inaccurate, I made the same statement as Lord Mount Temple and the noble Earl. I do not wish to trouble your Lordships, but I should like to say that I have a note here and the figures which the Lord Privy Seal provided us with just now are not on all fours. The estimate for the committal to schools of young persons between sixteen and seventeen
164
years of age—£10,000—is based on an assumed number of 120 young persons a year at the present rate of contribution fixed by the Home Office of 15 s. each per week, the full cost falling in the third year. No information is available from the Home Office of the number of young persons between sixteen and seventeen for whom accommodation is likely to be required, and the estimate of 120 is based upon the statistics in the Council's possession of London young persons between fifteen and sixteen years of age committed to reformatory schools.
That is one thing on which we do not agree with the figures of the Lord Privy Seal. There is also a slight discrepancy as regards the estimate for every reduction of a shilling made by the Home Office in the flat rate of 15 s. The estimate, instead of £660, is £666, but that is nothing. As regards other provisions of the Bill there will be additional expenditure of approximately £3,000 in respect of the Council's remand home; additional cases of neglected children and young persons; after care; and general administration. This will be offset to an estimated extent of £2,500 by the boarding out of children between eight and ten years of age instead of committal to schools. The net additional cost of the Bill to the Council in regard to juvenile offenders and neglected children and young persons, assuming the anticipated reduction in the flat rate, will be approximately £10,000 a year. That is dated 14th June, 1932. There is this very grave discrepancy and I do therefore hope that if we do not get what we ask for to-day, in view of the necessity for economy, Lord Darling's proposal will be carried.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I desire to thank the Lord Privy Seal for his statement and I only want to ask him whether I am right in concluding that the £28,000 for the additional schools and the estimate of £25,000 for the placing of responsibility on the local authorities making a total of £53,000, is the extra expenditure for the whole of the United Kingdom.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: £28,500 was, I think, the figure I gave. That is the amount that falls on the Exchequer with regard to the approved schools. I could give the total expenditure, if your Lordships wanted the items, under various

165
headings, but I do not think it is necessary. The amount of addition for the approved schools which will fall on the Exchequer will be, as I have said, £28,500. Then there are reduced commitments that are expected to save £52,500. The reduced numbers and shorter period of detention are expected to save £45,500. Reduced commitments to Borstal are £5,000, and reduced use of probation homes £1,000. The total reductions are £104,000 and the Exchequer saves £54,500.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I do not wish to press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 86 [Interpretation and Construction of References]:
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 16, leave out ("The first section of Part II"), and insert ("Section nine").—(Viscount Snowden.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 88:
Applicatirn to Scotland.
88.—(1) This Act shall apply to Scotland subject to the adaptations and modifications specified in the Fifth Schedule to this Act.
(2) A copy of this Act as applying to Scotland by virtue of the provisions of the last preceding subsection, but with this section and the said Fifth Schedule omitted therefrom, shall be prepared and certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments as if it were a separate Act which had received the Royal Assent on the same day as this Act and shall be deposited with the Rolls of Parliament, and thereupon this Act shall cease to apply to Scotland and the Act as certified as aforesaid shall take effect as a separate Act of the present session and may be cited as the children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1932, and may be printed as a separate Act by the Printers to His Majesty as a chapter of the statutes of the session distinguished by the number next following the number of the chapter assigned to this Act.
THE DURE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DURE OF BUCCLEUCH had on the Paper an Amendment to leave out Clause 88. The noble Duke said: My Lords, I will not move my Amendment, but I will speak on the Amendment of my noble friend Viscount Ullswater.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER VISCOUNT ULLSWATER moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this matter was discussed in Committee, but I make no excuse for raising it again on Report.
166
The provision contained in subsection (2) of this clause will, I think, strike anybody who has been in the habit of watching the course of Bills going through Parliament, as unusual and novel. I understand that there are some precedents for a clause of this kind. I have looked the precedents up, and what I find is that during the War, in 1917, the Air Force Constitution Act was passed. By the Air Force Constitution Act it was decided to set up an Air Force, to abolish the Air Council, and to apply the Army Act to the new Air Force. It was obvious that under the stress of circumstances existing at the time of the War, and the hurry with which legislation had then to be passed, it was almost impossible to find time to produce a complete Army Act dealing with the Air Force, and it was resolved that the provisions of the Army Act, as then existing, should be applied to the Air Force by a Schedule. This Schedule was to be embodied in an Order in Council, and the Order in Council was to be laid before Parliament.
There may have been objections to that, but still the circumstances of the time were an excuse. That is not exactly the same procedure as that which is proposed in this Bill. In this Bill we are to devolve upon the Clerk of the Parliaments the duty of going through this Bill, when it becomes an Act, striking out a certain number of English words and expressions, and substituting for them the Scottish words and expressions which are embodied in a Schedule of this Bill. That will mean a very remarkable performance on the part of the Clerk of the Parliaments. I do not think that he is qualified as an authority upon Scottish law. He will find many unusual and barbarous terms in the Schedule, and I think he will have some considerable difficulty, together with his staff, in applying these words properly, so as to make sense of the Act. Assuming that he does not himself undertake this duty, but that he expects the Scottish Department to do this for him, and I suppose that is probably what will happen, the Scottish Department, who have complete knowledge of this terminology, will no doubt he able to put it into the shape of an Act. Then they will submit it to the Clerk of the Parliaments, and they will ask him to sign and certify it. His

167
certificate will really be a fraud, because he will really be giving a certificate which he is asked to give by the Scottish Department. As I have said, one of two things will happen. Either the whole thing will be performed by the Clerk of the Parliaments and his staff, who are not specially constituted for the purpose, or else he will trust to the Scottish Department blindly and he will have to sign what they put before him.
I do not think that either is a satisfactory way for this House to legislate. If I am asked what is the proper course, so as to avoid the necessity of having a special Scottish Act of Parliament, my reply would be that the better course would be to put into the Schedules of this Bill the complete Scottish Act. You may say that that will make rather a long Statute of it, but it will not be any longer than the two Statutes put together, which is contemplated by the Bill, because after this Bill has passed that will be one Statute, and then there will be the Statute of the Clerk of the Parliaments, which will have another number it is true, but it will follow immediately upon this Bill, and there will be those two Statutes, containing the same clauses, except that one will be in Scottish and the other in English. I cannot help thinking that the reason why the Government have adopted this form of legislation is to avoid the Scottish Committee in another place. It is a very clever way of getting out of the criticism of the Scottish Committee. All purely Scottish Bills in another place, I understand, have to go to a Committee composed for the greater part of Scottish members. They would give to such a Bill keen and close criticism, and the Bill would come out as a Scottish measure. This Bill has never been before the Scottish Committee at all. The Schedule has never been before the Scottish Committee, and we are asked to take this novel and unusual course. I think we should do it, if we do it at all, with our eyes fully open.
I have quoted one precedent. I am bound to say that I have been furnished with two other precedents. One relates to the Naval Discipline Act, 1922, where an Amending Act to the Naval Discipline Act provided that all the amendments made by that Act were to be inserted in
168
the Naval Discipline Act, and that it was to be deposited with the Rolls of Parliament, and separately printed, and go through the same process as is proposed for this Bill. That precedent, I admit, is a clean and direct precedent for this Bill. There is also another, the Administration of Justice Act, 1928, where a similar procedure is adopted. I think it was the Lord Privy Seal who said there were a number of precedents for things, but all precedents were not good precedents, and I doubt very much whether the attention of Parliament, when these two Bills of 1922 and 1928 were going through, was ever called to this novel method of procedure. It Was my fate in another place, during a great number of years, to watch very closely the clauses of all Bills, and I cannot remember one single instance during the time I was there of anything of this kind having happened.
I do not say that it may not be a good way of doing the thing, but I do say that if we are going to do it we should do it with our eyes fully open and conscious of what we are doing. I am quite certain that in future cases this procedure may be again adopted. It is for that reason that I put down this Amendment. I think that the matter requires some elucidation, I do not like to think of its being done sub silentio and it is very desirable that we should be fully aware of what is going on.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 14, leave out subsection (2).—(Viscount Ullswater.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): May I ask one question in regard to procedure? The Act is to be applied to Scotland with modifications as specified in the Fifth Schedule and as Amendments are made in the Bill the Government put them down in the Fifth Schedule, first those made in Committee and after Committee then on Report. But what happens on Third Reading? Supposing Amendments are made on Third Reading. How are we to be sure that the Amendments are made in the Fifth Schedule to enable the Clerk of the Parliaments to bring the Scottish Bill into identity with the English Bill? Perhaps I misunderstand, but I would rather like to know how that is to be done.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I will deal with the noble Earl's point last because it is a fresh one. I entirely agree with the noble Viscount that it is important that this subsection should not be passed by inadvertence or without discussion or without a full appreciation of what is being done, but I hope to satisfy your Lordships that in fact what is being done is quite free from objection on any grounds either of the Constitution or of convenience. And let us be quite clear—because I am not quite certain that it is entirely clear to all your Lordships—what it is that we are discussing. We arc not discussing whether or not there shall be an adaptation clause, in which the alterations necessary to bring the apt Scottish words into the Act in lieu of the apt English words shall be incorporated in the Bill. That is done by subsection (1) which nobody has moved to delete. We therefore start with this, that the Bill in the Fifth Schedule sets out the adaptations and modifications which are necessary to make it intelligible in Scotland.
That having been done, then subsection (2) provides that:
"A copy of this Act as applying to Scotland by virtue of the provisions of the last preceding subsection"—
that is the one which says that there shall be the adaptations and modifications set out in the Fifth Schedule—
"shall be prepared and certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments as if it were a separate Act. …"
and shall be deposited with the Rolls of Parliament and take effect in Scotland. From observations which have fallen from some of your Lordships at an earlier stage it seems to have been thought that in some way we were asking the Clerk of the Parliaments to use any knowledge he has of Scottish law in order to make the necessary corrections in this Bill. That of course would be quite impossible. To do that would be to entrust the Clerk of the Parliaments with the power of legislating and would be unconstitutional and inconvenient. But that is not what we are doing. We are setting out in terms in the Fifth Schedule exactly what it is that is necessary in order to make this Bill applicable to Scotland, and all that the Clerk of the Parliaments has to do—he will forgive me for saying this—is the purely clerical task of taking this Bill and writing where we are told to write the
170
necessary words which are set out in the Fifth Schedule.
May I give your Lordships an illustration? I will take the first two paragraphs of the Fifth Schedule as being convenient ones:
"In the title after the word 'provision' there shall be inserted the words 'in Scotland' and after the word 'amend' there shall be inserted the words 'in their application to Scotland'."
Now what does that mean? That means that the learned Clerk of the Parliaments will have to take this Bill and when he finds the word "provision" in the title write after it the words "in Scotland," and after the word "amend" he will write "in their application to Scotland." It is a task which any typist or shorthand clerk could perform. Similarly in paragraph 2, wherever you find the words "petty sessional division or place" you shall write in "place." That is not difficult. Where you find the words London Gazette you are to put in Edinburgh Gazette and, except in Section 64 and subsection (1) of Section 77, where you find the word "recognisance" you are to write the word "bond." That is the whole process all through the Fifth Schedule.
No skill is required. I should be very much astonished and rather shocked if I heard it suggested by the learned Clerk of the Parliaments that he was going to ask the Scottish Office to do it for him. Of course he will not. He will do this which Parliament directs and he will do it quite simply. It is done in a number of Acts already. The noble Viscount gave us two examples from the Air Force and the Naval Discipline Act, and in Section 8 of the Army Act you find a similar provision that wherever there is an alteration you shall print the modification into the new section of the Army Act. Normally I admit it is done by the King's printers without the intervention of the Clerk of the Parliaments. In this particular case we thought it convenient that the Clerk of the Parliaments should do it.
If you left out subsection (2) you would not alter the application of this Act to Scotland. You still have got your Fifth Schedule which says exactly what you are going to do in relation to Scotland. But somebody would first of all have to bring out, as they no doubt would in

171
Scotland, a convenient print in which their clerk would do what we are suggesting the Clerk of the Parliaments should do, and unfortunately when they had done so that would not have any statutory authority, and so the Sheriff Substitute, or whoever else it was who had to administer the Act would first have to look in the early part of the Act to find the words which apply to England, then he would have to turn up in the Fifth Schedule the modifications which are applicable to the section in its application in Scotland and then substitute one for the other. Well it is made more convenient to have it printed for us. And that is all that we are doing.
I have said that there are numbers of precedents for Parliament providing that you shall print an Act with modifications. There is a recent one in the Patents and Designs Bill which passed through this House about two or three weeks ago, in which it is provided that Section 14 (I think it is) of the Act of 1907 shall be printed with the modifications which are incorporated in the Bill which is being passed.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: In that case who is responsible? I have not got the Patents and Designs Act. But if the question then arose, who is to be responsible for what appeared in the document that would be printed?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Presumably the King's printers, but of course that is very inconvenient, and it is much better that it should be done by somebody who is designated by Parliament for the purpose. If you do not have this clause inserted, in order to administer the Act the Court would have to take the Schedule and write into the places in the Act so prescribed the necessary words. It is not very convenient but it can be done. I have not the Bill before me, but I have the Naval Discipline Act which, I think, is the most recent case. This is what is called the printing clause:
"Every enactment and word which is directed by any Act amending this Act to be substituted for or added to any portion of this Act shall form part of this Act in the place assigned to it by the amending Act, and this Act and all Acts which refer thereto shall, after the commencement of the amending Act, be construed as if that enactment or word had been originally enacted in this Act in the place so assigned."
172
Later the same section says:
"A copy of this Act with every such enactment and word inserted in the place so assigned, and with the omission of any portion of this Act directed by any such amending Act as aforesaid to be repealed or omitted from this Act, shall be prepared and certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments and deposited with the Rolls of Parliament, and His Majesty's printers shall print in accordance with the copy so certified all copies of this Act which are printed after the commencement of such amending Act."
There we do give the same duty to the Clerk of the Parliaments as we suggest here, but in the other Act it was left to the King's printers to do it. That, I think, is an exact precedent of what we are doing here.
I may say that we are not doing this without any consultation with Scotland. We have had the express approval of two or three responsible Scottish authorities. The Faculty of Advocates express their view that it would be a convenience to the profession and an improvement on any former system. The Glasgow Faculty of Procurators said the same thing, and the Association of the Clerks of the Peace in Scotland also said the same thing. If I may turn to a lay body which will be much interested in the administration of the Act, the Royal Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, who have been largely concerned in the administration of the 1908 Act and will be concerned as regards this Bill, they also are strongly in favour of it.
In the 1908 Act, which this Bill modifies and supplements, your Lordships will remember that there is an elaborate clause applying the Act to Scotland in the same way as the Fifth Schedule does here. It is Section 132, which extends over about six pages of the Statute, in which the necessary modifications are set out, but there is no provision for reprinting the Act with the modifications made, and in practice we have had complaints that it is inconvenient. In administering the law in Scotland, you first have to find the Act as it is written in English, then find the modifications which are set out in the clause or Schedule, and then do for yourselves what is a purely clerical process, rewrite the section with the different words in. It is much more convenient—and the Scottish authorities think it is more con-

173
venient—that the Act should be reprinted as a separate Act with the Scottish words substituted.
I want to press upon your Lordships—because this is the whole point I am advancing—that it would be quite unreasonable in my judgment to say that the Clerk of the Parliaments should make the necessary modifications in order to make this Act applicable to Scotland. If anything of that was suggested I should not be here supporting it; but Parliament, in the Fifth Schedule, sets out exactly the modifications which are to be made, and all you have to do is to perform a purely clerical task, which does not require the skill of the learned Clerk of the Parliaments, and which really any clerk could do, although one wants it done by a reliable person in order to make authoritative the rewriting of the sections with the words substituted which Parliament has directed shall be substituted. That has been done in the 1922 instance, and I think it is a convenient and proper method, although I am very grateful to the noble Viscount for bringing the matter to the express attention of your Lordships' House. I should be sorry to think that it was passed by an inadvertence.
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said: "Well, what will be done if there are Amendments moved on Third Reading?" As the noble Earl appreciates, no Amendment can be moved on Third Reading unless proper Notice has been given, and you have a printed list of the Amendments to be moved. You cannot move a manuscript Amendment. Therefore, if any Amendment is put down which has any effect on Scotland that matter will be considered, as every Amendment is considered, on its merits. It will be considered from that point of view by the Department concerned, by the Home Office and by the Scottish Office, and if it should involve any alteration of the Scottish language in the Fifth Schedule then the necessary Amendment would be put down at the same time. There are not a great many Amendments; as far as I know none has been suggested yet which would have any effect on the Fifth Schedule, but if that should happen it would be safeguarded in that way. It is not as if one could do at every stage what one could do on the earlier stages, move Amendments which have not been previously put down. Obviously in that
174
case the difficulty which the noble Earl raises would be a very real one. I do hope with that explanation your Lordships will realise we are not doing anything which is inconvenient or unconstitutional.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: May I by leave of the House ask this? Suppose a noble Lord puts down an Amendment which the Government are not willing to accept, which, in fact, they are very much against, and he omits to put down a corresponding Amendment to the Fifth Schedule for Scotland, or is unable, possibly owing to unfamiliarity with the terms of Scottish law, to do so adequately, would the Government put down an Amendment on the chance of the House accepting it?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I will undertake that the Government will consider any Amendments, and will see if any alteration is necessary of the Fifth Schedule. If they should be of opinion that they make any alteration necessary we will put an Amendment down, but we will not move it if the Amendment is defeated.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not think my noble and learned friend quite appreciates the point. The Amendment might be carried against the Government on the Third Reading. There would be no corresponding Amendment on the Paper with respect to Scotland. Am I to understand that all the Amendments which may be put down by those who do not quite agree with the Government upon the English Bill will be paralleled by the Government in respect of Scotland?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: If it should be necessary.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It must become necessary. That will be the last opportunity. The Government could not say: "Your Lordships have carried it in the English Bill and we cannot put it in for Scotland; therefore it cannot be done on Third Reading." The only course would be to adjourn the debate in order to give time to put down a corresponding Amendment for Scotland. There would probably have to be a great many Amendments if there were many noble Lords like my noble friend Lord Banbury to put down Amendments.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Fortunately in your Lordships' House we are not quite

175
so unreasonable as to put down a great many Amendments, but the promise I gave to the noble Earl was intended to cover that precise point. When we get the Amendments which are to be moved we will see if any of them involve an alteration of the Fifth Schedule. If it be so we shall put down the necessary Amendments. I do not think they will involve an Amendment, because the Fifth Schedule is only dealing with names like the sheriffs' courts and courts of summary jurisdiction. It is not very likely that an Amendment will be involved but if it should happen we will put it down, and if by inadvertence we fail to do that then, as the noble Marquess said, we should have in the last resort to adjourn the matter for a day or two. I do not think, however, that that contingency will arise.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I think that will meet the case, but it is necessary to get this perfectly clear.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I cannot speak again except with the leave of the House, but I hope your Lordships will permit me to mention one point. We do not in the least want to do anything inconvenient and we are not trying in the least, as the noble Viscount seems to think, to avoid the Scottish Committee, which is not so formidable in this as in some other Governments. We are only trying to do what is convenient and incidentally to achieve that economy which the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, is always preaching.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House for his extraordinarily lucid explanation. What I do object to, however, is that until this Bill appears in print the people in Scotland—I do not mean those who are very clever at reading Acts of Parliament but ordinary persons and the ordinary representatives of Scotland in this House or in another place—do not know what they are talking about. That is an objectionable thing and it is taking away the power of Parliament. I frankly admit that what the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House has said about having this Bill clear so that we do not have to refer to the English Act is a great advantage, but I think that the fact that the representatives of Scotland
176
do not know exactly what they are talking about is an almost greater disadvantage.
LORD ATKIN: My Lords, I venture to think that we are very much indebted to the noble Viscount who introduced this matter and who has vast experience of constitutional procedure. The matter goes a little further, I venture to think, than was explained by the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House. If your Lordships will look at this proposal you will see that it adopts a course which—I will not say has no precedent but which is at least very unusual in the case of Scottish Bills. The usual way of adapting a Bill to Scotland is to insert a clause or a schedule which says that in the application of this Bill to Scotland there shall be the following modifications. That is quite commonly done. Every Session produces Acts in that form. An Act so adapted is the Act as it applies to Scotland, and the last people in the world to be incapable of understanding an Act so drawn are the Scottish lawyers. That was the procedure adopted in what is now known as the principal Act in this case, the Children Act, 1908. In that Act there is a section which makes some twenty-five different applications of the Act to Scotland and as far as I know Scottish lawyers have had no difficulty at all in understanding what is the Children Act as applied to Scotland.
This provision, however, goes beyond anything I have ever seen. If you eliminate subsection (2), the Bill will be complete in its form and you do not need another comma to make it applicable to Scotland, but it provides that a document is to be drafted by the Clerk of the Parliaments and that document, when certified by him, is to have the same effect as if it were an Act of Parliament. But it is not an Act of Parliament. What is more, as soon as the Clerk of the Parliaments has prepared that document and certified it, this Act is no longer to apply to Scotland, so that the only thing which will have any legal effect in Scotland is a document which is not an Act of Parliament, which has not received the Royal Assent, but which is a document certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments. I venture to think that that is a constitutional innovation which is completely wrong in principle. There is no reason for it be-

177
cause it is perfectly possible to make this Act apply to Scotland. I do attach great importance to the fact that the clause provides that after a document signed by the Clerk of the Parliaments has come into existence, the Act which has been passed by us and which has received the Royal Assent will no longer apply to Scotland. The only thing Scotland will have is a document certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments, and that, I think, is entirely wrong. I suggest that it is a very dangerous precedent in constitutional law. Any law should have the full sanction of both Houses of Parliament and the Royal Assent, and that this document will not have and cannot have. I venture to think that the noble Viscount has done very well to draw attention to a very serious change in constitutional procedure.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 89:
Short title, construction, commencement and extent.
(3) This Act shall come into operation on such date as the Secretary of State may appoint, and the Secretary of State may appoint different dates for different purposes and different provisions of this Act.
LORD DARLING LORD DARLING moved, at the end of subsection (3), to insert, "But neither this Act nor any portion thereof shall come into operation until the arrival of such day as Parliament may hereafter determine." The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I move this Amendment not with any kind of hostility to the Bill. I am content to believe that the Bill will do all the good that the noble Viscount who introduced it and who has conducted it through this House says it will do. But it appears to me advisable that that course should be taken which has lately been taken on another proposal, that is, the course adopted in the case of the Finance Act so far as it relates to the Land Taxes. The reason I move this Amendment is that, as your Lordships know, the country now is in a very critical position financially. There is no doubt about it. We have heard it from members of Parliament, from the Prime Minister and from the Lord Privy Seal I think we have heard it from the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. We heard it yesterday put before us very strenuously by many members of your
178
Lordships' House. It was put before us by the noble and learned Marquess, Lord Reading, in the strongest possible language, and it was put before us by another member of your Lordships' House, Lord Plender, whose words I should like to read.
Lord Plender has a large experience in this matter. He told us yesterday that he was last year a member of the National Expenditure Committee and he said:
".… we thought that a sum approaching £100,000,000 a year might be saved, without any impairment of efficiency in the Departments affected or in the services rendered, or injustice being done to individuals. But that sum, large though it be, is insufficient."
Later he took occasion to use these words, which govern us in deciding what Bill we should pass if that Bill involves any expenditure:
"The time has come, nay it is past, when the Government must reject doing the things that are desirable and only spend on the things which are absolutely essential."
This is a Bill which seeks to improve upon former legislation, upon the Children Act, 1908. I desire to impute nothing against this Bill. I will accept that it is designed to do, and ultimately will do, all that the noble Viscount who introduced it expects, but it will not do so at once and it will cost at once a great deal of money. There is no doubting the fact. We heard just now the discussion in which the noble Viscount, the noble Earl, Lord Munster, and the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, took part. Do we feel certain that the noble Viscount knows for certain what this Bill will cost, that he can tell us with anything like accuracy that his estimate will not be exceeded? The London County Council, which is the responsible body, believes that it will have to find a far larger sum than he said. I have noticed this about estimates. Whatever they concern, those are always right who think the estimate will be exceeded, and those are always wrong who think things will work out just as the estimate said or rather lower. The noble Viscount himself does not pretend that this Bill will provide any immediate good to the country. The noble Viscount said, though not in so many words: "Cast thy bread upon the waters for thou shalt find it after many days." It will be many days before this Bill

179
produces any advantage to the country, but the cost will be immediate.
What is the remedy I propose? I do not propose that the money should be spent or that a halfpenny of it should not be spent. I do not propose to interfere with the operation of this Bill in any form when it becomes an Act of Parliament. I am proposing that it shall not be put into operation merely by the signature of the Secretary of State but in a way that another matter is to be put into operation. There is an Act of Parliament, dear to certain members of the Government, which imposes a tax upon land. It was felt that that was a very unjust tax, that the land could not bear it, and that it should not be imposed. No one was more strong in expressing that opinion than the noble Viscount who leads this House. What was done? The noble Viscount has explained to us that it was felt that the members of the Government who like a Land Tax and have helped to impose it should not be called upon to vote for its abolition. How was it settled? By proposing that the new Finance Act should not kill the Land Tax.
"Thou shalt not kill but need'st not strive
Officiously to keep alive."
They neglected the caution "thou need'st not strive" and kept the Act alive.
The noble Viscount explained all this on the 14th June in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Strachie. He told us then that the Government had decided:
"that, instead of a tax being payable for the financial year ending 31st March, 1934, and each subsequent financial year, it is not to be paid until such financial year as Parliament may hereafter determine."
Parliament is to determine, not some Secretary of State, not some official or bureaucrat. It is Parliament, and what higher and fairer authority could there be? Parliament is the proper taxing authority of this country.
I have put down this Amendment because I am satisfied, after listening to those who have a far greater and wider knowledge than I, that the country is in a dangerous position. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says so. He cannot guarantee that there will not be supplementary estimates and that his Budget will balance. We are absolutely unjustified in spending a penny before we are certain that the country can really afford
180
it. I rely on the words Lord Plender used yesterday and say that it is not a question of "This is a good thing. Let us buy it" but "Can we afford it at this moment?" Having heard the explanation of the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill of what it will cost, I feel that we do not know what it will cost. We are in the same state of mystification as the County Council. I do not propose that the Bill should not become an Act of Parliament; I merely propose that no part of it should come into operation until Parliament says it shall come into operation. Parliament could decide that it should come into operation before this Session is out. If Parliament thinks that the condition of the country is such that it should become an Act of Parliament at once, Parliament can do it. Or Parliament can postpone it until any time, until the time when Parliament thinks that it is right for the country to embark upon this expenditure.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 41, after ("Act") insert ("But neither this Act nor any portion thereof shall come into operation until the arrival of such day as Parliament may hereafter determine").—(Lord Darling.)
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, if the only argument in favour of this Amendment is that of economy I think I can say that it is shortsighted economy and therefore no true economy. The same argument is being used in Scotland against putting into force the provision of the Probation of Offenders Act. We were able to show that in one county in all probability the wise use of probation in the case of a particular girl would have saved the county and the Exchequer over £200 that they have spent in keeping the girl in school. There are provisions in this Bill by which a child or young person sent to a school may, we hope, be saved from having afterwards to be sent to a Borstal institution where he or she will cost the nation about £90 a year. If a boy is sent to penal servitude it costs the nation about £100 a year and that is no true economy. A learned Judge has said, and I think his words worth bearing in mind, that the right treatment of a young offender on a first appearance before the court is of far greater importance than the particular sentence on a hardened offender by a learned Judge in the High Court. The

181
question of three or five years' penal servitude for a hardened offender makes little difference, but the whole after career of a boy or girl may be decided by the treatment he or she receives when first brought before the court. We hope the provisions of this Bill will give us better treatment by the juvenile courts than we have had in the past, and I think it would be shortsighted economy to delay its application with the idea that thereby we should be saving large sums of money.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, if I may say a word in answer to the noble Lord who has just sat down, I cannot agree that there is only one argument in favour of this Amendment. It seems to me that the argument put forward is that at the present time in your Lordships' House we have not had a satisfactory answer as to how much this Bill is going to cost, and we have not a satisfactory idea as to whether the country can afford it. On the Amendment as it stands it will be very simple to come back directly after this Bill is passed with a very much more satisfactory explanation to your Lordships of how much it is likely to cost, and a much more satisfactory explanation as to whether the country can afford it. In those circumstances your Lordships will have a much better idea as to whether you are inclined to say that the Bill should come into operation immediately. I do not quite understand the argument that this Amendment would necessarily mean a long delay. It would mean a sufficient delay for your Lordships to know a little more clearly what you are letting the country in for and I hope the House will follow Lord Darling.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord who moved this Amendment began by protesting that this was not an Amendment which was moved out of any lack of appreciation of the Bill, but of course I need not tell any of your Lordships who wish to face the facts that it is purely a wrecking Amendment, intended to prevent the Bill from becoming operative.
LORD DARLING: No.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: At any rate that would be the effect of it and that is shown by the reference to the defence I made a few days ago of the method adopted with regard to land valuation. He cited the well-known quotation,
182
"Thou shalt not kill but need'st not strive
Officiously to keep alive."
That means: "I am not going openly to kill the Bill, but I will take jolly good care that it shall not become effective." The noble Lord says that we cannot afford the Bill and that it will cost a great deal. It is no use my reiterating the careful estimates of the Lord Privy Seal in which it is shown that actually the Bill will save money to the Exchequer and that, so far as the rates are concerned, it will probably cost less than the Exchequer will save. We have given the closest estimates we can and, as has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, we cannot afford to postpone the operation of the Bill.
The Bill is going to protect infant life, to prevent young girls from becoming prostitutes, and prevent boys from becoming habitual criminals. How many more criminals are we to manufacture, how many more girls are we to drive to destruction, and how many infants are to be destroyed before noble Lords think they can afford the expense of this Bill? It is not true that under this Amendment we could make our proposals law next week. We should have to have a new Act of Parliament and the noble Lord knows what chance there would be of getting a new Act through at this stage of the Session. It is five years since the Committee reported that these reforms were urgently required. I hope your Lordships will think it is fully time that those recommendations were implemented, and that this House and this country cannot afford to postpone the operation of this Bill any longer. I beg your Lordships to vote against this Amendment, realising, as you must, that it is not only one which no Government could accept, but one whose almost avowed object and whose certain effect would be to prevent the Act from becoming law.
LORD DARLING: My Lords, I believe I have a right to say a word in reply. I can assure the noble and learned Viscount that whatever he may imagine he can detect in this Amendment I am entirely in favour of such legislation as this. I do not desire to make any number of boys criminals, or girls either. With regard to the Land Tax I pointed out that the course he took enabled the Government to say to certain of its members: "We

183
have kept alive the Land Tax and we have only got to have a valuation, though it may be a long way off, and the Land Tax put in operation." What that conveyed to certain members of the Government is exactly the opposite of what the
First Schedule:

FIRST SCHEDULE: PROVISIONS WITIT RESPECT TO APPROVED SCHOOLS AND PERSONS SENT THERETO.
Treament of Pupils.
13. If it appears to the managers of an approved school that a person who has been ordered to be sent to their school requires medical attention before he can properly be received into the school, or that a person detained in the school requires such attention, they may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, make arrangements for him to be received into and detained in any hospital, home or other institution where he can receive the necessary attention; and that person, whilst so detained, shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be under the care of the managers of the school, and shall, for the purposes of Section nine of the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, be deemed to he detained in the school.
Offences.
22.—(1) Where a child or young person has been ordered to be sent to an approved school, any person who harbours or conceals him after the time has come for him to go to his school shall on summary conviction be
noble Viscount has said I was intending when I proposed his own remedy.
On Question, Whether the said words shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided. Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 35.

CONTENTS.

Halsbury, E.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Darling, L. [Teller.]

Iddesleigh, E.

Hereford, V. [Teller.]

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Lindsay, E.

Forester, L.

Morton, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Hindlip, L.

Munster, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clan-william.)

Raglan, L.

Powis, E.

Teynham, L.

Rothes, E.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Mersey, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Ullswater, V.

Luke, L.

Snowden, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

Marley, L.

Winchester, L. Bp.

Monkswell, L.

Salisbury, M.

Polwarth, L.

Zetland, M.

Aberdare, L.

Rhayader, L.

Alvingham, L.

Sanderson, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Clwyd L.

Snell, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Darcy (de Knayth), L.

Stanmore, L.

Onslow, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Plymouth, E.

Gainford, L.

Stanhope, E.

Hampton, L.

Templemore, L.

Hawke, L.

Trent, L.

Hailsham, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

liable to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two months, or to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.
THE EARL OF LUCAN THE EARL OF LUCAN, on behalf of Viscount Snowden, moved in paragraph 13, to leave out "with the approval of the Secretary of State." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is merely a simpler form of securing the purpose of Lord Bertie's Amendment, and so I hope the noble Viscount will accept it.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME, who had on the Paper an Amendment to insert at the end of paragraph 13:
"Provided that in a case of emergency the managers of such school may make arrangements for such person to be received into and detained in any hospital, home or other institution where he can receive the necessary attention without the approval of the Secretary of State first had and obtained,"
said: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for his Amendment. It is much better than mine, which I do not desire to press.
Amendment moved—
Page 68, line 45, and page 69, line 1, leave out ("with the approval of the Secretary of State").—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, at the end of paragraph 22 (1), to insert "or to both such imprisonment and fine."
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: I accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 42, at end, insert ("or to both such imprisonment and fine").—(Viscount Bertie of Theme.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule [Minor and consequential Amendments of principal Act]:
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: My Amendment to this Schedule is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, line 21, after ("doing") insert ("for the words 'he shall give' there shall be substituted the words 'he shall at least seven days before so moving give'").— (Viscount Snowden.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fourth Schedule [Enactments Repealed]:
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 85 line 24, leave out ("twenty-one").—(Viscount Snowden.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fifth Schedule:

FIFTH SCHEDULE.
Adaptations and Modifications of this Act in its application to Scotland.
3. In the following provisions of the Act, that is to say:—
The provisions of Part II (except Sections twenty-four, twenty-five, thirty-three, thirty-four, thirty-five, thirty-six, thirty-seven),
The First Schedule,
for the words "Secretary of State" the words "Scottish Education Department" shall be substituted.
4. In the following provisions of this Act, that is to say:—
The provisions of Parts II and IV except subsection (3) of Section fifty-four,
Section eighty-five,
The First Schedule,
for the words "local authority" the words "education authority" shall be substituted; for the word "local" and the words "a local" used in relation to an authority the word "education" and the words "an education" shall be respectively substituted; for the expression "a local authority" the expression "an education authority" shall be substituted, and for the
186
word "district" used in relation to a local authority the word "area" shall be substituted.

Section.

Adaptations and Modifications.

S. 19.

The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (1):

(2) It shall not be lawful for a court of summary jurisdiction to order that any child shall be whipped and Section seventy-four of the Prisons (Scotland) Act, 1860, shall, except in so far as it applies to cases tried on indictment, cease to have effect.

6. The following section shall be inserted after Section eighty-four of the Act:—
Power of Secretary of State may be transferred.
It shall be lawful for the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, from time to time to make an order transferring to the Scottish Education Department or to the Department of Health for Scotland any power for the time being possessed by him under this Act (not being a power under Part I of this Act), and by such order to make any adjustment consequential on the transfer and to provide for any matter necessary or proper for giving full effect to the transfer, and, on any such order being made, the powers so transferred shall be exerciseable by the Scottish Education Department, or the Department of Health for Scotland, as the case may be.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved, in paragraph 3, to leave out "for the words 'Secretary of State' the words 'Scottish Education Department' shall be substituted." The noble Duke said: My Lords, it may be said that the words proposed are as things exist now, but I think it is most desirable, from every point of view, that the Bill applying to Scotland, so far as it can be, should be the same as the Bill for England. The Secretary of State is to be the authority in England, and we have been assured that we shall be safe with him, and that he will not do anything foolish. For some extraordinary reason the Secretary of State for Scotland, or the Scottish Office, do not want that in Scotland. They want to get out of the responsibility, and to put it upon these various Departments. Of course these Departments are all under the Secretary of State, but it is not nearly so satisfactory as having the Secretary of State himself, and therefore I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 87, leave out lines 6 and 7.—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: The Amendment which the noble Duke has moved is in effect to substitute for the Scottish Education Department the Secretary of State for Scotland.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: The Amendment I move is to leave in the Secretary of State.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: The noble Duke seems to be under the impression that if the words "Secretary of State" are retained there will be a greater dignity, if not a greater authority, than if the words "Scottish Education Department" were substituted. But the Secretary of State for Scotland is, in effect, the head of the Scottish Education Department. Formally, I understand, the Scottish Education Department is a Committee of the Privy Council, and I believe that at the moment Mr. Baldwin, as Lord President of the Council, is technically at the head of the Scottish Education Department.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I think the noble Viscount is wrong; I think the Secretary of State for Scotland is.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: I think the noble Duke is wrong. The Secretary of State for Scotland is called the Vice-President of the Board of Education. But the noble Duke knows quite well that in effect the work is done by the Secretary of State for Scotland in his capacity as administrative Minister for the work of the educational bodies in Scotland. This is important, because this Amendment is related to another Amendment that the noble Duke has on the Paper. I think he objects to certain powers under this Bill being kept in the hands of, or being handed over to, the Scottish education authorities in preference to the local councils. And therefore we must regard this Amendment as having a relation to another Amendment that the noble Duke has on the Paper. And it is very desirable, seeing that so much of the work under this Bill is going to be administered by the local education authorities in Scotland, that the head of the Department should be in effect the Secretary of State, who is nominally called the Vice-President of the Board of Education in Scotland. I think that the noble Duke will not press his Amendment, because
188
this is a matter rather of phraseology than of any material difference it would make.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: My Lords, I quite grant what the noble Viscount says, but if there is this difference why not keep it as it is? That is the point. I may say also that the Education Department in Scotland has a very unsavoury reputation for extravagance, though it is better since the crisis of last autumn. I should have much more confidence if the words "Secretary of State" were in. However, I will not press it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved, in paragraph 4, after "the First Schedule," to leave out all words down to and including the last "and." The noble Duke said: My Lords, this Amendment is not, as the noble Viscount thought, connected with the last one. I want to ask for an explanation. The Scottish Education authority was originally an ad hoc body, but it was not found that this body was very satisfactory. It was generally condemned. The result was that in the last Local Government Act the ad hoc authority was done away with, and a committee of the county council became the education authority. I have no doubt that in the old days "the education authority" was the right term to have, but I think now it is wrong, and that it would be very much more satisfactory in every way if the words "local authority" were re-tained, the same as they are in England.
Amendment moved—
Page 87, leave out lines 13 to 18.—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I am sorry to differ from the noble Duke. It is not a matter of great importance, but as a matter of fact, at a private meeting while the application clauses of this Bill to Scotland were under consideration I myself strongly urged that the words used should be "local authority" instead of "education authority." My reason for doing so was that in carrying out the functions which come under the provisions of this Bill some things would be better done, for example boarding out, by the public assistance department, or else by the public health department, and others by the education committee of a local authority. For those reasons I

189
should have preferred the words "local authority." But I am informed the difficulty arises in the case of some twenty large burghs which are not separate local authorities, and powers would be given to them which ought to belong to the county council in which they are already represented. On the whole, the balance of opinion seems to be in favour of putting in the words "education authority." I am advised that these functions, which relate not to education pure and simple, but to questions of public assistance and public health, can still be perfectly well referred by a county council to the appropriate department, even though the words "education authority" remain, because a county council—or, in the case of the four large cities, the town council—is the education authority and can so act. I hope the noble Duke will not press the Amendment.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord who has just spoken out of his great knowledge of Scottish local government. These are mysteries into which I have never been able with much success to penetrate. The noble Lord, I think, has given an answer to the question which was put to me by the noble Duke, and I do not think that I can add anything in support of the reasons which he gave for the rejection of this Amendment.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: My Lords, I was quite aware of what the noble Lord told us. but I think the noble Viscount might have given us the Government's view. We still do not know what the Government's view is. However, I admit that it is not very important, and I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved, in paragraph 5, to leave out the reference to Section 19. The noble Duke said: My Lords, I beg to move.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: I accept this.
Amendment moved—
Page 90, leave out lines 10 to 17.—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: I beg to move the next amendment which stands on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
190
Page 90, line 23 at end insert:
("S. 22—The proviso shall be omitted.")—(Viscount Snowden.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: The next three Amendments are all drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 93, line 22, leave out ("and")
Page 93, line 23, at end insert ("and for the words clerk of the court' wherever they occur, the words 'sheriff clerk' shall be substituted")
Page 97, lino 6, at end insert:
("S. 75.—For the words 'any part of the principal Act or of this Act the words Part II of the principal Act' shall be substituted.")—(Viscount Snowden.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH, who had given Notice to move, in paragraph 5, in the reference to Section 83, to leave out "and Scottish Education Department," said: My Lords, this is very much the same as the Amendment we discussed before. I understand the Government are in favour of keeping it as it is, and I therefore will not move the Amendment.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: My Lords, my next Amendment is really in the nature of a drafting Amendment. It is to make clear certain words in regard to the meaning of "summary conviction." The effect is to give jurisdiction to the police and justice of the peace courts as well as to the sheriff's court.
Amendment moved—
Page 102, line 15, leave out ("wherever they occur") and insert ("in sub-paragraph (2)").—(Viscount Snowden.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved, in the list of Enactments Repealed, to leave out all reference to The Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892. The noble Duke said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 104, leave out lines 13 to 15.—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: I accept this.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 104 line 32, leave out ("twenty-one").—(Viscount Snowden.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved to leave out paragraph 6. The noble Duke said: My Lords, this is, I think, a really important Amendment. It may be said it is the same as the others which I have not pressed. This allows the Secretary of State to alter the Act of Parliament. The Secretary of State, I understand, as regards the English part of the Bill, has no such power, and I think it is entirely wrong, and creates a very bad precedent to allow the Secretary of State for Scotland to be able practically to override an Act of Parliament, and alter it at will, the only check on him being that he is subject to the consent of the Treasury. The Government may have some very good reason for this very strange provision, but I should think it is extraordinarily bad in principle. It seems to me that it is something Parliament should not allow. It gives the Secretary of State for Scotland a power which ought to be retained by Parliament itself.
Amendment moved—
Page 105, leave out lines 29 to 42.—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to point out that there is a precedent for this in the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, where the Secretary of State for Scotland has precisely the same power of transferring, and under that power he has transferred the care and control of the industrial schools in Scotland. That having already been done, I see no reason why the same power should not be given in regard to this. It certainly has proved a convenience, and is one of those matters of education that should be handed over to the Department which specially deals with education. It looks a somewhat drastic power to give, but there is a precedent for it, and I think it would probably work better than the existing system. It would simplify procedure and save time if the powers under this part of the Bill are transferred to the Department which has to administer them—the Department for which the Secretary of State remains responsible to Parliament.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the noble Duke has been so very obliging in meeting us that I am sorry I cannot give
192
way about this, but I hope to satisfy him by explaining to him that this is not quite so formidable as it looks. In the first place there is an exact precedent, as the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, has said. We are not making a new departure. In the second place, it really is not giving to the Secretary of State a power which ought only to belong to Parliament. The Secretary of State is, as the noble Duke knows, the head of both the Department of Health and the Scottish Education Department. It is very inconvenient if, in the course of administration, he should find it necessary to rearrange departmental work, that he should be unable to shift from one Department to another so long as he is the Parliamentary head of both, and as long as he is responsible to Parliament for both, that the power should be stereotyped in the different Departments and that any rearrangement and economy which might be effected by rearrangement should be impossible without a special Act of Parliament. On that ground we have thought it desirable to take the power which the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, has suggested has proved useful in the Act of 1918, not of course to get rid of and hand over to some outside body powers which the Secretary of State ought alone to be responsible to Parliament for, but to rearrange between his own Departments such powers and duties as are at present allotted to him where he sees that more efficiency or greater economy could be achieved by that means. I hope my noble friend will realise that that is not an altogether unreasonable proposal.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: My Lords, I must admit that I have not received much support, but I think the argument used against me is an extraordinarily bad one. I do not see why the Secretary of State should get rid of his responsibility when the unfortunate Secretary of State in England retains his responsibility. I object most strongly, as many others do, to giving more powers to the Department of Education, because they have simply wasted money all over the place and will do it again when they get the chance. I will not withdraw my Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.

KIRKCUDBRIGHT AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1932.
Special Order in respect of the Burgh of Kirkcudbright and the Parish of Kirkcudbright in the County of the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

BORTH AND YNYSLAS ELEC- TRICITY ORDER, 1932.
Special Order in respect of part of the rural district of Aberystwyth in the County of Cardigan:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
House adjourned at ten minutes before eight o'clock.