Sitting of 3 March 1932

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Commercial Gas Bill (by Order).
Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
Kettering Gas Bill (by Order).
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
Edinburgh Corporation (Sheriff Court House &c.) Order Confirmation Bill (by Order).
Second Reading deferred till Thursday, 17th March.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (MARGATE AND YEOVIL) BILL,
  "to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Margate and Yeovil," presented by Sir Hilton Young; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 37.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Labour if he will issue a further circular for the guidance of public assistance committees recommending that in suitable cases applicants on transitional benefit under the means test should not be obliged to deplete their savings to approximately £15, but that a higher figure should be permitted and only the interest taken into consideration?
    Mr. STONESasked the Minister of Labour (1) if he is aware that the various urban district councils in the
    1244
    Farnworth division have passed resolutions calling for an alteration in the regulations governing the means test; and will he consider taking steps to have the law altered to avoid possible harshness of application of the regulations in future;
    (2) whether his attention has been drawn to representations by various Lancashire guardians' committees to the public assistance committee at Preston that the regulations governing the application of the means test are penalising thrift; and whether he will consider taking steps through legislative or other channels to ensure that only the income from savings, investments or property will be assessed in estimating family income?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): I would refer my hon. Friends to the reply given to a number of questions on the subject of the needs test on 19th November last. The manner in which the resources of an applicant and of the household in which he lives are to be taken into account is within the discretion of the local authority, subject to the provisions of the Order in Council, and I cannot add to the considerations to which the notice of authorities has already been drawn in the circulars issued from my Department. I have no reason to believe that public assistance authorities, in considering whether applicants are in need of transitional payment, do not take properly all the circumstances into account. I cannot undertake to introduce legislation on these matters in advance of the report of the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance.
    Mr. MANDER: Do I understand that the public assistance committees are perfectly free to exercise their own discretion as to the way in which they deal with this matter?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: If the hon. Member will look at the answer—a very full one—which I gave on the 19th November, he will see what my views on that matter are.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: If an engineer who is unemployed goes to the Employment Exchange, and if his son and daughter are working and bringing in £2 15s. a week between them, and he is cut off, does the right hon. Gentleman say that that is correct?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I could not give an answer on any particular point without knowing all the facts and the reasons for the decision.
    Mr. PRICEasked the Minister of Labour how many men, women and young persons were refused transitional benefit after examination by public assistance committees in the months of January and February, 1932?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: During the five weeks ended 23rd January, 1932, it was decided by public assistance committees in Great Britain, in the case of 80,089 applications by men and 33,299 by women, that the needs of the applicants did not justify transitional payments being made. Persons under 18 years of age are not entitled to transitional payments. Figures for February are not yet available.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Minister of Labour the number of those who have had their claims for transitional benefits examined by the public assistance committee for the area of Leigh, Atherton and Tyldesley who are single persons; how many have been allowed full benefit; how many partial benefit; and how many disallowed benefit altogether?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I regret that separate statistics for single persons are not available.
    Mr. LECKIEasked the Minister of Health whether he will undertake to call a regional conference of representatives of public assistance committees in the Staffordshire area with a view to correlating the administration of transitional benefit and the means test?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): I will certainly consider this suggestion.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD(for Mr. McGOVERN) asked the Minister of Labour the number of single men and single women, also married men, in Glasgow who have been refused benefit as a result of the application of the means test?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The total number of applications on which the Glasgow public assistance committee decided that the needs of applicants did not justify payment, was 13,527 up to 23rd Janu-
    1246
    ary, 1932. I regret that I cannot give separate figures for single and married persons.
    Mr. HAMILTON KERRasked the Minister of Labour whether any local authorities have definitely refused to carry out public assistance work in connection with transitional benefit?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: No, Sir, I am happy to say that all local authorities are co-operating in the administration of the transitional payments scheme.

    SEASONAL WORKERS.
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the Minister of Labour if he will issue specific instructions to all Employment Exchanges at which hitherto any considerable number of seasonal workers has been registered, to call their attention to the state of the law as it is affecting such seasonal workers, and to suggest to them that they should apply for certificates of exemption?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: All claimants are given a copy of leaflet U.I.L. 18, which states, in paragraph 17, the restrictions affecting seasonal workers. As to the second part of the question, I will arrange for each person whose claim is disallowed under these restrictions to be supplied with a copy of leaflet U.I.L. 13, explaining the conditions under which exemption may be obtained by certain seasonal workers. I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of these two leaflets.
    Captain MACDONALD: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is very great dissatisfaction in certain areas with the way in which these Regulations are being interpreted by courts of referees in the case of yacht workers who are employed during the summer, but for whom no work is available in the winter months?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, I am watching the administration of the Anomalies Act very carefully, and I shall be very glad to hear of any points to which he can draw my attention.
    Captain MACDONALD: I will send some cases.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask if the advisory board which was set up has held a meeting to deal with any new

    1247
    points; and, if not, why it is that they have not met?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: They have not been called together since the first Regulations were approved. When the time comes when I think it will be advisable that they should be called together again, I shall ask them to meet.

    ANOMALIES REGULATIONS (MARRIED WOMEN).
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour if he can state if, when married women are disallowed benefit under the Anomalies Act, any inquiry is made into the wages earned by their husbands at the time of the claim being made; and in how many cases do their husbands earn £5 a week?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The circumstances of the husband of a married woman may be relevant to the question whether the applicant will normally seek to obtain her livelihood by means of insurable employment, and it is, therefore, within the competence of the statutory authorities to make inquiries on the point. I have no statistics as to the last part of the question.

    COURT OF REFEREES, GLASGOW (DECISIONS).
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that at the Glasgow Central Exchange persons whose cases are being heard before the court of referees are denied the right of asking the court to be allowed to appeal to the Umpire, and are merely handed the court's decision outside the court; and whether, as this is contrary to practice in all other courts, where the person concerned is allowed to be present when the court announce their decision, he proposes taking any action in this matter?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I am looking into this matter, and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as my inquiries are completed.

    TRAINING CENTRE, SLOUGH.
    Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the Minister of Labour the number of young unemployed men admitted annually to the Slough Training Centre; what number of these are local men; and what number are men drawn from depressed areas?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: During 1930 and 1931 (the two complete years during which the Slough Government Training Centre has been open), 939 and 838 men, respectively, were admitted. During the same periods, 644 and 721 men completed training. All those admitted to the centre are drawn from the depressed areas.
    Sir A. KNOX: Does the Minister realise that there are now 2,000 local people unemployed in Slough; and is it not very unfair that these young men are not allowed to enter this training centre, but should have to remain watching unemployed people from distressed areas being trained at the Government's expense to take their jobs?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I am aware that there has been some increase of unemployment in Slough, but I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that there is, unfortunately, much more unemployment in many of the depressed areas, and these centres are primarily intended for men from the depressed areas.
    Sir A. KNOX: Is it not possible to admit to these centres a proportion of local young men who want training?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I will look into that point, but I cannot give an undertaking, because it really is the intention that the first preference in this matter should be given to men from depressed areas, where the percentage of unemployment is very severe.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that this causes tremendous local resentment?

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. DAVID ADAMSasked the Minister of Labour how many persons were registered as unemployed at the Employment Exchanges in the boroughs of Poplar, Hackney, West Ham, Bethnal Green, and Shoreditch on the 27th February, 1931, and 27th February, 1932; and how many persons were disallowed benefit during this period?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:

    1249

    Persons on the Registers of certain Employment Exchanges and Claims made at those Exchanges disallowed by Courts of Referees.

    Employment Exchange.

    Numbers on the Registers.

    Number of Claims†disallowed by Courts of Referees during the period 10th February, 1931, to 30th January, 1932.

    26th January, 1931.

    25th January, * 1932.

    Poplar

    …

    …

    10,017

    10,697

    4,009

    Hackney

    …

    …

    12,427

    14,054

    5,580

    West Ham:

    Canning Town

    …

    …

    12,018

    12,135

    3,668

    Stratford

    …

    …

    8,284

    9,613

    4,057

    Shoreditch

    …

    …

    11,685

    12,075

    5,062

    There is no Employment Exchange located in the Metropolitan Borough of Bethnal Green.

    *Figures for February are not yet available.

    † These figures relate to claims, and the number of separate individuals concerned is not available. During the same period the total number of claims made at the offices in question was 292,959.

    Figures in respect of the number of cases in which Public assistance Committees decided that the needs of applications did not justify the making of transitional payments are available only for Public Assistance Authority areas and not for separate Employment Exchanges.

    Mr. STONESasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons registered at the Farnworth Employment Exchange as totally and temporarily unemployed on 27th October, 1931; the number registered up to date; and how many have been struck off the register through the application of the means test?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: At 26th October, 1931, there were 4,860 persons wholly unemployed and 5,150 temporarily stopped on the register of Farnworth Employment Exchange. The corresponding figures for 25th January, 1932, were 3,840 and 4,954. Statistics are not available showing the number of persons who have ceased to register at the Farnworth Exchange as the result of determinations by public assistance committees that their needs did not justify transitional payment being made.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Do not all these returns prove undoubtedly that unemployment is on the increase; and are not the Government prepared to do anything to mitigate the serious problem of unemployment?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I cannot, of course, accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question. The fact that a considerable number of persons, after having been struck off, are not registering, may be due to one of two causes; it may be that they have found work
    1250
    elsewhere, or it may be that they do not need this assistance.

    RELIEF SCHEMES.
    Mr. PRICEasked the Minister of Labour what new schemes, assisted through the Unemployment Grants Committee, were started in November and December, 1931, and January and February, 1932; and how many men have been directly employed?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: Schemes approved by the Unemployment Grants Committee on which work was begun in November last numbered 36, the corresponding figures for December and January being 220 and 60 respectively. These schemes are estimated to provide work for about 15,000 men for a period of 12 months on an average. No grant-aided schemes were begun in February, as it was an essential condition of grant that work should be begun by the 31st January at latest.

    BENEFIT.
    Mr. DINGLE FOOTasked the Minister of Labour what are the intentions of the Government with regard to the restoration, in whole or in part, of the recent reduction in the rate of unemployment benefit?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply of Thursday last to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan).
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is there likely to be any change in the point of view of the Government by reason of the passing of the Import Duties Act?

    BUILDING TRADE WORKERS, GLASGOW.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD(for Mr. McGOVERN) asked the Minister of Labour the number of building trade workers in Glasgow who are unemployed; and what are the trades?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: As the reply includes a number of figures I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:
    Insured persons in the building industry classification recorded as unemployed in the Glasgow area at 25th January, 1932.

    Occupation.

    Number.

    Carpenters

    …

    …

    955

    Bricklayers

    …

    …

    362

    Masons

    …

    …

    265

    Slaters and tilers

    …

    …

    233

    Plasterers

    …

    …

    289

    Painters

    …

    …

    1,474

    Plumbers

    …

    …

    461

    Labourers to above

    …

    …

    1,327

    All other occupations

    …

    …

    2,439

    Total

    …

    …

    7,805

    JUVENILES.
    Mr. GROVES(for Mr. THORNE) asked the Minister of Labour the number of firms regularly notifying Employment Exchanges of vacancies existing for boys of 14 years of age to take the place of those employés who have attained the age of 18 years and thus come within the scope of unemployment insurance; and if he can state what reasons are given for the discharge of such employés?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I have no statistics on this point. It is not the practice of employers to give the reason for the discharge of a former employé when they notify a vacancy.

  DISTURBANCES (PRISONERS).
  Mr. KIRKWOOD(for Mr. McGOVERN) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons are undergoing terms of imprisonment for taking part in un-
  1252
  employed riots; and how many there were at the same period during 1931?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir Herbert Samuel): The number of persons who were under sentence in England and Wales on 1st March this year, after conviction on indictment of riot or unlawful assembly was 30, and the number on 1st March last year was 23; but I cannot say how many of these were unemployed. I regret that no other figures are available.

  FOREIGN ACTORS.
  Mr. KIMBALL(for Mr. LYONS) asked the Minister of Labour what reply he gave to the deputation of the British Actors' Equity Association with reference to the engagement in this country of foreign actors and artistes; and what is his present policy in reference thereto?
  Sir H. BETTERTON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on Thursday last to a similar question by the hon. Member for-Blackpool (Captain Erskine-aolst), in which I state that there has been no change of policy in regard to the admission of foreign actors and that, for some considerable time, no foreign actor has been refused admission.
  Mr. DENVILLE: Is it not the case that the members of the entertainment industry are very satisfied with the arrangements at the present time?

  BREAD PRICES.
  Mr. D. FOOTasked the Minister of Labour the present comparative price of the 4-lb. wheaten loaf in the following countries: Great Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, Austria, Czechoslovakia, the United States of America, Canada, Australia, Ireland, South Africa, Norway, and Sweden?
  Sir H. BETTERTON: As the reply contains a number of figures, I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House today whether the loaf is not cheaper in this country than in any of the other countries named?
  Sir H. BETTERTON: I think the answer to that question is to be found in the very long reply which I am circulating. It contains a great many sta-

  The latest figures available as to the average prices of white bread in the countries named are given in the Table below. In the absence of information concerning the qualities of bread to which the various quotations relate, it is not known how far the prices shown may be regarded as comparable one with another.

  Country.

  Date.

  Average Price per 4 lb. of white bred.

  Great Britain and Northern Ireland (general average).

  1st February, 1932

  7d.

  France (Paris)

  January, 1932

  4·09 Francs.

  Germany (6 large towns)

  Jauuary, 1931

  1·49 Reichsmarks.

  Belgium (Brussels)

  January, 1931

  3·16 Francs.

  Austria (Vienna)

  Middle of January, 1932

  2·82 Schillings.

  Czechoslovakia (general average)

  December, 1931

  4·2 Korunas.

  United States of America (51 towns)

  15th December, 1931

  28·8 Cents.

  Canada (69 towns)

  Beginning of December, 1931.

  24 Cents.

  Australia (6 large towns)

  15th September, 1931

  7·2d. to 10·9d.

  Irish Free State (general average)

  Middle of November, 1931

  8d.

  Union of South Africa (9 towns)

  December, 1931

  14·72d.

  Norway (general average)

  November, 1931

  1·25 Kroner.

  Sweden (49 towns)

  January, 1932

  1·35 Kroner.

  NOTE.—The figures given are taken from official publications of the countries concerned, except in the case of Germany and Belgium, for which countries they are extracted from the "International Labour Review" published by the International Labour Office which is the only available source of information as to the price of white bread in those countries.

  EX-SERVICE MEN.
  Major LEIGHTONasked the Minister of Labour whether he can inform the House of the amount expended in grants to disabled ex-service men's industries in respect to deficiency grants and training grants, respectively, during the last financial year; how this amount compares with previous years; and whether such grants are only made on account of disabled men whose disabilities are assessed at 50 per cent. and over?
  Sir H. BETTERTON: As the reply is long, and contains a table of figures, I will circulate it, if I may, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Major LEIGHTON: If I am able to raise this point in the Debate this afternoon, will my right hon. Friend or the Parliamentary Secretary be prepared to give me an answer?
  Sir H. BETTERTON: My hon. and gallant Friend intimated that he might raise this point in the Debate to-day, and I therefore arranged that an advance copy of the answer should be sent to him,
  tistics, which I think will answer the hon. Member's question.
  Following is the reply:
  in order that he might have it in his possession for the purposes of the Debate.
  Major LEIGHTON: Thank you very much.
  Following is the reply:
  The Deficiency Grants and Training Grants paid during the last three years to institutions employing severely disabled men were:

  Year.

  Deficiency Grant.

  Training Grant.

  £

  £

  1928–29

  …

  …

  9,370

  2,321

  1929–30

  …

  …

  11,960

  3,861

  1930–31

  …

  …

  9,432

  883

  It is estimated that the corresponding figures for 1931–32 will be about £9,200 and £600.
  Grants are paid in respect of men who, on account of their War disability, cannot ordinarily expect to obtain employment under normal industrial conditions. Men of this type are generally those having a disability pension of not less than 50 per cent. or those whose War disability is neurasthenia and epilepsy.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of ex-service fishermen to whom loans have been made under the Development Fund for the provision of motor boats and motor engines; and whether these loans are still being made?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Sir Archibald Sinclair): In 1920 and 1921 the Fishery Board for Scotland administered a scheme for the provision of motor fishing boats and of motor engines for existing boats to ex-service fishermen by means of advances from the Development Fund. Eight loans amounting in the aggregate to £1,836 were advanced. No such scheme is now in operation.

  LICENSING HOURS.
  Rear-Admiral SUETERasked the Home Secretary whether he will introduce legislation to impose upon licensed premises throughout the country uniform hours of closing varying with summer time, such as 10.30 p.m. throughout the summer months and 10 o'clock during the winter?
  Sir H. SAMUEL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 4th February to the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams).

  DARTMOOR PRISON
  Mr. BUCHANANasked the Home Secretary if it is intended to take any action against the various newspapers which recently published either unfounded reports of the conduct of certain prisoners in Dartmoor Prison or certain exaggerated reports; and if he intends taking any action to see that these reports do not in any way interfere with the trial of the men concerned?
  Sir H. SAMUEL: I have so far seen nothing in any newspaper that is reasonably likely to prejudice the trial of any accused prisoner or that would warrant the institution of proceedings against any newspaper.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman himself has described some of the statements regarding alleged rioting as grossly exag-
  1256
  gerated and wholly unfounded, are they not calculated to influence the jury in the trial of these men's cases?
  Sir H. SAMUEL: No, I do not think it will influence any sensible jury.
  Mr. KIMBALL(for Mr. LYONS) asked the Home Secretary the reason for the recent changes in the governorships of His Majesty's prisons at Cardiff and Dartmoor, respectively?
  Sir H. SAMUEL: The vacancy at Cardiff occurred in the ordinary course owing to the retirement of the governor, Mr. Fisher, on superannuation. It was desirable on general grounds, and in his own interests, that Mr. Roberts should be transferred from Dartmoor. He is well qualified for the governorship of Cardiff, and he has been appointed to that post, retaining his rank as a Class I Governor. Major Parnall, who has been appointed to Dartmoor, has had experience as deputy-governor at Parkhurst Convict Prison and at Manchester Prison, and As governor of the Preventive Detention Prison at Camp Hill.
  Mr. McENTEEasked the Home Secretary how many prisoners are undergoing solitary confinement in Dartmoor Prison; how long they have been so treated; and what disciplinary changes are to be made at Dartmoor in future?

  DARTMOOR PRISON.
  Sir H. SAMUEL: In answer to a question on 25th February, I described the arrangements adopted with respect to the leaders of the disturbance at Dartmoor, who are being kept apart from the other prisoners; tnese arrangements cannot properly be described as solitary confinement. The prisoners are allowed an hour's exercise daily, they work for about half the day outside their cells, and they are allowed the ordinary use of books. Thirty-two convicts have been so kept apart since 25th January awaiting the legal proceedings to be taken against them. Twenty-two other prisoners are now being brought before the Board of Visitors, who have power to award, among other penalties, the punishment of close confinement for a maximum period of 28 days. This punishment also allows for an hour's daily exercise, working at handicrafts in the cell, the use of books and attendance at chapel on Sundays. Yesterday there were 10 convicts undergoing this punishment, for an average

  1257
  period of nine days. Certain minor Changes in the way of additional precautions have been made at Dartmoor, but no question arises of any general changes in the disciplinary regime of convict prisons.
  Mr. McENTEE: In congratulating the Minister on the attitude he has taken in this matter, may I ask him whether he will now consider the entire abolition of the inhuman form of punishment known as solitary confinement?
  Sir H. SAMUEL: As I have pointed out, this arrangement cannot be properly described as solitary confinement.
  Mr. McENTEE: I admit that in the case of these particular men, but I am asking for this matter to be considered.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain Macdonald) has handed me a private notice question. It is not strictly in order because a question on the same subject is down on the Order Paper for the 10th March, but, as I understand there is some anxiety on the matter, I will allow him to put it to-day.
  Captain P. MACDONALD(by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether he has granted the request of the Prison Reform Society to defend the Dartmoor convicts against whom charges are to be preferred in consequence of the recent mutiny in that prison; and whether he will consider the desirability of arranging for them to be defended by members of the legal profession taking their case solely from the men whom they are defending and not in part from any particular society?
  Sir H. SAMUEL: The normal procedure with regard to persons in custody charged before courts with serious offences will, of course, be followed in these cases. If the prisoners or their friends have means to arrange for their defence, all necessary facilities will be accorded for their doing so, they will be left free to choose their own legal representatives, and they will be allowed to communicate with them or be visited and advised by them. If they have not means of providing privately for their defence, the prisoners can apply to the court for legal aid at the public expense under the enactments relating to poor prisoners. The prisoners will be fully informed of
  1258
  their rights in these matters. I have received a communication from a person who represents himself as being the Secretary of a Prison Reform Society, asking for special facilities for undertaking the defence of these prisoners. I should not in any case be justified in taking such steps except at the request of the prisoners themselves, and as this so-called Society is not a reputable body it would not be in their interest that I should do so.

  FILM CENSORSHIP CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE.
  Mr. LECKIEasked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the addition of at least one woman to the film censorship consultative committee?
  Sir H. SAMUEL: The committee to which my hon. Friend refers is composed entirely of persons nominated by the authorities responsible for the licensing of cinemas. The committee on appointment consisted of 10 members nominated by the County Councils Association, the Municipal Corporations Association, and the London County Council. It was decided subsequently to add two members to represent those authorities where the licensing power is delegated to Justices, and, as no woman had as yet been nominated, I suggested that the opportunity might be taken of selecting a woman. The authorities concerned found it impossible on this occasion to act on this suggestion. In the circumstances I regret that I am unable to take any action at present, but I will certainly bear the point in mind whenever a vacancy occurs.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Will not the right hon. Gentleman tell those concerned that the House of Commons as a whole would rather have a woman on the committee?
  Sir H. SAMUEL: I am not sure that the whole House has expressed that opinion.

  TRANSPORT.

    STREET ACCIDENTS.
    Colonel Sir JAMES REYNOLDSasked the Home Secretary if he will state the number of children killed and the number injured in street accidents in England and Wales during 1931; in how

    1259
    many cases was a motor vehicle concerned; and in how many cases was the child on a footpath or entering or leaving school premises, respectively?
    Sir H. SAMUEL: I regret that such figures are not available.
    Sir REYNOLDS: In view of the number of accidents that take place at school gates, will some consideration be given to the idea of putting barriers between the school and the actual road on which the children debouch?
    Sir H. SAMUEL: That is sometimes done. I am not sure that it relates to my Department, but I will consider the suggestion.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: May I suggest that the example of Glasgow might be followed, where a policeman is stationed at the school.

    RAIL AND ROAD TRANSPORT (COMPETITION).
    Sir ASSHETON POWNALLasked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been called to the position of the railway services as shown by the recent reports of the London, Midland, and Scottish and London and North Eastern Railway Companies; and what action the Government intends to take to enable the railway companies to meet the competition of heavy road transport?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): I have seen the reports of the railway companies to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, and as he is aware the four amalgamated railway companies have jointly made representations to me with respect to the competition of heavy road transport. I have these representations under consideration, but I am not in a position to make a statement on the subject.
    Sir A. POWNALL: Can my hon. Friend say how long it will take before he can state definitely what the policy of the Government will be, in view of the gravity of the position as shown by these reports?
    Mr. PYBUS: I am very anxious to consider the situation, but I am not at present in a position to give any undertaking.
    Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: Will the hon. Gentleman be prepared to receive any representations from the heavy road transport interests?
    Mr. PYBUS: I hope I shall succeed in dealing equally with the representations of all interested parties.

  CHINESE SEAMEN.
  Mr. D. GRENFELLasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that a crew of Chinese seamen were engaged at the port of Rotterdam, taken to Harwich, and afterwards to Cardiff to be signed on the British ship "Sheaf Lance"; whether permits were given to the owners of this ship to engage these men; and, if so, for what reasons, in view of the number of unemployed British seamen?
  Sir H. SAMUEL: I am aware that a number of Chinese seamen were allowed to land at Harwich on 21st January for the purpose of joining the steamship "Sheaf Lance" in British waters, for which they were under contract. Nonresident alien seamen are not allowed to land for the purpose of seeking employment; but seamen under contract to sign on a ship and sail in her do not require permits from the Minister of Labour. In accordance with international custom they are allowed to land for the purpose, and if any departure were made from this rule the effect upon British seamen who join ships at foreign ports would be serious.
  Mr. GRENFELL: Does the Minister encourage the making of contracts abroad to enable engagements to he broken in that way?
  Sir H. SAMUEL: It is not for the Home Office to encourage or discourage.
  Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the difference between free trade in labour and free trade in goods.
  Sir H. SAMUEL: Yes, if I have the opportunity, but not at Question Time.
  Mr. LOGAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that facilities are offered in England to ship foreign crews and that the reverse takes place in foreign

  1261
  ports and our Britishers are being sent away and foreign labour put in their place?
  Sir H. SAMUEL: No. I am informed that the rule that is observed here is also observed in foreign countries in respect to this matter.

  EDUCATION.

    BUILDING WORK, CORNWALL.
    Lieut.-Commander AGNEWasked the President of the Board of Education (1) if he will state the names of the secondary schools in the county of Cornwall in respect of which expenditure on building work has been sanctioned by his Department since 15th January, 1932, giving the dates in each case on which sanction was given;
    (2) if any contractual obligations had been entered into with regard to the proposed expenditure on Bodmin secondary school before his circular order referring to building expenditure had been issued?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Sir Donald Maclean): Building work has been approved at two schools in Cornwall. A proposal for alterations and additions at the Bodmin County Secondary School was originally approved by the Board in July, 1931, and was again approved on 2nd February, 1932. The local authority were not contractually committed to the expenditure on this proposal before the issue of the Board's circular 1413. The other case was the provision of a new boarding-house at the Truro High School for Girls which was approved on 3rd February, 1932. This latter project involves no cost to public funds.
    Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: In the case of Bodmin, has the finance committee of the Cornwall County Council approved of the project?
    Sir D. MACLEAN: As far as I know, it must have approved of it or it could not have reached me.

    SECONDARY SCHOOL FEES.
    Captain SPENCERasked the President of the Board of Education in how many aided and maintained secondary schools the tuition fee has been increased since 1930?
    Sir D. MACLEAN: Since 1930, tuition fees have been increased at 21 secondary schools maintained by local education authorities, or aided by grant from the Board of Education.
    Sir PERCY HARRIS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it rather unwise, at a time of great industrial depression and distress, that parents should be asked to pay higher fees? Does he realise that it may lead to many suitable children being deprived of the opportunities of secondary education?
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I have no doubt that in some cases hardship will be caused, but all relevant circumstances were taken into consideration when the decision was arrived at.
    Sir P. HARRIS: Is it the policy of the Board to discourage the increase of fees generally?
    Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, when we began to cut down on education in 1919, it had a disastrous effect on the country and cost us more in the end? Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to economise on children?
    Sir D. MACLEAN: We have to take into account the exceptional financial condition of the country. I assure both hon. Members that the most careful consideration is given to each one of these cases before consent is given.
    Captain SPENCERasked the President of the Board of Education whether he will state the number of aided and maintained secondary schools in which no tuition fees are charged, together with the number of pupils in attendance at such schools?
    Sir D. MACLEAN: The number of secondary schools in England and Wales in which no tuition fees were charged on 1st October, 1931, was 78, all of them being schools maintained by local education authorities. The number of pupils in these schools on that date was about 31,500.

    BROADCAST LESSONS.
    Mr. McENTEEasked the President of the Board of Education the number of teachers being trained in broadcast lessons; whether the training is being

    1263
    done by the British Broadcasting Corporation or the Central Council for School Broadcasting; and whether the training has the approval of the Board of Education?
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I am not aware of any course of training at a training college. The matter is still in an experimental stage and I am watching it with much interest.

  RATING AND VALUATION.
  Mr. DREWEasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the present incidence of rating burdens upon new water undertakings in rural districts, he will take steps to amend the basis of assessment so as to secure that they are assessed at a nominal figure only?
  Sir H. YOUNG: The assessment of water undertakings to rates is a matter for the local assessment authorities and the courts and I have no jurisdiction in regard to it. I understand, however, that the question is engaging the attention of the Central Valuation Committee, and any representations submitted by the authorities on whose behalf my hon. Friend speaks would doubtless receive their careful consideration.
  Mr. DREWEasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the need for economy, he will introduce legislation to secure a postponement of the quinquennial valuation made necessary by the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925?
  Sir H. YOUNG: The suggestion of my hon. Friend has already received my careful consideration in the light of a memorandum submitted by the Central Valuation Committee and of representations from other bodies and persons. After reviewing all the relevant considerations, including the urgent need for economy in public expenditure, I do not consider that the introduction of such legislation would be justified.
  Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: How many county councils have protested against this expenditure?
  Sir H. YOUNG: I should require notice of that question.
  Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Minister of Health what is the
  1264
  estimated expenditure involved for all local authorities and the Ministry of Health in connection with the second quinquennial valuation to be carried out under the Rating and Valuation Act,
  1925?
  Sir H. YOUNG: Material is not available for a precise estimate, but I am satisfied that for the country as a whole the necessary expenditure in connection with the preparation of the second valuation lists under the Act of 1925 should be very much less than that incurred in preparing the first lists.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (IMPORTED MILK).
  Mr. KIMBALLasked the Minister of Health whether any action has been taken to discover if fresh milk imported from abroad, which has been pasteurised once before exportation and a second time after importation, has been sold in this country as pasteurised milk?
  Sir H. YOUNG: The inquiries made by officers of my Department have afforded no evidence that any such milk has been sold in this country "pasteurised milk."

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (LOANS).
  Mr. HUTCHISONasked the Minister of Health how many applications he has received from local authorities since October for sanction for loans for public purposes; how many of these have been granted and how many refused; and how many public libraries figure in either of the two latter categories?
  Sir H. YOUNG: I regret that without Iong special investigation I cannot state the number of applications received. 2,500 applications for loans have, however, been sanctioned since 1st October, and of these eight were for libraries and one for a site for a library, but in most cases application was received and commitments entered into before the issue of the circular letter as to economy in local expenditure.

  PARLIAMENT ACT.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the Prime Minister whether

  1265
  during this Parliament it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to take steps to alter the Parliament Act, 1911, with a view to restoring the powers applicable to the House of Lords previous to the passing of the Act?
  Mr. STOURTONasked the Prime Minister if he will now make a statement as to the intentions of the Government with regard to the reformation of the House of Lords during the life of the present Parliament?
  The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): I would refer my hon. Friends to the answer which I gave on the 10th February in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for East Dorset (Mr. Hall-Caine).
  Sir F. HALL: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the answer he gave was simply with regard to the reform of the House of Lords, and that my point does not deal with that matter. My point, as my right hon. Friend will appreciate, deals with the, powers taken away under the Act of 1911, and will the Government take steps to restore the powers as they used to be before the Parliament Act of 1911?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I think that the Government, if I may speak as one who is temporarily leader of the House, have provided sufficient legislation of a contentious character for the present Session. What may be done in future Sessions has not yet been taken into consideration.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any truth in the rumour which is going through the House that the present. Cabinet is in favour of the abolition of the House of Lords?
  Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: Will my right lion. Friend consider modifying the hereditary principle of the House of Lords?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I shall be interested to examine that question.
  Mr. MANDER: Have we not had enough revolutions for the time being?

  HOUSING.

    BRICKS (PRICES).
    Mr. LOGANasked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to the price of bricks, which is now per
    1266
    1,000, best stocks £4 3s. 6d., flettons £2 11s. 3d., and glazed £20 10s., as compared with the following prices in August 1914, best stocks £1 16s., flettons £1 14s., and glazed 213; and whether any action is being taken to obtain a reduction in the price, in view of the need of materials for housing the working classes?
    Sir H. YOUNG: Yes, Sir. The Inter-Departmental Committee appointed to review the prices of building materials is at present engaged upon a survey of these prices. I may, however, point out that glazed bricks are not used in the construction of working-class houses.

    BUILDING MATERIALS.
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Minister of Health whether the use of Empire materials is a condition imposed upon local authorities in connection with State-aided schemes of house building; and if not, whether, in view of the increasing competition from abroad, notably in respect of timber, the terms of the condition could be drawn again to the attention of municipalities throughout the country?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a similar question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh (Dr. Morris-Jones) on Thursday last, of which I am sending him a copy. I am also sending him a copy of the Circular letter mentioned in that reply.
    Captain MACDONALD: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a company is being formed to import Russian timber and will he see that none of it is used for present purposes?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The purport of the reply which I am sending to my hon. and gallant. Friend is that there is no statutory power for me to impose such limitations as those which he suggests.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Cannot my right hon. Friend set up a committee to consider the Russian complex from which some Members of the House are suffering?

  THAMES FLOODS PREVENTION COMMITTEE.
  Mr. MOREINGasked the Minister of Health when it is expected that the Departmental Committee on Thames

  1267
  Floods Prevention will resume its sittings; and how soon it will issue its Report?
  Sir H. YOUNG: The work of this and various other committees was suspended as a measure of economy. I propose to take the question of resumption into consideration at an early date and at the moment I cannot accordingly give a definite answer to either of the questions asked by my hon. Friend.

  CHILD ADOPTION.
  Mr. LOVAT-FRASERasked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the fact that in some cases foster-parents who take children under the Children Act, 1908, are paid lump sums and then disappear, leaving the children chargeable to the public assistance committee; and whether he proposes to take legislative steps to prevent this in future?
  Sir H. YOUNG: No cases of the kind described have been brought to my notice. I will ascertain from the local authority who have, I understand, drawn my hon. Friend's attention to the question, whether they have any particular case in mind.

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    SUGAR DUTY.
    Viscountess ASTORasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the rate of excise duty paid on home-produced sugar and of customs duty on sugar imported from the British Empire and on sugar imported from foreign countries for each year since 1923; and the total amount paid on and the amount of duty remitted on each of the foregoing three groups of sugar for the same period?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I am sending my Noble Friend a statement giving the information she desires.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the failure of the sugar-beet subsidy and go slow with these subsidies?

    BEER DUTY.
    Sir WILLIAM WAYLANDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the
    1268
    number of standard barrels of beer brewed in January, 1931, and in January, 1932, and the respective amounts of revenue received in the two years?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The figures are as follow:

    January, 1931.

    January, 1932.

    Number of standard barrels brewed

    1,272,000

    979,000

    Excise duty charged

    £4,932,000

    £5,216,000

    ESTATE DUTIES.
    Mr. NALL-CAINasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of revenue received from Estate Duties in respect of agricultural land during each of the last five financial years?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: These payments are not specially recorded but it is estimated that the Estate Duty paid in respect of agricultural land for the years 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929 and 1930 amounted to £3,400,000, £2,500,000, £2,600,000, £2,900,000 and £2,100,000 respectively.

    IMPORT DUTIES.
    Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELDasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government have taken measures to stop the avoidance of paying correct ad valorem duties under the McKenna Act by firms abroad with subsidiaries in this country; and what steps have been taken?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): As regards the first part of the question, I can add nothing to the answer which I gave my Noble Friend on the 24th November last. As regards the second part, it would not be in the public interest to give particulars of whatever steps are taken, but the matter is not being lost sight of.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    IMPORT DUTIES ACT.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if arrangements can be made by the Commissioners of Customs to record and publish monthly the quantity and value of goods liable to the general ad valorem duty which are admitted duty free into registered shipyards?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It would be premature at this stage to make any

    1269
    promise in the matter, but my hon. Friend's suggestion will be considered after some experience of the working of the provision as to shipyards has been gained.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can make a statement on the procedure to be adopted by the Imports Advisory Committee in relation to representations for the introduction of additional duties on foreign imports which compete unfairly with British manufacturers?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, but I imagine that the committee will make its own statement on procedure since this is a matter for determination solely by itself.
    Mr. HANNON: Would my right hon. Friend indicate to the House when he thinks that a statement will be made, because it is very important to the industrial community to know what the procedure will be?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I should not think that they will make any statement until they have come to some decision.

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. LOGANasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of ships cleared for Customs between Friday, 26th February, and 5 p.m. on Monday, 29th February; the number of ships laden with foreign merchandise that arrived in British ports after 5 p.m. on Monday, 29th February, and prior to 5 p.m. on the 2nd March; and the approximate amount of duty paid on the cargoes carried?
    Major ELLIOT: To compile the information desired by the hon. Member would necessarily involve a great deal of time and expense, and I do not feel justified, especially in view of the abnormally heavy work falling on the Department at the present time, in calling upon the Customs to undertake its preparation.

    FRANCE (BRITISH COAL QUOTA).
    Captain NORTHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is his intention to make any further representations to the French Government with a view to increasing the quota for British coal in order that some advantage may accrue from the removal of the 15 per cent. Surtax?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne) by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade on 22nd February, to which I have at present nothing to add.
    Mr. D. GRENFELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the most effective representations for the coal trade would be an intimation that no additional duties would be charged on goods imported from other countries?

    GERMAN EXPORTS.
    Duchess of ATHOLLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the system of import certificates provided for by Article 11 (1) of the German Customs tariff law, as detailed in the Board of Trade Journal for 15th October, 1925, is still in existence; if not, whether any other system of giving bounties on exports is in existence in Germany; and, if so, what is the system and to what commodities does it apply?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The duty free import certificate system is still in existence, but is operative at present only us regards pigs, pork, tinned hams and some barley and oat products. A somewhat similar, but temporary, system which was introduced by a law of 28th March, 1931, entitles persons who exported wheat spelt and rye before the end of December last to import corresponding quantities of those cereals at reduced duties up to the end of July, 1932.

    STERLING PAYMENTS.
    Mr. MABANEasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether his attention has been drawn to the difficulty experienced by manufacturers in Huddersfield and other parts of the country in securing sterling from foreign customers to whom goods have been sold; and whether the Government proposes to take any steps to assist in relieving this situation?
    Major COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I am fully aware of the difficulties experienced by manufacturers in this country in securing sterling payments due from customers in certain foreign countries. His Majesty's Representatives abroad are under instructions to report urgently not only

    1271
    particulars of restrictions imposed, but also any tendency to administer the regulations in a manner unfair to British exporters. Representations, either general or in regard to particular aspects of the effects of exchange control, have been made to the Governments of a number of countries, and I shall continue to give the closest attention to the possibility of steps likely to obviate the difficulties at present experienced.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE).
  Mr. McENTEEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether in view of the imposition of tariffs extra Customs officers will have to be engaged for the work; if so, will he state from what source they are to be obtained; and whether the appointments will be of a permanent or temporary character?
  Major ELLIOT: The imposition of the new import duties will necessitate an increase in the staff of officers of Customs and Excise. The new entrants are being recruited through the recognised channel of open competitive examination for permanent appointments.

  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (RESEARCH).
  Mr. MANDERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will consider the advisability of requesting Government Departments, when making their purchases from companies, to take into consideration the extent to which the companies concerned are co-operating with and contributing to the research associations established with Government financial support?
  Major ELLIOT: The requisite information is not in the possession of the contract-making Departments. While I fully sympathise with the desire to encourage research I fear that I cannot see my way to setting up special additional machinery for carrying out my hon. Friend's proposal.
  Mr. MANDER: In view of the importance of encouraging research, will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to consider representations upon this matter, if I bring certain facts before him?
  Major ELLIOT: I shall be very glad to consider any representation brought before me by my hon. Friend.

  AGRICULTURE.

    REORGANISATION.
    Mr. PRICEasked the Minister of Agriculture whether proposals from British farmers have yet been submitted for the reorganisation of the commercial side of the industry and the proper marking, grading, and marketing of the foodstuffs they produce?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): If the hon. Member is referring to schemes under the Agricultural Marketing Act, the answer is in the negative so far as England and Wales are concerned. As regards Scotland, I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland.

    TITHE RENTCHARGE.
    Captain KNATCHBULLasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that when the par value of tithe was fixed under the Act of 1836 the basis was wheat at 56s. a quarter, and that the Government now proposes to regard 45s. a quarter as a fair price to the wheat-grower, the Government will consider proposals to reduce the amount of tithe payable in a similar proportion to the above?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The sum payable in respect of tithe rentcharge was stabilised at its present value of £105 per cent. by the Tithe Act, 1925, after very careful consideration by Parliament of all relevant facts. In these circumstances the Government is not prepared to consider the re-opening of the matter.
    Sir W. WAYLAND: Does not my right hon. Friend acknowledge that conditions have very much changed since that time, that wheat is, as has been stated, at a very much higher price, and that many of the tithe payers are now paying in tithe a larger amount than the rents that their holdings or farms will fetch?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: It must not be forgotten that had the Act not been passed in 1925, they would have been paying considerably higher sums, ranging from £147 down to £109 per cent.

    WHEAT BILL.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is proposed to protect the wheat-growing farmer on a yearly short-term tenancy from losing the benefits conferred by subsidy under the Wheat Bill through increases of rent?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The effect of Section 12 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, is to give a certain measure of protection to a tenant against an arbitrary increase of rent by a landlord, and I do not consider that any special protection will be necessary in the case of a farmer who grows wheat.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Act referred to has been wholly ineffective, and does he not think he ought to take step's to deal with the matter?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I have no evidence of that kind.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is it not true that agricultural landlords have been more considerate than any other class of landlords?

    MILK (CONTRACT PRICE).
    Major CARVERasked the Minister of Agriculture if he can make any statement as to the position of the dispute between the producers and distributors of milk in England and Wales?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I presume that my hon. and gallant Friend refers to the question of varying for the month of March the contract price of milk. I understand that this matter was considered at a recent meeting of the permanent joint committee representing both the producers and distributors of milk, and that the result of the meeting was that no variation is to be made.
    Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWNasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, seeing that the distributors have refused the producers' request to continue the present milk prices for March, he is taking any steps to see that the lowered price is passed on to the consumer; and whether he is aware there is likely to be another shortage of milk in consequence of the price being lowered to Is. per gallon, including carriage?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I have no power to intervene for the purpose stated in the
    1274
    first part of the question; but I have no reason to doubt that consumers generally will benefit to the extent of the reduction in the wholesale price of milk, and I am informed that this has already occurred in London. I am advised that, a shortage in the supply of milk at this period of the year is unlikely.
    Brigadier-General BROWN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is quite impossible to pay wages and carry out these instructions, and pay a carriage of is. per gallon, and that, therefore, there is certain to be a shortage of milk in the country?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I look forward to a review of the whole milk production of this oountry.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE (RINGING APPARATUS).
  Major JESSONasked the Postmaster-General whether, having regard to the fact that at least 20 per cent. of telephone users suffer from deafness to a degree that prevents them from hearing the muffled sound of the double bell at present in universal use, he will consider its replacement by a single bell of more resonant quality?
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. Graham White): Experience indicates that the ringing apparatus normally supplied meets the requirements of subscribers generally. Further, a bell of different pitch which is found to be more suitable in certain cases is supplied without charge, and an extension bell with a larger gong is provided at an additional charge when desired. If the hon Member will give me particulars of any specific cases which he has in mind, my right hon, Friend will see what can be done to meet the wishes of the subscriber.

  COAL INDUSTRY (SCANDINAVIA AND POLAND).
  Duchess of ATHOLLasked the Secretary for Mines if he can give any further information in regard to the negotiations now taking place between the Scandinavian Coal Importers' Union and the Polish Coal Syndicate?
  The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Isaac Foot): Not yet. I will advise the Noble Lady when any information of value to the House has reached me, so that she can then put down a further question.

  HOME-GROWN TIMBER (PIT WOOD).
  Duchess of ATHOLLasked the hon. Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether he will set up a committee to consider as to how the production of pit-wood in this country may best be encouraged and the marketing of it improved?
  Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE (Forestry Commissioner): The Forestry Commissioners have already set up an Inter-Departmental Committee on Homegrown Timber the terms of reference being
  "to investigate and submit proposals for improvements in the utilisation of homegrown timber."
  The committee are dealing with the question of the methods of extending the use of home-grown timber in the mines and have been in conference with the Central Committee of the Mining Association of Great Britain.
  Duchess of ATHOLL: Does the question of the freight charges for pit wood and other forms of timber come within the purview of the Committee?
  Sir G. COURTHOPE: I could not tell my Noble Friend whether that comes within the strict terms of reference, but negotiations are going on, to my knowledge, at this moment.
  Sir W. WAYLAND: Is not the cost of production of pit wood in this country out of all proportion to the price at which it can be obtained from other parts of the Empire?
  Sir G. COURTHOPE: I should like notice of that question.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that the mineowners of this country, once they see that home-grown timber is comparable in quality and price, will readily buy it?
  Sir G. COURTHOPE: I hope that that will be the case. Investigations have
  1276
  proved that the quality is quite satisfactory.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us where the best pit props come from?
  Sir G. COURTHOPE: Scotland.
  Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: Will the producers of home-grown timber he represented on this Committee?
  Sir G. COURTHOPE: The producers of home-grown timber are having the fullest consideration.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    CHANGES OF STATION (GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND).
    Brigadier-General NATIONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what has been the total cost for changes of station between units in Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the year 1931–32?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): Approximately £13,000.

    ROYAL ARMY CLOTHING FACTORY, PIMLICO.
    Sir COOPER RAWSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state, owing to the closing of the War Office clothing factory at Pimlico, how many ex-service men, War widows and dependants will be thereby unemployed?
    Mr. COOPER: Although preference for employment at the Royal Army Clothing Factory, Pimlico, has been given to candidates with Service connections, this qualification has not been a condition of their employment, and therefore no statistics are available which would enable me to give the information desired.

    CADET UNITS.
    Brigadier-General NATIONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what is the present position and policy of the War Office towards cadet units: and whether any change is contemplated in the near future as regards their recognition and financial assistance by the War Office?
    Mr. COOPER: For information on this matter, I would refer the hon. and

    1277
    gallant Member to page 66 of the Army Estimates, 1932, and to page 8 of the Secretary of State's Memorandum relating thereto, both of which have been issued this morning.

    MEAT SUPPLIES.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the quantity and value of lamb and mutton purchased for the British Army during 12 months to the last convenient date; and how much was British, how much the produce of the British Empire, and how much was foreign produce?
    Mr. COOPER: The contracts for ration meat to the troops at home provide for mutton to be supplied on one day a week, if the troops so desire, but no information is available to show the quantity of mutton actually demanded. All meat purchased is of Dominion origin except at certain stations where the quantities required are so small that it is impracticable to ensure that it is of Empire origin. Lamb is not included in the ration.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Gentleman say why it is that Dominion meat is purchased instead of English meat?
    Mr. COOPER: Because it is cheaper.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman always bear that in mind when thinking about working-class people, that they would buy British if they could afford to do it?

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    UNPAID CONTRIBUTIONS.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether be is aware that certain countries are in default in regard to their subscriptions to the League of Nations; how such defaults are made good; and whether Great Britain has been called upon to participate in any shortage and, if so, to what extent since the inception of the League?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): I am aware that there are certain States Members of the League who are in arrear with their contributions. The effect of this delay on the contributions of other States was explained by the Secretary of State in the late Government in reply to a question by my hon. and gallant
    1278
    Friend the Member for Epsom (Commander Southby) in February, 1931. The position would appear to be that the League in some years reduces the contributions by the deduction of a proportionate share of the surplus from a previous year. To this extent the contributions of those States who pay their shares punctually have not been reduced to the extent which would have been possible if all contributions had been promptly paid. It is not possible to give actual figures. I understand that there is now a tendency for the arrears to increase in amount. The situation will be carefully watched, and can, of course, be reviewed by the Assembly when it has under consideration the Budget for 1933 and the amount of the contributions for that year.
    Sir F. HALL: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to give me an answer to the last part of my question, as to the extent to which Great Britain has been called upon to participate in any shortage since the inception of the League?
    Mr. EDEN: If my hon. and gallant Friend will read my answer, I am afraid that he will see that that is incalculable, because what we may be said to have lost is a share of the surplus of which the League has been deprived. That surplus bas not been calculated.
    Sir F. HALL: Are the rights and privileges applicable to those countries which make their due payments applicable to countries which do not make their payments?
    Mr. EDEN: Yes, that is so.
    Mr. HANNON: How long is this state of affairs to continue? Are nations to have the right of voting at the Assembly of the League while their obligatory contributions are still unpaid?
    Mr. EDEN: I quite appreciate that the present situation is extremely unsatisfactory, but, as my hon. Friend will realise, the matter does not come up for review until the Assembly meets this autumn. Meanwhile, the situation will be watched carefully.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is there any time limit for payment?
    Mr. MANDER: Is it not a fact that this country has been saved a substantial

    1279
    sum of money through the operations of the League of Nations?
    Mr. EDEN: That may be so, but we think that all countries should bear their proper share.
    Captain MACDONALD: Can the Under-Secretary say why the British contribution has been increased by £25,000 this year?
    Mr. EDEN: That is, I think, in connection with the Disarmament Conference.

    BRITISH DELEGATION.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the names of the British delegates to the Assembly of the League of Nations on 3rd March?
    Mr. EDEN: The delegates of the United Kingdom will be my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and my Noble Friend, the Secretary of State for Air.

  ROYAL NAVY (SUBMARINE M 2).
  Mr. PARKINSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether work on the salvage of submarine M 2 has been resumed; and, if not, will operations be resumed at an early date?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): His Majesty's Ship "Tedworth," having been fitted with special salvage equipment, left Portsmouth this morning (3rd March) for Portland. After coaling and completing with stores at Portland to-morrow (4th March) she will recommence salvage operations on Saturday, 5th March and will continue work on all occasions when weather conditions permit.

  MAIDSTONE GAOL.
  Mr. KIMBALL(for Mr. SMITHERS) asked the Home Secretary what is the position with regard to Maidstone gaol; and if he can announce what decision has been arrived at as to its future use?
  Sir H. SAMUEL: In 1930 the Prison Commissioners agreed to sell Maidstone Prison to the Kent County Council, but
  1280
  in October last the Commissioners informed the council that in view of changed circumstances it would suit them to retain the prison for some years, at any rate, if the council should be willing to cancel or postpone the scheme for the purchase of the property. Alternatively, the Commissioners asked that an arrangement should be made for them to occupy for as long as possible part, of the prison. The council have replied that they adhere to their intention of acquiring the property, but that they will be glad to consent to an arrangement by which the prison authorities shall continue to occupy part of the site for some time.

  CHINA AND JAPAN (CESSATION OF HOSTILITIES).
  Mr. LANSBURY: I wish to ask the under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any statement he can make in regard to the Sino-Japanese position?
  Mr. EDEN: The proposals for a cessation of hostilities, which I mentioned in reply to the right hon. Gentleman's question on the 1st, of March, were forwarded to the Chinese and Japanese Governments by t heir authorities in Shanghai, and the final reply from the Japanese Government was received in Shanghai last night. On the 1st of March the representative at Nanking of His Majesty's Minister in China was informed by the Chinese Minister for Foreign Affairs that a retirement of the Chinese troops was intended, and this took place over the whole front yesterday. I am glad to be able to state that, as a result of these events, the Japanese authorities gave orders to cease hostilities as from 2 p.m. to-day, Shanghai time. Sir Howard Kelly, the Commander-in-Chief, China Station, has informed the Chinese accordingly, who have, I understand, agreed to issue similar orders. A further conference will take place in His Majesty's ship "Kent."
  The success of these local negotiations must, I feel, be largely attributed to the good offices of Admiral Kelly and Sir Miles Lampson.
  While these efforts were being made at Shanghai, the Council was in no way

  1281
  relaxing its efforts at Geneva for the further liquidation of the situation. As a result, there are good grounds for anticipating that a satisfactory solution will be reached. The House will, I feel sure, appreciate how much this welcome development is due to the initiative taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, which contributed in no small measure to bring the parties together and to facilitate the welcome and invaluable co-operation of the Government of the United States with the Powers represented on the Council.
  Mr. HANNON: I would ask my hon. Friend whether the statement that he has read in relation to the cessation of hostilities in China is not a wonderful tribute to the magnificent diplomatic qualities of the British Navy?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. LANSBURY: Would the Lord President of the Council kindly state what is to be the business next week?
Mr. BALDWIN: During next week it is proposed to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy, Army and Air Estimates, respectively, and to consider essential Votes in Committee.
Monday: Navy Estimates, 1932, Votes A, 1, 10 and 2.
Tuesday: Army Estimates, 1932, Votes A, 1, 10, 13, 14 and 15.
Wednesday: Wheat Bill, Committee.
Thursday: Air Estimates, 1932, Votes A, 1, 4, 3 and 8.
The Business for Friday will be announced later, and, if there is time on any day, other Orders will be taken.
To-morrow (Friday), in addition to the Bills already announced—namely, Hire Purchase (Scotland) Bill, Second Reading; and the Veterinary Surgeons (Irish Free State Agreement) Bill [Lords], Second Reading—it is proposed to take the Report stage of Civil Service Excess Votes, 1930; the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [Lords], Second Reading; and the Rating and Valuation Bill, remaining stages.
Sir HUGH O'NEILL: Would it be possible for my right hon. Friend to say
1282
when the Budget is to be introduced, inasmuch as a good many companies have their annual meetings about the month of April, and uncertainty as to the Budget date leads to some difficulty in the preparation of dividend warrants?
Mr. BALDWIN: We are not yet in a position to give my right hon. Friend the information that he desires, but we will give that information as soon as we can, certainly before the House rises for the Easter Recess.
Mr. BUCHANAN: As to the business to-morrow, the right hon. Gentleman has announced that certain additional Measures are to be taken. Does that mean that there is to be any limitation by the Government of the discussion on the first Measure, which relates to Scotland?
Mr. BALDWIN: Oh, no. We were so encouraged by the events of last Friday that we thought we would take every step to get business through to-morrow.
Mr. MANDEB: Is it intended to apply the Guillotine to the Wheat Bill?
Mr. BALDWINWe shall watch what the hon. Member does.

SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolution reported from the Select Committee:
"That, in the case of the London Local Authorities (Superannuation) Temporary Provisions [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: —That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
Resolution agreed to.

DESTRUCTIVE IMPORTED ANIMALS BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 38.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Amendments to—
Merchant Shipping (Safety and Load Line Conventions) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Resolution [29th February] reported.

  SUPPLY.

    CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1932 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
    "That a sum, not exceeding £150,492,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charges for the following Civil and Revenue Departments (including Pensions, Education, Insurance, and other Grants, and Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues) for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933."
    [For details of Vote on Account, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th February, 1932, cols. 791–3.]
    Resolution read a Second time.

    UNEMPLOYMENT.
    Mr. LUNN: I beg to move, to leave out "£150,492,000," and to insert instead thereof "£150,491,900."
    To-day we are to discuss unemployment, not a very new subject in this House. I do not remember a week during the last 10 years when we have not discussed unemployment, because it has been so greatly in our midst, and we have wanted to know from various Governments what they may be doing in regard to it. During the period of the Labour Government the Tory party worried the Government regularly upon the matter, but I do not remember that a practical suggestion was ever made by them to deal with it. Today we are anxious to know from the Government whether they have anything in their minds to provide or to encourage employment for those who are in need of it. We want to know what they are doing now. The figures of unemployment are higher than ever. They are increasing and in certain industries they are appalling. In my own industry, the mining industry, the number of unemployed has increased by 151,000 during the last two years. If we look at an answer given by the President of the Board of Trade yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), as to the reduction of German imports of British coal, I think we may anticipate that the number of miners unemployed in this country will increase during the present year. There are over 400,000
    1296
    building trade operatives out of work. I noticed in the Ministry of Labour Gazette recently published that the figure given of the total of unemployed was 2,573,552 on 21st December, and that it increased by 220,000 to 2,796,676 on 25th January of this year.
    The figures were never so high as they are to-day. In addition, something like 321,000 people have been deprived of any payment by the public assistance committees. Unemployment benefit has been cut down and in thousands of homes to-day people are beginning to feel the pinch of higher prices of the necessities of life, as a result of legislation recently passed.by this Government. Last night we gave a Second Reading to a Bill which h will tax bread and will make the condition of these people infinitely worse. But bad as is the condition of the unemployed, I feel that the provision of work is the most important thing that we can consider. I am concerned more about providing the opportunity of employment, with good wages and under good conditions, than I am about relief of any kind, and so are the unemployed. I ask the Government what they are doing to provide work for those who are in need of it? There are Housing Acts and we know of the insufficiency of good houses and of the number of building operatives who are out of work. Every one of us, particularly those of us who live in our constituencies and are intimate with the people there, know the difficulty which exists to-day of securing proper housing accommodation. There is a Slum Clearance Act. There is the Road Fund—and we know what is being done in connection with the Road Fund. I had a letter the other day from the Minister of Transport in which he said:
    "Up to the present it has been decided to postpone or curtail just over 1,000 schemes. The estimated cost of the deferred work is £30,000,000. The schemes are situated in all parts of the country."
    The Minister of Transport must be having' an easy time. All the work for which preparation has been made seems to have been stopped or to have come to an end; and in view of a letter like that which I have just quoted, the proposal of one Chancellor of the Exchequer after another, for the abolition of the Ministry would seem to be perfectly justified. Then there is the Development (Loan Guarantees) Act, the Colonial Development

    1297
    Act, the Export Credits Scheme and the work of the Unemployment Grants Committee. I propose to deal particularly with the last two and I want to know, in that connection, what the Government are doing and what they propose to do in the provision of work. Local authorities are anxious to carry out schemes and they ought to be given the opportunity of doing so. The Unemployment Grants Committee since its inception has approved of schemes to cost nearly £200,000,000 and have provided work for hundreds of thousands of people. Most of this has been done during the period of the two Labour Governments. I agree that the most generous terms were given to the local authorities for the carrying out of the work. There are water schemes and there are hundreds of localities without supplies of pure water. There are sewerage schemes, road schemes, bridge schemes and drainage schemes. We passed a Measure during the last few years dealing with land drainage. We know the extent to which drainage is needed in this country at present and that drainage schemes would provide work for scores of thousands of men. Public buildings and many other schemes have also been approved by the Unemployment Grants Committee.
    The machinery of the Committee has been fairly good. They have demanded to know every detail of every scheme submitted to them—its cost, its necessity and the amount of work which it will provide. Personally, I do not believe in granting public money for any purpose whatever, except under conditions, and I think that the House should lay down conditions when granting public money for any schemes or on any occasion. The Unemployment Grants Committee have already helped local authorities to improve their areas and to-day there are hundreds of schemes, in the offices of the Committee, and in the pigeon-holes of town halls throughout the country, ready to be put into operation. Architects, surveyors, engineers and accountants have been at work. Is all this preparation to be wasted? If so, it is a form of extravagance of which I do not approve. I think there should be some continuity in these matters which would enable local authorities to get the best out of the skill which they have employed.
    1298
    The work can easily be put in hand because labour is waiting.
    I ask the Government, therefore, whether they are going to set this Committee to work or whether they are going to allow the number of unemployed to go on increasing, and going to allow the men and women who are out of work to continue in idleness, on unemployment benefit, Poor Law relief or the charity of their friends. Are we to understand that the policy of the Government is that described by the Minister of Labour on 17th February. When my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) asked how many schemes had been started by this Government and how many persons were employed on them he did not get an answer. The Minister of Labour gave a sort of history of the Unemployment Grants Committee but did not say what was being done since this Government came into office. He then used these words:
    "Local authorities have been asked, cajoled, bribed and almost forced into these schemes, which are reflected in increased rates. What has been the result? The result is that, in those areas most distressed and which you most want to help, you have a burden of rates which makes it almost impossible for industry to revive in those areas."
    Further, the Minister said:
    "What we are asked to do now is to continue this vicious circle of increased expenditure, increased rates, and increased national expenditure. If we do that, that vicious circle will go on revolving and revolving to the greatest possible detriment of employment."
    He added:
    "This process of spending the money of the ratepayer or the taxpayer for the relief of unemployment not only fulfils no useful purpose, but will add the greatest possible hindrance to trade recovery in every part of the country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1932; cols. 1717–1718, Vol. 261.]
    4.0 p.m.
    I differ from the right hon. Gentleman in those conclusions. If that is the policy of the Government then the Government are hopeless in the matter of providing employment. Yet we are told that it is a Government of all the talents. It is a Government with an unprecedented majority which can do anything it wishes. Only last night we saw the Wheat Bill receive its Second Reading in this House by a majority of 373. I know that these matters with which I am dealing will not cure unemployment, and I am not suggesting that they will

    1299
    do so. But the Liberal party, in their "How to Cure Unemployment," in 1929 said they would, and we have in the Government some of those who said so. Why do they not insist on these things being done to-day? It would save millions of pounds of the taxpayers' money, which is being given now for idleness, and would provide work for those who desire and who need it? We have a Prime Minister who still says he is a Socialist, the Lord Privy Seal and the Dominions Secretary who, upon innumerable occasions, have put forward the Labour policy for dealing with unemployment. They believe, as I do, in work or maintenance. Now that they have this great majority behind them, why do they not carry out the programme, and give men an opportunity to work? It is for the Government to see that those things are done, and I ask, what are the Government doing to-day? We have a right to ask, and we have a right to an answer. Things are getting worse in the country, and what consideration are the Government giving to the question We should like to hear to-day whether or not they can produce anything of a practical nature which is going to encourage and help in the way of employment. I put this to them in a very fair and reasonable manner. I hope that the Minister will say that local authorities are to be encouraged to go ahead with those schemes of work, with assistance from the Unemployment Grants Committee, which are as necessary to-day as they have been at any period since their inception.
    The only other matter that I wish to raise, because I am not a believer in long speeches, and I have said so in the present year, is the Export Credits Scheme. This scheme, which was introduced in 1921, empowers the Board of Trade to give guarantees in connection with the export of British goods. It is also for the purpose of providing employment and opening up new avenues of trade abroad. There is an Export Credits Department to-day, and a Statutory Advisory Committee which makes recommendations, but policy is in the hands of the Government. I do not know that at any period the Statutory Committee ever had a free hand. It was to be temporary, but Government after Government have extended the date of its
    1300
    operation. From 1921 to 1926 the total amount of the guarantees was small comparatively, but in July, 1925, the House set up a Credit Insurance Committee to review the question, and, as a result of its report in 1926, a new scheme was devised which was directed towards exploring the possibility of credit insurance as a permanent feature in export trade. This is the scheme which is now in operation. But, again, it was the Labour Government in 1929 which gave it real life. They extended the scheme to Russia, as they had done in 1924, but the Tory party then destroyed it. Russia is a country with a vast population needing many things which this country could supply—a country which is laying down for itself a good economic foundation, and is building in a way which is going to be the envy of the world. Whoever has been a defaulter it has not been Russia since the inception of the Export Credits Scheme. It is the only country which, in 1931, increased its purchases of British goods.
    I have the figures here of exports of British produce and manufactures to various countries. In 1929, the total export to the Soviet Republics was £3,743,000; in 1930, £6,771,000, and in 1931, £7,121,000—an increase in each year. To Australia, the exports were, in 1929, £54,325,000; in 1930, £31,677,000; and in 1931, £14,553,000. To the United States, the total exports were, in 1929, £45,558,000; in 1930, £28,704,000; and in 1931, £17,101,000. The value of the orders placed by Russian organisations in 1930 totalled £15,400,000, of which £4,000,000 was for machinery and equipment, and in 1931 they took £15,000,000, of which £9,000,000 was for machinery and equipment. Russia is now the largest purchaser of British machine tools and electrical equipment from this country. In 1931, our exports of machine tools totalled £3,656,000, and more than £3,000,000 of that total went to Russia.
    Russia asks—and I agree—that the machinery she gets from abroad shall be provided on credit terms, if they can be given, of from one to three years, according to the type of the article, and in July, 1931, the Labour Government extended the export credit terms to Russia to enable credits up to 30 months for heavy engineering goods, as against the previous period of 12 months, and, as we know, that means larger orders. For the first two quarters in 1931, the orders placed

    1301
    by Russia in this country amounted to £5,166,000, and in the third quarter, £6,560,000; but I hear that there has been a narrowing of the terms under the Export Credits Scheme, which, no doubt, will have its effect, so that we shall not get the Russian orders which we have been getting during the last few months. They will go to foreign countries, and this country needs them very much. From 1st August, 1929, until 30th January, 1932, guarantees have been given by the Export Credits Department in respect of £14,000,000 of British exports to Russia, the Government guaranteeing something like £10,000,000, and of these bills, over £5,200,000 has already run off, and been duly paid by Russia. The premium is from 8 per cent.to 14 per cent., and the Government do not do badly out of this finance. They have actually made a profit of more than £1,000,000.
    If I may mention one organisation in Ibis country that has traded with Russia, the British co-operative movement, it has placed trade with Russia to a total of more than £50,000,000 during the last 10 years, and I have not the least doubt that if there were co-operative Members in this House, which I wish there were, as there were in the last Parliament, the House would hear of the satisfactory result of the trading of the co-operative movement.
    Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: Will the hon. Gentleman say how much was exports from the co-operative societies to Russia, and how much was imports from Russia to this country?
    Mr. LUNN: I could not give the figures from that point of view, I am sorry to say. The Labour Government reduced the insurance premium, and extended the period of insurance. I said that £9,000,000 was for machinery, and that provided work for no fewer than 36,000 people. I say that there has never been sufficient elasticity in this scheme. Many orders are lost because of this narrowness. We ought not to allow, as we are doing, millions of pounds' worth of trade to go elsewhere, when, with a, little foresight and a lengthened period of insurance, we should get that trade for this country, which would provide work for many, many thousands, in the engineering trade particularly, to-day. From July, 1926, to 30th September last, the total contracts entered into and supported
    1302
    by the Export Credits Scheme amounted to £26,066,473. The guarantees given were a total of £18,935,230.
    It is a safe scheme, and it ought to be encouraged and extended. The defaulters since 1921 are few, but among them is certainly, as I said before, not Russia. What we want to know from the Minister is, whether the scheme is working to-day, and under what conditions? Does it apply to contracts for all countries? In the past, many Members of this Government, and, in particular, the President of the Board of Trade, have been supporters of this scheme. I could have used in support of this scheme much stronger words than anything I could say, or am likely to say, if I took them from the speeches of the President of the Board of Trade in previous discussions in this House. We need to-day all the trade we can get, and we would welcome it, so that it would provide work. Are the Government using the Export Credits Scheme, or have they in any way crippled its operations since the General Election? I hope not, because the Government ought not to do anything to hamper trade.
    I want to know whether the Government are following the policy of drift which is mentioned in the quotation I gave from the speech of the Minister of Labour on 17th February? Do the Government understand the changed economic conditions since the War? Do they realise that in many industrial areas in this country, particularly in the North of England, where there is abundance of fuel power, transport and labour, these areas are becoming derelict I believe that a. determined Government would stop the rot, but when they give financial assistance they should insist upon reorganisation and efficiency. Something must be done, or we shall go from bad, to worse. I ask, what is in the mind of the Government to enable the millions who are now out of work to get going t Will the Minister tell the House and the country that they can do nothing, that they have no policy whatever to meet the critical and calamitous situation of industry, and to set to work men and women whose greatest anxiety is that, they should have an opportunity to work and receive good wages as a result I hope that the Minister is going to be more optimistic to-day than when he

    1303
    made his very pessimistic speech on 17th January. There is a great opportunity and a great need. It is because we believe that the opportunity is in the hands of the Government and that if they cared to use it they could provide work for the people under these schemes, and under many other schemes that may be discussed during the Debate to-day, that I move the reduction of the Vote.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member who has just spoken always conciliates opposition, because he is always serious and always sensible. In some respects on this side of the House we agree with him, certainly on one point. He said that instead of having to depend on benefit he would much sooner the men and women of this country could be given work. There is not one Member on this side of the House who does not say "Amen" to that statement. The only thing that surprises us is that on the passage into law of an Act which put duties upon imported commodities the hon. Member should have been found in opposition to that Measure, under which an opportunity will be given to the men and women of this country to obtain employment.
    Mr. LUNN: If the figures of unemployment continue to increase as they have done since the beginning of this year, as a result of the policy of the Government, there will be hardly anyone at work by the end of the year.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Naturally cautious as anybody is who comes from the North of the Tweed, I should be sorry to say "Amen" to such a prophecy as that which the hon. Member has just enunciated. Perhaps he will not think me unduly hostile or censorious if I say that, so far as constructive suggestions are concerned, the speech that he has made is typical of many speeches that we have heard on this subject from the Front Bench opposite. I listened most attentively but I could not find one new idea for dealing with the very urgent and very difficult questions that lie before us. I am sure that there are many hon. Members on this side of the House who, after listening to the speech, just as was the case after listening to the speeches on the Vote of Censure a few days ago, have come to the conclusion that, apparently,
    1304
    the party opposite has not learned one syllable from their misfortunes of last autumn, and that if they were returned to power again they would proceed upon the same measures and the same policy which brought them to disaster and brought the country to the brink of disaster.
    Mr. LAWSON: You do not believe that.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I believe every word that I have said, and, what is more, although I do not belong to the same party as hon. Members opposite, I am sorry that there should be any party in the State which remains so stiff-necked in their sins as the party opposite. The hon. Member called attention to the high figures of unemployment, and in suggesting means of reducing that figure he laid stress on the question of export credits. I will not say that he was not frank or candid, but he was not complete in his remarks in regard to one point, and that is the trade with Russia. He mentioned the growth in our export trade with Russia as a good reason for extending export credits to that country, but he made no mention, or very little mention, of the volume of our import trade from Russia. There should be some little reciprocity in these matters. Any person who takes a business view of the situation must think it somewhat strange that there should be such an urgent need for the extension of credits to a country which is sending to us three times as much in its exports as it is receiving in imports from this country.
    The hon. Member referred to the cooperative societies and praised them for the volume of business they have done with Russia, as if they were an example to the rest of us in regard to facilitating exports to Russia, but I should be very much surprised—I have not the figures and the hon. Member has not—if he does not find, on analysis, that the immense preponderance of the trade which the cooperative societies have done with Russia consists of imports from Russia, and that the volume of their exports to Russia have been comparatively small. I may be subject to correction as regards the actual figures of trade with Russia. I should like to bring the Debate on the question of export credits back to real proportions in connection with the problem of unemployment. I do not wish

    1305
    to disparage the value of the system of export credits. In past years, before the slump, from about 1925 to 1929, the development of export credits was all important. In those times there was a period of expanding international trade. In each year from 1926 to 1929 each successive year broke the record of its predecessor. There was an enormous growth in the volume of international trade, and this country was the only exception. We were the only country throughout the whole of that period whose proportion of the whole volume of trade was decreasing. Therefore, if we had any advantage which we could use, such as the use of our capital with which to give credits, it was perfectly obvious that in such circumstances we should use it as far as that could possibly be done.
    But at the present time if anyone looks at the conditions they must realise that we are now dealing with a depressed and shrunken world. We have a world depression in trade which has reached a quite definite stage. It has reached the second stage, which is as marked as it is dangerous. Nearly every country in the world is trying, deliberately and consciously, to contract its imports. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear !"] I agree. It is a lamentable fact and if it was not so lamentable it would be absurd, because the nations of the world are like cuckoos, each trying to lay their eggs in the other's nest. That being so, it is a, good thing to try and retain all the trade that is possible. As far as export credits schemes are concerned, we might do a little here and there, and this is not the time to neglect even small things. We should, however, be taking a disproportionate view of the situation if we thought that at the present time the use of export credits can make a very great impression on the total volume of unemployment in this country.
    The hon. Member dealt with the question of road-making and other schemes for providing employment. I do not think that he was very successful in his references to export credits, and I am sure that the case is much weaker which he put forward with regard to work schemes, including road making. As I listened to his speech I seemed to hear the echoes of bygone years of speeches made time and again from the benches opposite
    1306
    urging that these schemes should be multiplied and that more and more money should be spent upon them. It is put forward as a recipe to cure all sorts of unemployment. The Labour party, politically, are like a, political Mr. Micawber. They are always thinking that something is going to turn up, that the future is going to be more prosperous than the present. As a result, they are always when they are in office ready to mortgage the future for a very inadequate return in the present, or when they are out of office they are asking the Government in power to do so.
    I would ask the House to examine the work schemes from that point of view. Superficially, road making is an attractive proposition. When you see a road scheme in operation, you see a road being gradually built across country and over the stretch of it you see people employed here and there, and it seems clear that in providing such employment you are giving benefit. It is only when one really analyses the question that the disadvantages appear. I have here a copy of the last issue of the Ministry of Labour Gazette. A mere glance at it shows how extraordinarily inadequate and unsuitable is this palliative of work schemes. It does nothing for all the women who are out of work, who number between 400,000 and 500,000, and when one examines the actual trades that need help most, there may be a few for which road-making is suitable, while there are others for which it is entirely unsuitable. For miners it is suitable.
    Let me take the other trades in which there is perhaps the most unemployment. Take general engineering. A limited number of the men in that industry are suited for work on the roads. The cotton trade and the distributive trades furnish the next greatest number of unemployed. The people engaged in those trades are entirely unsuitable for work on the roads. In many cases if they engaged in it they would be entirely unable to perform it, and would break down under the unaccustomed strain. If they did perform it they would go back to their own trades less competent to do their own work. That is the essential flaw in road-making schemes. These so-called schemes for helping unemployment are never worth the money that is spent upon them. They do more harm than good. When you get people who are engaged on schemes of

    1307
    work for which they are not suitable, obviously, they cannot give their money's worth at it. You also anticipate the future by four or five years. As a result, the schemes are not worth 50 per cent. of the cost at the time. It is due to that fact that the fuure is burdened, and we are to-day suffering for the follies of that kind which have been committed in the past.
    4.30 p.m.
    Take the question of taxation. Last autumn the country and the House were startled at the new taxation which was imposed and the drastic economies that were enforced. I wonder how many people realise the degree to which these things are made necessary and inevitable by the mistaken idea in the past that you can cure unemployment by these schemes. Let me give an instance. I take the expenditure on schemes sanctioned by the St. Davids Committee in the current year. The amount of taxation this year which is necessary in order to pay the interest on those schemes would be enough to cover twice over the whole of the savings under the Anomalies Act, which the Clydeside Members dislike so much. Take the expenditure on road schemes. I do not mean road schemes undertaken in the ordinary course of business, because they are needed, but road schemes accelerated in order to provide employment. This House last year imposed with great reluctance cuts on persons in State employ. I wonder how many of us realise —I did not until I got the figures out—that the amount of money we have to pay in taxation this year for accelerating road schemes owing to unemployment would cover the whole of the cuts both on education and teachers and on national health. That is the price which has to be paid in future years for something the whole value of which, such as it ever was, has long vanished and gone.
    That is why I would ask the House not to put too much trust in these appeals for fresh road development. It is not that one does not sympathise with the unemployed or wish to give them work; it is that the House has to decide what in the long run is the best way of dealing with the question. We have to look at the side of taxation and of economies, as well as at what is so easy to understand when one sees a stretch of road being built and people being given
    1308
    a temporary job on it. I do not want to show a bad example by taking up the-time of the House, but, if I am asked, as I might well be, to make a constructive suggestion, I will do my best. Cannot the House and individual Members in it do a great deal more to keep the wheels of ordinary industry moving, in, order that workers may be employed at their own jobs making things which people really want? I want to suggest also that those who employ them should have a little confidence in carrying on and extending their business.
    If I were asked how this can be done, I would say that we can in these hard times and under present conditions help by correcting some of the absurd ideas that are current about economy. I am not referring to Government economy, for I am convinced that the need for drastic Government economy is still urgent for the reasons that we all know, namely, that if we are not economical we shall have to impose other taxes and cuts to meet the excess, or else credit and currency will have to go. I would ask hon. Members to consider whether there is not a widespread but mistaken idea that, if strict economy and retrenchment is essential in public expenditure, private individuals must necessarily economise in the same way. We constantly find many people suspending their perfectly normal activities. We find, for example, city corporations suspending their annual dinners, and companies putting off some renewal or some improvement. We find some individuals postponing repairs to houses or the painting of woodwork or personal expenditure. The notion has become prevalent that, just because it is right for the Government to economise, every individual should do the same. Some economies, of course, are enforced; the tax gatherer sees to that. People have not the money to spend which they had before, for they are burdened with taxation. They are paying it quite manfully; they are like Issachar's donkey "crouching down between two burdens" —the burden of taxation on the one hand, and the burden of cuts on the other. If I were a person who believed that this country had its origin in the lost Ten Tribes, I think I could say from what particular tribe it descended. The tax gatherer is responsible, no doubt, for many economies, but, subject to that, we are making an extraordinary mistake

    1309
    if we think that we ought to economise as much as we can although we have money to spend. If the idea, is carried further, it will simply mean that the tide of trade, which is sluggish now, will stop altogether.
    My own belief is that the Empire Marketing Board make a great mistake in not covering practically one-half of its whole field of missionary enterprise. In its campaign to "Buy British," it has not emphasised "buying" enough. We want to buy British, and not merely refrain from buying articles of foreign manufacture. We want wise spending on the part of the people, first and foremost by companies or individuals on new equipment or on any other reproductive expenditure; and, second, on articles of permanent value, whether it be in connection with the repairing of property or it be the purchase of furniture. It is better that the ordinary individual should still go on purchasing some of the comforts of life to which he is accustomed, so far as the tax gatherer lets him, than not to spend at all. If the Government could ask the Empire Marketing Board to add that side to its campaign, they would be doing much more to help British industry in a difficult time and to keep it going until the recovery comes than they would by responding to the appeals for expenditure on public works which we have heard from the hon. Member and his associates on the other side.
    Mr. DINGLE FOOT: The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken is more optimistic in dealing with this question than hon. Members on these benches, because we cannot feel quite so sanguine as to the results of the legislation which the House has passed and is passing. Those of us who sit on these benches and represent great industrial constituencies are, in a time like this, more concerned even than hon. Members sitting on other benches with the effect on the unemployed in industrial centres of legislation during the last six months. I represent a constituency where the number of unemployed is something like one in five of the adult population, and where over 17,000 cases have already been dealt with by the public assistance committee.
    There is no doubt that the introduction of the means test, coupled with the cut in the rate of unemployment benefit, has raised certain acute questions con-
    1310
    corning the state of the unemployed. A great deal of the resentment that exists among those who have come under the means test is due to the fact that, in spite of the efforts that have been made by the Ministry of Labour, there is still no clear distinction between those who have come on to transitional payments and those who come under the Poor Law. I know that the Ministry have advised the public assistance committees or the local bodies concerned that applicants for transitional payment are not to be interviewed in Poor Law institutions, but that is not enough. The trouble with transitional payments is that they are anchored to the Poor Law scale.
    We have three classes of unemployed—those who are drawing unemployment benefit in the ordinary way, those who have come on to transitional payments and to whom the means test applies, and those who come under the Poor Law, I suggest to the Minister that it might be possible in certain respects to draw a clearer distinction between the second, class and the third, because the paying of transitional payments is chained to the local Poor Law scale. This means that there must be great discrepancies between one area and another, for the Poor Law scale differs from place to place. You may get a situation in which in one district a certain personal allowance is made under the means test for a member of a family who is in work and drawing a wage, and the balance of whose wages goes into the general pool for the maintenance of his family; and in which, only a few miles away, you have a different Poor Law scale, under which the personal allowance which is made for a member of the family in work is quite different. We have such a situation on the two sides of the Tay. The scale in Fife is different from the scale in Dundee. This means that a family on one side of the river is drawing a certain amount of transitional benefit under the means test, and that a family in precisely similar circumstances on the other side of the river is drawing a different amount. Those who are receiving the less generous treatment have a real gievance.
    There is another fact which has been mentioned in previous Debates and which has been mentioned to me by many of those engaged in the work of public assistance in my constituency. It is the

    1311
    effect of the application of the means test in breaking up the family. A young man who is anxious to get married may have been putting by a little money from time to time. Then the means test intervenes, and he has to give the money which he was saving towards the support of his father and mother, and a number of cases have been brought to my notice in which young men in such circumstances are leaving home and going to live away from their families.
    When the means test was first introduced the Government budgeted for a saving in the neighbourhood of £10,000,000. I would like the Minister to tell us whether he expects that saving to be realised, or whether it is not probable that there will be a very much greater saving as a result of the means test. In Dundee, where we have a perfectly humane public assistance committee, anxious to give sympathetic consideration wherever it is possible, the experience has been that on the 17,000 cases with which they have had to deal up to now they have already saved something over £8,000 a week, and they estimate that their annual saving as a result of this test is likely to be well over £300,000. If that were typical, if those figures applied to, say, a million cases all over the country, it would mean that the saving effected by this means test, that is to say, the money taken from this class to meet the national emergency, would be not merely £10,000,000, but very much nearer £20,000,000. I can only imagine that our experience in Dundee is not typical, but I would like the Minister to deal with that point.
    Not merely has the case of those who are on transitional payments to be considered; those of us who are concerned with conditions in the industrial centres cannot help feeling very great concern at the cumulative effect of the various measures which have been taken as affecting the unemployed. Not only have we the means test and the Anomalies Act and the reduction in the rate of unemployment benefit, which affect the state of the unemployed at the present time, but there is also the question of what will be the state of the unemployed after they have gone through another six months under conditions that may very possibly become worse. Although we may differ over the extent to which
    1312
    the Wheat Quota Bill and the Import Duties Bill may cause a rise in the cost of living, I think most hon. Members will agree that they must cause some rise in the cost of living, even though to most of us it may appear to be a, very slight one. I will read a resolution passed a few weeks ago by the Dundee Public Assistance Committee after they had dealt with some 10,000 cases. It indicates the feelings, not of a Socialist body, but of a body of ordinary citizens who for several weeks have spent many 'hours in dealing with this problem. The resolution reads:
    "This public assistance committee, while recognising that a means test is necessary to prevent abuses of unemployment benefit, are of opinion that the basic scale of transitional benefit has brought the recipients below the subsistence level. This public assistance committee therefore respectfully request His Majesty's Government to make such modifications as may be deemed meet and necessary."
    I would also like to quote an opinion given to me by the convener of the Public Assistance Committee in Dundee. He is not a Socialist. During the election he was a strong supporter of the National Government. He has had to spend many hours, in some cases 30 to 40 hours a week, in dealing with the cases which have come before the public assistance committee, and this is the opinion which he sends to me:
    "My considered judgment as convener of public assistance in a great industrial constituency is as follows: The reduction of the dole from 26s. for two to 23s. 3d. is a tragedy. From a hare subsistence level thousands of our countrymen are now at their wits' end to keep the house going, and are definitely in the poverty stream. With 26s. the house could be kept going barely. There is not a halfpenny over for clothing, hoots, replenishments, etc., with 23s. 3d. The means test has been effective in cutting out masses who have not been requiring extra money and who were battening on the State, and the saving over the country must be enormous; but in the case of decent workers, idle through no fault of their own, it is a scandal that recipients of Poor Law relief are sometimes in a better position than they."
    That is the opinion of one who has had to spend several months dealing with this question. This is a matter of the very greatest concern in industrial areas, in view of the cumulative effect of the cut in the rate of benefit, the means test, and the probable rise in prices. Though it is not in order to raise the question of policy in this De-

    1313
    bate I think it will be agreed in all parts of the House, and certainly on these benches from which I speak, that equality of sacrifice should be followed by equality of relief.
    Mr. CONANT: In rising to address the House for the first time, I must ask for that indulgence which it so kindly grants to those in my position. It is because those whom I represent have been so very hard hit by unemployment for the past few years that I feel impelled to take part in a discussion of some of the methods which have been employed to alleviate the distress of unemployment. I think relief schemes have received a very fair trial in this country. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour intimated the other day that no less a sum than £700,000,000 had been expended on relief schemes since 1924. The late Labour Government adopted this policy as their main contribution towards a solution of the unemployment problem, and although they were not able to satisfy entirely the voracious appetite of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) or, indeed, of all their own supporters, yet they were successful in spending a very large sum of money; and I cannot help feeling that a study of the meagre results of that expenditure must lead one to wonder whether a continuance of such an extensive policy of relief works is really in the best interests of the unemployed.
    It would seem that one of the main difficulties with which one is faced in dealing with this problem is the impossibility of gauging accurately the effect of relief schemes upon employment. One can talk vaguely about man-months and man-years, and say that a certain number of men have received employment for a certain limited time, but, whatever figure one arrives at, there can be no doubt that the numbers of those who have obtained employment on relief schemes are a very small proportion of the total of the unemployed. The main question in the consideration of a scheme must be whether it, is increasing production and is leading to the sale of more British goods in foreign markets. I suggest that the majority of schemes in the past two years would not emerge favourably from such a test. No doubt some schemes have been useful from the point of view of productive industry, and
    1314
    have provided employment, but they are a small minority of the enormous number upon which we have embarked.
    Relief schemes must be of a temporary nature. I believe that the happiness of the working class home depends far more upon the consistency and the permanence of the weekly income than upon its size. The unemployed man who obtains temporary work on a relief scheme may receive increased remuneration, but during the whole time he is receiving that increased remuneration, and from the very fact of his doing so, his chances of obtaining permanent work are being reduced. There is a belief prevalent in the minds of some hon. Members that the savings of the men and women in this country, the capital resources of the nation, are capable of providing a greater volume of employment if they are passed through the magic portals of a Government Department or through the offices of some local authority. I believe that idea to be a fallacy.
    The capital of the nation can provide far more employment, and more permanent employment, if it is left in the hands of those through whose industry it has been accumulated. f know several instances in the last few years of men endeavouring to collect capital to start industrial enterprises who have been unable to do so because that capital was being employed on road schemes from Land's End to John o'Groats. I believe that future generations will look at many of our relief schemes in the same light as we regard the Pyramids or Stonehenge, as works of archaeological interest, no doubt, works which have provided considerable employment in their day, but which cannot be held to have increased materially the wealth of the world or the wealth of this nation. Now that there is a possibility of a trade revival and, as I believe, the probability of such a revival owing to tariffs, our capital resources must be maintained, and I am glad to think the Government will frame their future policy in the light of their experiences in the past and will not follow in the regrettable paths trodden by the late Labour Government.
    5.0 p.m.
    Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: It is my privilege first of all to offer the congratulations which I am sure the House

    1315
    will desire to offer to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Conant) upon his first speech here. Although I cannot pretend that I agree with all the propositions he has put forward, I certainly welcome his joining in the Debate, and I am sure the House will look forward to the next occasion when he can assist us in our deliberations. I want to say a few words on one particular point, and that is the question of export credits to Russia. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) has put forward a rather extraordinary proposition. The right hon. Gentleman said that when trade was fairly busy during the years 1925 and 1929, export credits were very useful, and were used rather extensively, and that during the last two years export credits were of less importance. I should have thought that exactly the opposite was the case.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman has no wish to misrepresent me. What I said was that at the present time I have never under-estimated the value of export credits. I agree that export credits in the past have been very useful, but I said that if anyone thought they would be of much assistance in making a large impression on the figures of unemployment, he would be mistaken.
    Sir S. CR I PPS: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to mean that export credits were less useful now than in former years.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Less aggregate effect.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I join issue with that proposition. My view is that the greater the scramble for international trade, the more necessary it is to equip our manufacturers with export credits, in order that they may preserve their share of trade. Nobody supposes that the unemployment problem will be solved by export credits, but, at any rate, those credits are an important factor in the export trade of this country. It is important to consider the amount of business done upon export credits in the past. I understand the position is that up to the autumn in 1930, when the late Government extended the period of credits to 30 months, those credits had been practi-
    1316
    cally limited to a year or a little over. When the present Government came into power, they were limited to 12 months, and no discrimination is being shown in the case of any country.
    I suggest that the rigid period of 12 months, in view of the longer credits given by other countries, is one which this country cannot afford to perpetuate. Take the case of Germany, where credits for exports to Russia vary from two to four years. In the case of heavy machinery, four years' credit is given by Germany and two years for light equipment, the State, the local governments, and local authorities guaranteeing between 60 and 70 per cent. of the credits. I know that in Austria for a single order amounting to 100,000 dollars they allow two years, and for larger orders four years' credit is allowed repayable by quarterly instalments starting 27 months after delivery. In Italy, periods varying from nine to 52 months are allowed, according to the importance which the orders bear to Italian trade. Some of the credits allowed by the United States have extended to five years in special cases, and those are countries with whom we are, to a great extent, in competiton for orders from the Soviet Republics. I suggest that it is unwise to tie ourselves down to a rigid limit as regards the term of the credits, more especially when we are dealing with different articles from different countries. It is necessary to adjust credits when dealing with particular cases, and if we do not do that, there is a serious danger that our traders will lose export business to Russia.
    It is now more important than ever to export more goods to Russia in order to correct the adverse balance of our trade with Russia. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth said that although he had not got the latest figures, he thought that the figures he had given were right when he stated that the imports from Russia were at least three times as much as our exports to Russia. In 1931, the position was that we imported just over £32,000,000 worth of goods, of which £3,500,000 was reexported. We exported to Russia in prime exports just over £7,000,000 and we re-exported exports from other countries about £2,000,000. Ships were purchased in this country to the amount

    1317
    of £350,000. The payments for British tonnage and transport amounted to £2,250,000, and credits, commissions and salaries, etc., £4,800,000.
    Major CO LV I LLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give the source of his information?
    Sir S. CR I PPS: It comes from the Russian trading organisations. I believe that the figures which have been given to me are accurate, and they have been audited by English auditors. In these circumstances, I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will find that they are substantially accurate.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The figures which the hon. and learned Gentleman has given do not show that my figures were wrong, although I gave them from memory.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: Before we can arrive at an accurate balance, we must take into account visible and invisible exports. Salaries, etc., are invisible exports which are counted in the ordinary trade balance of this country. If we add up all those items, they come roughly to about £16,500,000 for visible and invisible exports. The imports, leaving out reexports, amount to £28,680,000, and that leaves an adverse balance of just over 212,000,000. I do not think it matters much what is the amount of the adverse balance. The point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tam-worth is that there is an adverse balance of trade. I agree that there has been, in the last year, and over a series of years, an adverse balance, and that makes it all the more necessary to export as much as we can to Russia in order to rectify that balance, and do everything we can to stimulate that trade. As a result of the arrangements made by the Labour Government for extending the period of credits to Russia, there was an order placed in this country for machine tools, and articles of that kind, amounting to the sum of £6,000,000. Last year SO per cent. of the total exports of the tool making industry went to Russia, and it was owing to the extension of credits that the order to which I have alluded was obtained.
    1318
    As far as I know, that extension of credit was intended to be carried on for the purposes of other orders. The particular matter which makes me anxious at the present time is that I know of one large order of £2,000,000 for steel which is hanging in the balance, and that order will be determined by the amount of credit available. We ought not to stick to the rigid rule that in no circumstances will we give more than 12 months' credit when Germany is offering credit for periods extending to two and even four years, and Italy, Austria and the United States are offering similar terms. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth that export credits will not solve the unemployment problem, but it was estimated that the order to which I have alluded would have given employment to 12,000 people.
    Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: I do not question any statement so far as it has been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, but may I point out that a statement such as he has made that the Russian Government obtains longer or larger credits from Germany, Austria and America usually comes from a Russian source. I would like to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman if he has tested the accuracy of the information. When I was at the Department of Overseas Trade I tested similar assertions, and we were given to understand that it was a method of playing off one country against another, and was simply bluff. It may be that the hon. and learned Gentleman has got reliable confirmation otherwise I should advise him to test that information, and receive such statements with very great caution.
    Sir S. CR I PPS: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel) is aware that there is a provision in the case of Germany which lays down the amount of credits available for light machinery and light tools and heavy machinery, and it can easily be ascertained whether all that has been used up. I am informed that it has not, and therefore it is still available. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to test my figures, he can easily do so.
    Sir A. M. SAMUEL: If the hon. and learned Gentleman has not tested the information which he has given to the House, I think he ought to accept those offers of credit to Russia with very great caution.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I am not in a position to give the name of the firm interested in the order to which I have alluded, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman the Member for Farnham that the information I have given comes from an authentic source, and the order has been negotiated by a firm of eminent gentlemen in the City. I merely give that case as an illustration, but nobody can get behind the fact that the export credits arrangements, as laid down by law in Germany, Austria and Italy, allow credits up to periods ranging between two and four years, while this country lays down a rigid limit of 12 months. It is obvious that, in those circumstances, we are unduly handicapping ourselves.
    I am not suggesting that in this or that particular area a longer credit should be given, but if we are anxious to do more export business in steel—everybody knows the enormous quantity of steel goods which are being imported into Russia from other countries—we should not put ourselves out of court by having a rigid term of credits which makes it impossible for us to compete with other countries. I ask the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade to take this matter in hand and see whether it is not possible to relax the rigid term of 12 months as regards the Export Credits Scheme in order to place ourselves in a better position to compete with other countries which are allowing Russia much longer periods of credit. Competition is becoming keener than ever it was before, and this fact makes it more necessary than ever to have a flexible system for our export trade, and not a rigid one.
    Sir A. M. SAMUEL: I cannot let the observations which have fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman pass without comment. He speaks, if I may be allowed to say without intending any discourtesy, with an utter ignorance of manufacturing business when he talks about credit for two years. I had to earn my living in business, and, if I may be allowed to speak from personal experience, I will tell the House what I think on the request for giving credit for two years. It is that anyone who needs credit for two years is not worth dealing with. The export manufacturing business of this country and of every other country has been built up on the
    1320
    giving of credit principally by three months' bills, or six months' bills at the outside. As for a period of two years, that is not credit, but finance—it is obtaining capital. I scarcely think that any average firm in Britain doing business with firms in other countries would attempt to do business where two years' credit was asked for. Those countries or customers who require two years' credit for the building of bridges, for locomotives or for railway material or engineering goods, all of which we are very willing to supply, obtain the necessary capital by going into the market and getting the finance or issuing houses to float notes or long or short-dated loans, and it rests entirely with Russia to put herself in that position. Why cannot Russia obtain capital by loan? Dr. Johnson has given the answer by saying, "Depend upon it, Sir, no man is writ down save by himself." Russia has herself wrecked her own credit. She has only to rehabilitate her own credit to show that she is honest, that she recognises her old debts and that she intends to play the game as other countries do, and she has the capital markets of the world open to her.
    An hon. Member has spoken of Russia having to pay 8 or 10 per cent. for the guarantee of her credit; just so, the Russian people have wrecked their own credit, and they have to pay for their repudiation. If they wish for two years' credit, or for cheaper guarantees on bills of 90 days or 180 days, they have the remedy in their own hands; all that they have to do is to act like honest men. Then they will not need to beg for their two years' credit. When they want locomotives, railway equipment, machine tools and so on, they will be able to float a loan as well as anybody else. I hope that the Minister for Overseas Trade will point out that this demand for two years' credit is not really for credit, but for finance, for capital, and I hope he will not, to use the words of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), relax the rigid terms which are now imposed on certain transactions under the Export Credits Scheme. Those rigid terms are necessary. We have lost a great deal too much money of recent years by lending credit overseas—
    Sir S. CRIPPS: Will the hon. Baronet kindly tell me how much money we have lost in granting credits to Soviet Russia? Not a penny.
    Sir A. M. SAMUEL: No, we have not lost anything, because we have taken the greatest care not to give them an opportunity of defaulting. But the hon. and learned Gentleman must not forget that a large number of pre-War loans to Russia were issued in Britain, not for purposes of war, not for purposes of aggression, but for the purposes of bridges, canals, tramways, municipal housing and water supplies, electric light, slaughterhouses, and so on, all before the War, and on every one of those loans, so far as they are held in Britain, there has been a default and repudiation and British savings have been lost to the amount, as was stated by the present Prime Minister, of £255,000,000.
    Mr. McENTEE.: So has France.
    Sir A. M. SAMUEL: As to France I do not know, and I will not make any invidious distinctions. We have lost a great deal of money abroad, and we cannot afford to lose any more. The reason for these rigid terms in export credits is that we do not dare to risk more losses abroad. Nearly every State in South America, with the exception, I think, of Colombia and Argentina, is in default on their overseas loans raised in this country. We have £1,000,000,000 at stake in South and Central America, and if we carry on an export trade, whether it be with Russia or with any other country, whether we lend money by way of export credits or by way of loans, if we lose that money eventually, we might just as well have exported the goods and given them away without taking the trouble of going through the operations of issuing loans or giving guarantees in connection with export credits. We have to be very careful. I quite agree that we require every pound's worth of export trade that we can get, but at the same time, as used to be said in my old trade, when you are dealing with slippery people, it is better sometimes to cry over unsold goods in your warehouse than to cry afterwards when you have parted with them and lost your money.
    Major COLVILLE: It may be convenient if, at this point, I deal with the questions which have been raised relat-
    1322
    ing to export credits, leaving the other matters raised in the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman to be dealt with later. As there must be Members of the House who are not familiar with the working of the scheme, I shall have to go over some of the details of the Export Credits Scheme, and give a little history in order to bring the position down to date. The Overseas Trade Acts, 19201930, authorised the Board of Trade, with the consent of the Treasury and after consultation with an Advisory Committee composed of bankers and business men, to give guarantees in connection with the export of goods wholly or partly produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom. These guarantees do not extend to munitions of war. I say that in order that some points which have arisen at Question Time may be made plain. The Acts provide that the aggregate amount outstanding at any time shall not exceed £26,000,000. The House should note that the scheme exists, not for the benefit of Russia, as some people seem to imagine, or for the benefit of other foreign purchasers, but entirely for the benefit of United Kingdom exporters.
    In 1929, the then Government decided that, as from the 1st August of that year, the Advisory Committee should be free to consider applications in connection with transactions with Russia. It was left to the discretion of the Advisory Committee to determine the conditions on which the guarantees should be given, in the same way in which it has been left to their discretion by successive Governments to determine the conditions on which guarantees should be given in the case of other countries. In point of fact, no guarantee has ever been given except on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee.
    I want to explain the position of the Advisory Committee in regard to the scheme. As far as Russia was concerned, the Committee extended gradually the period of credit covered by the Department's guarantees, until at the beginning of last summer the maximum period of credit that they were prepared to recommend in suitable cases reached 24 months from the placing of the order. I should explain that the maximum period was not given as a matter of course, but only when in the opinion of the Committee the circumstances of each transaction justified it. I should also explain that at the same time the periods

    1323
    of credit covered by the export credits schemes of other countries, notably Germany, had also been considerably extended. That brings me to the point which was raised about there having been a marked change at the present time.
    It is betraying no secret to say that the Advisory Committee were extremely reluctant to agree to any further extension of credit, because their experience suggested that the Russians were, naturally, trying to play one country off against another in the matter of the length of credit, and that sometimes concessions were used, not for the purpose of placing orders in this country, but for the purpose of obtaining further concessions or longer credit from other countries. Following on certain negotiations which took place last summer, it was agreed that the maximum period of credit for the heavy engineering industries should be extended to 30 months from the date of the order. The Soviet authorities on their part undertook to place orders for £6,000,000 worth of heavy engineering products. That brings me to the end of last summer and the financial crisis which took place in August.
    This programme of orders was in process of execution when the financial crisis of last August occurred. The crisis, naturally, made it necessary to review the question of export credits as a matter of general policy in connection with the question of the ability of this country and the Government to give credit, and it was decided by the late National Government to restrict guarantees for all countries to 12 months. I now want to make clear a point on which I think there has been doubt in the minds of hon. Members. While the Government found nothing in the nature of a legal obligation to give guarantees up to the figure of £6,000,000 which I have already mentioned in connection with heavy engineering contracts, they were anxious that no question of a breach of faith should arise, and they agreed that the new limitation to 12 months which they had imposed should not take effect until the £6,000,000 programme had been exhausted and the relative guarantees given. The £6,000,000 programme has now been exhausted, and, after careful consideration of the position, the Government have decided, in the interests of trade and industry, that the Department's Advisory Committee should
    1324
    again be free, as in the past, to consider proposals involving credits of more than 12 months.
    On commercial and financial grounds, however, the Advisory Committee are not prepared to recommend guarantees for further credits to Russia for more than 12 months without attaching conditions more stringent than in the past. The House will understand that, in adopting this attitude towards credits for Russia, the Exports Credits Committee are following their normal procedure, which they apply to all credits for all countries. Everyone who is acquainted with the machinery of financing exports will realise that, especially in these days of unusual difficulty, no body of prudent men would grant credits of important amounts, and least of all credits of a certain duration, without the closest examination and without imposing conditions. Those conditions must vary from case to case and from country to country according to the nature of the case.
    In view of the financial upheaval of the last six months, it is not surprising that the Committees should feel that some reconsideration is necessary of the conditions on which guarantee generally are given. In the case of Russian business, it is perhaps the more necessary in view of the fact that, in their endeavours to help industry last year, they treated exports to Russia more, and not less, favourably than exports to other countries. Present credit conditions are very different from those of last summer—a point which should be generally recognised—and the Advisory Committee have modified their policy accordingly. They have communicated with the Soviet representatives, but perhaps the House will not ask me to say more at the present time. T can, however, say this, that in their intention to impose more stringent conditions on guarantees of credit beyond one year in the case of Russia, the Committee have the full support of the Government. I want it to be perfectly plain that there is no divergence of opinion, but that the Committee are acting with the full support and authority of the Government in declaring their intention to impose more stringent conditions if credits are to be extended beyond one year.
    Mr. JOHN WALLACE: Could the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us what those conditions are?
    5.30 p.m.
    Major COLVILLE: As I said a moment ago, I would ask the House not to press for a statement on that point. Negotiations are being carried on, and obviously it is wise that the negotiators should be left with power to discuss the matter.
    The conditions are such as are believed to be justified in the circumstances. The next step lies with the Soviet authorities. I should like to take this opportunity of acknowledging publicly the debt that the Government owe, in common with their predecessors, to the Advisory Committee. They are a body of men who have other heavy responsibilities. They have guided the Export Credits Guarantee Department through a period of exceptional difficulty. One can measure the successful nature of their guidance by the fact that, while the Department has now guaranteed some £32,000,000 of exports, it has not cost the taxpayers any money at all. More than half of that was not Russian business. In fact a steady and regular use is being made of the Department at present.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: How much have the actual losses been in the case of other countries than Russia?
    Major COLVILLE: There is no actual loss at all. It is amply covered by the receipts. A steady and regular use of the Department is going on and there has been a considerable increase in business outside Russian business in the last few months.
    That leads me to say something on the general position of our trade with Russia. Trade between the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union has shown a very unsatisfactory position. Over the last five years imports from the Soviet Union totalled £135,500,000, whilst exports of United Kingdom goods to the Soviet Union in the same period amounted to only £25,000,000. The goods purchased from Russia were on ordinary cash terms. The goods sold to Russia were almost all sold on credit. The visible adverse balance of direct trade between the two countries amounted in five years to £110,000,000. Even if re-exports are taken into account, the adverse balance is as high Its £94,000,000. It may be
    1326
    proper to take into account invisible exports, such as freights and insurances, but that must be reckoned both ways, and the hon. Gentleman did not reckon it both ways. He spoke of the money spent in this country by the Russian trade delegation, but he did not mention money spent in Russia on the other side, which is quite a considerable sum. The figure that he threw out as having been spent here by the Russian trading delegation is a very large figure and one which it would be very hard to find details for. However, even taking into full account the highest figure that has ever yet been set on it, there is an immense balance in favour of the Soviet Union. It has been suggested that, if the trade between the Soviet Union and the British Empire as a whole is reckoned, the balance would be wiped out. I have looked into this, and the figures of the Dominions do not agree with the figures that I have seen that support the argument. In any case, I do not think they are relevant. We must consider here the trade between this country and the Soviet Union as the unit to reckon on.
    May I also point out that this adverse balance continues 7 There has been an increase in exports to Russia in the last few years, but there has also been an increase in imports from that country, so the balance has not been improved. The most striking fact is that our imports from Russia have increased rapidly. In 1927, exports were £4,500,000 and imports £21,000,000, giving a visible adverse balance of £16,500,000. In 1931 the corresponding figures were, exports £7,100,000 and imports £32,000,000, leaving a visible adverse balance of £25,000,000, so that, although the amount of exports has increased, we have still a very unsatisfactory balance. The question of the adverse balance of our trade with a number of countries is engaging the close attention of the Government, and it is also engaging the closest attention of the foreign countries, because, owing to the change-over in this country to a Protectionist policy—I say it in no unfriendly spirit—foreign countries are coming to realise the immense value that the British market has been to them in the past and they are anxious to demonstrate their friendliness by increasing their purchases from us. Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman doubts that, there were two and a-half

    1327
    times as many foreign buyers at the British Industries Fair than there were last year. There is this difference between the Soviet Union and any other country. While the Government of any other foreign country may be anxious to improve the balance of trade between itself and Great Britain, purchases in that country are done by individual traders and the Government cannot accept full responsibility for the state of affairs. In the case of our trade with the Soviet Union, we are dealing with one purchasing agent who makes all the purchases for that country and they take full responsibility for what they purchase. Therefore, in putting it to them that the situation is unsatisfactory, we are putting it to the people who have the power to correct that position.
    His Majesty's Government are not at all satisfied with the position. They are in communication with the Soviet Government and they have left the Soviet authorities in no doubt as to their views on the subject. What we have said to them may serve as a useful background for such a discussion. I have made it plain that we consider that more stringent conditions are necessary if we are going to trade on an extended credit basis, that these conditions have been put forward, that over a period of five years there is an enormous balance with Russia in respect of her trading with this country and that it is our desire to improve on the trade position with Russia, but it must be on businesslike terms. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of credits that were being given by other countries. It is one thing for the law to say what the limit may be, but that does not prove that the actual credit is being given. The German Government has publicly announced that it will not give any more guarantees for credits to Russia at present, and my information is that such guarantees are not being given. I know that some other Government and private guarantees have been given, but I think this stands out, that the financial policy that is being pursued by the National Government at present is improving and strengthening the position of this country, and confidence is returning. The part that the Export Credits Guarantee Department have to play in
    1328
    that policy may be a relatively small one, but it is important because, if we are going to use the guarantee of His Majesty's Government to help the sale of British articles abroad, they must only use that guarantee on sound and businesslike lines.
    Major HILLS: I believe the House generally will welcome the important speech that we have just heard. I, who have taken a deep interest in export credits, congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend. I believe he has laid down the lines on which this business should be conducted. May I go back and tell the House the origin of the present scheme. In 1925 I presided over a very distinguished committee which elaborated the present scheme of export credits and worked on the principle that, if the State guaranteed the export of manufactures, it should not be expected to profit on the guarantee, but also it ought not to incur a. loss. On that basis the system of export credits has been run. All the world has followed us. We were the pioneers in the guarantee of credit by the State, the guarantee of that very difficult and intangible thing, the credit of s man who buys your goods and who will pay at some future time. On the whole the terms that we give are more liberal than in the case of any other nation. I quite agree with the Minister on that. If you want to help the heavy industries, the engineering and steel trades, you are obliged to give fairly long terms of credit, for the importer expects to pay back part of the cost out, of the profits earned by the machinery or locomotives or whatever it may be. In the old days the heavy engineering firms sold to their foreign customers at 18 months, two years or 2½ years credit. They took bills from those firms and locked them up in their strong boxes and did not bother about the cash until the time came to collect it. Unfortunately those spacious days have long gone by and now the need for finance is greater, both on the part of the exporter and also on the part of the buyer. In order to guarantee a class of transaction which was rather outside the ordinary banking transaction, the export credit system was started.
    This brings me to the case of Russia. I served on the Export Committee and I was on the Export Committee in 1929. I am revealing no secret when I tell the right hon. Gentleman of the grave anxiety

    1329
    that we felt about extending the credit beyond 12 months. As a matter of fact, a 12 months' credit really means a credit of 18 months, because you do not collect it inside the 12 months. The difficulties which exist in Russia are very great. In the first place, you have a single buyer, the Government, as has been said already, and no law court in which you can sue the debtor. If he does not choose to pay, you cannot get your money. Perhaps unconsciously there is a feeling that, as a large amount of British money has been invested in Russia and at present is lost, any extension beyond 12 months is a very serious undertaking. If you are going to lose the country's money, you had far better leave the whole business alone. It is no good selling products without payment. We have to see that no money is lost, and to exercise reasonable precautions to secure that end.
    I have always pleaded in this House for trading with Russia whenever we can. I want to export as much as possible. I think that in slump time you should extend rather than retract. In times like these, little things are important. I do not in the least contend that a very large amount of unemployment will be prevented by export credits, but they will do something. Since the scheme of the Committee of 1925 was adopted, no money has been lost. At all events, I think that that is the case. Since you can keep people in work and keep machinery going even to a small extent by export credits, I feel sure that the House would agree that the system ought to be maintained. Since we have valuable trading opportunity with Russia, and since we can extend the possibilities of Russia buying our goods if she observes the conditions which my hon. Friend has indicated, I think that the Government are entirely right in what they are doing. I believe that in the end they will do more good to British trade by coming to a proper bargain with the Soviet Union than by a mere extension without reciprocity of the terms upon which we grant credits. I am certain that that is the real policy. I believe that the Government have followed a course which will be approved in all parts of the House. I confess that I was rather alarmed when I read that all credits were to be cut down to 12 months because of the restrictions of trade, but I understand now that that is to be qualified, and I believe that the
    1330
    Government have come to a right decision.
    Mr. PATRICK: This is the first occasion upon which I have had the honour to address the House, and in asking for its indulgence I will not take up much of the time of the House. I wish to touch only very shortly upon the question of Russian trade, because it so happens that perhaps I am the only Member in this House who has lived in Soviet Russia, and possibly I can make a few points upon the question as viewed from the other end, so to speak. I do not mean to say viewed through Russian eyes, but through the eyes of an Englishman in Moscow. In coming back to this country from Russia, it seems to me that there are two main objections to the principle of giving credits to that country The first is, that there is a body of opinion here which holds that it is a mistake to facilitate in any way the progress of a country which, after all, is bound to be a commercial rival of ours in the future, if it is not so at present, and particularly to help such a rival in any way which involves us in serious obligations.
    That is a logical attitude to take up, but in this particular case it does not fit the facts. Even if we were to withdraw our credits from Russia, and even to close our import market to her to some extent, it would not have the effect, in the long run, of diminishing her competitive power. The Five-Year Plan has progressed so far that they can more or less, if not entirely, do without us. If we cut down our credits and close our market, I do not say that it would not cause a great deal of embarrassment to Soviet finances. I think that unquestionably it would, but the final result would be merely that such business as she does with us would be transferred to our commercial competitors probably in Germany and the United States. If that be so, it is clear that we ought to look at the problem of credits simply and solely from the point of view of our direct interests, to leave Russia out of it, and to leave ourselves to judge how much credit we can safely give in relation to how much benefit that credit would give to our export trade. Another strong, and, I think, well-founded argument which opponents use who doubt the wisdom of credit advances, is the

    1331
    very great risk involved. The Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade has made it clear that the Government are well aware of all the risks involved, and are proceeding cautiously and are carefully weighing the risks. I have never had any doubt, but I think that the hon. Gentleman's speech completely disposed of any doubts that anybody had.
    There is another point I wish to make, again from the Russian point of view. I believe that there is a general feeling in this country that as the Five-Year Plan progresses, and as Russia's commercial and financial strength increases, the risk involved in granting credits is likely to grow, not greater but less. That is a very natural conclusion to form, bat I believe that in actual fact the case is rather the reverse. I have found on my return that the true purpose and the main object of the Five-Year Plan is very constantly misunderstood or not appre ciated in this country. I do not think that it is generally and clearly realised that the Five-Year Plan represents the ideal of economic nationalism and high protection carried to a very extreme point, almost to a fantastic point. The whole underlying purpose of the plan is to render Russia entirely self-supporting, or, to put it more accurately, to render her entirely independent of the capitalist world, so that she can do without the whole of the capitalist world. If that is so, it follows that as the plan progresses she will become more independent of the rest of the world, and so will feel less cogency and less present need to pay her debts, and to pay them punctually. Hitherto, I think, her record of paying off short-term indebtedness has been as good as, or better than, that of any other State in the world. Nobody has lost any money so far in Russia. But as the plan progresses the state of things may rather change.
    The Communist party, of course, have staked their whole future upon the plan. Their own fortunes are bound up in it, and a constant supply of new credit is absolutely essential to them if the plan is to proceed, and in order to get that credit it has become desirable to meet short-term obligations at once, and hitherto they have done so. But as the plan progresses and they become more independent, a certain amount of caution will be
    1332
    necessary. I do not mean to imply that they would repudiate for the sake of repudiation. I do not think that that is the case at all, but they may find that circumstances are too strong or too tempting for them in the next couple of years. I do not want to quote figures, which, perhaps, may be inaccurate, but it seems to be the case that Russia has already built up a very heavy load of short-term indebtedness. Whether the figures are precisely accurate I do not know, but it seems to be the opinion that their short-term indebtedness is equal to the whole proceeds of a year of her export trade. In a country which has practically no invisible exports, and still fewer internal financial reserves, that figure is a somewhat dangerous one. In addition to that, if reports are correct, the climatic conditions this winter have been very bad, and there has been a certain amount of confusion or mismanagement in the case of collective farming, and this may result in a drastic cutting down of the grain export next year. If that happens, the Russian financial balances will be further upset, and the position may become very acute and precarious.
    The lesson to be drawn from that is, that a great deal more caution will be necessary as from the end of this year, that is to say, the end of the last year of the first Five Year Plan, in granting short-term credits to Russia. As I have already said, the speech of the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department must have set practically every doubt at rest on that subject. There is a great deal of diversity of opinion about what our trade and other relations with Russia should be, but I think that there will be practically unanimous agreement upon one point, and that is, that it is highly desirable to increase our export trade with Russia. Whatever may be the precise figure of our adverse balance of trade with her, taking re-exports and invisible exports and so on, there is a very large margin in her favour as against us. I am convinced that if we use our potentialities for giving credit, and, further, more, if we use the right, free or restricted, of entry into our markets as a bargaining factor, we shall have no difficulty in coming to an arrangement with Russia. It would be something less one-sided and something which would be as much to the advantage of Russia as it would be to our advantage.
    6.0 p.m.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I think the House will agree with me that the speech of the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Patrick), who has just sat down, is one of the best maiden speeches that has been delivered in this House. I am delighted to listen to a fresh mind being brought to bear on this problem of Russia, and I hope the hon. Member will accept my personal congratulations. I suggest that he should be called into the Government. I think the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department also deserves a vote of congratulation. He gave us evidence that he had gone to great pains to prepare his speech, knowing very well that the men whom he had to face here in the Opposition were well primed on this case and that we had a sound case that would take some answering. I think he gave a very good account of himself in trying his 'prentice hand on us. I am sorry the hon. Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel) is not in his place. He belongs to one of the reactionary groups in this House as far as Russia is concerned. He said he had had many dealings with Russians, he made the assertion that they were putting the Germans and Americans up against the Britons, and he asked, Why is it that the Russians are always anxious to trade with us?
    I happen to be in a position, as the Minister could also be if he liked, to give the reply to that question. The reason is because of our ships and machinery, because the things that we have supplied to them are the best they ever got. In my own experience we supplied a coking mill to the Russians before the War, and it is the best tool that Russia still has, with the result that the Russians are very anxious to deal with the same firm, Duncan Ste warts, the firm with whom I served my time as an engineer. So much so, that I pressed the Labour Government for all I was worth to increase credits. That firm, who are identified with the Beardmore firm, were very anxious, and they got orders recently for forging heavy machinery, orders which the Labour Government assisted them to get. Therefore, I hope the Minister will take to heart the advice that came from the hon. Member for Tavistock and the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills), who spoke before him and who said that we should stop concerning ourselves
    1334
    about Russia and concern ourselves about Britain. The hon. Member for Farnham wanted us to go back to the Tsarist regime, but if we did that, they too have a good case against us for not meeting all our obligations incurred under a past regime, the reason being that in order to keep Russia in the War this country promised Russia Constantinople. Therefore, the best thing they can do is to let bygones be bygones, and to trade with them.
    I want to bring the House back to where we started to-day, which is the most serious problem that it is possible, not only for this House, but for civilisation to face, and that is the problem of unemployment. This House has had it discussed many times. We have had many Governments in my 10 years' experience in this House. The Tory Government of 1926 attempted to face this problem of unemployment, and I can remember at that time how they faced it. I remember the great speech that was delivered at that Box by the present Lord Hailsham, when he piloted through the Bill to increase the hours of labour of the miners of this country. I remember how he said that he would not think about putting that Bill through unless he was thoroughly satisfied that, by asking the miners to make this undoubted sacrifice, it was going to set the wheels of industry in this country humming. Did they hum? They are not humming yet.
    That was their advocacy at that time. always coming down to the worker to ask the worker to give something. It has been a case of the horse-leech's daughter all along the line with the ruling class in this country. The working-class has always to give something, in order to get the country round a tight corner. She did not get round the tight corner, although the miners fought, as everyone knows, heroically against the idea, but they were forced, and their women and children were starved in no uncertain fashion. We had to go with the representatives of labour to America to appeal for assistance for the miners in our country, when the then Prime Minister, now the Lord President of the Council, stated that there was no starvation in the mining villages of this country. The Prince of Wales went round, and we are waiting yet for the report that he was going to publish at that time, because the starvation was so acute, and his point

    1335
    of view was quite the reverse of that of the then Prime Minister.
    All that was done, all that sacrifice was made by the workers at that time, in order to get round unemployment. Time went on, and they tried something else. They will try anything but what we have suggested. All the Governments will try everything but Socialism. The next thing that they tried was rationalisation and reorganisation of industry. I remember how I pleaded with them in this House for God's sake not to shut down the shipyards, not to throw any of my tradesmen out, not to throw any more engineers out on the street. I pleaded that that was no way to rationalise industry, although personally I am in favour of rationalisation, I am in favour of doing away with work, and you will find that all the boys who are here looking for work are looking for it fur somebody else, not for themselves. I appealed to them then that rationalisation, unless they reduced the hours of labour and increased the wages of the workers, would have a detrimental effect and would only increase unemployment instead of lessening it; but on they went with their rationalisation, and they shut down the shipyards.
    In my own constituency they shut down one of the finest shipyards in the world, a shipyard built inside of 20 years, Beardmore's shipyard in Dalmuir. Not satisfied with simply shutting the yard down, they scrapped it, and the yard next to it, Miller and Napier's Old Kilpatrick shipyard, was also scrapped. It was all part and parcel of rationalisation, and men were thrown out on the street. I asked the present Prime Minister then what provision he was going to make for my constituents who were thrown out of work as a result of rationalisation, and this was his reply: "The provision that we make is the Labour Exchange." It was then 17s. a week for men than whom there are no finer workers in the world. Again the workers had to submit. As I have said, I am in favour of rationalisation. I am in favour of reorganising anything at all that is going to do away with work. I have always stood for that, and it is because of all that that you are having unemployment; and you will have more unemployment, but I will come to that later on.
    1336
    Then, following rationalisation, what does this House do? They find that it is no cure for unemployment, no cure to increase hours of labour, and the next thing they come along with is cuts. They appoint the May Committee. He has a lot to answer for. I remember the then Chancellor of the Exchequer standing over there—he is now a Lord—telling us, when they had decided to appoint the May Committee, that he could write their report then. What was that report? Cuts. Again cuts from the working class, asking the workers to sacrifice. It was a case of cuts, but a great many got cuts who never anticipated getting them. Your professional class never dreamed that they were going to get cuts, and hundreds of school teachers were lobbying out there when cuts came to them. That section of the community never dreamed that there were any cuts coming to them, or there would have been a greater howl raised at the time. Then you had reductions in our social services, and following that you had the Anomalies Act—all cuts on the working class.
    Then there was the means test—all part and parcel of this extracting something out of the working class. That is what it means—sucking the life blood out of the workers. How does the means test work? How is it working at the moment? Here is a case in my own experience: A man who worked beside me all the time that I worked—and remember that I worked until the employers of labour said that I should work no more—a man 36 years an engineer, a turner by trade, one of the very best type of artisan, a man who had worked steadily, who had done what he could to educate his family, who had an idea of getting out of the tenements and into a housing scheme—he gets into that, and then he gets thrown out, two years ago, the first time that ever he was idle. A fortnight ago I met him on the road, and one of my boys was along with me. When the man went away, my boy said to me, "What is the matter with him? I never knew he had an impediment in his speech."
    Then I told my boy what was the explanation of the impediment in his speech. He had gone through the means test. The means test that Friday afternoon had been put in operation on him, and what did it mean? Formerly he had been in the habit of getting 23s. 6d. a week. He has a son, an engineer like

    1337
    his father, who has not been able to work at his trade for a year. The son has taken on a labouring job at £2 3s. 6d. a week. A young man, 28 years of age, the son of an artisan, who has been reared and trained as an artisan, supposed to be the backbone of your great British Empire, gets a wage of £2 3s. 6d. per week. The man also has a daughter, a shop assistant, and she gets the handsome sum of 17s. a week. There you have the father and mother and the son and daughter, and because that amount of money is coming into the house, the father, the engineer, when this means test is applied, is cut off without a penny piece. And this is being done with a view to relieve unemployment.
    The working-classes, the better paid working-classes have undoubtedly made these sacrifices willingly. They have returned this Government to power., They accepted the cuts as inevitable, believing that the Government would do something. But what is it that they are up against? It is not simply unemployment. They are up against a system of society which can produce everything to-day that men and women require for a comfortable life. There is not an article of which there is a shortage. They are seeking for markets away across the seas. Their great ambition to-day, their dream, is to get into China simplybecause China has not yet become industrialised. They would be quite anxious to get into Russia with its teeming millions, but they know perfectly well that, as sure as the sun will rise to-morrow, Russia will overthrow this system throughout the world. It is because the powers behind the throne—I do not mean the King, Captain Fitzroy, although he has a lot to do—those individuals who think they are the big men, know well that if Russia win through, as she will, so will the working-classes in every country win through, and that before very long.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must remember that the House is not now in Committee.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker. I am speaking here on behalf of the working classes of this country who are just about at breaking point. If hon. Members of this House think that the working classes are accepting starvation and destitution they are mistaken. They are being crushed; they
    1338
    are full of fear, which is the most powerful influence at work to-day not only amongst the unemployed but amongst those who are employed. The working classes are more crushed to-day than ever they have been in my time. Every man who has a job dreads to stand up like a man, dare not assert himself. Individuality and the right to be a man are denied him in the workshop in a manner unprecedented in the annals of working class life in this country. Here we have a House which is treating it as though everything was all right and that we are just getting round the business. The unemployed—they are only a few, and they are undersized and underfed. You can take it from me that there is great discontent, not only among the underfed and the undersized hut amongst those men and women who have undoubtedly made great sacrifices believing that something would be done by the Government. And nothing is being done.
    Here we are, faced with a world teeming with all the good things of life. We are able to produce everything in superabundance. The simplest illustration I can give—I have given it before—is the blast furnace which to-day can produce as much in a week as a blast furnace produced 40 years ago in a year. And everything else is being produced in the same way. We have a machine which is producing 2,500 loaves an hour. The right hon. Gentleman for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) asked us during the War to rain shells on the Germans. We could rain boots and shoes on the people, not only of this country but of every country; and in the midst of all this along comes. the present Government, with all its ability and experience, and proposes to face the situation with a little twopenny halfpenny Bill—a 10 per cent. tariff.
    If we were able to take a detached view of what is going on here and what is considered to be legislation to meet this. abnormal situation, we should laugh at the suggestion that it is going to be any remedy. Before the summer is over we shall have added another 500,000 to the number of the unemployed. The hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves) who sits on the Front Opposition Bench is a representative of the building industry which has over 500,000 unemployed. Our folk all over the country, the working classes who produce all the wealth, because nothing is produced except by

    1339
    labour, want new houses. We have been worrying the Government day after day because working people are not able to pay their rents, they are being evicted and ejected. If we could get more houses built it would bring down the price of houses. The Government is supposed to be looking after the interests of the great majority of the people of this country, and the majority are not unemployed, they are not on the Employment Exchange. There is no denying the fact that the majority of the people are living under a great fear.
    6.30 p.m.
    It has been said that we must look at the savings banks and see how the people are putting something aside for a rainy day. That is not the result of their being well off. To me it is a very serious sign. They are living in fear, in dread, of the day when they may be out of work and are putting as much by as they can for that day. If they were not living in this daily fear they would under normal circumstances be spending that money. They are putting it by because they fear they may one day lose their job. They have seen in their time men and women who never thought that they would be unemployed, who never thought that rationalisation would affect them, who never dreamed that they would have to go to the Employment Exchange. They have seen men and women clothed in rags and shame. They have seen manhood shorn of its glory in the midst of superabundance.
    Unless the Government of the day tackle this problem properly, they will bring about their own downfall. There is only one way of dealing with the problem, and that is to make the opposite approach to it. Instead of approaching it by cutting down, instead of appointing a May Committee to inquire how the social services could be cut down, we should have appointed a committee to see how it was possible to increase expenditure. Until we are able to create a new atmosphere throughout civilisation, and get the statesmen of civilisation to approach the problem of superabundance and poverty in the midst of it with the idea of distributing the world's great productive power, we shall have nothing but misery in our midst. I know quite well that there are men and women who have been sent to this House and who
    1340
    believe that it is possible for us to do something. I am quite prepared to listen to their point of view, and I hope that they will allow me to put mine. It is for that purpose that the British House of Commons exists.
    As a Socialist, I suggest that the Socialist approach to this unemployment problem is the only one that will ease the situation. To begin with, it is necessary to increase purchasing power. There is no use men saying that on the platform and elsewhere and then supporting here something that is to act in the opposite direction. We have first to increase the allowance to the unemployed. We must start with the unemployed because they represent the lowest standard in Britain. We realise that if the income of the unemployed is lowered there is no income of any worker in the country that is safe. There ought to be an increase in the income of the unemployed. The late Minister of Labour said that we should create an atmosphere to "Buy more British."Fancy! How hypocritical this House is at times! Fancy suggesting to the working classes that they should "buy more British"! I remember a supplementary question put by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) to the Under-Secretary for War as to meat for the Army. The reply showed that we bought beef from the Argentine instead of British beef because it was cheaper. Does anyone think that the British would not buy British beef if they could afford it? But how can they buy British goods when the very British who urge them to do so are reducing them below what is called the British standard. We cannot have it both ways. Then we have to increase the wages of the workers, and to reduce the hours of labour. There is no other way in which to ease the problem of unemployment. I am not looking for work for the unemployed. I am astonished at some hon. Members still talking about looking for work for the unemployed. I remember what happened here. The present Prime Minister set out to tackle the unemployment problem and he put in charge of it one of the ablest trade union leaders that the trade union movement ever produced, although I differ from him in many things. He put him in charge of a special Department of the Labour Government to find work for the unemployed. Did he find work? No.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: What about the Canadian ships?
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: They were mystery ships. Now that Department of the Government has been abolished. They gave this trade union leader the "breeze," and removed him. Then the Labour Government appointed a committee that was to find work for the unemployed. They called it an Economy Committee. The Prime Minister went outside the Labour movement. He said it was such a serious business, that he was going to be free of prejudice and bias and all party ideas. It was to be an all-embracing committee. So he went to the Tory party, and went to one of the hardest Tories that we ever had, Lord Weir, a fellow-countryman of mine, and made him Chairman of this Committee. We worried him to know what the committee had produced. We are still waiting to know. There is no work for the unemployed. The committee gave us a statement as to how they were going to reorganise and electrify the railways. That was something which the Socialists had been propounding for years and years before the railways were obsolete, as they are to-day with their steam locomotives. But I will not go into that. The country sat back and let the Government have their own way in trying all their little, pettifogging ideas, but not one of them has touched the fringe of this problem. Therefore we Socialists can go quite confidently to the country and ask the country to give us a mandate to take control of the country. We shall then put into operation our idea, and that will be to distribute the great productive power that we have to-day. Then, instead of men and women living miserable and abject lives in poverty, there will arise a different type of men and women who will stand like a wall of fire around our much loved island.
    Lieut.-Colonel POWELL: This is the first time I have had the honour of addressing the House, and I admit that for the moment I am suffering from a sense of humility that I do not remember since the days when I first joined my regiment. Possibly those who have been in the Army will appreciate what I mean. I take this, my first, opportunity of congratulating the Government on the suc-
    1342
    cess so far of their policy. I have listened throughout the Debate, and there appears to be an idea in certain quarters that the Government have done nothing and that the effects so far of their work are nil. If we could cast our minds back and, from the financial point of view, consider the difference between the state we were in five months ago, and the state in which we find ourselves now, we realise that the change is extraordinary. Five months ago we did not know from one day to the next whether we would be ruined or not. For the first time for probably 100 years, we had to go hat in hand to the foreigner and borrow money. The situation to-day is that, practically without any trouble, we have repaid £90,000,000 of the money that we borrowed. It is astonishing that there should have been such an immense change in such a short time.
    From the point of view of employment we were all disappointed, naturally, with the unemployment figures of January. I was one of those who went to see the British Industries Fair, and I must say that I have come hack very encouraged. I cannot possibly agree with the hon. Member who spoke last that there is likely to be another half million added to the unemployed this year, for at that Fair there was evidence on all sides that industry was on the red hot upward grade. I. wished to try to find out at the Fair whether the industries themselves fully appreciated the fact that if they did not take this opportunity of benefiting from the tariffs which we had put on, it might be their last chance. I mention one case. It concerns a small article, namely, a knife. We know that the steel industry, in regard to such articles, is at present in most cases benefiting from the fall of the pound, probably to the extent of 30 or 40 per cent. I said to the representative of the industry: "Some of us who have been supporting you for many years and trying to get tariffs for you, are rather afraid that you will not produce the right article at the right price. Up to now there has been a tendency not to bother about producing the cheaper article which is required by a very large number of our population." I was at once shown a series of knives and it was pointed out to me that whereas, last year, the cheapest kind of knife worked out at 14s. a dozen, a special effort had been

    1343
    made this year to meet this particular demand, and a knife was now being sold, wholesale, at 7s. or exactly half the previous price. That instance did a great deal to remove from my mind the fears which even ardent Tariff Reformers may have, that industry may not take advantage of its opportunity of producing the right article at the right price.
    I particularly desire to-night to make a point in reference to unemployment schemes. I have never been able to understand how it can possibly be claimed that, if you collect a large sum of money, in rates and taxes from the people or from the normal course of trade, and use that money, say, to make roads, you can call that an unemployment relief scheme. As far as I can understand the matter, it seems to me that as fast as you collect that money from the normal course of trade, you put men out of work in various places. You cannot see where those men are being put out of work. You cannot tell where they would have been employed if the money had been spent in the ordinary course of trade instead of being taken by the tax collector and the rate collector. You cannot point to the actual men thrown out of work by that process though you can point to the men who are actually working on a road. But it has always been a mystery to me how such schemes can claim to be schemes for the relief of unemployment. Personally, T was very pleased to hear that the Government had definitely decided to stop schemes of that kind which are unremunerative.
    There is a consideration which I would put to the Government on the subject of roads. I believe it is admitted that roadmaking is the most expensive method of providing employment, largely because the men employed in that way have to be moved, as a general rule, a long way from their homes. I understand that road schemes have been cut down and I suppose it is not a very intelligent anticipation of the Budget, if one suggests that the Road Fund may be raided again, as I understand it has been raided before. I put forward the suggestion that the Road Fund might be altered in name and called, say, the Road and Housing Fund, and that some of the money from the Road Fund might be allocated for the assistance of house-building, though it might not be possible
    1344
    to do so this year. When I mention house-building I mean to suggest a concentration of effort on the smaller houses. I do not claim to be an expert on housing, but I know sufficient to realise the many objections that there would be to a scheme of that kind unless it were very carefully managed.
    The chief objection, and the only one to which I allude at the moment, is that it might interfere with private enterprise. The particular type of house, however, which I am visualising is the cheapest type of house, let at the lowest rent, and I do not think that type of house lends itself to private enterprise. There are two reasons for that, which are, I am sure, well known to hon. Members. The first is that the builder cannot afford to have his capital frozen in property of that kind, and the second is that he naturally wishes to avoid the difficulty and trouble attached to the collection of rents from houses of that class. But I wonder whether even now, in these stringent times, we could not make an exception in this respect as regards unemployment schemes and try to kill two birds with the one stone by having something in the nature of an unemployment relief and small-housing scheme.
    There are two ways of looking at the matter. There is the sentimental and the economic side. T think that we may say, without much sentiment, that there is a very urgent and natural demand by the working man for a low rent, a little privacy and a little peace. From that point of view, alone, we might be moved to make some special effort in the direction which I have indicated. There is also the economic side of the question. We are faced, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us the other day, with an inevitable rise in commodity prices, with returning prosperity. If we examine the budget of the working man, I think we shall find that the item in regard to which there is most room for economy is that of rent, which is out of proportion to all his other expenses in relation to his income. For that reason I have dared to suggest what I may be told is an impossible scheme, but is, I think, one which ought to be considered. I am not putting it forward as a new idea. Several of us were very

    1345
    pleased to notice speeches by the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland during the Recess pointing out the necessity of concentrating, and their desire and intention to concentrate, on this small type of house. If anything that I have said to-night arouses again a little interest in that type of house, which I regard as an absolute necessity, then I feel that I shall not have entirely failed in this, my first 'speech, in the House. of Commons
    Mr. PARKINSON: I feel that the House will naturally expect me to extend on its behalf 'congratulations to the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Southwark (Lieut.-Colonel Powell). Whether we agree with him or not—and I do not—his speech was a, very good effort, and I hope that we shall have the pleasure of hearing him on many future occasions. The Debate to-day has ranged over a large number of subjects, but I desire to bring it back to the question of the possibility of finding work for those who are unemployed. During the last two or three weeks we have had a varied assortment of legislation before the House. We have had the Import Duties Measure and the Wheat Quota Measure among others, but nothing whatever has been done of a definite nature, in the direction of providing work for the unemployed. I think we may truly say that the two chief Measures which have been before the House are Measures which will give a direct benefit to certain sections of the community. While the Government are taking those steps, they are cutting down the benefits of the poor people who are unemployed and it is the poor who will be called upon to meet the cost of both those Measures. [HON. MEMBERS: "No. "] Be that as it may, the National Government is supposed to be national in fact as well as name. They claim to represent every section of the community. It has been boasted in this House that they represent industrial and commercial life, landlords, farmers and the workers. If they do, they have already dealt with two of those classes. What are they going to do with the others?
    Are the Government going to make any effort to extend schemes for providing employment? I do not necessarily mean the kind of schemes which we had before. The Government may have thought over this problem and have come to conelu-
    1346
    sions somewhat different from those reached by the last Government. But up to now we have heard nothing at all on this subject and when we realise that the number of unemployed is increasing and that we have a higher number of totally unemployed now than we had six months ago, then we must also realise the necessity that something should be done definitely and without delay. The unemployment problem cannot be left to solve itself. Some step must be taken by schemes or by legislation or in some other way to bring work to the people who are in need of it. The poor are penalised not only in regard to unemployment but in other directions as well. Recent legislation, as I have pointed out, is further penalising them and in consequence they seem to be losing faith in this Government as a Government. At the moment a large number of our people are being transferred to unemployment transitional benefit. I am not going at length into that question because I desire to get on to the question of the roads and of the schemes which have been subject to consideration but I must point out that a large number of people are being heavily penalised by reductions in unemployment benefit or by having that benefit taken from them altogether. What the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) has said with regard to transitional benefit applies all over the country.
    There is a very strong feeling on this subject, and the Government might apply themselves to this matter in order to try to find some relief for the people from the heavy burdens which they are being called upon to bear. As was stated here yesterday a sum of £6,000,000 will have to be found in order to provide the finances for the wheat quota proposals. A large amount of that money will come from the poorest of the poor among our people. In connection with the Import Duties Act it is estimated that a sum of from £30,000,000 to £40,000,000 will have to be found and a large proportion of that money will, through higher prices, come from the poor people. They will be heavily mulcted in all these directions. Are the Government now ready to accept responsibility for the fact that the unemployment situation has not improved during their tenure of office I Are they ready to explain why their schemes have not been extended and why some definite

    1347
    proposal has not been laid before the House though they have been in office for six months? The last Labour Government was not in office for that length of time before Votes of Censure were being placed before the House.
    7.0 p.m.
    I would like to know from the Minister of Transport what is being done in the direction of finding more employment. I put a question to him some time ago as to how many schemes in Lancashire had been postponed, curtailed or cancelled, and he replied that 28 schemes in Lancashire had been postponed or curtailed at a total cost of £1,250,000, which at the usual rate of calculation would have found work for 5,000 men a year. This must apply with quite as great force in other counties, but in this one county alone employment has been withdrawn from 5,000 people by the action of the Government in curtailing, cancelling or postponing these schemes. In reply to a further question, the Minister admitted that there was a decrease in the men directly employed on the roads and bridges. I am not like the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken. I believe that road schemes are the very essence of necessity, with our road transport developing to such an extent. I believe that we shall have to provide roads on which the trade of the country can be carried efficiently, and to meet the requirements of a new and growing industry. Whether we agree as to what kind of roads they should be is a different matter, but it is no use postponing the matter until the tide of trade and commerce is upon us, and we have not the means to carry the matter through. We should be dealing with the matter continuously, until we feel we are masters of the situation. In this connection, I would like to ask the Minister the position about the Forth road bridge, whether it has been definitely cancelled or only postponed? I should also like to ask him about the Humber road bridge and the greater problem of the Dartford-Purfleet road tunnel. I know that the last is the greatest matter, but it has been under the consideration of the Depart. ment for so long that some definite decision should have been arrived at before now.
    1348
    All the time these works are postponed, people are suffering loss of opportunity for work which cannot be provided elsewhere. It is all very well for Members to say, as one Member did to-night, that in his opinion private enterprise could provide much more work than it is providing. If private enterprise could do it, there would be no need for us to appeal to the Government to do what we believe to be the job of the Government in the circumstances. If private enterprise fails to carry out work which it is able to do, then it is not doing the right thing by the Government at the moment. In answer to a further question I put to my hon. Friend, in which I asked him to state the amount of work and the number of schemes which had been cancelled, curtailed or postponed in the whole of Great. Britain, he replied that just over 1,000 schemes, at a total estimated cost of £30,000,000, were involved. Of course, that is a large amount of money and a very large number of people, who would be provided with work, are suffering with their dependants because that money is not being spent. There are building schemes estimated to cost £50,000,000 to £55,000,000 which are at present in abeyance, either suspended or cancelled. These schemes together come to a total of between £80,000,000 and £90,000,000. If that money were in circulation and providing work, it would bring a feeling of happiness and well-being to a great number of our people.
    We must realise the large number of unemployed. We have at the moment 2,750,000 unemployed in our country, and we are likely to have more, because the legislation recently passed is in no wav going to mitigate the unemployment or to solve the problem. These schemes spread throughout the country would have amounted to a total of £80,000,000 to £90,000,000 at a time when we have such a tremendous number of unemployed. I would draw attention to the fact, because the Minister of Health has postponed such a large amount of work, that there are between 300,000 and 400,000 building trade operatives unemployed. There is about the same number out of work in the mining areas, while the textile workers who are unemployed reach about the same figure. As to the building operatives, no one could say that houses, schools and baths are not required. They are undoubtedly required in order to

    1349
    meet the sanitary necessities of the time. If I might make a personal reference to my own Division—and I do not often mention it—we are a congested industrial community with a population of something like 90,000 people. Practically all the municipal building of houses, schools and baths in our area has been postponed or cancelled. For instance, we have a grammar school built a long time ago to accommodate 250 pupils. Yet to-day, when they have 450 pupils, they have been refused permission, or rather they have not yet been given permission, to rebuild their schools, although they lire housing their students in Army huts and other buildings. This is a condition of things which cannot be tolerated for the rising generation. Though we have this depressed area and a large number of workers unemployed, we have not yet been able to enjoy that help and assistance which ought to be given to us. An application to build baths has been turned down.
    Special consideration should be given to cases like ours. I do not think it is an isolated case. There are many cases throughout the country, some of them probably more pressing, and the need for these buildings is so great that a move ought to be made as soon as possible. We have in this country about 2,000,000 people under 50 years of age who are unemployed. Probably a large number of these people will never again be employed. We have tremendous numbers of persons between 50 and 60 years of age who have no opportunity, and never will have the opportunity, of again being absorbed in their own industry. If we withhold work from these people and not meet the requirements of our people in a reasonable way, we are simply asking for trouble. The Minister of Transport is aware that there are thousands of miles of roads in this country which are not really fit for the large amount of traffic passing over them. Surely something ought to be done in these cases, which are not here or there, but are spread all over the country. When we have this great diversity of inefficient roads we ought to undertake that task at the earliest possible moment, and thus give an opportunity of employment to a large amount of unskilled labour on road schemes. One speaker to-night said that it would
    1350
    be difficult to find the men who were able to do road work. I guarantee that three-quarters of the people unemployed would be quite able to meet the requirements of making roads, particularly the mining community, the general labourers and the textile workers. They are all well able to undertake work of that kind if the opportunity were given to them. However, it is not given, and we have a large amount of labour idle in the country while there is work which ought to be done.
    There are many points I would like to mention, but I am not going to deal with them all. I shall, however, mention one or two. I would like to draw attention, first of all, to the Housing (Rural Authorities) Act, passed last year. Under that Bill, I understand, the number of houses to be dealt with has been cut down from 40,000 to 2,000. That was a great Government scheme and, as many hon. Members know better than I, that work is a great necessity. In my opinion, the Government economy campaign has been rather overdone, and the plea of financial stringency has been carried too far. We heard the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday that we have practically overcome the hard times, and one sees from the Press this morning that the Government have turned the corner so far as finance is concerned, and will be able to give further and wider consideration to many of the problems before them.
    Another point not mentioned in the Debate to-day or mentioned in this House for some considerable time, is that we must find some new outlet for our surplus labour. The question of extracting oil from coal has been discussed for many years. According to the Press, there is an opportunity now of making it a real commercial proposition. If that is so, why should not the Government undertake this great work and make a national industry at once I It would relieve every mining area in the country, would relieve the Government from buying their oils from overseas, and in many ways would be a great benefit indeed to the work which has to be carried on by a nation like ours. Of course, it might be said that the industry itself would take a long time to get going. That is quite true but, if the industry were once

    1351
    started, the Government would see it grow year by year.
    Private enterprise has failed to meet the requirements of the people of this country. It has not been able to do what it ought to have done in providing employment, and the time has now come when the Government must undertake the work which has fallen upon them. Every year since 1927 the number of houses specified to be built by the Government has fallen below the estimate. That, of course, is reflected in the health and well-being of a large number of our people. The demolition of a large number of insanitary houses and of insanitary slums, which ought to be proceeding, has now been postponed. I would like the Government to consider seriously whether it is not possible to begin the extraction of oil from coal with a view to making the country independent of outside sources. There is another thing which might be done in order to absorb the unemployed. There is a large amount of land in this country, which is lying fallow and which is not being used for any particular purpose. I appeal to the Government to take into consideration as early as possible the question of smallholdings, which in itself would help to provide a large number of people with employment, and would help the unemployed to support their families. In conclusion, shorter working hours are a subject which, in my opinion, will have to be considered. Not only is it an immediate and a burning question, but it is one which cannot be postponed any longer. I ask the Government to consider these schemes of houses, bridges. roads, tunnels, schools and baths and all the other matters which make up the life of the nation, and to give them the greatest consideration possible in order to relieve the people of the burden now pressing upon them, and to give the Government an opportunity of justifying the faith placed in them at the election last year.
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): I have listened with great care and no little sympathy, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) and the House will not expect me to do other than carry out the broad policy of His Majesty's Government, namely, the policy of husbanding our national resources rather than adopt-
    1352
    ing or continuing vast programmes of public work. The Government's policy which is now being carried out has been confirmed by the votes of the nation. I hope that I shall not be accused of lack of appreciation of the predicament of the hon. Member if I say that it is merely a statement that if you do less work you will be able to employ fewer people. If one accepts the task which one has to perform and makes these cuts, then, obviously, there will be less work of a relief nature. I do not wish to introduce any tone of recrimination into the Debate, but I am bound to say that when I took up my office as Minister of Transport I found that the late Government had contemplated the very economies which have since been applied.
    Mr. PARKINSON: The Department contemplated the economies at the request of the Cabinet Committee, as every other Department did, but not to the extent that they have been carried out.
    Mr. PYBUS: But the hon. Member will recognise the economy figures of from £7,000,000 to £8,000,000. To meet the views of the hon. Members who have put down the Motion would mean a complete reversal of the whole policy 3which I am trying to carry out on behalf of the Government. I would in this connection draw attention to one point which has not been noted. Much has been said as to the value of certain proposals that have been stopped or postponed, and I should like to deal with that aspect of the question. When the May Committee issued their report, their proposals for the reduction of public works, which in the main the Government accepted, were made not primarily because the works were not worth the money to be expended upon them, but because in our state of financial stringency we had not the money with which to carry them out.
    If there is any hon. Member who in past times has had to do with a great public undertaking, or with other works, he must know that at any moment either he or his managers would have a long list of improvements put before them which they would like to carry out. Each improvement taken individually would have justified itself from the point of view of a suitable return on the money expended, but the finance of the enterprise was limited. As in private, so in public affairs. We found out, and it came

    1353
    as a great shock to some of us, that what is true of a small business is equally true of a great national business. It had been apparent for some time, particularly to those, and I was one, who had been members of committees, such as the Unemployment Grants Committee and the Loan Development Committee, that we were reaching a point where, by anticipating works beyond a certain amount, we were encouraging local authorities—town councils, urban district councils, and the like—to pledge their credit further than they could afford. I came definitely to that conclusion a year ago. I remember at the time making a statement that in a great many depressed areas a grant of 99 per cent. offered by the Government for certain works would be unfair to the depressed area which was expected to find the balance.
    This was the position to which we had come. We had calculated when considering the relief, works, a certain fixed time during which the unemployment and the depression of trade was supposed to last. I do not think that anyone who was connected with any of the committees of 1922 and onwards will deny that the original relief work measures were based by optimists on a three-year period of depression and by pessimists on a five-year period of depression. Not one of us ever calculated on an 11 or 12 years' period of depression. If the value of the work is to be measured in terms of employment given and not calculated alongside the amount of anticipation of public expenditure which is necessary, then the whole theory on which the relief work is based falls to the ground. A great many of the works about which the hon. Member for Wigan inquired with anxiety as to whether or not they are to be proceeded with, would fall into the category of work which, however valuable or good it might be for the money, cannot be purchased by the nation at the present time, because the nation has not the funds with which to purchase it. You can carry this anticipation of matters too far and come to a very dangerous position. The mere argument that work is worth what you pay for it, does not hold water at all.
    The hon. Member has asked me whether I am prepared to sanction going on with the Forth Bridge, the Humber Bridge and
    1354
    the Dartford Tunnel. I intimated some weeks ago that we were not prepared to go ahead with those works at the present time. What we are prepared to do with respect to deferred schemes is, so far as possible, to protect the lines of route and to see that any work already done does not fall into decay. We must then wait for better times until it is possible to proceed with them. That is all that I can promise the hon. Member in regard to the works in question. We must bear in mind that it has been established that capital relief works employ about 4,000 men directly and indirectly for one year for each million pounds of expenditure. In a state of financial stringency such as that with which we are now confronted, and with the stern necessity of making both ends meet, I think we must accept the fact that we have long passed the stage when we can put into operation capital works costing £1,000,000 in order to employ 4,000 people for one year.
    Mr. MUNRO: In the beginning, I must, in words which are becoming hauntingly familiar, crave the indulgence of this House towards a newcomer's positively first utterance. I am comforted by the knowledge that I have gained during the last few months of the unvarying kindness and courtesy shown towards new Members on every occasion by the old Members. I have been emboldened to make a few remarks in this Debate because I have been abroad for most of my time and on returning to this country I have to some extent been able to look at things from the point of view of an outsider, particularly in regard to the great question of unemployment. Moreover, I was a prospective candidate during a somewhat protracted period. During that time in a constituency in South Wales which, as everyone knows, has suffered peculiarly during the intense depression, I had every opportunity of meeting a great many people of all sorts and conditions. It is from those two points of view that I desire to make a few general remarks on the unemployment situation.
    The first aspect that struck me on returning from abroad was that, for some reason or other, more than in any other country, the unemployment question in this country had been dragged into the political party arena. That, in my opinion, was a very lamentable thing. It is not

    1355
    for me to try to apportion the blame to any particular individuals or parties, but the fact was that such a position existed, and there was no doubt that it had a grave result, a psychological effect. The continuous discussion of unemployment had a very damaging effect on our country and on our trade. Domestically, it was a stick with which it was easy to beat any Government. Outside this country the publication of the unemployment figures was always useful propaganda for our trade competitors. Therefore, I welcomed very gladly the fact that the present Government have seen fit to change the weekly publication of the figures to a monthly publication. I noticed in a recent Debate that the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) agreed that that was a sound policy. I was very glad to hear him make that statement, because there can be no doubt that the publication of the figures had been damaging us very greatly.
    One other aspect of the situation which I noticed, especially during the period I was a prospective candidate, was the real feeling amongst working men and women that they wanted work. There have been suggestions that many people do not want work. I can only say from my own personal observations and from many visits and conversations that the vast majority of people do really want work. Many people will always take what the law gives them, and there are some who will abuse the law, but, strictly speaking, practically every person I met or knew of bad one desire, and that was to have work and not the dole. That struck me very forcibly during my observations. Like everyone else, when I found myself in the middle of the ever-present tragedy of unemployment I looked around to explore every avenue, as the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) puts it, whereby relief could be found. I read with great care "Labour and the Nation," "How to Cure Unemployment," and "How to Tackle Unemployment," but in all sincerity I must say that I found no permanent remedy and no permanent alleviation of the cancer in any of those publication.
    It being half-past Seven of the Clock, and there being Private Business set clown by direction of the CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing
    1356
    Order 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS.

    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order).
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
    Mr. GEORGE HARVEY: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
    I know that it is some sort of sacrilege for anyone who has served on the London County Council and has been associated with London boroughs, as I have been, to raise any kind of objection to the requirements of the London County Council as set out in this Bill. I feel a certain amount of temerity, but I think that I may be able to make out a case for the reconsideration of certain Clauses. It says on the back of the Bill, "to confer further powers." It is those further powers that have caused me to table an Amendment for the rejection of the Bill. Two Clauses, in particular, strike me as unfair to the trading community of London. Those Clauses, I understand, originated in the Borough Councils Committee, and they have been fathered by the London County Council, with the object, I take it, of helping the London boroughs and the town clerks thereof further to justify their positions. The powers that are vested in the London County Council are steadily increasing year by year—a little at a time probably, but it is constantly going on in the same way as Orders-in-Council have a tendency to grow, so that the authority of Parliament has a tendency to get less.
    I often think that traders are exploited to some extent for the benefit of officials. Many of these little traders cannot look after themselves as the big traders can, and I find that the attack which is made on the trading community generally resolves itself into an attack on the little man. When everybody is being asked to do everything possible to keep down the cost of living, and everyone is trying his hardest to help the country to recover

    1357
    from the crisis through which it is passing, any further attacks on the trading community are somewhat unworthy. With regard to Clause 17, within the last day or two a concession has been made by the London County Council which ought to be read and recorded, because it was given to me with some semblance of official backing. It says:
    "The London County Council is prepared to give an assurance to the following effect in the event of the opposition to this Bill being withdrawn."
    That is a passage which I do not like.
    "Any by-laws proposed to be made by the Council in pursuance of Clause 17 shall not extend beyond the scope of Section 72 of the Public Health Act, 1925, subject to the inclusion of by-laws to deal with two additional matters, namely:

    (i) Arrangements to ensure cleanliness, etc., in transport: It would be understood that transport does not include conveyance within the curtilage of the customer's premises.

    (ii) Power to require in cases in which food is wrapped in paper or other material, such wrapping shall be clean and otherwise reasonably satisfactory."

    The Public Health Act, 1925, specially excluded London, and in proposing to make by-laws in pursuance of this Clause, the Council meets the difficulty of a good many of those who objected in the first instance. But if Section 72 of the Public Health Act, 1925, were made to apply, in my view and in the view of those who have been advising me, Clause 16 would not he necessary at all. The London County Council stated with regard to Clause 17 that some 60 provincial boroughs had adopted by-laws under the powers given to them under the Public Health Act, 1925. When they were asked to give a list of those 60 boroughs, the number resolved itself onto 17. These were written to, and only three had thought fit to utilise the power to create by-laws.
    Clause 16 refers to further registration requirements, and Sub-section (2) is in the nature of an attempt to browbeat the small trader. It expressly excludes clubs, hotels and restaurants. I should have thought that the Statutory Rules and Orders of 1924, No. 1432, under the Public Health Act, referring to meat, were the last word in that connection. Those Regulations set out in detail the sanitary arrangements of shops, stores, and other places in which meat is sold or exposed for sale, and one would have
    1358
    thought that ample provision would there have been sufficient without further attacking traders who are trying to do their best to cope with very difficult conditions. Under this Clause, all meat shops have to be registered if they deal in potted, pressed, pickled or preserved meat, but there is no definition of those commodities in the Bill. It sometimes happens that meat traders do press and pickle meat in their shops. I have personally nothing to do with meat shops, but I take an interest in the traders in my constituency, and I say that to require a meat shop to be registered, when some little back street restaurant is exempted, for the manufacture of sausages and suchlike, is rather unnecessary in these difficult days.
    There is already such a host of inspectors in connection with these traders that it might be worth while for the sake of those who do not know much about it to refer to them in detail. The following officers have the right to inspect meat traders' premises—the meat inspector, the sanitary inspector, the medical officer of health, the shops inspector, the inspector of weights and measures, in some cases the factory inspector, the inspector from the Ministry of Labour, the inspector from the Ministry of Health, the inspector under the Foods and Drugs Act, and the juveniles inspector. Now it is proposed to add the sausage-making inspector. Therefore, the trader has to submit to 11 inspectors. That list does not include the gentleman who inspects him with reference to his local rates, and the gentleman who inspects him with reference to his Income Tax. With these two added, the trader has the delightful number of 13, which makes him lucky or unlucky, however you like to regard him as a trader in London.
    I would like to ask the authors of the Bill whether, as they have attempted to make a concession on Clause 17, they would be prepared to carry their proposals to Clause 16, as they might fairly well do. It is all very well to say that these are Committee points. They are not. A question of principle is involved which ought to be discussed on the Floor of this House. The time is arriving when over-inspection is becoming the bugbear of all who attempt to carry on business. I am one of those who will leave no stone unturned to protest in every way possible against the increase

    1359
    of these inspections. I have heard it said to-day that "we shall soon have one in every three people an inspector or official of some sort or another, and that the other two will be on transitional benefit."
    I do not want to make a long story out of this but I am most emphatic in my opposition to this Bill as it stands. It can be put right if the Members of the House wish. Probably they will carry it if we do object, but, all the same, I did not mean to let this opportunity pass without registering a most emphatic protest against the Bill as it stands. I look upon it as a sample of officialism and how to hamper trade. The County Hall takes its cue from others, and the borough councils, jealous as they frequently are of the London County Council—and I have had some experience of it—are always anxious to emulate the antics of the London County Council officials. Sooner or later this House will have to take cognisance of the hampering of traders by officials. Sooner or later it will have to be one of the questions discussed under the heading "The New Despotism." This is a small sample of it. Every little encroachment made by these local authorities, including the London County Council, is made almost imperceptibly, but, as in this Bill, the cumulative effect of those encroachments becomes more and more evident, and before very long it may not be a pleasant thing to be in business in London.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The case for the Amendment has been stated admirably by my hon. Friend the Member for Bennington (Mr. G. Harvey), but there are one or two points which I would like to emphasise. Frankly, I am sorry to be opposing a London County Council Bill, because no one has greater admiration for the amazing administrative efficiency of that body, but I was astonished when I read the two Clauses we are particularly considering at the moment. Clause 17, upon which they are now ready to give an undertaking, indicates an extraordinary mental approach. They want to make by-lams to secure sanitary and cleanly conditions, etc., under powers which have no limitations at all. They are seeking a power of dictatorship in regard to these by-laws
    1360
    from a line of approach which I frankly regret.
    The other day, on the Committee stage of another Bill, I referred to what I called the "modern spirit of noseyparkerisna" in legislation and administration, and while I think I could make out a reasonably good case for Socialism and a reasonably good case against Socialism, I do not think anyone could make out a case for capitalism in chains. It is absurd to expect the system of individualism to provide people with employment if we do not give traders a chance of carrying on business without excessive interference. That does not mean, however, that I am opposed to proper control against abuses.
    In 1925 I was privileged to play a fairly active part on the Committee stage of the Public Health Act, that very sensible and useful Measure introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley), who, I am glad to see, is now on the Treasury Bench. In Section 72 of that Act there are admirable provisions applying to the rest of the country, but, unfortunately, not to the metropolis. For various technical reasons the Act as a whole, with one exception I think, does not apply to the metropolis. That Measures insures that food is prepared under conditions of cleanliness, and that Section provides every reasonable precaution one can want without such unnecessary control as is proposed in Clause 16 of this Bill. It will be a very bad thing if our liberties are gradually sapped, not by general Bills passed by this House but bit by bit by provisions hidden away in the Clauses of private Bills. When such a Clause is considered in detail it is discussed before only a very small body of Members upstairs, who hear a number of witnesses; but the fundamental legislative principle does not receive adequate consideration from the House. Whatever provisions appear in a Bill such as this should have general application, and it is of great importance to the liberty of the people that any such provisions should be challenged at the moment when they are introduced. At the present time it is not easy for anybody to make a living in trade, and, after all, we have been able to carry on without these provisions in the past. Even if there was a strong case for them it is very unfor-

    1361
    tunate that they should be proposed at a moment when industry is so harassed.
    I appeal earnestly to those who are the sponsors of the Bill to make some reasonably generous offer which will enable us to withdraw our opposition. I do not doubt that many of the other povisions of the Bill are valuable and necessary. None of those who are opposing this Bill desire to hinder the London County Council in their splendid and beneficent work, and do not want to imperil the other povisions of the Bill, but for the reason so admirably stated by my hon. Friend, and after the one or two arguments which I have adduced, I hope those responsible for the promotion of the Bill will give us some reasonable undertaking with respect to Clause 16 similar to that which they have given in the matter of Clause 17, so that our opposition may be withdrawn.
    Sir CYRIL COBB: It seems to me that I have to meet two points; first, the bylaws in Clause 17, and, second, the point contained in Clause 16. I would say straight away that I am quite willing to meet the point about the by-laws. It is quite clear that Section 72 of the Public Health Act, 1925, will meet our case, and I can quite well give an undertaking to base the by-laws which we shall draw up in due course on that section of the Act. When I say they will be on the basis of that Act I mean so far as that Act will carry us. The transport of meat will have to he dealt with by by-laws, but when that Act was passed that question of transport had not matured, and there was no such problem as now exists. Therefore, we shall have to devise a bylaw which will regulate meat transport, but I need hardly say that that can be easily settled in Committee upstairs. The London County Council have never failed to take the opportunity to consult all the persons concerned when by-laws are to be made, and it must also be remembered that the Minister of Health has to sanction those by-laws, as in the case of other local authorities. Therefore, I think the point made with regard to Clause 17 is thoroughly safeguarded. I am quite willing to give the undertaking for which I have been asked.
    Now we come to Clause 16, and on that I cannot meet the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) or the hon. Member for Kennington (Mr. G. Harvey). We must have registration,
    1362
    and must have the necessary powers to see that such registration is effective. Clause 16 deals with ice-cream and sausages. We have had some experience with ice-cream, but not so much experience with sausages. We have registered ice-cream makers since 1928, but we have not registered sausage makers. We have found that our powers in regard to ice-cream makers are not sufficient if we are really to exercise the power of registration. Every ice-cream maker in the county of London has to be registered, but that does not prevent him from making his ice-cream under uncleanly and insanitary conditions. We can do nothing against the ice-cream maker unless he refuses to be registered and yet makes ice-cream; in that case we can proceed against him. We can also proceed against him if he poisons somebody and information of it is brought to our notice through the medical officer of health. Otherwise, we cannot touch him. We cannot take him off the list of registered ice-cream makers, and cannot refuse to register him even though we know from the beginning that his premises are uncleanly and insanitary. Therefore it is necessary for us to have the power for which we are asking under this Bill.
    Next we come to the sausages. There is no registration of sausage-makers. So far as we are able to deal with them at all, we are obliged to fall back upon the ordinary regulations of the Ministry of Health regarding food and on the Public Health Act, London, 1891. Under that Act any medical officer of health or sanitary inspector may at all reasonable times enter any premises and inspect and examine any animal intended for the food of man which is exposed for sale or deposited in any place for the purpose of sale or preparation for sale; also any article, whether solid or liquid, intended for the food of man and sold or exposed for sale or deposited in any place for the purpose of sale or preparation for sale. There is a very wide power for inspectors to inspect all butchers' shops and all places where meat, either raw or cooked, is offered for sale. Those are the only powers we have at the moment. Therefore, we are in a worse position with regard to sausages than with regard to ice-cream, for we do not know in all cases where the premises are situated in which sausages are made. [Interruption.] And other kinds of preserved meats, et cetera

    1363
    —anything which is for the food of the people. What we want to do is not to protect the trader but the food of the people. It is a public health question. We do not always want to be prosecuting, but we want to prevent injury to the public health by the sale of food which is prepared in insanitary and uncleanly conditions. Therefore, we want to have the same powers in regard to sausages and preserved meats, et cetera as we are now asking for in connection with ice-cream. That is the whole case we have to make.
    8.0 p.m.
    The opposition with regard to the bylaws can be met, as I have said, but on Clause 16 I cannot give way. It can be adequately discussed in Committee, however, and alterations can be suggested there provided that the Clause still preserves to us the power which we want as sanitary authority—or, rather, the power which the borough councils want, because it must not be forgotten that this particular legislation is not for the London County Council but the borough councils of London and the City Corporation, and they have ail agreed that it is needed in order to round off our powers of preserving the health of the people. Another argument used against this Bill is that it is likely to harass traders and will involve the appointment of a large number of additional inspectors. That is not the ease. No extra inspectors will be needed to carry out the provisions of this Bill. The premises dealt with are already inspected for other purposes, and the parts of those premises where sausages and other preserved foods are manufactured will have to be registered. Not only will there be no need for the appointment of more inspectors, but there will be no further expense incurred by the inspectors who will take over the work under the Bill. The inspectors will inspect butchers' shops in the ordinary way under the Public Health Act, and they will find out whether there are places on the premises they inspect where sausages are made. In that case, the premises will have to be registered. If the inspector finds that a certain shop is not on the register, and that sausages and preserved foods are being made on those premises, this Bill provides the usual remedies.
    1364
    These powers are necessary to keep traders up to the mark. A great many municipal authorities have adopted bylaws of this kind, although, in many cases, it has not been found necessary to put them into operation. The obvious reason for that is that, if traders know that these powers exist, and can be put into practice they are more careful as to the way in which they carry on their businesses. I think I have now covered all the points which have been raised in the discussion. There are many matters dealt with which are not contentious. Some of the Clauses which are contentious can be dealt with in Committee upstairs, and I ask the House to adopt the Second Reading of this Bill, because it is a Measure which is absolutely necessary in order to carry on efficiently the work of the London County Council.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Member for West Fulham (Sir C. Cobb) tell the House what powers he is asking for under this Bill which are not already provided under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891?
    Sir C. COBB: Under the Act of 1891 it is not necessary to register places where sausages are made. We want a register of all the places where sausages are made in order that the inspectors may inspect those premises.
    Mr. G. HARVEY: The hon. Member for Fulham (Sir C. Cobb) seems very particular about having shops inspected where sausages are made, but he does not say anything about restaurants.
    Sir C. COBB: I have not heard of restaurants where sausages are manufactured for commerce.
    Captain ELLISTON: I ask for a hearing in speaking for the first time on the subject of this Bill. In my opinion, Clauses 16, 17 and 18 are of vital importance not only to the people of London but to other communities. I was very surprised when I heard the hon. Member for Kennington (Mr. G. Harvey) suggest that those Clauses were a further encroachment on the rights of the small trader. On the contrary, I believe that those Clauses have been brought forward in response to a public demand. The success of preventive medicine has educated people in the preservation of health, and they expect the public sanitary authorities to protect them by seeing

    1365
    that they receive wholesome food supplies. The public require a guarantee that the foods which they consume are manufactured and stored in suitable premises in order to be kept free from the danger of contamination.
    We have been told that the adoption of this Measure means more bureaucracy. No doubt hon. Members have heard of food being stored in stables and of ice-cream being made in crowded tenements and even stored under the bed. If what is proposed in this Bill is bureaucracy then we want more bureaucrats. Those who are supporting this Measure believe that it contains ample safeguards, and that its enforcement would involve a minimum interference with trade. Under Clause 16 the applicants for registration of their premises have a full opportunity of submitting their case to the local authority, and where there is an adverse decision they have an appeal to a, court of summary jurisdiction, and, if necessary, to Quarter Sessions. The by-laws which can be made under Clause 17 must be considered by the sanitary authorities and confirmed by the Minister of Health. Even then the firms and persons affected can make representations to the London County Council and to the Ministry of Health.
    I suggest that the opponents of this Bill ought to be satisfied by the fact that no powers are being asked for which have not already been tried in the provinces. It has become almost customary for Clauses of this kind, like musical comedies, to he produced first in the provinces. We get a more enlightened public opinion in our great provincial towns than we do in London, because there the people take a greater interest in municipal affairs. It is the fact that the powers provided for under Clauses 16 and 18 have already been conferred by Parliament in Preston, Leeds, Hull, Sheffield and other large towns, and the by-laws provided for in Clause 17 have been adopted by Croydon, Leeds, Oxford, Rotherham, Wakefield, and elsewhere. I am surprised that the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) is denying to the people of London the same priviliges as are now enjoyed by his own constituents. The hon. Member for Kennington has expressed anxiety for the small trader, but what about the rest of the 7,000,000
    1366
    people who reside in London? As long as food is manufactured in insanitary surroundings, has the hon. Member for Kennington no pity for those who have to face the danger of food poisoning? I hope the opponents of this Measure will allow it to be read a second time, and await the Committee stage for a fuller consideration of the objections which they have raised.
    Sir GEORGE GILLETT: As the representative of a London constituency, I support this Bill. I am amazed at the attitude which has been taken by those who are supporting the Amendment for its rejection. There are a number of Clauses in this Measure which concern different parts of London in which the borough councils are deeply interested, and, although they may not be of great importance to London as a whole, they are of great importance to the particular district concerned. It seems to me that, after the very clear explanation of the object of this Measure by the hon. Member for West Fulham, in reply to the objections raised by the two hon. Members who are opposing this Measure, they might agree to withdraw their opposition.
    There is another fact of which I would remind the House, and that is that these Clauses have been specially put into the Bill at the request of the London borough councils. I should say that, if any local bodies represent the small trader almost more than any other public bodies, they are the borough councils of London. I venture to assert that on every borough council you will find large numbers of small traders, but now we are asked to turn down these Clauses, which have been placed in the Bill at the request of the London borough councils. I am afraid that, great as the knowledge of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) may be of the needs of Croydon, he has sadly mistaken the needs of London in interfering in this matter.
    There is a third point, to which reference has just been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Blackburn (Captain Elliston). The Mover of the Amendment seemed to ignore entirely the needs of the consumers of food in London. I have great sympathy with the small men, some of whom, in Finsbury and the adjoining boroughs, are carrying on the

    1367
    business of ice-cream vendors and businesses of that kind; but, when those people are faced with the difficult housing conditions in which they are working, and in which some of them carry on their business, there is a distinct temptation to carry it on under conditions which could not possibly bear the investigation of inspectors of this kind. In choosing between the claims of the consumers and the claims of those who produce these goods, it seems to me that the claim of those who consume the goods must come first. On these grounds I very much hope that the House will not be led to endanger the Bill by accepting this Amendment.
    Mr. SUMMERSBY: Several hon. Members have said that the town clerks and other officials are unanimously in agreement with the proposals embodied in these two Clauses. I am associated a good deal with local authorities, and I must deny that statement. Only at midday to-day I was talking with the town clerk of a London borough. He referred to one disagreeable duty which he 'said was most unfair, but which, according to a by-law, he had to do, and he considered that, if this Bill goes through as it is, matters will be even worse in that direction. The London County Council say that Part III is not really the important part of the Bill, and that it is a shame to hold it up on that account; but what about the 150,000 people who are going to be harassed by this Bill? It is a very important matter to them, and it is on their behalf that I speak. It is like telling a man to put his big toe in a vice and screw it up, but it does not matter about the rest of his body.
    In my opinion, these proposals will go a long way, in view of the present trend of affairs, to make it impossible for the small man to live. I am not a manufacturer of sausages or ice-cream, either separately or together, but I know a little about the difficulties of business, and it must be remembered that these small traders who may be unable to comply with demands for putting in new machinery which may be considered ideal may have to go out of business. It must also be remembered, with all respect to the large distributors and multiple stores, that they do not take the part in public life which the individual trader does. He
    1368
    pays 10 per cent. of the rates; he subscribes to all the local charities; he is the man to whom almost everyone goes when they are in trouble. In my opinion, he is a very important member of the community, and one whom we should, if possible, protect from being more or less victimised by additional Acts of Parliament.
    The London County Council admit that they have at present considerable powers. By virtue of the powers contained in the Public Health Act, 1875, the Ministry of Health in 1924 prepared, and obtained Parliamentary sanction by statutory Order for, certain Regulations entitled the Public Health (Meat) Regulations, 1924. Those Regulations stated in detail the sanitary requirements which may be demanded with respect to shops and stalls and other places in which meat is sold or exposed for sale, or deposited for the purpose of sale, or for preparation foe sale, or with a view to future sale. As regards penalties, there is already power to inflict a fine not exceeding £100 for each offence, and, in the event of a continued offence, a penalty not exceeding £50 a day. It might be thought that those powers were quite strong enough, but it, seems to me that, if they are not adequate, we have no assurance that these further powers will be deemed to be adequate, and the time may come when they will have the power to compel the butcher to make himself into sausages.
    I know it is considered by some to be a greater honour to be a member of the London County Council than it is to be a Member of this House, but, nevertheless, this House should retain the final voice in these matters. Those who have read the Bill will be aware that the London County Council wishes to make its own by-laws, which is a step in the direction of taking away authority from this House. You were not in the Chamber, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, when the list of inspectors whom these people will have to put up with was read out, so I will read it out again. There is, in addition, another inspector, who was overlooked by the hon. Member who read the list. The list is as follows:

    "(a) the meat inspector,

    (b) the sanitary inspector,

    (c) the medical officer of health,

    (d) the shops inspector,

    (e) the inspector of weights and measures.

    1369

    (f) the factory inspector,

    (g) the inspector of the Ministry of Labour,

    (h) the inspector of the Ministry of Health,

    (i) the inspector of food and drugs."

    and the inspector who was forgotten is the police inspector who comes to tell the unfortunate wife that her husband has committed suicide.
    Seriously, as a business man I speak with a certain amount of knowledge of industry, not only on the distributive side but also on the creative side, and I take second place to no one in my concern for this country in its race with other countries. Many of our troubles in this connection al e caused by our own actions, owing to the fact that the first thing that so many legislators and members of town councils want to do is to make new laws and restrictions making it more difficult for their fellow men to get a living. To-day, if a man wants to take a factory or a shop, by the time he has got over all the difficulties and has understood all the laws, if he is a man of strong health he can stand it, but if he is not a man of strong health his health fails, and he says it is not worth while and he will give it up. It is no use our grumbling and saying that our industrialists, manufacturers, distributors and others are not enterprising. They are as enterprising as those of any other country in the world. But when we continue to shackle them with all kinds of restrictions and by-laws, instead of helping them, it is indeed a wonder that they are as enterprising as they are.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I want to join with other London Members in saying that these Clauses are wanted quite unanimously by all the representatives of London. I believe there is not a representative body in London which is not in favour of these regulations. I live quite close to premises which are used for this sort of purpose. Before there were any regulations, our Medical Officer of Health was continually telling us of things that happened with which he had no power to interfere whatever. I am sure there is not a single Member here who wants putrid food sold to the public. It is only through the action that has been taken by the county council that we have been saved up to the present. We are only being asked to allow an extension to two industries which at present get through
    1370
    the net, as the result of which some very bad cases of poisoning have happened. It it very easy for us to go to a refreshment room and pay 6d. for an ice and know that it is approximately correct.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the ice cream business is already covered. The existing regulations are repealed and fresh ones are being brought into force.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I rely on the statement of the hon. Gentleman who spoke for the county council. The hon. Member for Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) does not know everything. I would give way to him on Tariff Reform any day, because he knows that from A to Z. The trouble is that, when anyone knows one subject thoroughly, he gets it into his head that he knows every other subject. The hon. Member does not know this, and he does not know London as well as some of the rest of us do. Those of us who have bad experience in this sort of industry are very glad that the county council has brought these proposals forward. We do not want to harry anyone, nor to worry anyone, but at the same time we do not want anyone to give us dead dogs or cats as potted meat or sausage and we do not want dead horses cut up. If these places are registered, we shall have a better chance of knowing what a sausage is than we do at present. I am very glad to find myself able to support the hon. Member for Fulham (Sir C. Cobb).
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. CAMPBELL-JOHNSTON: In claiming the indulgence of the House as one making his first speech, it gives me considerable satisfaction to speak in support of this Bill, having had the honour of being a member of the London County Council for some 10 years. In spite of what has been said about our aspirations, and the parallel that has been drawn between the House and the County Council, my experience has taught me that the relations between the two ends of Westminster Bridge are of the most harmonious description. I am not going to enlarge on points which have been already stressed but I should like to draw attention to Clause 16. I think this has rather been neglected. All the speeches that have been made in opposition to the Bill have stressed the hardship of these Clauses, and I wish to call attention to the safeguards that are laid down in Clause 16. In the first place, if a man

    1371
    applies for a certificate to sell ice cream, sausages, preserved meat or fish and is refused, or if his certificate is taken away from him, he has a right to appeal from the decision of the London County Council. He can first of all go to a court of summary jurisdiction and, if he is not satisfied with the decision, he can go to quarter sessions. One must acknowledge that that is a tremendous safeguard for the rights of the subject. The hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Summersby) made the point that we were trying to draw into our net 150,000 new people who were going to be treated under the Bill. He is wrong, because the 150,000 people that he spoke about are already inspected. What we are asked to do is to have additional powers granted to us beyond the right of inspection that we already have. I thank the House for having listened to me and I hope the Bill will get its Second Reading.
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): In the first place, let me congratulate the hon. Member on his most auspicious entry into our Debates and express the hope of the House that he will extend his range from the narrow scope of a private Bill to wider topics. I do not intervene to take any side in this discussion, but simply in order to offer such assistance as is in my power to enable the House to arrive at a decision and to state one or two matters in the experience of the Ministry of Health which may assist the House in arriving at that decision. I notice in the first place, having very carefully listened to the course of the Debate, that the issue has been narrowed down by the statement of the hon. Gentleman who spoke on behalf of the London County Council to the single Clause relating to ice-cream and sausages. The powers sought for by the County Council under this Bill are certainly not without precedent, even on this Clause which raises so much contention. Many previous cases are known in which the powers have been granted. Secondly, there is no record that I could offer to the House for its assistance of these powers having caused any difficulty or friction or dissension or complaint of injustice in the past, and powers that have been found useful and have given rise to no complaint in pro-
    1372
    vincial cases may well be useful and necessary in the Metropolitan area. That consideration seems to me to suggest itself. Perhaps this may be one of those cases in which it has been rather useful to try out these powers on the smaller areas, and then, since I can tell the House that they have not been found to give rise to any difficulties, it may not be unreasonable to extend them to the bigger areas as well.
    I would like to confine my observations upon this subject to the fact that it has seemed to me strongly in the course of the Debate that here is a very definite matter in which it is necessary to adjust two substantial interests. The first interest, which is the most substantial interest of all, is the matter of public health, with which, naturally, I am concerned. I could not help but be impressed by what was said by several speakers in the Debate upon the big interests of public health which are certainly involved in the powers now sought by the London County Council. On the other hand, I have been impressed by the fact that there are here the interests of, what I would call, very legitimate trading the adequate protection of which the House will be concerned to safeguard. One comes to the conclusion that the adjustment of those two interests is a matter which needs very careful thrashing out, and the sort of thrashing out which ought to be given by a Committee rather than by our Debates on the Floor of the House. I do not know whether I shall carry the House with me in this, but I would observe that I have come rather to the conclusion in this Debate that we should be well advised on this occasion not to reject the Bill as a result of the general discussion we have given to it to-night, but to consider the general discussion as giving notice of the important interests involved, and to leave it to a committee to adjust those interests in order to protect the big public interests to which I have called attention. I think that the Bill contains many things in the interests of the good government of London, and it would be a little out of proportion to reject the whole Bill when you can adjust those matters in Committee.
    Mr. CASSELS: I regret very much, as a, Member of a London constituency, that I shall have to go into the Lobby to vote

    1373
    against the Bill being read a Second time. One of the troubles of the General Powers Bills which the London County Council put forward in this House is that they deal with a variety of subjects, and then, if objection is raised to any of them, we are unmistakably told that we are endangering the Bill. That is exactly what we want to do. We want to endanger the Bill and bring the fact very forcibly to the notice of the promoters that in Committee they will have to give very careful consideration to the points which have been raised in the course of the Second Reading Debate, and not merely answer one or two objections which may have been raised in the Debate.
    There are one or two points, perhaps, which have not been referred to, and to which I would like to draw attention. There is in Clause 16 an arrangement whereby registration is required of places where they manufacture ice-cream and sausages, and I wish to draw the attention of the House to a very serious part of that Clause. Not only is registration required, but
    "If a sanitary authority are satisfied that any premises registered or sought to be registered with them pursuant to this section are unsuitable for the purpose for which they are registered or sought to be registered, they may serve upon—

    (a) the person on whose application the premises were registered or the occupier of the premises; or

    (b) the person applying for such registration

    (as the case may be) a notice to appear before them not less than seven days after the date of the notice to show cause why the sanitary authority should not, for reasons to be specified in the notice, remove the premises from the register or refuse to register the premises (as the case may be), and if he fails to show cause to their satisfaction accordingly they may remove the premises from the register or refuse to register the premises (as the case may be)."
    That indicates that a new legal tribunal will be set up in the form of a sanitary authority with no experience of legal procedure, and that it will have in its hands the destiny of a trader, small or large. It means that probably a trader may be summoned to appear before his competitors in business who may be members of the sanitary authority. They are not going to observe even the ordinary elementary legal principles of other tribunals. They are going to shift the onus on to the miserable creature
    1374
    who is brought before them, and, unless he proves to their satisfaction that his premises are suitable, they are going to put him off the register, or decline to register him. It may well be that unless he can find the money in order to go forward on appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction, and from there to the Court of Quarter Sessions, the man may be put out of business merely upon the decision of the sanitary authority. It is altogether wrong in principle. It is idle for the London County Council to say that they are already doing it in regard to other matters. I am not sure that they are doing it satisfactorily. They deal already with other interests in that way. Are they desirous of getting into their hands and under their control the whole of the industry of London? It is not right, and it is time that a halt was called.
    It is said that you will be able to stop the manufacture of poisonous sausages and prevent ice-cream from bringing anybody's existence to an untimely end, if only you get the Bill passed. There is ample provision in the law of the land to deal with unwholesome food. You can prosecute an individual who puts upon the market food which is unfit for human consumption. Why does the London County Council in the interests of public health desire to have such a full and complete inspection of everybody's premises? Reference has been made to the number of inspections already possible under the various authorities. It may well occur in the course of a morning that a man may pull down the shutters of his shop and very soon have an enormous number of customers on his premises. They may all be inspectors under something or other, and a poor, unfortunate customer, standing at the back of them, who wants to buy a pound of sausages will be unable to do so. There is a further serious consequence of this over-inspection. It may well follow that you may find that inspectors are not inspecting for the purpose of seeing whether the premises are sanitary. Inspectors, like a lot of other officials, aye, and public bodies, have bees in their bonnets, and, having bees in their bonnets, under the cloak of public health, under the control of the sanitary authority, who may well be prepared to, eat out of their hands, they are ready perhaps to say that these premises are unsuitable for registration, or that they

    1375
    ought to be removed from the register, because they do not happen to possess, shall we say, some type of machinery which the public authority think very suitable for the manufacture of that particular form of food.
    The trades concerned in this matter are alarmed at the increase of the powers which are sought by the London County Council. The meat trades object to it, the grocery trades are not in favour of it, the theatres and music halls where ice-cream is sold are protesting against it. Why is it, if the council are so full of a desire for power, that they are doing nothing in regard to restaurants where food is prepared for consumption? Let the London County Council invite some of its inspectors to go there; but no, they pick out the meat trades, the ice-cream factories, and the theatres, and then they say that their inspectors or the sanitary authority inspectors shall be permitted to have a roving commission to go on to these premises just to see whether they are conducting their trade in a proper manner. Something has been said on behalf of the small trader. There is a great deal to be said for the big trader. He does not want the whole of his premises continually roamed over by inspectors under various labels. He has enough of it already, and I suggest that we should indicate to the London County Council by our vote to-night that this particular part of the Bill is not required, is not desirable, is objected to by very strong interests. We ought to have the interest of the public health at heart, but we are prepared to object to this and to say that the existing law is quite sufficient, even for the Landon County Council.
    Dr. O'DONOVAN: There is an interest which has not been referred to to-night. We have heard the interests of the sausage and its makers, we have heard the interests of the shop and the shopkeeper, but we have had no reference to those poor individuals who have the whole of Clause 18 devoted to them. I have no objection, as a London Member, to any attempt made by which the food of any sort consumed by the poor shall be brought up to the standard that our own wives demand in the kitchens of our own houses, and I would be the first to say that the public
    1376
    health work done by the borough councils, their town clerks, and their medical officers of health in London is an example to the world; but in every oitment, however healing, a fly can find its place, and it is as well that someone should try to indicate to the House a rather objectionable fly in this very healing ointment presented as a Bill.
    We are instructed that "every medical practitioner" shall, if he suspects, do certain things. It is extraordinary that the Bill does not say "every registered medical practitioner," and we shall perhaps find herbalists, bone-setters, and faith healers, on the strength of this wording, saying that they claim the status of a medical practitioner. Then I have thoughts to which I desire to give utterance, and I have thoughts which I suppress, but in this Bill every medical practitioner, and no one else, not even a maker of sausages or the landlord of insanitary premises, shall sign his suspicion if he suspects or becomes aware of food poisoning. I am accustomed to notifying smallpox if I believe it to be present, but that I should be compelled to notify the suspicion of disease that crosses my mind is rather too much.
    If I suspect food poisoning, in that hard-hearted language of the terms of the law, I must notify it by certificate forthwith. If that notification were for the good of the public health, I would notify, not on paper, but by telephone, and for public health measures such notifications are in fact accepted and acted upon by my brethren on the preventive side of medicine. But I gather from what has been said by the most distinguished representative of the London County Council that he is out to punish those who poison Londoners, and the suspicion of a doctor, put upon paper, may be the first instrument by which the wheels of punishment are put in action. We are to be the first cause, under a penalty of 40 stripes save one, to initiate punitive measures, and that is made the plainer since there is thrown upon the shoulders of the Minister of Health the responsibility of setting out the certificate by which such notification shall be made.
    That is to say, no note signed by a qualified practitioner shall be sufficient,

    1377
    but there shall be a detailed certificate so that those suspicions can be weighed up, and I would ask you, Sir, to put yourself in the position of a simple, honest practitioner of medicine who commits these suspicions to paper, and someone dies. These matters are matters of great doubt and controversy quite often, and yet in its zeal, and proper zeal, for guardianship of the public health, the proper authority may decide to have an investigation; and what is the position then of a doctor who has committed his suspicions to paper when he is being cross-examined in the box by the most skilful counsel that the food trade association can put up to humble his suspicions to the dust? It is a very difficult position for the humble, suspicious doctor.
    Furthermore, there is perpetuated in this Bill an extraordinary wrong—first of all, the wrong that a doctor can be assessed at two separate values. I am worth under this Bill 2s. 6d. if I am a practitioner free and untrammelled, but if I take service under an authority and become a medical officer, or if I work for nothing in a dispensary or hospital, my suspicion or opinion is worth, not 2s. 6d., but 1s. It would be better if that inheritance from the past were not reborn in this Bill. I notice secondly that although the practitioner must notify forthwith, nevertheless there is no arrangement for payment forthwith, and it is the practice of many local bodies to accumulate these small debts, these half-crowns or shillings that are very acceptable to very young doctors starting in practice, and then to send a cheque six or nine months afterwards, when the doctor has left the hospital to which he was attached, and the cheque for the suspicion, or belief, or notification becomes a derelict. An act which is compulsorily done forthwith should be paid for forthwith, but with the customary kindness to administration, those officials who receive these certificates are given 12 hours before they forward them to the Council. If you can be kind with the right hand, you can also be kind with the left.
    It is not uncommon in difficult cases for doctors to be called in consultation, and hitherto, in cases of notification, there is no compulsion upon a consultant to notify. He gives his opinion to the doctor in attendance, and that is his
    1378
    liability, but this Bill says "every medical practitioner attending," and in drawing all the doctors in, it misses the most useful source of information by its very precision of words, for often food poisoning is not known until death, and the practitioner, or rather the doctor who diagnoses food poisoning at its deadliest and most dangerous point, is not the medical practitioner in attendance, but a pathologist, and a pathologist who might let us know at the very beginnings of a fatal epidemic is by words excluded from this Bill. I have every sympathy with the purpose of the Bill, but in this particular Clause I would ask the House to remember that you are throwing upon my profession, without intention, a certain criminal responsibility. You are making us the initiators of criminal prosecutions on suspicion, for a fee of 1s., and there is no defence in the Bill for an honest mistake made by a man who may not be a shining light in the healing art.
    Mr. TINKER: I occupy a somewhat unique position in this Debate as I am the first Member outside the London area to take part in the discussion. May I, therefore, assume the part of a referee and decide which way the vote shall go. The Amendment for the rejection of the Bill contains six names from the other side of the House, whilst the promoters of the Bill consist of five Conservatives and one Liberal. A Labour Member may, therefore, be said to have an open mind on the question. I certainly have, for before to-night I had not the slightest knowledge of the contents of the Measure, but as I listened to the discussion I began to take some notice. Clause 16 gives certain powers for protecting that section of the community which eats ice-cream or sausages. I think they have a right to expect that the best conditions should prevail in the manufacture of these articles, and the House of Commons, I believe, will do its best to protect them. Ice-cream I know is often made under very bad and sordid conditions; the poor people who buy it do not know exactly what they are getting. In the case of the second article one never knows how it is made, and one has always grave doubts as to what he is eating. Probably hon. Members who are asking for the deletion of this Clause have never been in the position of having to eat the article in question.

    1379
    They are able to buy a much better article, at a much better price. But many poor people cannot afford to do that, and they should be protected just as the rich people are protected.
    I am going to give my support and vote to the promoters of the Bill. The hon. Member who moved it made a clear statement as to why it was introduced, and I understand that it has the unanimous support of the majority of the London County Council, which must have examined the question in all its bearings and understands the needs of the people. The hon. Member who moved the rejection said that a shopkeeper might be putting up his shutters and find that he had got an inspector inside. It is ridiculous to ask the House of Commons to believe that there will be a whole host of inspectors necessary. We have been told that not one extra inspector will be needed, nor will there be any additional expense. All the London County Council desire is to see that the food of the people is not contaminated. I hope that hon. Members outside the London County Council will give wholehearted support to the Bill because it gives a good lead to the whole of the country.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. DENVILLE: I oppose the Bill but from a somewhat different angle. I do not oppose the Bill because I am against the food of the people being kept clean. That is altogether wrong. I oppose the Bill because of the methods adopted. Clause 16 has been avoided during the Debate. The hon. Member who introduced the Measure referred to the places where ices were manufactured, but if you read the Bill it is the places where ice-cream is sold, a total different thing altogether, that have to be registered and licensed. It means that in the houses of entertainment in this country we shall not he allowed to sell ice-cream in the stalls during the interval unless we are registered and licensed. Hotels, clubs, and restaurants are exempt, but places of entertainment are not. The ice-cream that is sent across to the theatres and music halls from these restaurants in containers can be made without a licence but the theatres and music halls where it is sold have to have a licence. The restrictions which the London County Council put on the
    1380
    entertainment industry are more than any average business would put up with, and it is absolutely ridiculous to ask the industry to go cap in hand to the London County Council asking for a licence to sell ice-cream in the stalls in containers to members of the audience.
    I have another objection to the Bill which I think will appeal to hon. Members of the Labour party. Clause 19 places in the hands of the London County Council the power to prevent anything in the shape of food being given as prizes at bazaars or sports without a licence. If you have your little tea fight you cannot give a cake as a prize unless you are registered. These two Clauses want amending, and I hope the promoters of the Bill, in common fairness, will alter Clause 16 so as to exempt theatres and places of entertainment and also alter Clause 19 so that it shall not interfere with any ordinary entertainment. Hon. Members who have had such an experience of D.O.R.A. will, I hope, reject any attempt to introduce any more of that lady's old tricks on to the community at large, and if only for the sake of showing some respect for the liberty of the subject and resentment at all these restrictions I shall have pleasure in supporting the rejection of the Bill.
    Mr. JAMES DUNCAN: In rising to address the House for the first time, I intervene at this moment because I have been a member of the London County Council and was on the Public Health Committee at one time. In 1926 the suggestion was made by that committee that ice-cream vendors should be registered. I opposed the proposal, and it was dropped because there was not sufficient evidence that a case could be made out. My contention was that unless there was a definite case of food poisoning by ice-cream, legislation should not be promoted. Unfortunately during the next year, when there was a hot summer, there were some cases of food poisoning which were attributed to ice-cream. The Public Health Committee of the county council again considered the matter, and in those circumstances I could not resist any longer. In the General Powers Act of 1928 Clauses dealing with ice-cream were included. But those Clauses have not been effective, and in the present Bill, Clause 16, Sub-

    1381
    section (1) (a), paragraph (i), has been inserted to deal with the matter.
    As regards "sausages or potted, pressed, pickled, or preserved meat, fish or other food," of course there is not, as much experience. Nor have I known of definite cases of food poisoning from any of these articles. None the less I think there is a case to go to a Committee upstairs, for I am sure that the London County Council would not bring this proposal forward unless they had some definite case to put before the Committee. The evidence which I have is from the Medical Officer of Health of Kensington. It is certainly not definite, but definite evidence can be presented later. What the medical officer says is an indication of what will be stated. He says:
    "As regards sausages and preserved food, few articles of food are so likely to be contaminated and to spread serious food poisoning as sausages, cooked foods, etc. In the case of sausages the skin masks decomposition. The other foods mentioned, unlike butchers' meat, are generally eaten without being washed or cooked after they leave the shops."
    He adds that a large number of provincial towns already have these powers and that they have worked very smoothly for a long time. These proposals have been opposed by several hon. Members, and representations have been made to me and probably to others by the Grocers' Federation and the meat trade, but only by the central bodies of those associations. Not a single member of those trades in my constituency has raised any point with regard to this Bill. The only representations that have been made to me on behalf of Kensington have been made by the Medical Officer of Health in favour of the Bill. In those circumstances I am supporting the Second Reading, and I hope that the Bill will go to a Committee where the details may be considered.
    Mr. ATKINSON: I do not agree that we should pass this Bill because a body like the London County Council asks for it. It seems to me that it is rather our duty to stand between the county council and the public, and to be sure that we do not grant the council powers which may be inquisitorial or oppressive. If the Bill did what it professes to do, there might not be so much objection to it. The marginal note of Clause 16 is
    1382
    thoroughly misleading. It is "Registration of premises for sale, etc., of ice cream and preserved food." One might dismiss it and say that preserved food is a thing with which special care ought to be taken. But you read the Clause, and you may think that you understand it until you come to Sub-section (7), where you are told:
    "The word 'preserved' in Sub-section (1) of this Section includes preparation by any process of cooking,"
    in the case of meat or fish. Therefore we realise that the Clause means that if anyone sells any cooked food or meat or fish, except in a registered place, he is guilty of a criminal offence. I do not know whether an egg is meat. Some people think it is. If it is, and anyone sells a boiled egg except in registered premises, he is guilty of a criminal offence. Then take such harmless things as shrimps. I suppose every confectioner in London sells potted shrimps, and shrimps come within this Clause, as they are potted fish. Therefore anyone who is going to prepare and sell potted shrimps at once walks within this Clause and can, be punished for an offence if he does that without having first been registered. It seems to me that that sort of power is oppressive, and not reasonable. To try to get a Clause of that sort through under this description of preserved food is thoroughly misleading. It is not preserved food at all. It includes potted food and cooked food of any kind, and anyone who makes a single sale of any one of these things, except in registered premises, is guilty of a criminal offence. There is a further objection to Sub-section (3) of this Clause, about the sanitary authority being the first judicial authority to deal with these matters. The sub-section says:
    "If a sanitary authority are satisfied that any premises registered or sought to be registered … are unsuitable."
    In other words the body which is already satisfied that the premises are unsuitable is to be the adjudicator. They are the people to serve a notice on the applicant to appear before them and then they are to decide whether the premises are suitable or not. What chance would there is of a fair hearing? It is an amazing proposition that the accuser who is, ex hypothesi, already satisfied that you are doing wrong, has to decide

    1383
    whether you have done wrong or not. If yon want to get things put right you have to go to the expense of an appeal to a court of justice. One sees all sorts of possibilities of very harsh treatment of people who may be brought within the Clause. From personal experience one knows how these powers given to local authorities can be abused to an extreme. A great number of inspectors are employed, and their duty is to go round, and the more cases they bring to light the better pleased their employers are. I remember a business with which I was concerned being ruined by all sorts of unreasonable provisions being imposed. A building was wanted for some manufacturing process. Something of the slightest kind would have been sufficient, but we were made to put up a building with thick walls, reinforced with concrete. The builder said, "If you took it up to Heaven and dropped it, it would come down solid." The money which had been collected for carrying on the business was nearly all spent on the erection of that building, with the result that very soon the business came to an end. Inspectors were there, day in and day out, and having had some experience of the way in which these powers are enforced, I shall vote against this Bill because I think that Clause 16 of it is thoroughly unreasonable.
    Mr. LECKIE: I had no intention of intervening in this Debate had it not been for certain references made by an hon. Member below the Gangway with regard to the sale of ice-cream. As a member of the borough council in my constituency I happen to know something about this matter and I have been very surprised to find that the London County Council have not already some of the powers which are sought in the Bill and which seemed to be so much objected to by certain hon. Members. Only recently in Walsall we have adopted new by-laws with regard to ice-cream selling and registration on lines practically identical with those indicated in the Bill. Those by-laws have been sanctioned by the Ministry of Health and are now in operation. It seems to me that the London County Council are behind the times in not already having such powers to deal with this very important question, because it is, to my mind, vitally important that a building in which ice-
    1384
    cream is sold should not only be registered but should be sanitary. I think that much of the opposition to the Bill is more or less factious; it seems to me to arise from jealousy of the London County Council. All the points which have been raised are committee points and I feel that the House ought to give the Bill a Second Reading and allow the details to be thrashed out upstairs in Committee.
    Mr. McENTEE: Like at least one other hon. Member who has spoken in this Debate, I came into the House to-night with an unprejudiced mind on this question. I represent a constituency which is outside the London County Council area, and I, personally, hold no brief for the London County Council. I had the pleasure of working for that body on their permanent staff for 18 or 19 years, and the treatment which they gave me when I was about to leave their service was, if anything, such as might prejudice me against them. I listened with some attention to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for North-West Camberwell (Mr. Cassells) and that of my fellow-countryman, the hon. Member for Mile End (Dr. O'Donovan). I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Member for Mile End because he is my fellow-countryman, and because he belongs to the profession to which my father belonged. The hon. and learned Member for North-West Camberwell represents a profession from which I have suffered a good deal, and I might be expected to have a natural Prejudice against him on that account, but, having read the literature which has been distributed both for and against the Bill by interested parties, I have tried to make up my mind upon it without prejudice on either side.
    I have, as I hope every other Member has, the desire to preserve the ordinary member of the public from food poisoning and from the ill-effects of adulterated food. As a member of a borough council I know the limitations of the powers which such bodies possess and the difficulties under which sanitary authorities labour. I sympathise, therefore, with the London County Council in their desire to get these powers. The sanitary officers in my own district have given me ample evidence of the need for such powers. I have heard of a case of meat being stored

    1385
    under a bed in a one-room tenement occupied by a large family, and I have heard of ice-cream being stored under similar conditions, both in the constituency which I represent and in which I have lived for a number of years, and also in the constituency which was formerly represented by the hon. and learned Member for North-West Camberwell. I feel that every public body ought to have the power to discharge effectively the duty imposed upon them in regard to these matters, and that duty cannot be effectively discharged without powers such as are sought by the London County Council in this Bill. It should be remembered also that the Metropolitan boroughs are unanimously behind the London County Council in their desire for the Bill. Such unanimity as there is in favour of the Bill is indeed very rarely obtained.
    I am interested in the case of the ordinary person who buys food and has no opportunity of examining the conditions under which it is prepared. The hon. Member for Central Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Denville) spoke of the inconvenience to proprietors of cinemas, music halls and other places of entertainment, but that inconvenience is altogether outweighed by the consideration of the positive dangers to the public which at present exist, and which would be to a large extent abolished by the passing of the Bill. If I may say so, the Bill itself is somewhat loosely and even badly drafted. Defects have been pointed out in it which I think would be admitted even by those who are in favour of it, but I have not heard one argument to show that there are defects in the Bill which could not be set right in the Committee. The hon. Member who moved the Second Reading of the Bill said that the London County Council would be prepared to consider favourably any reasonable suggestions for the improvement of the Bill. In view of that promise; in view of the fact that there are so many useful Clauses in the Bill, quite apart from those mentioned to-night and in view of the necessity for protecting the lives of children and adults, I hope that hon. Members may see their way to withdraw their opposition to the Bill and trust to the Committee to remove anything which may be considered objectionable in the Bill and to improve those parts of it
    1386
    which may be found to require improvement.
    Sir GEORGE HUME: I think we all listened with great interest to the brilliant forensic effort of the hon. and learned Member for North-West Camberwell (Mr. Cassels). The unfortunate thing about it was that, apparently, he was badly instructed. All the time he made the point that a bigoted and overpowering authority was going to handle this matter but, as has been explained, the London County Council is not asking these powers for itself. The London County Council is acting on behalf of all the sanitary authorities of the London area and the City as well. These powers will be exercised by the sanitary authorities. You have here a unanimous demand as far as London is concerned. One of the Members on the other side tried to make out that this was a question of principle. The London County Council is merely asking on this occasion that we should extend to London facilities which have been given by this House to various other authorities throughout the Provinces. They are enjoying them now, and no inconvenience has arisen from the use of those powers.
    I am surprised that there should be such an opposition raised here at the present moment. I think that the battleground is rather badly chosen. I am one of those who sympathise greatly with people who object to fussy over-inspection, but here we are dealing with a matter which is of vital importance to the health of the people. It is vitally important that the food of the people should be prepared in sanitary surroundings. Nothing has been said here to-night about the trader himself. You may have two traders side by side, one exercising no precautions and taking no care, and another taking every precaution and trying to produce the food under completely sanitary conditions. The dice is loaded against the man who takes the precautions as compared with the other man. I am surprised that there are so many Members who are prepared to fight hard and run the risk of upsetting a Bill of this kind, carrying so many passengers on board, and to throw it over for the sake of somebody who is preparing food under dirty conditions.
    There were other points made, but I think the London County Council is per-

    1387
    fectly willing in Committee to listen to reason. We have already met the opponents of Clause 17 very fairly. There may be differences about the machinery suggested in Clause 16, but I should have thought it was to the interest of the alleged delinquent that before he was proceeded against he should have an opportunity of coming and talking with members of the borough council. A tremendous case has been made by my legal friends about the terrors of the poor individual being dragged up before them but I should have thought it much better that he should have an opportunity of putting his case before he was brought before an outside court. I think it has been very much exaggerated, and, in view of the general situation and the subject matter with which we are dealing, and the willingness of the County Council to listen to any Amendments which may be desired in committee, I ask the House to let the matter go before the committee, where it can be thoroughly thrashed out, seeing that there is no new principle, that these powers are given to other authorities and that nobody has attempted to show why if those other authorities enjoy them, the London area should not do so also.
    9.30 p.m.
    Captain FRASER: The hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume), the Minister of Health and other speakers have made much of the point that these powers are enjoyed by a number of authorities throughout the country. They stress that, and make it one of their principal arguments. As a fact, the powers are enjoyed by a number of authorities, but they have been put into force by only three, so that we have not had a wide experience to show whether the powers are desirable. The Minister of Health suggested that the mere fact that we had not heard that they had caused trouble or inconvenience showed they were the right powers to be applied in this enormous area of London, but in only three places have they been tried, and only for a short time, so that there has not been any opportunity to see whether they are causing trouble or not. The Minister of Health said that the Bill ought to go to a Committee, because the two parties with regard to whom there was an argument might there thrash it out. He said that those two parties were the
    1388
    various traders concerned, who disliked the restrictions to be imposed, and the authorities. I think he has ignored one party to the dispute who is of even greater importance than the other two. The right hon. Gentleman is in very truth Minister of Health, but he has also his national responsibilities, which are even wider than the immediate purview of the Ministry of Health, and the health of the nation in its general sense can sometimes be of more importance than the health of the nation in its medical sense.
    Nothing has been said about the taxpayer or the ratepayer. According to the Minister of Health, the only parties are apparently those concerned with health and the traders. For my part, I put my name to the Amendment for the rejection of this Bill because of the four Clauses, 16 to 19 inclusive, and I oppose it on a question of principle and not on Committee points. I may mention some of the smaller details of the Clauses to illustrate how badly they are drawn and how objectionable the principle is when worked out. It is the principle I object to, not Committee points, and the principle is that at this time we ought in this House to think very seriously before we add to the burdens which traders or consumers have to bear. Unquestionably, these four Clauses will add to the burdens of those who prepare our food, and will therefore add to the cost of food. Let that not be forgotten. It will add also to our rates and taxes, and thereby make life more burdensome to the taxpayer and the ratepayer.
    It is argued that this Measure has been brought into effect in other areas, and that therefore it should be applied to London, but may I point out that when these Clauses were brought forward in Committee upstairs and applied to other areas, there was not the financial stringency that there is now? There was then expectation of better times, and the hope that we might be able to support greater and greater progress in the direction of so-called preventive medicine. There was a, case for trying out these devices whereby food might be made better, but now I ask the House to consider very seriously whether, by this Measure, which has not been proved a success, and for which it has not been proved there is even a. need, we should cause further

    1389
    public expenditure by the Ministry of Health, the London County Council or the local authorities? I think that the time does come when these additions to expenditure do more harm than good, for they are cumulative in their effect. The hon. Member for West Fulham (Sir C. Cobb), who spoke for the promoters, said there would not necessarily be new inspectors, and that the inspectors would take it in their stride. I can only say that they must have been striding lethargically in the past if they have time to take this in their stride. My own experience is that whenever you place new powers in the hands of authorities, the time very soon comes when you require a new staff to exercise them. I cannot help thinking that this Bill will involve a substantial increase in expenditure.
    Let me say one word about the Clauses to show why that is so. The first Clause suggests the setting up of 28 new registers. The old registers will be taken over and, of course, some of these traders are already registered and will be taken over in the new registers. The 28 new registers will have to be made by the clerks in the borough council, certain of the existing traders who are registered will have to be revisited for the purpose of the new register and additional traders at places where food is prepared or sold will have to be visited by the inspectors. Additional inspection will have to be made before the register is completed. That must mean additional inspectors and additional cost. By Clause 17 the county council may make regulations. They will consult every interest. More officials of the County Hall will consult people, taking up their own time and the time of the people consulted. That will mean cost. I will leave Clause 18 and pass to Clause 19, which says that foodstuffs offered for prizes shall be deemed to be foodstuffs offered for sale, the object being to give the authorities power to deal with those foodstuffs in ease they should be capable of producing food poisoning. Further interference, further inspection, further expense. All that means more expenditure of money.
    May I now draw attention to Clause 18? That Clause is worth a little attention. It provides that every medical practitioner shall inform forthwith the medical officer of his sanitary authority if he suspects or becomes
    1390
    aware of a case of food poisoning. What is food poisoning? We want to be sure that what we are doing is workable. The mere fact that it has been tried in three districts in this country and that no complaint has been made does not show that it is workable. There are various forms of food poisoning. There is botulism, a very rare form and one that is hardly contemplated by the promoters of this Bill. It has only occurred in this country once, I think, in the last decade. No inspector could find it, because it takes 18 months to grow in a sealed container and you have to find out why that sealed container was not cooked enough 18 months before in order to trace its origin. That is one of the most violent poisons that can be found in food.
    Then there are those forms of poisoning which are due to poisonous substances being added to food, either for the purpose of preserving the food, and which in excess become poisons, or which are due to accident. Many cases of so-called food poisoning arise from these causes, but they are all very slight. The inspectors, if they find them, or the medical men if they report upon them would be going on an entirely blank trail if they were to make any inquiries about them. Then there is the commonest form of food poisoning, at which, doubtless, this Measure is directed, which is produced by the Gartner bacillus. That particular bacillus exists in clean as well as in dirty surroundings. The mere removal of dirty surroundings will not remove the possibility or the probability of that bacillus being present. It is present in certain kinds of meat and rodents. It is also present in human beings. It poisons immediately because the bacillus has put poison into the tissue of the meat, and subsequently the poison enters into the human being who has absorbed it. No inspector can find that out by a mere insistence upon cleanliness. Moreover, there are persons who are carriers of this particular bacillus. They become immune, but they can transmit the bacillus to any food they touch. If food is kept in a filthy room it is liable to be contaminated, and it is equally liable to become contaminated in a perfectly clean kitchen if

    1391
    the cook is a carrier of the Gärtner bacillus.
    This Measure will not do what is claimed for it. We say, in the first place, that it will be too great an expense and that we cannot afford what may have been desirable two or three years ago; secondly, there is no proof that it will be of the slightest use, and, thirdly, there has not been time over a wide enough area for full criticism and complaint to have come forward. We ought to come to the conclusion that now is not the time for the House to sanction this further invasion of liberty and this further expenditure of money on a wholly nebulous proposition. What are the symptoms of food poisoning and what will the medical man do about it? There are two kinds of food poisoning symptoms, namely, those that are acute and those that are chronic. The most notable symptom of the acute form is that distressing and almost universal complaint, stomach ache. Medical gentlemen in this House will not deny that every stomach ache suggests food poisoning. Therefore, every stomach ache is a case of suspected food poisoning. Medical men are being asked to notify a suspected disease, but never before has a medical man been asked to notify a disease which is so ill defined as that of food poisoning. It is not a specific disease. It is a complaint to which we have been accustomed and to which our grandmothers were accustomed, and it is a complaint which is normally cured by taking a dose of castor oil.
    The further kind of food poisoning manifestation is the chronic one. There is not the acute abdominal pain, but there is loss of appetite, lassitude, what the old woman who goes to the doctor calls "wind round the heart, doctor," and a bad taste in the mouth. Those are symptoms of food poisoning. Any person who goes to a doctor with those symptoms will inevitably cause him to suspect food poisoning, and he will have to notify it. Moreover these manifestations, whether in the acute or in the chronic form, may recur in the same patient at very frequent intervals, and the doctor must notify every time. He must do it forthwith. Speed is so essential, that the local authority must have the notification within 12 hours. The doctor will get
    1392
    2s. 6d. a time. Notification of stomach aches, 2s. 6d. a time!
    It is unworkable and absurd. On every ground Clause 18 ought to be withdrawn. I do not think that the mere patching up of these four Clauses in Committee will really meet the case. My friends and I contend that these four Clauses are undesirable. There are not a great many deaths from food poisoning. There are a few fatal cases. Even the County Council in the defence of their proposals only tell us that there were 11 deaths in three years. Yet this vast machinery is to be set up to prevent the recurrence of those cases. I would not mind expenditure to save life, but the accumulation of this kind of expenditure threatens life by making life intolerable for our people. I was told recently of a tramp who was proceeding along the highway, became exhausted and fell by the wayside. A good Samaritan picked him up, took him into his house and summoned a doctor. When he came to, they consulted him about what they found upon him. They found that he was wearing a heavy coat of mail, and he said, "I am wearing that to protect myself lest I should be stabbed." He was carrying a heavy lifebelt, and he said that that was to prevent him being drowned in case he fell into the sea. He also carried a heavy rope, which he said was necessary in case he should be found on the top of a house that was burning so that he could let himself down. The poor man was nearly dead from exhaustion because of the burdens he was carrying to ensure safety against every evil to which flesh is heir.
    That is the position of this land. We are in the position in which the addition of these burdens one after another is making life intolerable; and, unless the House is prepared to say that it will not allow an extension without an extremely good case is made out, there is very little hope of promoting economy. It is difficult enough to economise by taking away services that exist. It is a little easier to stop new services being put forward. Here is a new service for which no real case has been made out, and at this time I beg the House to join us in offering opposition to the Bill, because these four Clauses are unacceptable and ought to be opposed. We are not trying to wreck the county council Bill. Its im-

    1393
    portant provisions can go through swiftly if the county council will leave out these four offending Clauses. They are not their babies at all; they have been asked to take them over by the Town Clerks' Association. The town clerks persuaded the appropriate committees of the Metropolitan Borough Councils that they needed more power, and what council does not like to be told that it will have more power?
    Mr. LOGAN: I was rather amused at the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for North St. Pancras (Captain Fraser); his illustrations were really a treat. I thought that he was going to tell the story of the medical practitioner who, having examined his patient in the bedroom, was at a loss to diagnose the disease until looking under the bed, he espied a saddle; then, with a knowing look, he stated, "Poisoned by eating horseflesh." The hon. and gallant Member said that there had not been many deaths from food poisoning in London. I do not know how many deaths there have been, but I know the benefits from the sanitary point of view which we have derived in Liverpool from registration under the Public Health Act. Has it ever struck hon. Members how much uncleanliness there can be in a great city like London in the production of ice-cream and foodstuffs, and what suffering from diarrhoea can be caused to little children through eating unclean food? You are very much behind the times in London, much as you talk about being progressive. London to me is a sink full of iniquity from the point of view of public health, for it seems that you are only now beginning to think about the question of registration for ice-cream manufacturers and the producers of other foodstuffs.
    I was amazed to find that clubs, hotels, and restaurants are exempt. When you come to deal with music-halls and theatres there is always a great outcry; but when you go into a theatre or a music-hall where they sell ice-cream you have a right to know that it has been made under clean conditions. You go there to pass an hour or two away, not to pass your life away. I have heard the story regarding wind round the heart to which the hon. and gallant Member for North St. Pancras referred. If you eat food that is not fit, however, you
    1394
    will have more than wind round your heart. The state of things that makes the production of that sort of food possible ought not to exist. I have seen some of the filthy places where ice-cream is made and the filthy barrows from which it is sold, and it is ridiculous that London has not the power to guarantee the purity of the ice-cream which is sold within its borders. It is almost a burlesque that we who come from places which are not supposed to know so much about hygiene should have to come to the enlightened House of Commons and tell it that it is necessary that ice-cream should be made under proper conditions and not in stables where donkeys and mules are housed. The sanitary inspector should have a right to inspect the places where it is made to see that they are clean.
    You allow health visitors to see if houses are clean and not over-crowded, and yet if you buy an ice in London you are not able to tell the dainty lady who buys it whether it was made in a stable or in a palace. Hon. Members talk about expense. We in Liverpool have not found that the officials have been overtaxed by going round and making inspections. If one or two officials did die from over-exertion, I do not think that it need matter; you could always get plenty more. There is no danger of that, however. I have never seen any of them catch a chill through running about too much inspecting places where ice-cream is made. There is just as much danger in preserves. The genesis of disease due to bad food is to be found in dirty places. Where a place is clean, there will be no breeding of disease. Where it is dirty, there will be disease, and, unless there is proper inspection, there can be no clean supply of food.
    My contention is that in both instances the London County Council and the sanitary authorities of this great city are perfectly justified, from the point of view of the public health, in asking for these powers. Where there is cleanliness there is health. London demands cleanness in the pictures which are shown in the cinemas; children must not be allowed to see the unclean. Is there not greater danger from unclean food than even from unclean pictures? While pictures which are unclean may be shown to adults, food which is unclean may be sold to adults and to children. I say

    1395
    there ought to be cleanliness all round in the interests of the general welfare both of this city and of the nation, and I welcome what the London County Council are doing in promoting this Bill.
    Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: I do not desire to say anything upon the position which has been taken up by either side in the Debate on this Bill. I rise more particularly to ask the representatives of the London County Council if they will not also include within the Bill other items affecting the wellbeing of many inhabitants of London and adjoining towns which have hitherto been neglected or forgotten. A few weeks ago I asked the Minister of Health when the present overlapping in the administration of local government law in England and Wades and the County of London would be remedied. In his reply he stated that a committee were considering the question, and that when they had formulated their conclusions a consolidating Act dealing with local government in England and Wales, as well as London, would be brought forward by the Government and put on the Statute Book. It is well known to those of us who are in the legal profession that in many respects the law dealing with local government in England and Wales as a whole is totally dissimilar from the local government law under which the County of London is administered. I am a little sorry that the London County Council have not waited until that Committee could report before asking for these powers, under which there may be possibly more overlapping when the new Measure for England and Wales is put on the Statute Book. I desired the Minister of Health to bring the deliberations of that Committee to an early conclusion and he gave me a promise so to do and surely it is not too late to ask the county council to wait if by doing so they avoid overlapping and so save the pockets of the taxpayers and ratepayers. An example of this overlapping is to be found in the law dealing with frontages. My legal colleagues will know that the definition of ownership in regard to the frontages of houses is in a disputed position, and that a definition is required if equity is to prevail. Secondly, if a ratepayer in the borough of Stepney is ordered to quit his house under the provisions of the London Building Act, which requires that
    1396
    the house must be kept in a state fit for habitation and also requires some perhaps special conditions, it is the duty of the London County Council to provide alternative accommodation for the tenant which they, however, only accept if obtaining a quid pro quo from the borough council or the landlord. The tenant may be a poor widowed woman who is paying her rent regularly who cannot afford to fight either borough council or the London County Council; she is therefore between the Devil and the deep sea, because she has not the money to compel the borough of Stepney to provide alternative accommodation, nor has she the power to fight the London County Council.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I do not see any provision in this Bill dealing with housing.
    Sir W. SUGDEN: Part II deals with the acquisition of land by the county council, and on that land which they acquire there will probably be dwelling houses.
    Again I most earnestly ask those who are promoting this Bill to wait for the report of the Committee. By doing so, they would save thousands of pounds by removing overlapping and also eliminate waste and extravagance in many towns and cities in Great Britain, and would make the law dealing with local government much more suitable and useful. They could also remove many of the anomalies which are bearing upon poor people in the poorest parts of London and in adjacent towns to London. I will not say a word about the matters on which some of the experts have pronounced to-night, but I do suggest that the consolidation of the local government law for England and Wales and its adjustment with the separate local government law for London would be advantageous both from the point of view of economy and the service of the people of London, and as essential as a vital step forward in British citizenship.
    Mr. G. HARVEY: In view of the desire of the Minister of Health that the matters which we have raised should be thrashed out in Committee upstairs, and in view of the desire of those who object to the Bill not to hamper in any way any reasonable operations on the part of the

    1397
    London County Council, I desire to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a Second time, and committed.

  SUPPLY.
  Postponed Proceeding resumed on Amendment proposed on Consideration of Resolution [29th February]:
  "That a sum, not exceeding £150,492,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charges for the following Civil and Revenue Departments (including Pensions, Education, Insurance and other Grants, and Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues) for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933."
  Which Amendment was, to leave out "£150,492,000," and to insert instead thereof "£150,491,900."—[Mr. Lunn.]
  Question again proposed, "That '£150,492,000' stand part of the Resolution."
  10.0 p.m.
  Mr. MUNRO: I am afraid it is not in order to ask for the indulgence of the House for a second time in one evening, but I would like to say to anyone who heard the start of my speech at 25 minutes past seven that I have not been speaking ever since. When I was interrupted I was saying that I had studied many of the different publications and suggestions dealing with unemployment. I have studied "How to cure unemployment," "How to tackle unemployment," and "Labour and the Nation," and I have come to the sincere conviction that in none of them is there any permanent and effective remedy for the unemployment situation. May I recall the phrase of an old Yorkshireman in dismissing all these cures for unemployment?—"You might as well try to mop up the Gulf Stream with a pair of swimming drawers." Possibly that metaphor may be inelegant, but in my view it exactly describes the inefficacy of all these suggested remedies. To come down to bedrock, there is no possible way of solving the unemployment problem other than by improving trade and industry. No doubt that has become a, truism—it is no original suggestion on my part—but it does no harm to repeat a truism.
  Having come to that decision, one naturally asks what the National Govern-
  1398
  ment ought to have done when they were elected, and what they have done. I feel convinced that the Measures which we have been discussing ever since this Parliament met have shown the determination of the Government to deal with every possible proposal which will help the country over the crisis through which we are now passing. We began by passing the Abnormal Importations Act which has already done a great deal to diminish unemployment. At the British Industries Fair I had a casual conversation with the representative of a small firm who told me that they had already re-engaged 59 men. That is not a very large number, but I think it is a distinct sign that the Measures which the Government have passed and are passing have had a definite beneficial result. I have also been assured that the Imports Duties Act and the Wheat Bill have already led to steps being taken which will reduce unemployment in this country.
  I know there are always difficulties in regard to Measures of that kind in their operation, but I think it is the duty of everyone, whether they believe in tariffs or not, to do their best to help the Measures which have been passed to function as smoothly as possible. We are all aware of the decisions which have been taken by some of the Ministers having led to them being spoken of as "dissident Ministers." I do not know who gave them that name, but I feel that there is a danger of creating a little misunderstanding in the country. The other day an elderly constituent of mine said to me, "Whatever are you going to do with those four dissolute Ministers?" I feel sure that my constituent will be greatly comforted by their attitude over the Wheat Bill. I would like to pay my modest tribute to the splendid work which has been done by the Minister of Labour and his colleagues, because I consider that in all their actions they have shown absolute reasonableness, humanity and a wide sympathy. I would like to express the hope that the National Government, in regard to the measures they have taken, and will take, to alleviate unemployment, will have the support, not only of the Members of this House, but also of the people of the country generally.
  Mr. CHARLES BROWN: May I congratulate the hon. Member for Llandaff and Barry (Mr. Munro) on his maiden

  1399
  speech, and I am sure the House will lend a ready ear to him on any future occasion when he chooses to address it. Many views have been expressed in the course of this Debate on the question of unemployment, but I do not think anybody who has been present to-day, or who has contributed to the Debate, will deny the fact that we have the unemployment problem with us on a gigantic scale ranging over the whole field of our industrial life. The House will agree with me when I say that, during the last few months, the problem has pressed more hardly than ever upon those who are unemployed.
  The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. D. Foot) called attention this afternoon to the terrible experiences through which many people are passing owing to the new methods which are being employed to deal with a certain section of the unemployed. Most of us, from our own experience, can easily parallel what the hon. Member said on that subject. Like many other hon. Members, I often turn my attention to the statistics of unemployment, and I watch how the figures rise, and sometimes fall, with considerable interest. When I turn my attention to the statistics, I find myself confronted with the great human problem involved by the partial breakdown of our economic system. I have no patience with those people who sometimes manifest a certain amount of contempt for those who are unemployed. I have heard people talk about unemployment as though it were a crime. Instead of that, I think those people ought to take the view that unemployment is a misfortune which seems to be affecting a larger and larger number of people owing to the growing insecurity of the economic system under which we live.
  The Minister of Labour, on the l7th of February last, called the attention of the House to the fact that since 1920 the Unemployment Grants Committee had assented to schemes to the capital value of £191,000,000, and that since 1924 the amount spent to relieve unemployment by means of public works and roads was £700,000,000. The Minister also called our attention to the fact that the indebtedness of local authorities had increased during the last nine or 10 years from £650,000,000 to well over £1,000,000,000. He appeared to me on that occasion to convey the im-
  1400
  pression that this had been a mistaken policy, because, he said, the problem still remained with us, more acute than ever. It never seemed to have been borne in upon his mind that that is the price that has to be paid for social peace in the chaotic, anarchic conditions of modern industrial production.
  He also seemed to infer that this policy had aggravated the problem of unemployment, on the ground that capital resources so used give less employment than if they are used in other ways. That, of course, is an argument with which many of us were made familiar in the last Parliament, but, unfortunately for that argument, there is no great demand for those capital resources in other directions, because we cannot now absorb the amazing production of the modern industrial machine. I think the right hon. Gentleman was wrong in his deduction that, because the problem grew in intensity while endeavours were made to relieve it, the efforts at relief were the cause of its intensification. That by no means follows. It became more acute in that period for many reasons, to all of which attention has frequently been called in this House.
  We have been reminded that the economic depression in which we now find ourselves is very largely due to the fall in the prices of primary products; we have been told that it is due to the policy of deflation which has been followed for a fairly long period; and undoubtedly it is due to some extent to the tariff systems which are choking the free flow of goods between the various countries of the world. Many hon. Members seem to have the mistaken idea that we on these benches advocate relief schemes as a cure for unemployment. We have never done so. If anyone has advocated relief schemes as a cure for unemployment, it has been the Liberal Members of this House. They have been strangely silent in this Debate to-day. It seems to me that perhaps, for the time being, in the existing political circumstances, they have thrown aside their attachment to widespread relief schemes, and are doing everything they can to support the policy sponsored by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, which is to get us out of all our difficulties—the institution of a tariff system in this country.
  Many of us on these benches regard unemployment as a permanent feature of

  1401
  the existing system, and, consequently, for us, the issue which is raised in a Debate like this is a very simple one. Millions of our fellow men can only live in the economic world of to-day either by working for wages or by some form of maintenance afforded to them. That maintenance may, in existing circumstances, be in the form of statutory benefits under the Insurance Acts, or in the form of transitional payments, which the Minister of Labour not long ago described as a form of State maintenance, or it may be in the form of Poor Law relief. The fact of the situation is, however, that they have either to obtain work for wages or to be maintained, and we on these benches are of the opinion that it would be infinitely preferable for the great bulk of them to be doing something rather than be receiving money in one form or another for doing nothing. Consequently, not being responsible for the chaos and confusion of the existing economic order, being faced with this huge mass of unemployed, and taking the view that it would be better for them to be at work than to be receiving maintenance in any form, we still advocate the operation of relief schemes on as wide a scale as is possible under existing conditions.
  I know that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite think that they are going to get out of their difficulties relatively easily in the not distant future. They are waiting to see the effect of the Import Duties Act, which has just been put upon the Statute Book. But, assuming that to be correct, unless we are going, until it takes place, to allow many hundreds of thousands of unemployed to sink into utter despair, there will be a need for relief schemes for some time to come. Hon. Members opposite are aiming, I take it, at some sort of self-contained Britain. They want the minimum of goods and raw materials to be imported from abroad. They are aiming, it seems to me, at an economic system not subject so much as now to the shocks of what is happening in the great world outside. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) stated that there very seldom came from these benches any new ideas in regard to unemployment. If the new self-sustaining economic Britain, which frequently reflects itself in their speeches, is likely to mature at all, why not consider, in
  1402
  view of the changed circumstances, the shortening of the working day for everyone, why not consider the shortening of the working life for every man who toils in industry, and why not consider the lengthening of childhood for the children of the nation? Surely those are things that you might consider in this new Britain that you are going to create.
  In conclusion, may I address a few questions to the hon. Gentleman who is going to reply? Has the Unemployment Grants Committee gone out of business entirely? What is its policy at the moment and what is it likely to be in the future? In the last Parliament we frequently had discussions on land drainage and we were told it was largely futile unless Protection was given to the British farmer. We were told that, if you gave him Protection, there might be something in draining the land and making more available for agricultural enterprise. There is a Land Drainage Act on the Statute Book. What is being done in regard to land drainage to find employment? Speaking as a member of a local authority and also of a county council, I am very much concerned as to what is happening in regard to housing. I feel that there is a definite attempt on the part of the Department to slow down housing. What is the policy of the Government in regard to it? Does it intend to allow much needed schemes to go, or are they going to put all sorts of obstacles in the way? If we can be assured that the Unemployment Grants Committee is going to continue to function, if other Measures already on the Statute Book are going to be operated, if there is going to be no drastic curtailing of housing policy, it will assist to some degree under existing circumstances. But when we are talking about these things in terms of economics, let us remember that behind the economic question that rises uppermost in our minds so frequently there is this great human tragedy of unemployment. We on these benches consider above everything else the human aspect of this problem.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): May I begin by expressing the regret which my right hon. Friend the Minister feels at not being able to be here to-night? He had a very important engagement of long standing,

  1403
  and he explained the reason, I think, to my right hon. Friend opposite. The hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn), who opened the Debate, stated that a determined Government would stop the rot, and he invited us to state what the Government proposed to do. The answer is perfectly simple, and I should have thought that if he had been in the House during the recent Debates upon the Tariff Bill he would have realised that we believe that our proposals, which have now become law, are destined materially to improve the unemployment problem.
  The Debate to-day has mainly run upon the question, so far as my Department is concerned, of the future of the Unemployment Grants Committee, and perhaps the House will allow me, in the short time which is left, to indicate the reasons for the decision to which the Government have come in this matter. For the benefit, possibly, of new Members of the House, I will very briefly sketch the history of the question. It is broadly true to say that every successive Government since the War has tried to find remedies for unemployment, and that the whole field of possible State activity has been reviewed over and over again by special committees of various kinds. The remedies which have been suggested at various times have fallen broadly into two classes. First of all, there has been the policy directed towards a revival of trade and industry in its normal channels, and, secondly, there has been an attempt to encourage employment by means of public works.
  It is generally agreed, I think, that the first of those courses is the preferable one, and various attempts have been made in the last 10 years to carry it out. Although those attempts have met with varying success, it would not be unfair to say that on the whole they have failed to overcome the intense industrial depression, more especially of the last two years. The country has decided upon another experiment along those lines, and it is upon the success of that experiment that we believe we can at the present moment justifiably pin our hopes. As regards the second class, the State ever since the War has, I think on overwhelming grounds, always decided that it should not undertake the task itself. By grants to public utility companies and to local authorities it has endeavoured to
  1404
  get them to undertake the task. This policy culminated under the Labour Government of 1929 in the passing of the Development (Loan Guarantees and Grants) Act and in the appointment of the Lewis Committee to make grants to profit-earning public utility companies, while the St. Davids Committee, which had been in existence since 1920, was left with the task of dealing with applications from local authorities and public utility companies not working for profit. These two committees, together with the Colonial Development Act, also passed by the Labour Government in 1929, represented, apart from roads and housing, the chief methods of dealing with this particular problem.
  10.30 p.m.
  Let me, in answer to what was said by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. C. Brown), in his very clear speech, deal for a moment with the arguments that are usually advanced in favour of a policy of relief works. I think they can be said to fall under four heads. First of all, it is said that, by making use of idle labour, they are capable of improving the economic equipment of the country for the advantage of trade and industry and also the improvement of our competitive position; secondly, it is said that they provide employment at full wages; thirdly, it is said that in a normal trade cycle of depression, the extra expenditure that they involve tends to break the vicious circle of contracting demand and falling prices; and, fourthly, it is said that they' tend to improve the individual, local, and national moral.
  I would invite the House to examine how those four arguments have stood the hard test of 10 years' experience. Let me take, first, the question of national equipment. At the end of the War there was undoubtedly a great variety of public work which had not been done, but which, if done, would increase the national equipment and improve our competitive position. It is also, I think, quite legitimate to say that there was a further series of public works which probably would not have been done for a certain number of years, but which, in view of the depression which came over the country in 1920 and 1921, might reasonably be done to meet it; and it was in view of that that the St. Davids Committee formerly was allowed to give grants for works

  1405
  where at least three years' anticipation could be proved. But the depression was not short-lived, the emergency continued, and the policy continued, with the result that after 11 years of anticipation it can fairly be said to-day that the State is subsidising local authorities to carry out works that normally those local authorities would have done by themselves. In many respects also the public utility equipment of this country is considerably in advance of any possible needs of British trade in the comparatively near future, and it is certainly true that the carrying out of this work over 11 years has imposed a colossal burden on the shoulders, not only of ourselves, but of our children.
  Let me take the second argument, as to the employment of idle hands at full wages. Experience during these 10 years has shown that the possibility of employing men on these relief works is drastically limited by considerations of age, of sex, of physique, of the difficulty of finding suitable work, of the housing problems of the men brought to do the work, and, above all, of cost.
  Over the last 10 years, on the whole, the average cost of maintaining a man in benefit has been less than £50 a year, but for that same period it has been proved that the cost of putting a man to work on public works is at least £500 a year and more, probably £600 a year, for each man directly employed, or from £250 to £300 if you assume, which is not always true, that for every man directly employed, another man is employed indirectly. It is quite clear from that that unless the resulting works have on completion an economic value of at least four-fifths of their cost, the nation is the poorer for having carried them out. It is true also to say that many of those works that have been carried out would not pass that test, and it is certain that they would not pass it if you take into consideration the very small extent by which they have increased our competitive position and have regard also to the enormous burden which they have cast on industry over the next 30 or 40 years.
  Take the argument of credit expansion. In the last 10 years, or at any rate since 1924, there has been spent on public works financed wholly or partly out of
  1406
  the national exchequer a sum of no less than £700,000,000. That includes houses and roads and relief schemes and, in addition to that, there has been on the part of local authorities a very considerable expenditure on the development of their normal services, especially on their trading undertakings, with the result that the public debt of local authorities has risen from £658,000,000 in 1921 to no less than £1,223,000,000 in 1930. Those are the figures for England and Wales, and they take no account of a sum approaching £150,000,000 for Scotland. According to all the economic theories this huge expenditure, financed largely by loans, should have resulted in a, large expansion of credit and should have had direct beneficial results on industry. It has not had that effect, or at all events any effect it may have had has been entirely submerged by the industrial depression; and to that extent that money is wasted. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
  Take the fourth argument, the maintenance of morale. It is true that on the whole work done on relief schemes has been done with a fair measure of efficiency, but the moral effect—there will be general agreement on this point—an men of short spells on relief works is very small compared with the inspiration they would get from a return to normal work, and though I should be the last person to depreciate the value of the moral effect of the public relief works which have been undertaken, it is not unfair to bear in mind the huge cost to the State and to ask whether a similar or even greater effect could not have been achieved by other methods at considerably less cost to the nation.
  Let me return to the history of the Unemployment Grants Committee. The most striking characteristic which must impress anyone who studies this matter is the fact that since 1921 it has been necessary to increase year after year the terms of the grants in order to attract any schemes at all. Whereas in 1920 the original terms of the grant were one-third of the wages of all the additional men employed, which amounted to 15 and 20 per cent. of the total cost of the scheme, the figures last July which were necessary to attract schemes were 60 per cent. of the total cost of the scheme. Let the House note that even in spite of these very attractive terms, and even

  1407
  before any commencement was made to restrict schemes, applications had began to fall off. The peak figure of the number of men employed in these schemes was reached in March of last year, before there was any talk of restrictions, and since that time the number of men employed has continued steadily to decrease.
  What has been the cost of these schemes? Under Part II of the Development Act—grants by the St. Davids Committee to local authorities and public utility companies not working for profit—the cost to the State has not yet reached its maximum, and it will not reach its maximum until next year. It will not begin to drop until 1937, and will not finally run out until 1963. Between now and 1963 the total sum paid will amount to £56,000,000. Take Part I. There the maximum peak figure will not be reached until 1934–35, will not finally run out until 1950, and the total that remains to be paid is well over £12,000,000. In addition to that, when it is recalled that the present value of the State grant for housing which has still to be paid amounts to no less than £218,000,000, the House will realise the colossal burden which we have already cast upon industry for the next 30 or 40 years.
  I hope, therefore, that I have said enough to convince the House that the heavy expenditure of the last 11 years, in view of its very meagre results in creating employment, has shown itself unduly burdensome, and that, considered as a means of improving the national equipment, too little consideration has been paid to the probability of a profitable return, apart from its failure materially to improve our competitive position. I hope that the House will approve of the decision of the Government that it is imperative at present to reserve the capital resources of the nation for such developments as will definitely increase the national income. That is the answer to the question put by the hen. Member for Mansfield, as to what is to be the future of the Unemployment Grants Committee. He will know that the Unemployment Grants Committee have sanctioned no schemes unless they were started by 31st January last. They have been subject to temporary
  1408
  abeyance, as he will see from a Command Paper which will shortly be issued. So much for the question of the immediate future of unemployment grants.
  As I have indicated, we propose to rely mainly for improved employment on cur tariff policy and on the result of the Ottawa Conference. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about German coal?"] The hon. Member gibes, but I was not in the last Parliament, and, needless to say, I was not in the inner councils of the late Labour Government; but I have always suspected, and I believe that my guess is not very far wide of the mark, that the demoralisation of the late Labour Government started from the day when they began to realise that the schemes of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), pressed on them for solving unemployment by unlimited expenditure, proved to be hopelessly illusory.
  But there is still left the problem of the large numbers of persons who, until we get the trade revival fully under way, will be left without work. I agree with the hon. Member for Mansfield in that I have always thought that the most tragic thing about the unemployment problem is the fact that as week succeeds week and month succeeds month and too often year succeeds year, the unemployed man gradually begins to feel that he is no longer a useful member of the community, that he has no part in the civic life of the nation, and he gradually sinks further and further into the slough of apathy and despair. We have tried for 10 years to cure that evil by relief works and, as I hope, convinced the House, we have merely scratched the surface. It is time that we tried an entirely new technique. I believe that we have immensely to diversify the methods hitherto followed, and I hope that this year will see a number of small scale experiments of wide variety. But the fundamental thing to recognise, as I hope the House and the country will recognise, is that this is not a problem which the State can tackle alone.
  The State is necessarily too impersonal and too mechanical for the task. The size of the figure alone—over 2,000,000 at present and even if trade revives possibly somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1,000,000—puts any single organisation out of account. But a problem which is intractable as a whole may well become

  1409
  manageable when split up into its component parts. I believe that there is a vast and almost untapped fund of willing personal service available in this country. I believe that in every town and district there are to be found numbers of public spirited persons, prepared to give their services provided that they realise not only the need, as most of them do, but the possibilities of those services being of real use and being applied. The State's activities are, after all, pretty well confined. It has Employment Exchanges for finding men work. We can do a certain amount of training. We have training facilities for young men from depressed areas or from blind alley occupations. We can recondition a certain number of men of the pick and shovel type and render them physically lit to take their places in industry to-day.
  As regards trainees, we are, unfortunately, limited by the prospect of obtaining jobs for them. When trade was more flourishing we did not find that great difficulty. We actually succeeded in placing nearly 90 per cent, of our trainees, but in the course of the last two years we have had increasing difficulty in finding places. Therefore we have had to limit the intake of trainees so as roughly to correspond with the places which we could subsequently find, but we are maintaining our centres and as soon as trade shows any sign of revival we shall fill the centres up again, and, if necessary, take steps to increase their number. As regards reconditioning centres, these also for the last two months have not been full, but the question is under reconsideration of filling those centres to a greater extent than at one time was thought possible.
  The House, no doubt, knows of the extraordinarily valuable work which is being done by the local education authorities throughout the country in co-operation with the Ministry along the lines of finding occupation for juveniles, both boys and girls, who are unemployed, by running courses for them. I take the opportunity of appealing to local education authorities not to select this as one of the first items for economy. It is one of the most valuable services that could be rendered to the country to-day, training the moral of these boys and girls instead of allowing them to go on the streets. I
  1410
  hope sincerely that nothing will be done to cut down that service.
  The question of unemployed women is one of rather special difficulty, because I cannot imagine that even the hon. Member for Mansfield would suggest that they should be put on public works. But very good work has been done in this direction by the Central Committee on Women's Training in the training that has been given to many of these girls for domestic service. During the last 10 years over 50,000 women and girls have been given training in the centres, and the great majority of them have been found work. Although it has been found necessary to make certain economies, it has been found possible recently to open two new centres for these girls, and my right hon. Friend proposes to continue to utilise the very valuable assistance which the Committee has hitherto rendered.
  But beyond all this there is still an enormous scope for private enter prise. Most interesting experiments have been made in the last two years and, if it is not invidious to mention some by name, I would like to say a word of commendation about the experiments made by the Society of Friends at Brynmawr and by Mr. Noble at Trealaw. Any Member who chooses to go down to the Rhondda Valley will be amply repaid by seeing these extremely interesting experiments.
  The extension of allotments is, obviously, capable of immense development, again very largely by private individuals. I am informed by the Society of Friends that, taking last year as an example, an expenditure of 13s. 4d. on seeds and utensils brings in a return of about £7 or 2s. 8d. a week. It is obvious that a return of that nature offers a very valuable supplement to the income of the unemployed man, and not only that, but the vegetables form an important element, which otherwise Might be lacking, in the diet of the unemployed families. There must be throughout this country in the neighbourhood of the towns and mining villages hundreds and thousands of vacant plots which, with the goodwill and enterprise of the residents in the neighbourhood, could be made available to unemployed men.
  We are also examining the possibility of certain classes of a semi-educational nature for the use of these unemployed

  1411
  men and women to whom they may be expected to make some appeal. As showing what can be done, I was told only yesterday of the probability of several of these classes being opened in London and staffed entirely by voluntary teachers. I think that is very much to their credit, and shows what can be done. Then classes for physical training, and the provision of clubs, where premises capable of use or adaptation can be secured, are other obvious methods of dealing with the problem. If I may venture a personal opinion it would be to support what the hon. Member for Rothwell said at the commencement of the Debate, and that is that the unemployed man does not want charity. What he wants is an opportunity to help himself, and to overcome that feeling to which I alluded just now, of no longer being a useful member of the community.
  I hope to see experiments on the lines I have suggested started in various parts of the country this year. They will meet with the very greatest sympathy from our Department, and we will give every possible assistance towards overcoming any technical difficulty that may arise within, of course, the limits of the exist-
  ing law. If difficulties arise that we cannot overcome, the experience we shall gain this year will be of value as indicating what ought to be included in the necessary legislation which will follow the report of the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance. I have no doubt at all that some mistakes, and possibly many mistakes, will be made. There may be deep-rooted prejudices also to be met and overcome, but I venture to think that the goal that I have indicated, namely, a constructive attempt to find useful occupation for the unemployed men and women in this country, until such time as they are able to be reabsorbed in industry by the revival which we believe will follow the passage of the Tariff Act and an agreement at Ottawa, is well worth many and varied efforts. My final word is to express the hope that in this task we may meet with the sympathy and active co-operation of hon. and right hon. Members opposite.
  Question put, "That '£150,492,000' stand part of the Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayes, 235; Noes, 34.

  Division No. 93.]

  AYES.

  [10.57 p.m.

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

  Colville, Major David John

  Goldie, Noel B.

  Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

  Conant, R. J. E.

  Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

  Albery, Irving James

  Cook, Thomas A.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

  Cooke, James D.

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

  Apsley, Lord

  Copeland, Ida

  Grimston, R. V.

  Aske, Sir Robert William

  Cross, R. H.

  Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Crossley, A. C.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Atkinson, Cyril

  Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

  Guy, J. C. Morrison

  Bailey, Eric Alfred George

  Curry, A. C.

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

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Dawson, Sir Philip

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

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Dickie, John P.

  Hanbury, Cecil

  Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

  Doran, Edward

  Hanley, Dennis A.

  Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

  Duggan, Hubert John

  Harris, Sir Percy

  Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

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

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

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

  Eden, Robert Anthony

  Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Bernays, Robert

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

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

  Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Elliston, Captain George Sampson

  Hillman, Dr. George B.

  Boulton, W. W.

  Elmley, Viscount

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

  Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

  Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

  Hornby, Frank

  Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

  Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

  Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

  Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

  Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

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

  Broadbent, Colonel John

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Fleming, Edward Lascelles

  Hume, Sir George Hopwood

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

  Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

  Browne, Captain A. C.

  Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

  Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

  Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

  Fox, Sir Gifford W. G.

  Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

  Burnett, John George

  Fraser, Captain Ian

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

  Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

  Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

  Ganzoni, Sir John

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

  Caporn, Arthur Cecil

  Gillett, Sir George Masterman

  Jamleson, Douglas

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

  Gledhill, Gilbert

  Janner, Barnett

  Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

  Glossop, C. W. H.

  Jennings, Roland

  Christie, James Archibald

  Gluckstein, Louis Halle

  Jesson, Major Thomas E.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

  Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Goff, Sir Park

  Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

  Ker, J. Campbell

  North, Captain Edward T.

  Somervell, Donald Bradley

  Kerr, Hamilton W.

  Nunn, William

  Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)

  Kimball, Lawrence

  O'Donovan, Dr. William James

  Soper, Richard

  Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

  Knebworth, Viscount

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

  Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

  Law, Sir Alfred

  Palmer, Francis Noel

  Spencer, Captain Richard A.

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

  Patrick, Colin M.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

  Leckie, J. A.

  Pearson, William G.

  Stevenson, James

  Leech, Dr. J. W.

  Peat, Charles U.

  Stones, James

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Perkins, Walter R. D.

  Stourton, Hon. John J.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Petherick, M.

  Strauss, Edward A.

  Liddall, Walter S.

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

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Lindsay, Noel Ker

  Pike, Cecil F.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

  Llewellin, Major John J.

  Potter, John

  Summersby, Charles H.

  Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

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

  Sutcliffe, Harold

  Loder, Captain J. de Vere

  Procter, Major Henry Adam

  Templeton, William P.

  Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

  Pybus, Percy John

  Thompson, Luke

  MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)

  Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

  Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

  MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

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

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  McEwen, J. H. F.

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

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

  McKeag, William

  Ramsden, E.

  Touche, Gordon Cosmo

  McKie, John Hamilton

  Reid, William Allan (Derby)

  Train, John

  Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

  Remer, John R.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

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

  Renwick, Major Gustav A.

  Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

  Magnay, Thomas

  Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

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

  Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

  Robinson, John Roland

  Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

  Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

  Mander, Geoffrey le M.

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

  Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

  Rosbotham, S. T.

  Weymouth, Viscount

  Marsden, Commander Arthur

  Ross, Ronald D.

  Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

  Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

  Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

  Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Wills, Wilfrid D.

  Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

  Salt, Edward W.

  Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

  Mitcheson, G. G.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

  Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

  Scone, Lord

  Wise, Alfred R.

  Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)

  Selley, Harry R.

  Womersley, Walter James

  Moss, Captain H. J.

  Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

  Worthington, Dr. John V.

  Muirhead, Major A. J.

  Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Munro, Patrick

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Nation, Brigadler-General J. J. H.

  Skelton, Archibald Noel

  Mr. Walter Rea and Sir George Penny.

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

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

  Normand, Wilfrid Guild

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  NOES.

  Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  McEntee, Valentine L.

  Batey, Joseph

  Hicks, Ernest George

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

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

  Hirst, George Henry

  Parkinson, John Allen

  Buchanan, George

  Jenkins, Sir William

  Price, Gabriel

  Cape, Thomas

  John, William

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Cripps, Sir Stafford

  Kirkwood, David

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Daggar, George

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

  Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

  Lawson, John James

  Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Edwards, Charles

  Lunn, William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Mr. Duncan Graham and Mr. Groves.

  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put accordingly, and agreed to.

  It being after Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Resolution.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  SUPPLY.

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

  CONSULAR FEES.
  CONSULAR FEES.
  NATURALISATION.
  NATURALISATION.
  CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL.
  CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL.
PUBLIC HEALTH.
  VACCINATION (STATUTORY DECLARATIONS).
  VACCINATION (STATUTORY DECLARATIONS).
  NATIONAL RADIUM TRUST.
  NATIONAL RADIUM TRUST.
  WEST MIDDLESEX SEWAGE SCHEME.
  WEST MIDDLESEX SEWAGE SCHEME.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  TOWN PLANNING SCHEMES.
  TOWN PLANNING SCHEMES.
  WAR LOAN (CONVERSION).
  WAR LOAN (CONVERSION).
  BRITISH ARMY (SUPPLEMENTARY RESERVE).
  BRITISH ARMY (SUPPLEMENTARY RESERVE).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  WORK SCHEMES
  WORK SCHEMES
  TRANSITIONAL PAYMENT.
  TRANSITIONAL PAYMENT.
  DURHAM COUNTY.
  DURHAM COUNTY.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  SCANDINAVIA.
  SCANDINAVIA.
  DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION, NORTH-EAST COAST.
  DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION, NORTH-EAST COAST.
TRANSPORT.
  BLACKROD BY-PASS ROAD.
  BLACKROD BY-PASS ROAD.
  ROAD FUND.
  ROAD FUND.
  ROAD ACCIDENTS.
  ROAD ACCIDENTS.
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (OVERSEA AERODROMES).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (OVERSEA AERODROMES).
AGRICULTURE.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE (HAY AND STRAW, IMPORTS).
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE (HAY AND STRAW, IMPORTS).
  WHEAT PRODUCTION.
  WHEAT PRODUCTION.
  POTATOES.
  POTATOES.
  BEET-SUGAR SUBSIDY.
  BEET-SUGAR SUBSIDY.
  NATIONAL STUD.
  NATIONAL STUD.

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

WELWYN GARDEN CITY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, the reason for this proposal is that the plan of the reservoirs showed land available for future extension to the west of the area which is not proposed to be conveyed, and the land to be conveyed was not sufficient for the construction of the additional reservoir which was advised and for which power to borrow is sought. Now that has been arranged and the Council of the Garden City are prepared to proceed with the Bill. I venture therefore to recommend your Lordships to dispense with this Standing Order.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 105 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill, and that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill read 2a accordingly.

UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, the Bill which I have the honour to bring to the notice of your Lordships to-day is, as its title states, a purely Scottish measure, and I shall not, therefore, detain your Lordships for more than a few moments with the details of its structure. The Bill is a sequel to the union of the Church of Scotland with the United Free Church of Scotland which, your Lordships will remember, took place in 1929, after protracted negotiations covering a period of nearly twenty years. It will be recalled that in order to facilitate that union Parliament passed two Acts—the Church of Scotland Act, 1921, which dealt with the constitution of the Church of Scotland on the spiritual side, and the Church of Scotland (Property

773
and Endowments) Act, 1925, which regulated its temporal affairs. The present Bill may be regarded as the third chapter in this legislative story.
It deals with the reorganisation of the theological teaching in the faculties of divinity of the Universities and in the colleges of the reunited Church, and aims at the abolition of overlapping and duplication of theological instruction which was inseparable from the old régime, and which at present is a serious cause of embarrassment to the ordinary development of this side of University life. There is available a memorandum giving your Lordships all the details of this Bill, prepared on behalf of the Universities, and any of your Lordships who care to read that carefully will learn all the different points which are dealt with in the Bill. I should like to emphasise the act that the proposals of this measure represent the agreed views of the four Universities and the General Assembly of the Church by whom the matters with which it deals have been under long and careful consideration. The attainment of unanimity in this instance appears to me a result upon which those who have devoted so much time and anxious attention to these problems deserve to be heartily congratulated.
With regard to the clauses of the Bill itself, Clause I transfers to the. University Courts the right of presentation or appointment to any theological chair in the Scottish Universities which at present is vested in the Crown or in other bodies. I understand that in all there are fourteen chairs, the right of appointment to which will be affected by this clause, and that eleven of these are at present in the patronage of the Crown. The right of appointment will henceforth be invested in the respective University Courts, normally on the nomination of a board of nomination constituted under Clause 2 of the Bill. A board of nomination will be composed of representatives elected in equal number on the one hand by the University Court and on the other hand by or under the authority of the General Assembly, or otherwise in such manner as may be agreed on by the University Court and the General Assembly. Clause 2 extends the existing power of the University Courts so as to enable ordinances to be made for the constitution as already mentioned of boards of nomination. Clause 3 deals with bursaries and
774
scholarships hitherto tenable by students at the Church colleges. It provides that these may be held by any student of theology in any of the Scottish Universities who is preparing for the Ministry of the Church of Scotland or of the United Free Church of Scotland (Continuing). Provision is also made where a bursary was founded for the students of a particular Church college, that it shall normally be tenable only at the University in the town in which such college is situated.
Clause 4 provides that nothing in this Act shall restrict any University Court from entering into agreements with any Christian Church or association of Christians for the admission of teachers of theology to University status. This clause has been inserted at the request of the Church of Scotland in order to demonstrate that that Church has no desire to secure for itself any privileges which are not equally obtainable by any other Church if circumstances should render such a course expedient. Clause 5 is important because it abolishes what is usually termed the "test" for University officers. The religious test was originally imposed on all principals and professors by an Act of Queen Anne confirmed by the Act of Union. By the Universities (Scotland) Acts of 1853 and 1859 that requirement was limited to the divinity professors in each of the. Universities and the Principal of St. Mary's College in the University of St. Andrew's. It is now generally recognised that the imposition of such a requirement as a test of this character is an anachronism, and for that reason it is remedied by this clause of the Bill. Clauses 6 and 7 deal with definitions and repeals.
In asking your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading I would emphasise that there exists in. Scotland a very pressing practical problem with which the Bill proposes to enable the Universities to deal in co-operation with the Church of Scotland, and that its provisions have the complete approval of the University Courts and the Commission of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland specially appointed for that purpose. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (SAFETY AND LOAD LINE CONVENTIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, I beg to move that these Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
[The references are to Bill No. (4).]
Clause 29, page 26, line 36, after ("shall") insert ("when the ship is going ahead.")
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, there are three groups of Amendments, and they are all principally of a drafting character. The first one deals with the helm orders, and the other place has inserted the words in page 26, line 36, "when the ship is going ahead." So far as you are about to give helm orders in a direct sense, if you give the order in a direct sense when the ship is going astern, there would be a question whether the ship's stern should go to starboard when you gave the order "starboard" or whether the bow should go to starboard. It is not customary in either case to give that kind of order, and the clause has been brought into line with the Convention by the addition of these words. I think it was agreed to unanimously in another place. It really is of a drafting character, and I hope your Lordships will approve. I beg to move that we agree with the Commons Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 26 line 36, after ("helm") insert ("or steering")
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, this is really a drafting Amendment. I beg to move that we agree with it.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 26, line 40, after ("helm") insert ("or steering")
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, this is the same Amendment again and I beg to move that it be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 59, page 46, line 23, leave out ("issued by the Board of Trade")
Clause 59, page 46,line 40, leave out ("a")
Clause 59, page 46,line 41, leave out ("certificate issued by the Board of Trade") and insert ("certificates")
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, these three Amendments are purely of a drafting character. The point is that load line certificates can be issued by other authorities than by the Board of Trade. As the Bill now stands only those issued by the Board of Trade come under this clause and these Amendments provide for certificates issued by these other bodies when authorised by the Board of Trade. I beg to move that they be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 67, page 50, line 39, leave out ("first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-two") and insert ("appointed day")
Clause 67,page 51, line 3, leave out ("first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-two") and insert ("appointed day")
Clause 67,page 51,line 5, leave out ("first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-two") and insert ("appointed day")
Clause 67,page 51,line 19, leave out ("first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-two") and insert ("appointed day")
Clause 67,page 51,line 22, leave out ("first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-two") and insert ("appointed day")
Clause 67,page 51,line 32, at end insert:
("(3) For the purpose of this section the expression 'the appointed day' means such day as His Majesty in Council may appoint.")
Fourth Schedule, page 205, line 2, leave out ("1st July, 1932") and insert ("the appointed day")
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, the Amendments in Clause 67 and the Amendment in the Fourth Schedule are all consequential on each other. The first Part of the Bill was due to come into operation on a day appointed by Order in Council and the second Part was due to come into operation on July 1 next. In another place it was proposed that each part of the Bill should come into operation on an "appointed day." That was because the Board of Trade felt that as there had been some delay in the passing of the Bill there might not be time to issue load line certificates by July 1. Therefore, it is now proposed that each part of the Bill should come into operation on an appointed day. I beg to move that these Amendments be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WATERLOO BRIDGE.
LORD CHARNWOOD LORD CHARNWOOD had the following Motion on the Paper:—To move to resolve, That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that His Majesty's Government, before finally deciding to contribute towards the cost of the new bridge by which the London County Council proposes to replace Waterloo bridge, should receive and consider representations from societies interested in the matter, based upon competent expert advice, tending to show—
1, That the estimates before the London County Council, as to the comparative cost of its proposal and of the reconditioning of the existing bridge, need serious reconsideration; and
2, That making a new bridge of the width proposed at that spot can have none but an injurious result upon traffic.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall ask your indulgence while I call attention to a scheme adopted last month by the London County Council dealing with the rather familiar subject of Waterloo bridge. I understand that the Government are prepared to contribute 60 per
778
cent. of the cost—rightly, of course, if I may say so, if the scheme is a good one. The whole purpose for which I rise is to ask the Government, as urgently as I can, to be willing to receive and consider certain weighty testimony tending to show that financially the scheme is not sound and that in its results upon traffic it will be rather worse than useless. The societies referred to in my notice of Motion who desire to have this evidence considered include the Royal Academy and the Royal Institute of British Architects, but, of course, the testimony which they want to bring forward is not their own. It consists in the concurring evidence of a number of engineers of quite undoubted capacity, all of whom have been studying the subject for a considerable while. Some of them have had considerable experience in regard to bridges over the Thames. Amongst them is one I may mention specially, because I shall have occasion to quote him. He is consulting engineer to the tube railways in London, Mr. Dalrymple Hay, who besides having built one of the railway bridges—I forget which—is himself the maker of two tunnels under the Thames near Charing Cross. He has, therefore, unrivalled knowledge of what happens to be of some consequence in this matter, the state of affairs at the bottom of the Thames. The representations which the Government are asked by the architects and the Royal Academy and other bodies to receive is not in the nature of a pompous deputation. What is asked is that the Government shall receive in the most convenient way the evidence which I believe has been got together in compact form, and that it shall be considered by whoever they may select for the purpose.
Here I would venture to express a strong personal opinion of my own. In matters of this kind, one is apt to be simply dazed by the conflict of expert testimony. I do not believe myself for one moment that any inquiry in this matter need be lengthy or complicated. I feel pretty sure that on the principal points at issue the conflict of evidence would be fairly quickly resolved if one were to put to the leading experts on both sides some such question as this: "With all your great knowledge of the whole vast field of engineering what is your special knowledge and experience

779
in regard to the two or three very special points of engineering which happen here to be at issue?"
I had better, I think, first tell your Lordships the general position of this question. The general problem of traffic across the bridges has engaged attention for a good many years, but there has arisen a special problem in regard to the condition of Waterloo bridge, for, since that extremely solid structure was built, there has been—mainly owing to the building of the Embankment, but also on account of other causes—a great increase in the scouring effect of the water under its piers, with the result that some years ago the bridge was manifestly beginning to be weak on its feet, if I may use the expression. Immediately this was seen the proper authorities tried what they now frankly confess was an unfortunate experiment, which made matters rather rapidly worse. They, however, promptly abandoned that and the measures which they then adopted have, I understand, so substantially arrested the subsidence of the bridge that it is no longer in any immediate danger. When I say immediate danger, I mean no such danger as could be made the excuse for any hurried and ill-considered decision about it.
This question having arisen, in the year 1925 the London County Council adopted a scheme for the demolition of the existing bridge and the substitution for it of a much broader bridge—with fewer arches and wider spans, a steel bridge, I believe—to carry six lines of traffic instead of the existing three. That proposal aroused some protest and a Royal Commission was appointed to consider that point amongst others in connection with the whole problem of cross-river traffic in London—the Commission that sat under the quite admirable chairmanship of the noble Viscount, Lord Lee of Fareham. That Commission reported to this effect: Reconstruct, or recondition I think is the phrase, the existing bridge; do not pull it down; recondition it and by means of a corbel, a bracket structure on each side of the bridge, widen it somewhat so as to accommodate four lines of traffic. I believe the point of that change from three to four lines is not really to induce any very much greater volume of traffic, but to get rid of the dangers and inconvenient effects of cutting in and out of traffic, but that is not very material.
780
Recondition the bridge then, widen it to that extent, do no more to Waterloo bridge, but instead of building a new great big bridge there have instead a new bridge at Charing Cross: that was the effect of the Royal Commission's Report.
Upon that the London County Council without delay introduced a Bill for a new bridge at Charing Cross. The particular provisions of that Bill did not find favour with Parliament and I understand it was thrown out. So the London County Council set to work to prepare a fresh Bill for a Charing Cross bridge, but I am informed that on the 31st July last they received an intimation from the Ministry of Transport to the effect that the Ministry could no longer promise the contribution of 75 per cent, to the cost which they had hitherto intended to make. Thereupon, and very naturally, if I may say so, the London County Council promptly reverted to their original scheme of 1925 for a big bridge accommodating six lines of traffic. I understand that the Ministry of Transport now are prepared to contribute 60 per cent, of the cost of that bridge out of the National Exchequer—of course, quite properly, if the scheme is a sound one; but as to the soundness of the financial calculations involved, or as to the practical desirability of the bridge in relation to the general traffic problem, I understand the Ministry of Transport treat that as a matter for the sole judgment of the local authority concerned. If I am wrong on that point, as I hope, I shall be corrected.
There are various preliminaries to the real controversy which I cannot leave alone and I think I had better ask frankly now why it is that a number of people, by no means highbrow or artistic all of them, but a number of common people, are much interested in this question upon grounds which, of course, are not financial nor connected with the practical considerations of traffic. I do not think their interest in this matter would be called in any disparaging sense sentimental. If some proposed public work were going to damage the principal view from our own houses any one of us would at once be apt to demand stringent proof that there were really good practical reasons for that public work, and the House of Lords is the last place in the world where it would be suggested that considerations of that sort become mere sentimentality when they apply not

781
to our private amenities, but to the stately beauty of the capital of the Empire and to a part, greater or smaller, of the national heritage we have to hand on to other generations.
Among these considerations I had better refer, I suppose, to the question which may be asked: In what sense is Waterloo bridge a national memorial of Waterloo and of the Napoleonic wars? I understand that the bridge was begun some years before Waterloo under an Act of Parliament obtained by a company, and shortly before the bridge was completed an amending Act was passed which decreed that the name of the bridge was to be not what was originally intended, but Waterloo bridge—and expressly, I understand, in order that it should constitute a national war memorial. The bridge was opened in the presence of the then Prince Regent and the Duke of Wellington with great pomp on that footing, and it remains to-day, I believe, the only national monument that exists of Waterloo and the preceding glorious period in our history.
The question of the beauty of the bridge does not, I think, admit of much controversy. So far as I have been able to notice, that is a matter of agreement amongst most people who have ever looked at it and who care much about beauty of scenery. But I would like to dwell upon this one point. It is not merely that Waterloo bridge, if taken down and put up a mile or two away, would still be one of the fine bridges of the world, but that the bridge happens to be a particularly congruous, seemly feature in the actual surroundings in which it is placed. Some of your Lordships must be familiar with the point of the view, obscured now by the temporary bridge on the spot, but in which one can see St. Paul's standing above the long line of the bridge, with the really magnificent building of Somerset House on the left at one end of the bridge. Well, in that really grand view Waterloo bridge, as everyone can see, is a feature lending much to the effect, and it was designed to do so.
What I want your Lordships to notice is that the great architect whom, I understand, it is intended to employ—and it would not surprise me, for he is a great architect—might design a bridge which in itself would be quite as fine a bridge as Rennie's,
782
but he is under certain requirements, I believe, as to steel construction; and certainly as to the span of his arches and the main features of his design. He cannot have a free hand from the architectural point of view; and so, while it would be demanded of him that he should build a very beautiful bridge, it could not be demanded of him under these conditions that he should build an equally good foreground to St. Paul's. That is the nature of the consideration which makes so many people, and I again say so many quite ordinary people, very much interested in this case.
I want now frankly to ask what sort of weight ought one to give to that kind of consideration, beauty and old associations, as against the practical considerations which may exist on the other side. Speaking for myself, I put the matter no higher than this, that with considerations before you of that sort you ought, before you interfere with a valuable feature in the capital of the Empire, to be quite sure that you are doing something of real practical utility, and doing it at a reasonable cost. There is one practical consideration which I will mention at once which, to my mind, would be decisive as to preserving the present bridge, if it really arose. It has been said lately by one important newspaper, and a somewhat famous orator, that the arches of the bridge are a sort of deathtrap for lightermen and others navigating the river. All I can tell your Lordships about that is this, that the Royal Commission specially attended to that matter and found that in three recent years, of which they had the facts, not one single accident had occurred there which caused loss of life or even of cargo. I must observe here that the temporary bridge now there adds to any danger which there might be, but I have read the report laid before the London County Council last week—and the London County Council, of course, must be fully alive to any question of that kind if it really arises—and in giving their reasons for desiring a new bridge they pass over that point in absolute silence. Therefore, I can only conclude that this so-called death-trap is really a myth.
I am sorry to have taken up so much time with these preliminary matters, but I hope I can put the points in controversy fairly succinctly, because it is the extent of the controversy which arises that I

783
want to put before your Lordships. To begin with there is the estimated cost of building the new bridge. This is what is said on the subject by the report submitted by the Improvements Committee last February to the Council, and adopted by them:
"The Council was informed on the 24th February, 1925, that the approximate cost of providing a new bridge 75 feet wide and removing the old bridge would be £1,295,000."
I am, of course, not dreaming of imputing bad faith or culpable carelessness to any one, but there is reason for looking rather closely at questions of estimates of that sort.
I have told my noble friend Lord Plymouth, who, I understand, is going to reply, of the one or two questions that I want to ask. The first is as to what is included in that estimate. For example, directly the big piers of the new bridge begin to be put down it seems certain that they must to some extent block the passageway along the river through some of the openings. That may have to be met. Apart from that the old bridge would be completely blocked, and the old bridge only carries a single line and the temporary bridge a single line. It therefore appears obvious that a new temporary bridge will have to be constructed, and I presume the old temporary bridge taken down. That may not be so, but has this been fully considered and worked out, and what figure, if any, is included in the estimate for that?
Then I pass to another consideration. The old bridge has to be taken down, an immensely solid structure. The lower of the two estimates that I have seen for that is £500,000. That sounds a good deal, but I understand that that estimate is based upon the actual cost of removing, some years ago, the old Vauxhall bridge, and is the estimate of the engineer who was engaged in that work of demolition. I would ask whether that figure, or any careful figure, and if so what figure, in respect of the demolition has been included in the estimate of the London County Council. If you take one sum from the other you would only have something over £700,000 left for the whole cost of building this vast new bridge across the Thames, which would be a really startling estimate, and so that figure has aroused a good deal of astonishment.
I have been sent an estimate by a competent engineer, Mr. William Muir-head, of what he thinks would be an approximate figure for carrying out the whole work. The figure, as I say, is approximate, but you will see that the difference in the amount is so big that unless it is an absolutely incompetent or absolutely fraudulent approximation a very serious question arises. These are his figures: For destroying the old bridge, £550,000; for constructing a new temporary bridge, £400,000. The first figure is based on very real experience. I do not know what the £400,000 is exactly based upon; I dare say upon the actual cost of the existing temporary bridge. Further: for taking down the present temporary bridge—because sooner or later it has to come down—say £50,000; and for the work of building the new bridge £1,300,000. Your Lordships may have noticed that that last figure is not very far off the figure given by the London County Council, supposing that they were referring merely to the cost of building a new bridge, and leaving out of account in that figure any other large and costly items such as I have mentioned. Mr. Muirhead, I may say, has studied this question for years. I have not had the opportunity, since I had these figures, of obtaining more than most general confirmation of them by another engineer, but when a man of the standing of Mr. Muirhead will put his name to an estimate which is actually £1,000,000 more than the figure which was before the London County Council when they voted, surely a rather serious question arises.
I turn now to the London County Council's estimate of the cost of the rival plan which they have set aside. Their estimate is £1,081,000. I am not disputing at all that that is a good estimate, on the supposition on which they are going. But what is there overlooked is that since that figure was put before them in 1925 there has been brought forward a different plan for reconditioning the present bridge, for which the claim is made—amply corroborated by other engineers—that it is a safer process, that it is a much speedier process in point of time, and also that the cost of it would be far lower. As to the point of time, I understand that under the proposal to which I am going to refer the old existing bridge would not be out of use

785
for traffic for one single day, though, of course, for certain periods it would be subject to the sort of curtailment of space to an extent that we are accustomed to any year in Piccadilly during the season. It would be carrying traffic the whole time. I will not dwell further on the comparison in point of time, though there is very considerable advantage claimed on that ground, but I will came to the cost.
Making full allowance for the fact that in a work of this kind you cannot tell quite how much there is to do till you begin to do the work, Mr. Dalrymple Hay first put down as the outside estimate £650,000. He then got considered estimates from two great firms of contractors for doing the work, and the higher of those two estimates, made by a very great contractor, is only £506,400. Tint I will take Mr. Dalrymple Hay's original larger figure, £650,000. Add to that—what I believe is a pretty safe figure—£50,000 for the intended widening of the roadway, and a further £50,000, the figure I have already mentioned, for the eventual removal of the temporary bridge, which is to happen in any case. That amounts to £750,000, not something over £1,000,000. To sum up all that part of the question: on the evidence of great experts whose authority cannot possibly be lightly brushed aside, we have the cost of the London County Council's plans put in that paragraph which I quoted to you at £1,000,000 lower than it actually is likely to be, and the cost of the alternative work of reconditioning put about a quarter of a million higher than it is actually likely to be. Surely that discrepancy of a million and a quarter between the two expert views is worth just a little consideration.
Now, put aside the question of comparative cost. Is the object to be gained by what anyway is going to be the more expensive plan a good object at all I May I read a short paragraph from the Report of Lord Lee of Fareham's Commission upon that subject:
"We do not think that it is either necessary or desirable that a bridge of such dimensions should be erected at this spot. It could not be fairly utilised unless the streets on both sides, and particularly on the northern side, were greatly altered; otherwise the bringing of more traffic over the bridge would only intensify the congestion at the Strand. A very large expenditure of money on street improvements would be required in order to make such a bridge
786
meet the demand of through London traffic, and this demand could be far better satisfied by a new bridge at Charing Cross."
Many of your Lordships, I dare say, are members of road authorities elsewhere, and you are quite familiar with the principle that it is no use—it may be harmful, particularly in the case of a bridge—widening a short section of a throughfare if it is going to lead at either end to greater congestion. Here you have the Report of the Lee Commission saying that the widening of the bridge to that extent would not be an advantage at all and that a far better plan, that of the Charing Cross bridge, can be substituted and will entirely meet all requirements.
All that would be quite intelligible if it were intended in the end to run trams over the bridge. As I understand it is denied, and, of course, convincingly, that the project of running trams over the bridge was at all in the mind of the majority of the Council when they gave their vote for it. We are assured of that and I accept it. But when this scheme was first being considered, the Highways Committee of the London County Council, in 1925, certainly clearly expressed their desire for a six-roadway bridge on the ground that they wanted to link up their system by running two lines of tramways across it. That must be still in the air. You will have your great new wide bridge, if you have your way, and you will have it, as I have pointed out, with this extra space useless for practical purposes. There are the trams that the tramways officials want to link up. Will you not necessarily get your trams over after that? I am not saying whether those trams would be a good or a bad thing, but I do say that it is a very difficult and very important question and one which I assume the Ministry of Transport have considered and upon which they have some decided view to express to us.
Putting that aside, we have the recommendation, which I need not weary your Lordships by dwelling upon, of the alternative of a big new bridge at Charing Cross. I want to ask what happens when you have your Waterloo bridge? Is the Charing Cross project-going to be abandoned for ever, or do you still contemplate having a costly bridge at Charing Cross and all the while incurring an unknown additional amount of money for the construction of another route which you are told by the Commis-

787
sioners is not wanted? I hope I have: made my question perfectly clear and I have no doubt we shall hear the considered views of the Ministry of Transport upon it. What it comes to is this. On the evidence put before me which I have tried to summarise—I am not attempting to dogmatise upon it—we have this result. The proposed scheme is, firstly, extravagantly costly; and, secondly, it is futile or even injurious having regard to the larger question of traffic as a whole.
I thank your Lordships very much for the patience with which you have heard me and I have only a word to add in conclusion. I would like to express the particular interest I have apart from that of beauty and association, which we all share. I have this special interest in this matter, that I happen to have been a member of a county council elsewhere for a great many years now and have been very familiar on various occasions with negotiations about works with one Department of the Government or another. Our intercourse with Government Departments has uniformly been most pleasant. They have been most kind. They have been extremely stimulating; but never have they been at all restraining in their influence over us. I have had to try to pilot a small scheme, not under the Ministry of Transport but another Department, requiring a considerable expenditure of money, and I know from experience that when I next go to the Department concerned I shall have it frankly pointed out to me if my scheme is in any way inadequate to the proper carrying out of the object; but I shall not have it pointed out to me that it is possibly in any way excessively costly or that my county council may have some other object for which they could better afford that amount of money.
For years it has been growing upon me that the whole of that part of our national expenditure (of course also the local expenditure which it elicits) which passes through the hands of local authorities, badly needs some more thorough system of Treasury control than it has received in the past. I will not develop that point now because I confess that the question of this general tendency is one on which I may be tempted to weary your Lordships upon some future occasion. I will only say that here is a crucial and conspicuous instance of the
788
relation between the two authorities. My Lords, this is an economical Government! I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that His Majesty's Government, before finally deciding to contribute towards the cost of the new bridge by which the London County Council proposes to replace Waterloo bridge, should receive and consider representations from societies interested in the matter, based upon competent expert advice, tending to show—
1, That the estimates before the London County Council as to the comparative cost of its proposal and of the reconditioning of the existing bridge,
need serious reconsideration; and
2, That making a new bridge of the width proposed at that spot can have none but an injurious result upon traffic.—(Lord Charnwood.)
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, as this is the first serious occasion on which I have had the honour of addressing your Lordships I hope you will extend to me, as a newcomer, the indulgence which the House generally gives to a recruit. The proposition which the noble Lord has put before your Lordships in the Resolution on the Paper to which I would direct your attention is one of the most extraordinary I have ever come across. It is divided into two parts. In the first part he says that the London County Council and, incidentally, the Ministry of Transport are not fit to make an estimate for the building of a bridge. In the second part he says that if you widen a bridge from three lines to six lines you obstruct the traffic. Those two propositions seem to me to require a good deal of proof and, with all respect to the noble Lord, I do not think he has proved either of them.
When you ask yourselves if the County Council is fit to make estimates for a bridge or must seek the advice of learned societies, consider what the County Council is. The County Council is a body which represents nearly five millions of people, a number greater than the population of the Republic of Switzerland. It is a body whose revenues are far greater than many of the minor European States. It is a body which has proved its taste by the extraordinarily fine County Hall which it has built for itself. I submit, therefore, that

789
If we are to say in your Lordships' House that the County Council is not fit to make these estimates we might as well bring in a Bill to abolish the County Council. You really must trust the County Council to be sane in finance and to approve its own proper experts.
Then I turn to the Ministry of Transport. After all it may be one of the young Ministries and probably, therefore, one of the best, because the need for it has been apparent and it has recently been created. But it is not one of those Departments which has not had the handling of money. Ever since it has been in existence it has dealt annually, under the supervision of the Treasury, with anything from £15,000,000 to £25,000,000 a year, and if you cannot trust a Government Department, subject to the scrutiny of the Treasury, to give an appropriate contribution to a bridge I do submit you had better abolish the Ministry of Transport as well. As I understand it, the Minister of Transport has not promised to give 60 per cent, of the cost of this bridge whatever it is. What he has said is that he would not under any circumstances give more than 60 per cent., but this 60 per cent, must be subject to his being satisfied that all precautions have been taken, and that the estimates are as near as they possibly can be.
Estimates for under-water work are always a leap in the dark. Take the case of that fine new bridge over the Tweed at Berwick. There the estimates were largely exceeded because when they came to make the foundations of the new bridge they found there was a second river Tweed under the first river Tweed, and they had to carry their foundations almost as many feet deeper as the depth originally intended because of this unknown river which no one could fore see. Therefore, when the noble Lord says these estimates may be wrong I agree with him. They may be wrong I Nobody can possibly tell in under-water work what they are going to find. What I do most strongly dissent from is his saying that the London County Council and the Ministry of Transport, under supervision of the Treasury, are not fit to carry out these estimates and to do the work themselves—
LORD CHARNWOOD: I never said that
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: There are one or two interesting points in the very able speech of my noble friend to which I should like to refer. This controversy is an old one. It has been going on now for over eight years. I had hoped that at long last we should see an end of it, and something done to Waterloo bridge so as not to leave it any longer lying there in a derelict state, an eyesore and a sorrow to the whole nation. In December, 1923, the County Council engineers reported to the Council that not only was a certain pier in the river in a very decrepit state, but they also reported that the expectation of life, if I may put it in that way, of the bridge was a very short one; and, very rightly, I think, the London County Council then appointed a special Committee to go into the whole question not only of Waterloo bridge but of all the bridges under their jurisdiction. AK your Lordships know the London County Council are the statutory body for building and maintaining bridges within their own County Council area. The Committee reported to the Council, and the County Council then decided, rightly or wrongly—it was within their province to decide—that the bridge should be reconstructed with five piers over the river and with six lines of traffic.
There were some at the time, and I suppose still are, who wished that underpinning could be undertaken instead of reconstruction. Naturally, those who love the old bridge admired its massive proportions and wished to retain it, wished to underpin it if at all possible, but the chief engineers of the Council, Sir Basil Mott and Sir Maurice Fitz-maurice, reported that under-pinning was a very hazardous and uncertain engneering proposition. They could give absolutely no estimate as to the cost. As a matter of fact they gave estimates varying from £300,000 to £900,000—practically no estimate at all—and said that in consequence under-pinning was undesirable and ought not to be attempted. Indeed, the County Council went further and consulted the Council of the Institute of Engineers, the most authoritative body in the engineering trade. That body wrote definitely, saying, in effect: "We advise you to accept the advice of these three or four consultants." What option had the London County Council? They were bound to go by the advice of these

791
advisers whom they had retained, and, therefore, they decided that underpinning was impossible and reconstruction necessary.
LORD CHARNWOOD: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. May I ask in reference to what the noble Lord has last said, was not the answer—I think I have seen it reported—of the Institute of Engineers simply to the effect that they advised the London County Council to consult their own engineers individually. Did it not amount really to a refusal to give a corporate opinion on the subject?
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Yes, and no, if I may put it so. I believe those are the words. I have tried to give them as nearly as I could in colloquial terms. They wrote that in their view the County Council would be well advised to act on the considered individual opinion of their consultants.
LORD CHARNWOOD: I am sorry to interrupt again. I think there are preceding words which qualify that.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I did not mean—if I conveyed that I apologise—I did not mean to say that the full weight of the council's opinion was on the side of the London County Council. All I did mean to say was that they would not commit themselves, and said: "You employed these eminent consultants and we do not dissent from you following their advice." I think that is a fair way of putting it.
LORD CHARNWOOD: That is it exactly.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: What happened next? Those who loved the bridge, those who considered that reconstruction without under-pinning was impossible—that reconstruction for either three lines of traffic or four lines of traffic was the best way to deal with the problem—were up in arms. They conducted a well-engineered agitation in the Press, especially in The Times newspaper. They put pressure upon the Prime Minister, and I think the Government of the day very weakly appointed a Royal Commission. I am not saying anything against the individuals who sat upon the Royal Commission—I see my noble friend Lord Lee of Fareham here—but I
792
think it was weak of the Government to appoint a Royal Commission when there was such a body as the London County Council, who had statutory authority to deal with these things and in the past had always carried out their duties very well.
The Royal Commission was appointed. I should here like to pay a tribute to the London County Council. I was Minister of Transport at the time and you might have expected that the London County Council, very legitimately, would have been rather hurt at their statutory right being, by implication, over-ridden, and that some other body should make recommendations upon what was their province. Not at all, they behaved with great public spirit. They never showed any sign of dissent, either privately or in debates in the Council, and carried on their business and decided not to proceed with reconstruction till the Report of the Royal Commission was in the hands of the Government. In November, 1926, the Royal Commission reported. That Royal Commission, if the noble Viscount, Lord Lee of Fareham, will allow me to say so, was a model of expedition, and its Report a model of clear exposition. Moreover, the Report was embellished, which is so seldom the case, with delightful drawings at the end which enabled one to digest more easily the rather heavy contents of a Blue-book. Viscount Lee of Fareham and his colleagues were most expeditious. They were not appointed until July, they gave up all their holidays to carry out their work, and they reported in November of the same year, in four short months.
I think your Lordships will agree that that was a great achievement because they had not only to survey Waterloo bridge but to go into the whole question of Charing Cross bridge—a far bigger proposition—and they surveyed bridges from the mouth of the Thames up to Twickenham. What were their recommendations as far as this debate is concerned? They recommended inter alia that Waterloo bridge should be reconditioned and widened to take four lines of traffic, and they linked up that with a recommendation that there should be a new bridge at Charing Cross. Now, supposing the Charing Cross bridge scheme had materialised, I should have been in absolute agreement with the recommenda-

793
tion of the Royal Commission that Waterloo bridge should only be widened to four lines, because if you had, as you would have had in that case, six lines of traffic at Charing Cross bridge and four lines at Waterloo bridge, ten in all, that would have been ample. But now that Charing Cross bridge has disappeared, for a generation at least most unfortunately, after having received a four to one majority in its favour in another place, we shall have instead of the ten lines of traffic visualised by the noble Viscount, Lord Lee of Fareham, only six. Even if the London County Council's proposals are now carried through we shall have only six lines instead of ten to carry all the traffic, and if the views of the noble Lord who moved this Motion were carried into effect we should have only three, or possibly four at the most.
You really must consider, my Lords, other things besides æsthetic conditions in this controversy. You must consider how people are going to get across the river. After all, that is the most important point. Can you carry people across the river or can you not? It seems to me that the six lines provided by the London County Council would be the absolute minimum which would carry the traffic. If it is not out of place, I would say this: Your Lordships will remember that the Charing Cross Bridge Bill after having, as I have said, a majority of four to one in the House of Commons, was rejected by a Select Committee of the House of Commons on certain details connected with the south side of the river. Sir Henry Cautley was Chairman of that Committee and I know that yesterday at a Committee meeting in another place he said that he and his colleagues on the Select Committee, if they had known that the Charing Cross scheme was to disappear, would have been strongly in favour of six lines of traffic at Waterloo bridge instead of three or four.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Has he said that publicly? Can you give us the exact words and those of his colleagues as well?
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I am afraid I cannot but he said it publicly in a Committee room. I cannot go further than that. I do not know whether you would call that publicly, but the public were admitted to the Committee room.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I should like to have his exact words.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Well I was not there. My noble friend, if he will allow me to say so, made a good point at the end when he said that it was no good widening Waterloo bridge to take six lines of traffic if you got a block at each end when you got on to the land, if I may put it that way. If conditions were as they were five or six years ago when the Commission of the noble Viscount, Lord Lee, reported, although I do not say it would have been a convincing reason for adopting the noble Lord's views it would have been a fair argument to put forward. But since then five or six years have passed, and conditions have very much changed. If he will go now to Aldwych he will notice a new traffic arrangement which has so accelerated the movement of traffic that there is very little congestion at all. Things are very much better there than they were five or six years ago. Therefore the criticisms of the noble Viscount's Commission, although no doubt proper at the time, are not true now. Furthermore, supposing congestion did occur at Aldwych and the Strand I am informed that it would be perfectly feasible at no great expense to make a tunnel from Aldwych to go under the Strand, and therefore there need be no hold-up of traffic at all.
There is a further point. I hope, and in fact I am sure, that the bridge which the London County Council is going to build is not going to be a shoddy structure. It is not going to be a jerry-built bridge which will fall down in twenty years. It will be a bridge which will stand 150 or 200 years and will be a monument to the time in which we live. We must have vision and look forward and not be content now with something that will scrape through. We must look to the future and we must remember the very large increase of traffic which may take place and the wider bridge which will be necessary. Six lines of traffic will be the absolute minimum. I do not want to detain your Lordships very much longer, but my noble friend made somewhat expansive remarks and therefore I have to deal with them on the same lines. There are many ardent admirers of Rennie's masterpiece who take the line that they will have the bridge, the whole bridge, and nothing but the bridge; that

795
they will not have any widening even for four lines of traffic; that it must stand as it was made, and that the harmony of the bridge would disappear if we touched it in any way. It must be reconstructed as Rennie finished it in 1817 or whatever year it was. From their point of view they are probably right, because if you have a masterpiece of architecture and you lengthen it there or shorten it here obviously the harmony of the whole is destroyed. Therefore it seems to me that there can be no really ardent admirer of the masterpiece who would go any further than reconstruction. Even if it was widened for four lines of traffic, which I understand to be the most that what I may call the Bridge-ites would wish, it must destroy its harmony.
I read with interest on page 96 of the Report of the noble Viscount's Commission what was said by Sir Reginald Blomfield, who was a great protagonist of the bridge. He was asked by my noble friend to give some designs which would enable the bridge to be widened 7 feet 6 inches, and he said:
"My proposals [for this 7-foot 6-ineh widening] must alter the appearance."
And my noble friend the Earl of Crawford, in his evidence, said:
"By widening Waterloo bridge to a four-line traffic bridge you cannot fail to impair the unity and the perfection of Rennie's design."
So I put it to your Lordships—
VISCOUNT LEE OF FAREHAM: Will the noble Lord read the words that follow?
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Whose? Sir Reginald Blomfield's?
VISCOUNT LEE OF FAREHAM: No, Earl Crawford's. May I read them? He said:
"If such a course proved necessary we should think it regrettable, but carried out with scrupulous care and respect, such a course in our opinion would be preferable to the destruction of the whole bridge."
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Quite so, but at any rate the noble Viscount cannot deny that the Earl of Crawford was of opinion that it would impair the perfection of Rennie's masterpiece. He may have regretted it, but what I am trying to press home is that if you once depart from three lines and nothing but three lines you have impaired the perfection of
796
the bridge, and then, for Heaven's sake, make it a bridge worthy of London and the traffic it has to carry. It seems to me, therefore, the County Council are perfectly right to make it six lines of traffic because that is only going to cost £214,000 more than if you had four lines of traffic.
Finally, I would ask those who are opposed to the London County Council's proposals to take heart and to consider, as is true, that we in this age, this decade, this year, can build just as well, with just as much perfection, and with just as much consideration for aesthetic beauty, as any of our ancestors. I deny that we are decadent in art. I consider we can build bridges as beautiful as any of our forefathers. The London County Council have been well advised to get the advice and co-operation of Sir Gilbert Scott, and then you have Sir Frederick Palmer, who has done excellent work in advising upon and carrying out technical details. Surely we ought to trust this great body to carry out a work worthy of the capital city of the Empire. I am sure that if the House of Commons, in a month's time, votes the money for which the London County Council asks those who live to see the completion of the bridge—as to the time it will take I think the estimates are rather optimistic—will be sure that we were right in supporting the local authority in this matter, and that we have produced something really worthy of London.
LORD CONWAY OF ALLINGTON: My Lords, as a very new comer to your House I should in the ordinary course have hesitated to occupy any of your time before I had become more familiar with this place. My noble friend who has just spoken appealed to the House for kindness to him. It would ill become me, I think, to make myself the mouthpiece of that kindness; rather would I become his partner in an appeal for like kindness from your Lordships to me.
I am impelled to address your Lordships about Waterloo bridge because it is a subject in which I have taken a great deal of interest, involving proposals that I have opposed with whatever energy I could in another place. Now that the question arises again I do not wish to let it pass without a few words. The problem is essentially a problem of traffic, and the problem of traffic in London is a great one. It does not

797
depend upon a bridge here or a new road there, but on the entire organisation of the streets of this vast Metropolis—an organisation that will have to take into account what the London County Council has entirely neglected, and that is the whole of the square mile of South London which some day will have to be replanned and rebuilt. The first necessity for improving facilities for London traffic in these parts is to form a great road on the south side of the Thames in the neighbourhood of Waterloo Station to London bridge. That road would automatically relieve the strain of an immense amount of traffic. It would be the cord of a great are passing round the bend of the Thames which might be perfectly well by-passed by a shorter route. It is, therefore, in my opinion a necessity of the first importance to consider the whole question of the town-planning of South London, and until that is done to talk about bridges and avenues of approach is beside the mark.
If you plan South London properly you will open up that square mile, which is actually in the very centre of London, and bring it into practical utility, you will accomplish a total change in the whole problem of traffic and, yet more important, you will provide some solution for that site hunger which presses so upon men of business and the population generally on the south side of the Thames. If you can replan South London and make it really the headquarters of London life—because it is the centre and might well become more important than the areas north of the Thames—so as to bring all that area into vitality, the question of the bridges across the Thames would follow naturally. My noble friend spoke of the necessity of having regard to the future. The proposal for this six-line bridge pays no attention to the future. It is a merely temporary expedient and bears no relation to the development of London as it may take place in the next two or three centuries. Instead of development being on the north side of the river the more important part of it may yet be on the south, and if that should take place the problem of the bridges will have changed.
I have been terribly puzzled by all these estimates that have been poured upon us. We have been told that the building of this bridge will cost much more, or less, according to whether we build a new bridge or recondition the old
798
one, and the last figure my noble friend gave was that the difference between building a new bridge and reconditioning the old one was only £214,000.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I said the difference between a four-line bridge and a six-line bridge is only £214,000.
LORD CONWAY OF ALLINGTON: That is what I meant to say. On the other hand, Lord Charnwood tells us the difference may be well over £1,000,000 and between the two estimates it is difficult for an amateur to form any opinion. But all these estimates concern themselves only with the bridge, whereas there must be a great expense involved in planning and altering the two ends so as to deal with the traffic. I think you could relieve the traffic in the Strand by building at once, or as soon as it can be done, that great main highway of South London, from Waterloo to London Bridge. You could in that way relieve the traffic enormously, much more than any bridges can do. Bridges only pour more traffic from South London into North London, and the more bridges you have the more the traffic will come. You want to have an alternative route, where the whole thing may flow away in a different direction, and that is to be done by re-organising South London. I was sorry to hear, although I suspected it, that the six-line bridge will tempt the London County Council to bring trams along it. The London County Council has been obsessed with trams from the very beginning.
Let me cite one instance which came under my observation. Those of your Lordships who have occasion to go down into Kent would naturally have had to go from Lewisham to Eltham. Mr. May-bury, now Sir Henry Maybury, and then road surveyor to Kent, decided to make the road between Eltham and Lewisham the finest road in the world. He closed the road for many months, but he made what was the most splendid piece of road surface we can possibly imagine. It cost, I believe, £150,000 to £200,000, and when it was done he said that it would last without any attention for approximately 100 years. He reckoned without the London County Council. No sooner was the road done (or very shortly afterwards) than along comes the County Council, takes it all up, and lays down trams, which nobody wanted, and utterly

799
destroyed that piece of road which had been built at so great a, price.
I do not wish to recapitulate the things that have already been said, but I would say one more word about the beauty of this bridge. We are always told that we ought to respect the beauty of our cities and strive to make them more beautiful, and so forth. But when the problem assumes a concrete form, nine times out of ten we are told that practical considerations have to override aesthetic considerations. I do not think that practical considerations ought to over-ride the question of the retention of Waterloo bridge. Can your Lordships imagine another great city in the world, possessing such a magnificent architectural composition as Waterloo bridge and Somerset House—can you imagine Paris or Buda Pesth, or any other city, in which such a question could arise as to whether such a thing should be destroyed? This is the only country in the world where a subject of this kind could even be debated. The London County Council is the only body which could be expected to bring forward such a proposition. My noble friend has instanced the London County Hall as proving the æsthetic enterprise of the London County Council. I am not going to criticise the County Hall, but I do not think it gives the County Council carte blanche for destroying the finest architectural composition that we have in London. I have therefore the greatest confidence that I am doing right in supporting the Motion of the noble Lord.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I would not inflict upon your Lordships my maiden speech were it not for the fact that I represent a part of London upon the London County Council, and your Lordships will recollect that the resolution passed on February 16 last for the rebuilding of Waterloo bridge was the final climax of a very old quarrel, which had been in existence for eight or nine years. I need not worry your Lordships with all the resolutions passed and rescinded in the Council Chamber, again and again, in the effort to arrive at a conclusion satisfactory to all sides; but let me assure Lord Conway that there is not the slightest suggestion, so far as at present can be ascertained, that the London County Council should at any
800
future date allow trams to run over the bridge.
I do not wish to reiterate the words which came from Lord Mount Temple, but perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words as to the physical condition of the bridge to-day. Your Lordships will recollect that a special Committee on the Thames Bridges reported in 1925 that it must be admitted that the old bridge was worn out and must be taken down to prevent it from falling down. Since that day the settlement of the piers has continued, and No. 5 pier is now five inches out of plumb while No. 6 pier has sunk another three inches since the last settlement in 1924. That is to my mind a very clear indication that the bridge is in u, very unstable and dangerous condition. I feel sure that the London County Council do not wish wantonly to destroy any beautiful monument, whatever it may be, but when a structure such as this becomes dangerous to the modern-day traffic requirements there is obviously no other course open for the Council to take. May I also remind your Lordships that in addition to other expenses, connected with under-pinning and so forth, the Council have to maintain a very heavy charge for watching the piers, amounting, I believe, to something like £8,000 per annum, which the London ratepayers have been called upon to pay?
I do not propose to deal with all the aspects of the case right from the very beginning to the end of the discussion, but perhaps it is necessary that I should draw your Lordships' attention to the traffic considerations which have necessitated the destruction of the present bridge and the introduction of the new six-line bridge. Waterloo bridge is one of the main-road bridges of London, and something like 15,000 vehicles a day pass over it, and 1,600 in the busiest hour of the day. It is therefore to my mind plain that the capacity of a three-line bridge at that part of London must have reached saturation point, and I would respectfully ask the noble Lord not to press his Motion to a Division, for the Council will then be again in the midst of a re-opened controversy. I can assure the noble Lord that all the considerations have been taken into account, and the Council was definitely of opinion that if it could keep Waterloo bridge it would be a very wise thing, but with the announcement last July that the Govern-

801
ment were unable to continue their offer as to bearing part of the cost for the new Charing Cross bridge, it was obvious that something had to be done at once. Although, in common with many of your Lordships, I greatly regret the necessary destruction of this bridge, I do look forward to the time in the very near future when we shall see another bridge in its place, of brilliant design and architecture, by Sir Gilbert Scott—a name which can only command the greatest respect and admiration in your Lordships' minds. The estimate of expenditure, amounting to £1,295,000, which was prepared in 1923 and 1924, may still be taken as representing the expenditure involved, and the county engineers and architect have been informed of this estimate in order that they may have it in mind in connection with the preparation of the design of the new bridge.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, it is seldom the privilege of a Peer addressing your Lordships to have the opportunity of offering congratulations to a succession of three Peers who have made their maiden speeches. My noble friend Lord Mount Temple is a very old and experienced statesman whom we nave heard for many years in another place and who, we hope, will frequently address your Lordships here. Lord Conway is a Peer of the utmost distinction in learned and academic circles, whose accession to your Lordships' House will be very welcome indeed; and, as for the speech we have just heard from the noble Earl, all I can say is that your Lordships will join me in congratulating him most heartily. He is one of those younger Peers who have never sat in the House of Commons, and who do their best by putting in a great amount of work for local government to supplement the work which they are able to do in this House.
I should like to congratulate one other personage also, and that is the representative of the Treasury—my noble friend below me, I suppose—for his optimism in this matter in believing the estimates put forward by the London County Council, for being so bland and so innocent as to fancy that £1,300,000 is going to finish off this affair of Waterloo bridge. I hope he will do what Lord Charnwood did—give us an analysis of that figure, tell us how much of the £1,300,000 is allotted to
802
destroying and removing the existing bridge, how much to destroying and removing the temporary bridge, how much to the preparation and erection of a second temporary bridge, how much for building a new bridge, and whether there is any money in this estimate for the supplementary outlay which is all-essential if this bridge is to be any good whatever. On those five items perhaps he will give us the analysis of this £1,300,000.
My noble friend below the gangway (Lord Mount Temple) says "Trust the London County Council. They are the road authority. It is their business. How impertinent of the House of Lords to criticise anything they do!" Let me remind him that I and other members of this House and of the House of Commons represent the taxpayer, and the taxpayer has to find 60 per cent, of this money. It is a very simple thing for the London County Council to say that, with 40 per cent, of the money contributed, by them, they are going to control the whole thing. The taxpayer is paying the bulk of the money, and the taxpayer is not only entitled, but it is the duty of the taxpayer, to see that his money is not wasted. "Trust the County Council," Lord Mount Temple says, "it is bigger in population than Norway, bigger in wealth than Switzerland, bigger in area than Monte. Carlo and San Marino combined! Trust the County Council. Let them do anything they like. They are sacrosanct, they are infallible." What is the history of this, or the history of the Ministry of Transport for that matter? Why, he told us just now that the whole estimate of the bridge over the Tweed had to be revised because he, as Minister of Transport, forgot to do adequate boring before estimates were made. That is a very hopeful outlook! Have adequate borings been made in the bed of the Thames to know how you are going to extract these gigantic teeth, which must weigh some 500, 600 or 800 tons apiece? What is the estimate for that? Has it been made? What about the estimate for the Mersey tunnel? I do not know whether it is £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 under-estimated—no doubt by very earnest and very painstaking engineers. But, again, it does not give me any particular confidence in the estimates which are put forward now.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Will the learned societies do any better, do you think?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I think they can take very good care that these things are gone into much more closely than the London County Council seems to be going into them. But still we are going to hear from my noble friend Lord Plymouth what the estimate actually is, and then people who are not necessarily learned people will be able to give some clear opinion as to whether there is some fundamental fallacy in this estimate.
Waterloo bridge, we are told, is too narrow now. It is what you call a three-line bridge now. Waterloo bridge is going to be closed, for how long I do not know—five years, six years, seven years? And during that time the traffic will have to travel along the temporary bridge. Well, if Waterloo bridge, which is a three-line traffic bridge, is too narrow, what will the situation be when the whole of the traffic is diverted on to a single-line bridge—the present temporary bridge, which is 10 ft. narrower than Waterloo bridge—18th ft. against 28 ft.? What is going to happen to the traffic of London for those seven years? I do not know if any of your Lordships are in the habit of going over that bridge. You will remember that at either end there are immense notices to say that the permissible speed is only five miles an hour. It is quite true that the authorities allow traffic to go much more quickly, but the fact that that notice is there is an indication that the bridge cannot be looked upon as an ordinary structure, and that caution is necessary. Anybody who travels over that bridge or walks over it knows that at one particular point towards the Surrey side there is a very uncomfortable vibration. For seven years we are going to have the whole of the traffic, which you say ought to be six lines, carried on this swinging bridge 18 ft. in breadth, over which traffic technically cannot go more than five miles an hour. It proves to me that another bridge will prove essential.
But, even so, even if you should get traffic over the three lines of the existing Waterloo bridge one way and the two lines over the temporary iron bridge the other way—single line—there can be no necessity in my opinion for a six-line
804
bridge at all at that point. Lord Charnwood was quite right when he said that some years ago the fifth and the sixth line of traffic over that bridge was justified on the ground that trams were going to go over it, and four lines are enough if there are to be no trams—enough, for any bridge at all. A bridge is a bit of thoroughfare where nobody has any business to get in or out of a carriage, where nobody wants to shop, where no cross traffic goes over the bridge transversely. No traffic goes off it to one side or the other. It is a constant through stream. Four lines of traffic on a bridge with no stop upon the bridge is capable of feeding at either end of the bridge ten or twelve lines of exit and access. Four lines are sufficient. Six lines in my opinion are wasteful. I do not know what figure my noble friend gave of the number of vehicles that cross the bridge per hour. I am told it is 1,600 in the rush hours. That number has, therefore, to go across this swinging bridge, this 18-ft. bridge, this five-miles an hour bridge. It is impossible to inflict that upon London for seven years.
What is going to be the solution? Clearly a second temporary bridge up-stream. I think the noble Lord, Lord Charnwood, made a mistake in the figure he quoted. He quoted too high a price for the temporary bridge. It is not as big as the figure he quoted. But a second temporary bridge would be certainly more expensive, I fancy, than the existing bridge. It would have to have a longer span, and the result would be completely to upset the finance of the bridge.
LORD CHARNWOOD:I quoted figures which were sent to me.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I know, but I think the noble Lord is mistaken about that figure. If I am right in thinking that a second temporary bridge will be necessary, when you put it up you will add enormously to the difficulty and therefore to the cost of destroying the existing bridge, and to the difficulty and therefore to the cost of building the new bridge, because you do not allow free access to the existing structure from either side of the river.
A NOBLE LORD: And the navigation.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Never mind the navigation for the moment. Any-

805
body, of course, who watches a bridge being built known that the whole machinery of building and demolition is necessary. If you look at Vauxhall bridge, a little way down the river, you will see the immense structures on each side of that bridge which are essential to its election. In this case you have to destroy the bridge as well. If I am right in saying that you have to put 1,600 vehicles an hour over this swinging metal bridge, which is only about 18 feet broad, you paralyse the traffic of London and in doing so completely upset your finance.
I wish to ask this question of the Treasury. The statement of the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, and the statement of the noble Earl, Lord Munster, about trams were far from clear. I read the announcement in The Times this morning by Sir Percy Simmons about trams as being a pledge that if Parliament passes this Bill the County Council will not put trams across the bridge, and that if trams were put across the bridge afterwards on a fifth and sixth line it would be, in effect, a breach of faith. The noble Earl, Lord Munster, on the other hand says that in certain circumstances it might be possible.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: With great respect, I anticipated a little of what might happen if the Labour Party were returned to power in the Council.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Let us hope that might not happen. Lord Ponsonby smiles and seems to think there is some risk of that occurring.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I think it is inevitable.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Every great progressive town is steadily doing away with its trams. Many boroughs in the North of England have already got rid of their trams, which are the greatest obstruction to traffic that exists. Is it conceivable that the Labour Party would come in and put two lines over the new bridge? I hope they will not do it. But let us be cautions having regard to what Lord Ponsonby has said. If there is anything of that kind in the mind of the County Council or of any section of the County Council, I for one shall oppose the Bill when it comes up for Second Reading. There is going to be a Bill to give us an opportunity of being a little more clear about some of these things,
806
these obscure points upon which it is essential that Parliament should be informed. That is necessary. Those concerned have been wrong about hundreds of things in connection with these bridges, and I hope that long before this Bill is introduced into your Lordships' House we shall have full opportunity not merely as residents in London, as most of us are, not merely as ratepayers, but as ordinary taxpayers of having full information upon this matter which affects ourselves in every way as residents, as taxpayers, and as citizens of this great City.
VISCOUNT ESHER: My Lords, after what has been said by Lord Charnwood and the Earl of Crawford, I should not have intervened in the debate but that I have been for many years on the executive committee of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings. I feel that every voice possible ought to be raised to prevent the act of vandalism which the Government are proposing to commit. I belong to many of these societies, including the London Society, and they are all unanimous against the destruction of Waterloo bridge. The Government, consisting as it does entirely of men of action, probably looks upon these societies with contempt. It probably looks upon them as little hole-and-corner societies full of cranks. Although that may have been true about ten years ago, I think the whole attitude of the English people towards the preservation of their country has recently changed and that the attitude of mind displayed by the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple—the attitude of mind of a man who would do away with St. Paul's in order to relieve: the congestion at Lud-gate Hill—is one which is disappearing from the country.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT ESHER: If the Government were now proposing to do away with Temple Bar in the Strand or to destroy the famous Holbein gateways in Whitehall I do not believe they would have public opinion behind them. The case for not destroying Waterloo bridge is not only an aesthetic one, it is also a utilitarian one. Everybody is agreed that the bridge is a masterpiece, and that the engineers can restore it. It is also agreed that the restoration of a four-line

807
bridge would be cheaper than building a new one. It is also agreed that a new six-line bridge would dislocate the traffic in the Strand. It seems to me, therefore, that the case against destroying Waterloo bridge is complete, and it is a little difficult to understand why the Government have supported the London County Council in this matter. Probably their main reason for supporting them is boredom with the whole question. They feel that this question has been before the public for eight years and that some decision, even a bad one, would be better than none.
It seems to me that that is the psychology of defeat, and I think it is based on two things. One is that they think that London is such an ugly city already that it does not matter how much uglier they make it by destroying Waterloo bridge. I should like to point out in reply that even if London is ugly, the most beautiful part of it is that stretch of the river between Westminster and St. Paul's. If you wish in any way to retain the beauty of this City you must concentrate on the preservation of that particular bit of it. The other sign of the psychology of defeat is the feeling that we are too poor to build Charing Cross bridge. There is no doubt that we are too poor to build Charing Cross bridge. We are also too poor to rebuild Waterloo bridge. But if we are too poor to build Charing Cross bridge at this moment I think we should not despair of being rich enough in the future to build that bridge. If, owing to our psychology of defeat, we give up at this moment the idea of building Charing Cross bridge and we destroy Waterloo bridge, the people who come after us and eventually desire to build Charing Cross bridge will curse us for having destroyed Waterloo bridge. It is an open secret that in this matter Sir Percy Simmons is the strong man behind this movement. He is a strong man because he knows what he wants, and, knowing what he wants, he will probably get what he wants, but I would appeal to the Government who will be asked to stand up to M. Tardieu and Senator Borah to try if on this occasion they cannot practice that attitude by standing up to Sir Percy Simmons.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I do not want to intervene
808
for more than a few minutes. In this vulgar and utilitarian age I am afraid the word Waterloo conveys to most people not a battle but a station or a cup, and the idea that people reverence this bridge because it is a war memorial, I think must be dismissed as an exaggeration of sentimentality. With regard to the beauty of Waterloo bridge, everybody seems tacitly to be very much afraid to say anything against it. I do not believe anybody thought of the beauty of Waterloo bridge till before 1925. Very few people can see Waterloo bridge because it is obstructed by the railway bridge at Charing Cross. But directly this question came to the front then everybody said Waterloo bridge was one of the most beautiful things in London. I agree with the noble Viscount who has just sat down that that stretch of the Thames is one of the most beautiful things in London, and it was of that that Ruskin wrote when he referred to Waterloo bridge in these terms:
"It is not indeed the fault of living designers that the Waterloo arch is nothing more than a gloomy and hollow heap of wedged blocks of blind granite."
So even artists do not agree on this question of beauty.
I was very much disappointed at the speech of the noble Earl Lord Crawford, because I was prepared to be convinced of the beauty of Waterloo bridge if I was instructed by him on the subject. There is no greater authority on beauty than the noble Earl, but, like these artists and architects who intervene in this question and will not stick to their last, the noble Earl comes to this House as a traffic expert. The noble Earl is no more a traffic expert that I am an expert at Chinese chess. He is, like everybody else, bewildered by the amount of traffic there is, with a general idea that you must have wider streets and roundabouts, but with no expert knowledge of the traffic question at all. I do not think even the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, has dealt sufficiently with this question of the block that may arise in Wellington Street if this bridge is a six-line bridge. The fact of its being a six-line bridge will prevent what are now two bottle necks, one on either side of Waterloo bridge, and that in itself will help the flow of traffic. But at the junction of Wellington Street and the Strand an enormous advantage

809
has been gained by the one-way system and the roundabout in Aldwych. That has very much relieved traffic, and that can further be done by the demolition of the triangle of buildings on the east side of the lower part of Wellington Street.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: That would cost three-quarters of a million of money.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I am not talking about the financial side of the question. I was trying to meet the argument that was brought forward by the noble Lord who introduced this Motion, that you would find a very serious traffic congestion if six lines of traffic were to be allowed to cross at Waterloo bridge. Another point I should like to reply to in the noble Lord's eloquent speech, and also in the speech of the noble Earl who has just sat down, is this despairing idea that we have not got an architect to-day who can build a beautiful bridge in harmony with the river at this point. I cannot understand why that should be so. When I was at the Ministry of Transport I had an opportunity of travelling about the country and looking at a good many modern bridges of very fine construction and beautiful proportions, and just recently I have seen one in Wiltshire which is most satisfying in every way.
LOKD CHARNWOOD: May I correct the noble Lord's reference to my speech? I did not say that we had not a great architect who was capable of building a beautiful bridge, but I did venture to point out that he would labour under conditions which must greatly impede him in building a bridge like the existing Waterloo bridge in scale with the objects in the vicinity.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I did not want to misrepresent the noble Lord, but the expression he used was that you would be damaging the amenities by destroying the present bridge, and he seemed to suggest that any new bridge would be damaging to the amenities of that particular part of the Thames. I really do not see why that need be considering what engineering and architecture can do in these days. The noble Earl, Lord Crawford, besides being an expert on traffic, is also a great engineer, and I cannot follow him in all the difficulties that he foresees in the necessary construction of temporary
810
bridges while the main structure is going on. Really I do not think in these days of engineering triumphs that constitutes any great obstacle. I do feel after the experience we had with Charing Cross bridge, Parliamentary interference coming at a moment when the construction of that bridge would have avoided all the difficulties we are in to-day, and would have been laying the foundations of a great new scheme for bringing the southern traffic of London to the north and the northern traffic to the south with an easy flow—I think, considering the experience we had of Parliamentary interference in regard to Charing Cross bridge, we ought to be very chary in making out that the London County Council, that great local authority, are unable to draw up their estimate, are unable to chose the proper engineers and traffic experts and architects, and, in fact, are unable to look after their own business. Anybody who goes through the papers and sees the enormous trouble the County Council have taken, and the efforts they have made year after year in examining this question in every conceivable detail, must feel that they, as an authority, are better suited to deal with this problem than the two Houses of Parliament, in which there may be a score of members who are specially interested in this question. With regard to the finances and the other points, we shall get full information from the noble Earl who is to reply for the Government, and I feel he will satisfy those who have raised the question.
VISCOUNT LEE OF FAREHAM: My Lords, I had no intention of addressing your Lordships when I came down to the House and I shall not detain you for more than a few minutes. It is more in sorrow than anger that I do so, after the résumé we have had this afternoon of the history of this matter. I find it is six years ago that it was impressed upon me and my colleagues that unless we proceeded to give up all our leisure and to work ourselves regardless of considerations of health, Waterloo bridge would fall down before the end of the year 1926, and that the matter was really most vital. We did our best to respond to that appeal, and we brought in a scheme which was admittedly a compromise but which after all did do certain things. It did preserve Waterloo bridge. It did get rid of Hungerford railway bridge, the

811
greatest eyesore on that stretch of the river which the noble Lord so much admires, and rightly so. It did provide ten lines of traffic across the river, and most of them at places where all traffic experts agree that facilities are most wanted. We also did not interfere with the traffic across the river at Charing Cross for one single hour during the progress of that scheme. And then, as so often happens in this life, the rule that the best is often the enemy of the good was amply demonstrated by the enthusiasm of the friends of Waterloo bridge who at once came on the scene and filled the newspapers and the platforms with their discordant criticisms of the scheme on the ground that it was not the particular scheme which they individually favoured.
The distinguished gentlemen of the London County Council who have been eulogised this afternoon as the strong men who knew what they wanted saw at once that all that was wanted was Divide et Impera, and for a series of years it became perfectly clear that it was inevitable that the friends of the bridge were going to tear each other to pieces to prevent any scheme being adopted, until the London County Council would be in a position to say: "Really this kind of thing cannot go on any longer," and a Government would be in power which was also bored to death with the whole business and the original policy to which Sir Percy Simmons was committed would be adopted. That policy was to get rid of Waterloo bridge for other reasons than those advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, who I understand particularly dislikes Waterloo bridge because it is a war memorial. We all know that the Party to which he belongs loathe anything that suggests commemoration of our achievements in war, so that is an additional reason why he should desire to destroy the bridge.
At any rate, these gentlemen who knew what they wanted were put in a very strong and favourable position by what I can only call the extraordinary folly of the Committee which threw out the Charing Cross bridge scheme, introduced by the London County Council frankly as a compromise, as all these schemes must be. It was thrown out on a question of detail. As a result London is now in the deplorable position that it
812
will lose one of its greatest monuments—not necessarily a war monument, if that offends the noble Lord opposite, but a great architectural monument—and will have to go on with that red iron behemoth, as I think somebody has described it, and be denied any facilities for cross-river traffic at Charing Cross. London will have to incur this very heavy expenditure for a bridge which is primarily constructed to take trams across from the south to the north side. It is true that all these things will take a long time. Someone said he doubted if any one of us would live to see the bridge completed. When I look around those Benches I can only come to the conclusion that the only person likely to see it completed is the noble Earl who addressed us earlier in the debate, Lord Munster. I am certain that I shall never see it completed.
Personally I am not at all convinced by the engineering evidence brought forward—not that I set out to be an engineering expert; but after all the Royal Commission was advised by the most distinguished engineers of the day, who assured us that the reconditioning of Waterloo bridge was a perfectly practical problem which could be carried out without danger and without interfering with river traffic. But, of course, we now find that all engineers who advise the London County Council are eminent and all engineers who advise those who wish to preserve Waterloo bridge are incompetent and insignificant and their opinions are not worthy to be considered. The whole thing really has got to a stage where it is perfectly clear that nobody is going to agree upon what I consider to be the proper and sane solution of the traffic problem of Greater London. It has become partly a political question, mixed up with the trams of the London County Council, and partly an economic question because the bodies concerned are not prepared to face the expenditure on the Charing Cross scheme, which really is the only one which will permanently relieve London traffic. Therefore they come down with this miserable compromise, which I again say more in sorrow than in anger is going to deface London and reduce its traffic to a standstill within ten years, and also, I am convinced, is going to run the Government and the taxpayers into far greater expenditure than they have any idea of at the present

813
time. That is, I believe, the position, but I regard it as a foregone conclusion that we shall have to put up with this scheme. I can only regret, as I do most heartily, that I worked so hard at the question six years ago.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, may I be allowed to say that I fully appreciate the spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord Charnwood, raised this debate. I must confess, however, that I am somewhat depressed by the very gloomy prognostications of the noble Viscount, Lord Lee of Fareham, with regard to what he conceives to be the inevitable end to this problem. Unfortunately this controversy has dragged on for a considerable time. A great many people have taken a deep interest in this question and feel very keenly indeed about it, as is evidenced by some of the speeches which we have listened to this evening. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Charnwood, will not think that I am predisposed to be unsympathetic to the point of view which he has put forward and the point of view of those who want to do everything they can to see that the present Waterloo bridge is retained. My father held for some years the office which the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, held, that of First Commissioner of Works. He took a great deal of interest in all these matters and I venture to hope that I have inherited at least a portion of his great love of beauty and beautiful things. Therefore I should be as sorry as anybody, in many ways, to see the present bridge go. But I think your Lordships will agree with me that there are innumerable other considerations which have to be taken into account in coming to a final conclusion on this very vexatious problem.
I need hardly say that before arriving at their decision to contribute 60 per cent, towards the cost of a new bridge where Waterloo bridge now stands, the Government gave the very fullest consideration to all the representations which have been made by various distinguished bodies at various times. It really is untenable to suggest that this matter has not been considered fully from every possible side and every possible aspect. One of the under-
814
standings on which they came to a decision to make this contribution was that the cost of the bridge was going to be somewhere in the neighbourhood of the £1,300,000 that has been estimated by the London County Council. Furthermore, in agreeing to this they laid down certain conditions to which I will refer a little later.
VISCOUNT LEE OF FAREHAM: When the noble Earl says the Government agreed to pay 60 per cent, of the cost, have they limited themselves to 60 per cent. of £1,300,000 or 60 per cent. of whatever the cost may be?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I want to make myself clear. Of course they have not definitely limited themselves to 60 per cent. of that actual sum. No doubt there must be some latitude in the estimates connected with a big structure of this kind, but I do say that if there is any considerable variation in the estimate of £1,300,000 that would give rise to a new situation and the Government would have to reconsider its decision.
I agree that it is quite clear that the Government, owing to the history of this matter, and owing to the fact that they have interfered in it already, cannot divest themselves of all responsibility, and naturally they do not wish to do so. But there is one point that ought to be emphasised and that has been emphasised, I think, by Lord Mount Temple. It is that the London County Council are the statutory authority responsible for maintaining the roads and bridges in their area. If the present bridge were now to be reconditioned to take four lines of traffic at a considerable cost, and if in twenty or thirty years it was found that this bridge was entirely inadequate to carry the greatly increased volume of traffic that may eventuate, a new bridge would then have to be built at a very great cost again, and it would be the London County Council that would have to bear a very large proportion of the financial burden that arose even if they did not, owing to altered conditions, have to bear the whole cost of that new bridge. In the circumstances I would suggest that it is very difficult indeed to set aside the considered decision of a body such as the London County Council unless there are overwhelming reasons for doing so, and

815
I do not believe that this debate this evening has established that those overwhelming reasons exist.
I have naturally followed this controversy in the Press with a very great deal of care and a very great deal of interest. I have read, I think, all the letters that have appeared in The Times and a certain number of other newspapers, and various leading articles, and what astounds me is that there is a general assumption that everyone knows how to build a bridge, and particularly a beautiful bridge, except the London County Council, its engineers and advisers. That is patently unfair and unjustifiable. The London County Council, as the properly constituted authority in this matter, have a greater interest, I venture to say, than anybody else in seeing that London is kept beautiful, that no eyesores are erected, and in seeing that a really beautiful and sound structure is put up where this bridge now stands. I cannot see why people think that that body is not an able and worthy custodian of the heritage of Londoners generally.
With regard to the engineering aspect it is quite clear that the London County Council have taken the very best possible advice. Furthermore, they and their staff are not at all new to these things. They probably have more experience than anybody else as far as bridge-building goes. They are at present engaged in building a new bridge at Lambeth and in widening the bridge at Putney. As long ago as 1924, as my noble friend informed your Lordships, they took into consultation, as well as their own experienced engineer, Sir George Humphreys, Sir Basil Mott and the late Sir Maurice Fitzmaurice, who were preeminent in their profession. From the aesthetic point of view they have constantly consulted well-known and eminent architects. It must, therefore, be admitted on all sides that the London County Council have the most efficient and experienced staff at their disposal. They have taken the advice of the greatest experts on these matters, and now, as your Lordships know, with this new bridge in view, they are going to consult on the one hand Sir Frederick Palmer, the eminent engineer, and on the other hand Sir Giles Gilbert Scott, whose great work is, I am certain, familiar to many of your Lordships.
816
The noble Lord who initiated this debate and several other noble Lords have dwelt upon the estimates that have been brought forward, and I will try to deal as fully as possible with some at any rate of the innumerable points that have been put to me. It is estimated that the provision of an entirely new bridge of a total width of 75 feet between parapets, including the demolition of the existing bridge, will cost £1,295,000. Of that the demolition of the existing bridge is expected to cost £275,000. You cannot go into great detail at this stage with regard to these matters. After all, these are only preliminary estimates and they are based very largely upon the experience these eminent engineers have had with regard to similar matters in the past.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: They do not include the construction of a temporary bridge.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: No, and for the reason that it is not thought that a new temporary bridge will be necessary.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Does it include the demolition of the present temporary bridge?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: Yes, of both bridges, and as I have said it is not considered that the erection of a new temporary bridge will be necessary. The noble Earl, Lord Crawford, referred to the present temporary bridge as being incapable of dealing with the traffic that will wish to make use of it when the present bridge is being taken down. No doubt some difficulty will arise, but it will be capable of dealing with two lines of traffic, one going each way, and undoubtedly a certain portion of the traffic will have to be diverted to the bridges on either side, but I do not see that that is a difficulty which is in any way insuperable. Then the noble Lord, Lord Charnwood, raised a point in connection with the navigation of the river while this work is going on. I have made inquiries with regard to this point which he raised, and I am informed that when the existing temporary bridge alongside Waterloo bridge was constructed allowance was made for the possibility of a permanent six-line bridge at Waterloo, and it will not be necessary to interfere with the temporary bridge during the construction of the new six-line bridge.

817
The difficulties of navigation during reconstruction were also foreseen by the London County Council's technical advisers, and the span of the temporary bridge over the navigable channel of the river was made 260 feet (254 feet clear between protective works). This large span equals two spans of the present Waterloo bridge, plus the width of one pier. There is therefore no difficulty in this respect. Actually, and on the assumption of a new five-arch bridge, a greater width in one measurement will be available for navigation during construction than exists at present. Then, recurring for a moment to the question of the estimated cost of this bridge—
LORD CHARNWOOD: May I intervene for one moment about this temporary bridge? It cannot be the case that during the rebuilding the whole of the traffic is going to pass along this one temporary bridge. Will the noble Earl explain what will happen?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It will go round about Blackfriars and Westminster.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I am advised that will be so. In connection with the estimated cost of the bridge, I would like to remind the noble Lord that the estimated cost of the new Lambeth bridge, with five arches over the river, designed by Sir George Humphreys in collaboration with Sir Reginald Blomfield, including the taking down of the old suspension bridge, the very considerable raising of the levels of the roadways on both sides of the river and extensive tramway alterations on the Surrey side, amounts to £839,000, and so far as I know there is no indication that that sum will be greatly exceeded. I merely bring those figures forward as giving perhaps some indication of what it may cost to build a new six-line bridge at Waterloo bridge. I venture to say that when you take those figures into consideration there is no prima facie reason for assuming that the London County Council's estimate of £1,295,000 is likely to be out to any considerable extent.
May I now say just a word with regard to the alternative courses that have been suggested—those of reconditioning the existing bridge to take four lines of
818
traffic, or reconditioning it in its present dimensions to take three lines of traffic, as it does now. I do not want to take the aesthetic side which has been dwelt upon by Lord Mount Temple. The London County Council's estimate for reconditioning for four lines of traffic is £1,081,000, and reconditioning the existing bridge as it is, £988,000. I am well aware that other estimates considerably lower than those have been put forward by other well-known architects and engineers. Lord Charnwood referred in particular to the comprehensive estimate put forward by Mr. William Muirhead. He stated that this estimate amounted to something like a million more than the estimates put forward by the London County Council, and said that in view of his great reputation it was very unlikely that Mr. Muirhead was prepared to risk it by quoting a figure of this kind unless he was confident that he was approximately correct. That may be so, but the technical advisers of the London County Council have just as great reputations to risk as Mr. Muirhead, and I can see no reason why you should give any more weight—in fact I think the balance is considerably on the other side—to Mr. Muirhead's estimate than you do to the technical advisers of the London County Council.
There is no reason, so far as I can make out, to suppose that the London County Council's estimate of £1,295,000 for taking down the existing structure and constructing a new six-line bridge in its place is in any way inadequate as an estimate indicating the order of the expenditure involved. I do not wish to compare the relative merits of the technical experts that have been quoted this afternoon, but you cannot disregard the fact that the advisers and officials of the London County Council have enjoyed prolonged opportunities for the daily study of Waterloo bridge and its problems, and that they are actually engaged to-day in bridge building operations on the Thames.
The other point that the noble Lord particularly stressed was the traffic difficulties that would arise if a six-line bridge were erected on the north side at the junction of Wellington Street and the Strand. It is the considered view of the London County Council and their advisers that, in view of the fact that it

819
would cost a very large sum of money to recondition the bridge, and would cost not so very much more to build a new six-line bridge, and in view of the fact that they are building a bridge which is expected to last 100, 150 or 200 years, it would be quite unjustified for them to spend a large sum of money on reconditioning, when it is more than likely that a six-line bridge will be required within a comparatively short space of time. As to the question of the congestion of traffic that may arise on the north side of the bridge in the event of a six-line bridge being built, that has been dealt with at considerable length by various speakers this evening. In reference to it I should like to speak of the Report of the Cross-River Traffic Commission over which the noble Viscount, Lord Lee, presided. Quotations have been made from it, and they quite definitely, I think, prove that this recommendation in favour of reconditioning Waterloo bridge to take four lines of traffic was made in conjunction with a recommendation for making an entirely new bridge at Charing Cross.
Furthermore, if we go on to paragraph 84 we find these words:
"We have been informed by the Minister of Transport that if Waterloo bridge were widened to take four lines of traffic, and if a new bridge were provided at Charing Cross in addition to that proposed at St. Paul's the traffic difficulties in this central area would be solved for a period of thirty years."
We are told that you would solve the problem for thirty years if you built an entirely new bridge at Charing Cross to take six lines and reconditioned Waterloo bridge to take four lines—that is an increase of seven lines of traffic. But what is the position now? Charing Cross bridge is not going to be built at all, at any rate for a generation or more, and the suggestion made is that Waterloo bridge should only be reconditioned to take four lines of traffic. It is therefore quite clear that the position which has now arisen was not envisaged by the Commission when they made this Report, and the proposal to do no more now than to increase the lines of traffic over Waterloo bridge from three to four must be entirely inadequate to deal with the volume of traffic that wishes to cross the river at that and other places.
With regard to the next point, I can only stress what has already been said.
820
Undoubtedly there is some congestion at the junction of Wellington Street and the Strand. But that congestion has been recently very greatly lessened by the introduction of the circular system round Aldwych. I have been there once or twice myself to see it working, and I think it can only be maintained now that there is any considerable difficulty at limited hours of the day. The introduction of that system, which of course took place long after the Report of Lord Lee's Commission, has improved the situation there considerably, and, in addition to that, Wellington Street is in the course of being widened to 85 feet, which I think will relieve the situation on that side. In addition to that, if in the course of time it is found necessary—I dare say it will be necessary—to improve the lay-out on the north side it is not considered that there will be any great difficulty in doing so owing to the fact that the property is in the hands of those from whom, I gather, it can be comparatively easily purchased.
No, I think that if you take all these problems into consideration, and if you realise that you have got to build not only for the near future but for the comparatively distant future as well, you must come to the conclusion, in view of the recent history of this problem and the fact that there is not likely to be a new bridge at Charing Cross for a considerable time, that the London County Council have been quite justified in coming to their conclusion that the only proper thing to do in this case is to build a new bridge at Waterloo bridge to carry six lines of traffic upon it. In this connection something has been said about the possibility of taking the trams across. I am informed quite definitely that it is certainly not the intention of the County Council to take the trams across the river, and, in addition to that, the Council would not be able to do so without the express sanction of Parliament.
I have tried to deal as fully as possible with some at any rate of the various posers that have been put to me this evening. If there are others which I have forgotten I hope the noble Lord will remind me of them in case I may be able to give him some satisfactory reply. But before I conclude I want to assure the noble Lord that I do not want, if I can help it, to be anything but very

821
sympathetic to the various suggestions he has made, and the various points of view he has put forward. At the commencement of his speech he alluded to certain representations which various societies interested in the matter desired to make, and I think it is only right and fair that those facts should be available for the London County Council for their help and use in approaching this question. If the noble Lord would care to forward these representations to the Minister of Transport I am sure that my hon. friend would be only too glad to transmit them to the London County Council at the earliest possible moment.
When a short time ago the Government were approached once more by the London County Council on the question of Waterloo bridge they reviewed the matter from every point of view, and, after the fullest consideration, they agreed that, should the London County Council decide that the only satisfactory way of dealing with the situation was to pull down the present bridge and build a new six-line one, they would not feel justified in interfering, and they agreed to contribute 60 per cent, towards the cost of the construction of the new bridge. That is on the assumption—may I repeat—that the cost would be in the region of £1,300,000. But they laid down certain conditions, the first and foremost of which I have already mentioned, and that is that the Council should take into consultation on the matter an eminent engineer and an architect of high repute and standing. This has been done, as you know, by taking Sir Frederick Palmer and Sir Giles Gilbert Scott into consultation.
The other point I want to refer to is this. Before the London County Council was offered this grant by the Government the Minister proposed, and Sir Percy Simmons on behalf of the Council very readily agreed, to give the Royal Fine Art Commission an opportunity of making any observations they wished on the proposed design of the new bridge. The Government did not feel justified in putting the London County Council in the position of having its proposals vetoed by the Royal Fine Art Commission, but it is, of course, understood that the Council will refer to the Commission at a stage at which it would still be possible to give effective expression to any suggestions as to the
822
design of the new six-line bridge which the Commission should wish to make, if it were decided to adopt them, and I feel certain that the spokesman of the London County Council would be prepared to confirm this assurance. I really do not know that there is anything I can add to what I have already said. I can only conclude by saying that whatever bridge is put up where Waterloo bridge now stands, I sincerely hope and believe that it will be a worthy example of the genius and skill of the British architects and engineers of our generation.
LORD CHARNWOOD: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl very much for the courtesy and fullness with which he has answered my somewhat long list of questions. There is one small point about which I should like to know whether I misunderstood him. Is it really the case that during this interval of an unknown number of years—seven, I think it is—which this great work will take, the whole of the traffic is going to be carried along the single line of the present temporary bridge?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: One line each way.
LORD CHARNWOOD: It is only a one-line temporary bridge.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: One line each way.
LORD CHARNWOOD: I have no doubt it is clear to other noble Lords, but I have not quite got it. What I do distinctly gather is that the Government have pledged themselves to support this scheme on the understanding that the cost reasonably approximates to the figure of £1,300,000. I further understand that if within a reasonable time a concise and adequate statement of facts can be put before the Minister leading him to regard it as very doubtful whether there can be anything like approximation to that ultimate figure, such representations will be taken into full consideration. That is what I understood.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I must make it quite clear that this is a definite and final decision on the part of the Government. What I did say was that if these representations were to be made the Minister would be very glad to

823
receive them and transmit them to the London County Council who are engaged now upon the matter.
LORD CHARNWOOD: I see. Of course I do not want to pin the noble Earl further, but if any statement of the sort that I am assured is possible were brought to the notice of the noble Earl's
824
Department, I absolutely refuse to believe that they would not be still open to an impression from it. In any case I thank the noble Earl and beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at a quarter past seven o'clock.

RHYL URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto: Read and ordered to lie on the Table. The Orders made on the 16th and the 23rd of February last discharged, and Bill committed: The Committee to meet forthwith.
Bill reported, with Amendments, with a Report from the Chairman of Committees under Standing Order No. 110, that in his opinion the Bill should be proceeded with as an opposed Bill: Bill recommitted: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Weston-super-Mare Grand Pier Bill [H.L.] do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the Rhyl Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]: Read, and agreed to, with leave to the Promoters to be heard by Counsel if they see fit.

WELWYN GARDEN CITY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.