Sitting of 23 March 1932

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Margate and Yeovil) Bill.
Read the Third time, and passed.
Edinburgh Corporation (Sheriff Court House, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill.
Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Northampton) Bill.
Read a Second time, and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    PEACE ARMY.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply has been sent to the letter from Miss Maude Royden, the Reverend H. R. L. Sheppard, and others with reference to the offer of a peace army to the League of Nations?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): I regret that when I answered the question of my hon. Friend on 16th March on this subject I had not the full information before me. I find that the letter to which the question refers was received at Geneva and acknowledged on my behalf, but this fact was not in my mind when I gave my previous reply. I have expressed my apologies to Miss Royden for this oversight, and I trust that, since there are good grounds for hoping that active hostilities are now at an end, the conditions which inspired the gallant and humanitarian offer of Miss Royden and her co-signatories will not again arise.

    MANCHURIA.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the participation of the British Government in the appeal of the 12 members of the League of Nations of 16th February and in the resolution of the Assembly of 11th March, he will notify the Japanese Government that any change in the administrative or political relations between China's eastern provinces, known as Manchuria, and the rest of China, effected or maintained by foreign support, or brought about as a result of external aggression, or foreign military occupation, is not compatible with Article 10 of the Covenant, Article 2 of the Paris Pact, and Article 1 of the Nine Power Treaty, and cannot be recognised by His Majesty's Government; and whether he will also urge upon the members of the League, in pursuance of the Assembly's resolution of 11th March, that it is incumbent upon them to take similar action?
    Sir J. SIMON: The attitude of His Majesty's Government is already clearly indicated in the documents to which the hon. Member refers, and neither of the steps he suggests would serve any useful purpose.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Will the steps that have already been taken run along the lines of the suggestions in the latter part of the question?
    Sir J. SIMON: I should like to answer the hon. Member if I can. I have not fully understood his supplementary.
    Mr. MACLEAN: In the reply which he has given, the Foreign Secretary has indicated that certain steps have been taken by the Government. I wish to ask whether these steps are in line with the last two parts of the question?
    Sir J. SIMON: My hon. Friend will see that the resolution of 11th March, being a resolution adopted without opposition by a special Assembly is a resolution to which His Majesty's Government is an active party. Japan and China are members of the Assembly and are perfectly well aware of the terms of the resolution.
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the representative of the

    1015
    Japanese Government on the Council of the League of Nations has informed that body that his Government could not acquiesce in any system of government in Manchuria that jeopardised Japanese capital investments in that province; and whether he has called, or will call, the attention of the Japanese Government to the bearing of such an attitude upon their obligations under Article X of the covenant, and Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Washington Nine Power Treaty?
    Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Member appears to be paraphrasing an isolated sentence from a passage dealing with Manchuria in the speech of the Japanese delegate at the meeting of the Council on the 19th of February. I find no sufficient ground in the Japanese delegate's observations for taking the action suggested.

    COMMERCIAL PRACTICES.
    Mr. MANDERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has considered the resolution passed at the sixty-sixth session of the Council of the League of Nations, recommending the Governments to take all possible steps to put an end to bribery and unfair commercial practices as described in the Report of the economic committee of she League; if he has received that Report; and what action it is proposed to take thereon?
    Mr. JOHN COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have seen the Economic Committee's report and the Council's resolution on this subject. These will receive His Majesty's Government's careful consideration.
    Mr. MANDER: Will the hon. Gentleman see that the information asked for is supplied?
    Mr. COLVILLE: Yes, Sir.

  CHINA AND JAPAN.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has information concerning the export to Japan within the last six months of large quantities of chemicals by the German chemical industry; what was the amount exported; what was its value; and which are the firms concerned?
  Sir J. SIMON: I am without information regarding the export of chemicals from Germany to Japan.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Do I understand that the right hon. Member is without information?
  Sir J. SIMON: I am without information. There may be German figures, but they are not known to me.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: As a member of the League Council, is not the Foreign Secretary in a position to obtain this information?
  Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir; certainly not as a member of the League Council. I am not aware whether there are official German figures or whether they deal only with the past six months.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: The Foreign Secretary informed the House last Wednesday that the powers of the Treaty under Clauses 168–170 have been referred to the Council; ought not the Council, therefore, to be in a position to say at any moment just what the output of war material is in Germany?
  Sir J. SIMON: I really cannot give the hon. Member any more information. Speaking off-hand, I should not have thought that the export of chemicals from Germany was a matter with which the League of Nations is concerned.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will obtain information concerning the export of arms, munitions, and other war material from Germany to China and Japan; what is the value and the nature of any such material exported during the past six months and its destinations; and what are the firms which have been concerned?
  Sir J. SIMON: As I informed the hon. Member on the 16th of March I have no information to show that any war material which may recently have been shipped to China and Japan is of German origin. I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by initiating inquiries on this subject.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: What is the value of the alleged safeguards against the export of war material from Germany if the right hon. Member thinks the information is of no value?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Hall-Caine.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Cannot I have an answer to an important question?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's question is on a matter of opinion.
  Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether China and Japan have now accepted the proposed appointment of a joint commission with neutral members to certify the mutual withdrawal from Shanghai; and, if so, whether he can state the names of the members of this commission?
  Sir J. SIMON: The terms for the basis of negotiation at Shanghai are, according to my information, under discussion at Shanghai, and I cannot say at present exactly what they will contain; nor can I yet say who will be the members of any International Commission that may be set up for the purpose mentioned.
  Mr. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the United States Government have published in a White Book their diplomatic correspondence with the Chinese and Japanese Governments since their dispute began; and whether this Government is prepared to publish their correspondence with those two Governments bearing upon the same dispute?
  Sir J. SIMON: I do not think there is any correspondence not already published that could be laid before the House, but I will consider the matter.

  ROYAL NAVY (SUBMARINES).
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what means exist for indicating the position of a submarine which, through an accident, may be unable to come to the surface provided any on board are alive?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): A variety of means exist, such as firing of smoke signals, discharge of oil, discharge of air, firing of torpedoes, and sound signalling and tapping on the hull which will be picked up on the listening apparatus in the searching craft. In addition, as I stated in reply to a question by the hon.
  1018
  and gallant Member on the 10th February, indicator buoys are being adopted.

  KENYA.
  Mr. DAVID GRENFELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is proposed to include in future reports of the Kenya Native Affairs Department tables showing the current rates of wages and the average number of natives in employment, such as were published in previous years but not in the last report; and whether such reports will in future deal with the incidence of communal forced labour?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I will take up with the Governor of Kenya the question of the inclusion of the details mentioned by the hon. Member in future annual reports issued by the Native Affairs Department.

  TANGANYIKA (LUPA MINING FIELD).
  Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the reasons for the delay in the development of the Lupa mining field in Tanganyika; and what is the present position in this matter?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not in a position to suggest reasons for the tardiness of mining enterprise in the Lupa field. Every assistance is given by the Geological Survey and other Government Departments of Tanganyika to competent individuals or companies which desire to take part in its development.

  MALTA.
  Lieut.-Commander BOWERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what percentage of parents in Malta chose that their children should be taught English as opposed to Italian during the last period that free choice was in force?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: This point is dealt with as follows on page 121 of the Report of the Royal Commission which was laid before the House as Command Paper 1993:

  1019
  "Parents since 1923 have had no voice as to the language which is to be taught to their children. The privilege of choice was permitted during the previous 21 years, and it is said that over 97 per cent. chose English."

  AVIATION.

    ACCIDENTS.
    Mr. SIMMONDSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the number of persons killed in this country during the last three years while flying in aircraft bearing a British-validated foreign certificate of airworthiness; and what proportion of these deaths was due to mechanical or structural failure?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): During the last three years there has been one fatal accident in this country to an aircraft with a British-validated foreign certificate of airworthiness; this accident involved six deaths and was due to structural failure.
    Mr. SIMMONDS: Does not the Under-Secretary think that this matter should be investigated because these validated certificates tend to bring our own certificates into disrepute?
    Sir P. SASSOON: There has been only one accident in three years and the whole report upon it has been published.

    FLYING REGULATIONS.
    Mr. SIMMONDSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the difficulties that will be caused to operators of British civil aircraft by a reduction of the maximum permissible weight when operating at abnormal altitudes, he will give an assurance that any regulations in this matter will be on the basis of enlarged aerodromes and not of restrictive conditions with regard to the aircraft?
    Sir P. SASSOON: No, Sir. My Noble Friend is advised that an increase of aerodrome area is not of itself sufficient to ensure general safety of operation in conditions of reduced air density at abnormal altitudes.

    STRENGTH OF AIRCRAFT.
    Miss CAZALETasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the method of computing the strength of air-
    1020
    craft in this country is the same as that adopted by other great Powers; and, if not, what is the difference?
    Mr. WOMERSLEY (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The requisite examination of the returns of air armaments rendered to the League of Nations will no doubt be carried out in the near future by the Disarmament Conference. Until this has been done, my right hon. Friend is not in a position to reply to my hon. Friend's question. It is quite possible, however, that the examination will reveal some unintentional diversity of method in the compilation of these statistics, since to reduce widely differing organisations to common formulae for the first time is obviously a very difficult task.

  TRANSPORT.

    BRIDGES (RECONSTRUCTION).
    Mr. LEES-JONESasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Transport that the future allocation of Road Fund grants should be concentrated upon the reconstruction of bridges, and in view of the unemployment in the steel trade, he is now in a position to authorise the construction of bridges which local authorities are desirous of proceeding with?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): I shall continue sympathetically to consider applications for financial assistance from the Road Fund towards the reconstruction of weak and dangerous bridges; but in the present circumstances grants must be restricted to cases presenting features of special urgency.
    Mr. GUY: May I ask that the Minister of Transport will keep in mind the pressing need for a large number of new bridges in Scotland?
    Mr. PYBUS: Yes, Sir.

    MOTOR OMNIBUS SERVICES, SHEFFIELD.
    Mr. MALLALIEUasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the inconvenience which will be caused to the inhabitants of the Holmfirth and adjoining districts by terminating Baddeley's motor-omnibus service between Holmfirth and Sheffield; and will he state the reasons for his refusal to allow the appeal made to him?
    Mr. GLOSSOPasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the omnibus fares charged by the Sheffield Corporation on the Sheffield-Stocksbridge route are higher than those charged by the green and white omnibus service; whether this factor was taken into account when considering the appeal, since dismissed, of the green and white omnibus service against the refusal of the Traffic Commissioners to renew their licence; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that the people of Stocksbridge are not subjected to undue charges by the Sheffield Corporation?
    Mr. PYBUS: In their observations on this case the Traffic Commissioners stated that they had given the fullest consideration to all local transport requirements in the area, and that, under their decisions, all villages and townships in the whole area will be provided with satisfactory services to both Sheffield and Huddersfield. After considering the report of a full local inquiry into the appeal, I could find no sufficient reason for setting aside the Commissioners' decision. The Commissioners are charged with the duty of ensuring that the fares in force on any service are not unreasonable, but they are required to consider representations on the subject that may be made to them by any local authority concerned. On this point I am causing a copy of nay hon. Friends' questions, and of this answer, to be sent to the Traffic Commissioners concerned.

    ROAD SERVICE LICENCES (APPEALS).
    Mr. GLOSSOPasked the Minister of Transport if he will consider the advisability, when further appeals against the decisions of the traffic commissioners are heard by him, of inviting local authorities to whose area the appeal refers to send a representative to voice the opinion of the local authority in the matter at the time when the appeal is under consideration?
    Mr. PYBUS: The persons appointed by me to hold inquiries into appeals against decisions of the Traffic Commissioners have discretion to hear additional evidence, including the views of local authorities concerned. Representations of this nature have frequently been accepted.

    ELY CATHEDRAL.
    Mr. de ROTHSCHILDasked the Minister of Transport whether he has con-
    1022
    sidered the communications from the Isle of Ely County Council pointing out that harmful effects are likely to be caused to Ely Cathedral by the unrestricted speed of traffic passing along the adjoining road; and what steps he is taking to obviate the possibility of damage to this building?
    Mr. PYBUS: Yes, Sir, I am in correspondence with the Isle of Ely County Council on the subject and will give any proposals they may make careful consideration.
    Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: Will the Minister use his powers under Section 46 of the Traffic Act, 1930, in this matter?
    Mr. PYBUS: Yes, Sir, if the county council of Ely will make an application for the order that they desire I will consider it.
    Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: Will the Minister hold an inquiry if the county council ask for it under Section 46 of the Act?
    Mr. PYBUS: If they justify their request I am prepared to hold an inquiry.

    GOODS (WATER-CARRIAGE).
    Captain SOTHERON-ESTCOURTasked the Minister of Transport whether he has investigated and, if so, with what result the effect of road motor-transport upon the water-carriage of goods; and whether he will consider attaching to the Rail-Road Conference a representative of the interests engaged in the water-carriage of goods?
    Mr. PYBUS: I have decided to limit the personnel of the Committee in the first place to representatives of the interests immediately concerned in the operation of goods transport by rail and by road. My hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured, however, that I shall not come to any conclusions upon the findings and recommendations of the Committee without first giving those engaged in transport by water and other important interests an opportunity of expressing their views.

    HEAVY MOTOR VEHICLES (SPEED).
    Mr. JANNERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now in a position to state the nature of the special measures taken by the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to prevent heavy vehicles from being driven at excessive speeds?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir Herbert Samuel): The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police has issued orders that special attention is to be given to the enforcement of the law regulating the speed of heavy road vehicles, and that excessive speed by heavy commercial and other vehicles is to be stopped. The speed of such vehicles will be checked by motor patrols and by foot police on certain stretches of road. These steps will be taken at irregular intervals and in any locality where, from information received, it appears to be necessary. As the purpose of these measures is not to secure a number of convictions, but to prevent accidents, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity of making a statement, which I hope will be taken as a warning by those concerned, and will lead to a cessation of driving at excessive speeds in London.
    Mr. MABANE: Have similar instructions been sent to the provinces, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested a week ago?
    Sir H. SAMUEL: I have informed the chief officers of police in other districts of the steps that are being taken in London, but I am not authorised to give them instructions.
    Mr. THORNE: Will the same principle be applied to motor cycles?
    Sir H. SAMUEL: The question on the Paper relates to heavy vehicles, but of course motor bicycles are subject to restriction and suitable measures can be taken.
    Mr. PIKE: Would it not be fairer if a definite speed were laid down, so that the driver would know?
    HON. MEMBERS: It is laid down.
    Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the police to the fact that this is not altogether a question of preventing accidents but of compelling heavy vehicles to comply with the speed limit laid down by law?
    Sir H. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir, but it is primarily for the purpose of preventing accidents.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman also communicate on this sub-
    1024
    ject with the Secretary of State for Scotland, so that similar action may be taken in Scotland?
    Sir H. SAMUEL: My right hon. Friend is fully aware of the facts.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: He does not seem to be.

    AIR AND RAIL TRANSPORT (COMPETITION).
    Mr. HALL-CAINE(for Mr. REMER) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he will take powers to prevent passengers and goods being carried by aeroplanes at charges or speeds involving competition with the railways?
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: I have been asked to reply. The answer is in the negative. Each method of transport has its appropriate sphere of usefulness, and it is not considered that Government intervention in the sense suggested would serve any good purpose.
    Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of the South African route, no such danger exists as it is quicker in most cases to send mails by boat than by air.
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: I will convey that information to my right hon. Friend.

    TRUNK ROADS (LIFE).
    Captain McEWEN(for Mr. LESLIE BOYCE) asked the Minister of Transport the estimated life of the great trunk roads from the date of the completion of their construction?
    Mr. PYBUS: Excavation, foundation and surfacing material obviously have varying lives, but my hon. Friend may be interested to know that for loan repayment purposes the three are generally equated to 20 years. There is, however, no special period for trunk as opposed to other roads.

    ROAD FUND (RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS, LONDON).
    Sir PAUL LATHAMasked the Minister of Transport the total amount received by the Road Fund in respect of the administrative county of London for each of the last available five years; and the total payments made from the Road Fund in respect of the administrative county of London for each of the same five years?
    Mr. PYBUS: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    Motor licence duty collected in the administrative county of London, including collections by the Post Office:

    £

    1926–27

    2,873,103

    1927–28

    3,244,652

    1928–29

    3,298,179

    1929–30

    3,405,851

    1930–31

    3,453,133

    These figures exclude the proportion of the licence duties on motor cycles and vehicles taxed on the basis of horsepower retained by the Exchequer.
    Payments out of the Road Fund of the administrative county of London:

    £

    1927–28

    637,365

    1928–29

    570,817

    1929–30

    949,159

    1930–31

    1,085,816

    Figures are not available for any year prior to 1927–28.

    POST OFFICE BUILDINGS.
    Mr. McENTEEasked the First Commissioner of Works if he can state when the alterations at Fenchurch Street branch post office will be completed; and whether they will improve the accommodation available for the public?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The scheme of alterations at Fenchurch Street branch post office has not been finally settled, and a date for completion cannot be given at present: the answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.
    Mr. McENTEEasked the First Commissioner of Works if he will state when the improvements in the Finsbury Square branch post office will be finished; and whether they involve any structural alteration of the premises?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It is anticipated that the improvements in the Finsbury Square branch post office will be completed by the middle of August: the answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.
    Mr. McENTEE: Is the freehold of the premises in the possession of the Government?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I require notice of that question.

  SOMERSET HOUSE.
  Mr. McENTEEasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consult with the architects of his Department as to the possibilities of making more effective use of the valuable site occupied by Somerset House; and whether he can give any indication of the extra cost for heating, lighting, etc., involved in the use of this ancient building as public offices?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: This proposal was in fact considered by my predecessor last year, and I entirely agree with the decision then reached to preserve the existing buildings on this site. In regard to the second part of the question, I regret that it is not possible to furnish any reliable estimate.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    EXPORTS AND IMPORTS (STATISTICS).
    Mr. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the total amount of imports and exports for the period of 12 months ended the first week of February of the current year to and from those countries with which this country has an adverse balance of trade; and the amount of the adverse balance with each country concerned?
    Mr. COLVILLE: The aggregate value of the import and export trade in merchandise with individual countries is compiled for calendar years and quarterly periods only. The particulars for 1931 are recorded on pages 121 to 131 of the issue for January last of the "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom," to which I would refer the hon. Member.
    Mr. THORNE: Does that return show the exports and imports in the case of Russia? If so, can the hon. Gentleman state from memory whether there is a big adverse balance in the case of other countries far in excess of that in the case of Russia?
    Mr. COLVILLE: I suggest that the hon. Member adopt the recommendation in the answer that I have given, that is to study the returns, where he will be able to get the information required.
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that yesterday a very long question was put to the President of the Board of Trade asking for a considerable amount of information with regard to various articles brought into this country and exported to other countries? Why is one Member able to get information supplied, though it will lead to considerable expense, while another Member is referred to the reports of the Board of Trade?
    Mr. COLVILLE: It was an entirely different question. The information which the hon. Member opposite has asked for is contained in the returns up to the end of the year.
    Mr. MACLEAN: So was the other information, in the Statistical Abstracts.

    RUSSIA.
    Mr. MITCHESONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that under the Turco-Russian commercial treaty now in effect either country can limit its imports to the amount of exports taken by the other, the Government, when reviewing the present position of Anglo-Russian trade, will consider the possibility of making a similar arrangement with the Soviet Government?
    Mr. COLVILLE: My hon. Friend must be under a misapprehension as the treaty referred to does not contain the provisions which he suggests. As regards the second part of the question all relevant considerations are being taken into account in connection with Anglo-Soviet trade.

    IMPORT DUTIES (SARAWAK).
    Mr. de ROTHSCHILDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the exemptions granted by the Import Duties Act to the Dominions and Colonies are being applied to Sarawak?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): Yes, Sir.
    Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: Is Sarawak considered as a sovereign State or as a Protectorate?
    Major ELLIOT: It is a protected territory.

    ABNORMAL IMPORTATIONS DUTY (WOOL TEXTILES).
    Mr. MABANEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, by reason of the fact that two months or more are required for the execution of orders in the wool textile trade, orders to manufacturers in Huddersfield and other parts of the West Riding are being held up owing to the uncertainty as to the position when the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act will have expired; and whether, in order to enable orders to be placed with certainty, he can say when a pronouncement will be made as to what customs duties, if any, will be imposed upon wool textiles after the expiration of the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act?
    Major ELLIOT: I am aware that uncertainty does exist. I cannot say when the Advisory Committee are likely to present any recommendations to the Treasury, but I am satisfied that they have fully in mind the desirability of reducing the period of uncertainty as much as possible.
    Mr. MABANE: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that some foreign manufacturers are endeavouring to exploit the situation by offering to accept orders and to stand the difference of any duty over 25 per cent., and to accept cancellation of the order, if the 50 per cent. duty remains?
    Major ELLIOT: As I say, these matters are, in fact, very much in the minds of the trading community. We are aware of that and the Advisory Committee is aware of that also.

    ARGENTINE TRADE MISSION.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS(for Mr. HANNON) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Argentine Trade Mission is expected to reach this country; if any arrangements have been made, through conferences or otherwise, to deal with their proposals; and if decisions on all matters affecting Anglo-Argentine trade will be withheld until the close of the Ottawa Conference?
    Sir J. SIMON: Inquiries were made by the Argentine Ambassador in December last as to whether His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom would be prepared to receive a commercial mission

    1029
    from Argentina. On the 21st January last the Argentine Ambassador was informed that, while fully appreciating the importance of the relations uniting the two countries and while welcoming any statement of the point of view of the Argentine Government or any suggestions for a possible reciprocal arrangement which they might care to make, His Majesty's Government felt that, as it Is not open to them to enter into any actual discussions with foreign Governments which might prejudice the Ottawa Conference, it would lead to no useful result if 'a special mission were to be sent at the present moment. It was therefore suggested that the despatch of a mission should be deferred, and that any statement or suggestions the Argentine Government might wish to lay before His Majesty's Government for discussion after the Ottawa Conference should be communicated through the Ambassador. No further communications on the subject have been received from the Argentine Government.
    Mr. D. GRENFELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the possibility of prejudicing the value of the import trade with the Argentine, and will he also have regard to the trade involved between South Wales and that country?
    Sir J. SIMON: We certainly have most fully in mind the importance of the trade between this country and the Argentine, both the trade which passes from this country to the Argentine and the trade which passes from the Argentine to us.
    Sir PERCY HARRIS: Is it not a very unfriendly action to refuse a trade mission of this kind from a friendly nation that does a large trade with us?
    Sir J. SIMON: I am quite certain that the Argentine Government would be the first to agree that there is nothing unfriendly in our attitude.

    BRAZILIAN RAILWAYS (COAL ORDER).
    Mr. MOLSONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can make any statement as to the reasons for the award of an order for 75,000 tons of coal required by the Brazilian Central Railways to Germany instead of, as hitherto, to South Wales; and whether the Government will make representations to the
    1030
    Brazilian Government as to debts owing by coal importers to the exporters in this country?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Isaac Foot): With regard to the first part of the question, if the hon. Member's suggestion is that hitherto contracts for coal for the Brazilian Central Railways have always been placed in South Wales, I would point out that Germany has secured these contracts on several previous occasions. I am not in a position to state the reasons of the Brazilian Government for awarding the recent contract of 75,000 tons to Germany. As regards the second Mart of the question, His Majesty's Government have frequently drawn the attention of the Brazilian Government to the existence of these outstanding debts, and have attempted to secure a settlement satisfactory to British firms.
    Mr. BATEY: Is the policy of the Government on tariffs responsible for Brazil buying German coal instead of British?
    Mr. FOOT: I think not.
    Sir P. HARRIS: Is it correct that Germany agreed to a system of barter of coal for coffee?
    Mr. FOOT: I believe that that question is to be raised later in discussion in the House.

    IMPORT DUTIES (TRADE INQUIRIES).
    Mr. LOUIS SMITH(for Mr. GIBSON) asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will instruct the Board of Customs to arrange that some members of the staff of the board shall be in attendance after five o'clock each evening in order to answer inquiries made, either verbally or in writing, on behalf of importers and exporters carrying on trade who may desire information with respect to regulations issued by the Board under the Import Duties Act in order to facilitate the trade of the country?
    Major ELLIOT: The hours at which Customs offices are open to members of the public having business with the Department are of longstanding usage, and I do not see any good reason for extending them; but if the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of any cases in which difficulty has arisen, I shall certainly have them looked into.
    Mr. SMITH: Does my right hon. Friend fully realise that the several Acts of Parliament passed during recent months will increase the demand for service from the Customs offices, and that industry may well on many occasions require information after five o'clock in the evening?
    Major ELLIOT: I think that it will be reasonable to ask for cases in which difficulty has arisen. I have promised to have such cases looked into.

  EDUCATION.

    TEACHERS' SALARIES.
    Mr. VYVYAN ADAMSasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has any statement to make respecting the revision of teachers' salaries?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Sir Donald Maclean): I am not in a position to make any statement on this matter.

    STATISTICS (BOYS LEAVING SCHOOL).
    Mr. BATEYasked the President of the Board of Education if he can state the number of boys who have left school for the years 1929, 1930, and 1931?
    Sir D. MACLEAN: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFCIAL REPORT.
    Mr. BATEY: But there are only three sets of figures.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I will circulate the reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow.
    Mr. BATEY: On a point of Order. I wanted these figures for to-day's Debate on unemployment. Why should I have to wait until to-morrow?
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I will give the figures to the hon. Member after questions.
    HON. MEMBERS: Read them.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: The figures are:

    ENGLAND AND WALES.
    The approximate numbers of boys who left public elementary schools for reasons other than for further full-time education were as follow:
    1032

    Year ended:

    31st March, 1929

    299,000

    31st March, 1930

    245,000

    31st March, 1931

    245,000

    The approximate numbers of boys who left secondary schools were as follow:

    Year ended:

    31st July, 1929

    39,700

    31st July, 1930

    38,600

    31st July, 1931

    38,500

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT).
  Mr. GLOSSOPasked the hon. Member for Monmouth, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, whether he is aware that milk supplied in the Members' tea room on Wednesday, 16th instant, was found on analysis to contain 2,000,000 bacteria per c.c. and bacillus coli present in 1/1,000 c.c.; that the lowest standard graded milk is not allowed to contain more than 200,000 bacteria c.c. and no bacillus coli whatsoever; and what steps he proposes to take in order to safeguard the health of those Members who consume milk with their tea?
  Sir JOHN GANZONI (for Sir LEOLIN FORESTIER-WALKER): All milk provided by the Kitchen Committee is pure full cream, pasteurised milk, of the first quality. It is delivered in the original 10-gallon cans sealed and fastened from the same dairyman who has supplied us for over 20 years. As the Committee had no notice from the hon. Member that a sample was being taken on Wednesday, 16th March, until the question appeared on the Order Paper on Tuesday, 22nd March, they can have no knowledge as to whether it was properly taken, if in a perfectly sterile vessel, kept at a suitable temperature, and analysed immediately afterwards. The Committee take every precaution to ensure the purity of the supply.
  Mr. GLOSSOP: Is the hon. Member aware of the very unsatisfactory results of the test which has been carried out on rats after feeding them with pasteurised milk, and, in view of the fact that this House contains so many young Members for whom milk should still form an essential part of the diet—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must concentrate his question in shorter form.
  Mr. GLOSSOP: May I ask the hon. Member to make every effort possible to prevent any Members of this House from being unnecessarily eliminated by these bacteria?
  Sir J. GANZONI: I had no knowledge that either the hon. Member or his friends were contemplating ratting, but such precautions are being taken.

  LITIGATION COSTS.
  Mr. CHALMERSasked the Attorney-General if any steps are being taken to cheapen litigation, particularly in the County Courts, either on the lines of the recent report of the London Chamber of Commerce or in any other way?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): The report to which the hon. Member refers made no recommendation for cheapening litigation in the County Court, but the Supreme Court Rule Committee are taking steps to provide for simplified procedure in the High Court on the lines recommended by the report.

  RENT RESTRICTIONS ACT.
  Mr. HOWARDasked the Minister of Health whether, before deciding that any amendment of the Rent Restrictions Act would be considered in the light of the report of the Departmental Committee, the Government took into consideration the proposal to decontrol all houses over £45 rateable value?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Ernest Brown): Consideration of the Committee's report has undoubtedly involved consideration of all their recommendations, including that referred to.
  Mr. HOWARD: Have the Government taken into consideration the fact that at least 50 per cent. of the houses in London over £45 rateable value are occupied by more than one family; and that, if these are decontrolled, a rise of at least 80 per cent. in the rent will seriously affect very poor people?
  Mr. BROWN: All these facts have been taken into consideration, and are still being taken into consideration.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the hon. Gentleman yet say when this Bill will be ready?
  Mr. BROWN: Not yet, Sir.

  HOLIDAY RESORTS (LICENSING REGULATIONS).
  Mr. DORANasked the Home Secretary if, having regard to the desirability of encouraging both foreign and British custom to our holiday resorts, he will consider issuing to the licensing magistrates concerned a circular suggesting the desirability of a relaxation of restrictions and a more liberal, interpretation of their authority?
  Sir H. SAMUEL: I have no information to indicate that I should be justified in taking any such steps as the hon. Members suggests. The questions involved will receive consideration by the Government in the light of the Report of the Royal Commission.
  Mr. DORAN: Having regard to that answer, may I ask the Home Secretary will he seriously consider the appointment to the licensing bench of as many licensed victuallers as teetotallers, seeing that they are just as honest and approximately more useful?
  Sir H. SAMUEL: I have no authority to control appointments to the licensing bench.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE FORCE.
  Mr. POTTERasked the Home Secretary whether, having regard to the increase in the number of crimes against the person and property in London and the suburbs, he will cause an inquiry to be made into the strength of the Metropolitan Police Force with a view to ascertaining if it is adequate for the protection of citizens and property?
  Sir H. SAMUEL: The strength of the Metropolitan Police Force is continually under review, and certain changes in distribution and methods of work have recently been introduced. The situation as regards crimes of the kind mentioned is also engaging the earnest attention of the Commissioner. I do not think that anything would be gained by a special inquiry into the matter at this stage.
  Sir REGINALD BLAKER: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider representations from local authorities on this matter?
  Sir H. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir. I shall be glad if the hon. Member will communicate with the Commissioner of Police.
  Sir R. BLAKER: Has the right hon. Gentleman not already received representations from Sunbury-on-Thames?
  Sir H. SAMUEL: They have not been brought to my attention.

  ARMAMENTS (MANUFACTURE).
  Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Prime Minister what proportion of the various forms of armament required by the nation is made by Government factories and by private firms, respectively?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): As the hon. Member is doubtless aware it is extremely difficult to define the word "armament"; moreover, it is not possible to arrive at a definition common to the three Services. With that reservation, I will do my best to answer the question. Separate answers must be given and should be regarded as approximate only.
  In the case of the Navy the proportion is:

  Government factories

  …

  …

  3

  Private firms

  …

  …

  4

  the Army:

  Government factories

  …

  …

  1½

  Private firms

  …

  …

  1

  and the Air Force:

  Government factories

  …

  …

  1

  Private firms

  …

  …

  1¾

  These are the latest figures available for the current year—1931–1932.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Will a list of the names of armament firms be handed to Members of the House?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, I think it is a rule of every Government not to do that.
  Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Small-arms Factory at Enfield has half its machinery not working on account of this?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.
  Mr. MAXTON: Can the Prime Minister say whether these proportions have varied considerably since last year?
  The PRIME MINISTER: If my hon. Friend puts that question on the Paper I shall be very glad to answer.
  Mr. JOHNasked the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the armaments exports by firms in this country to Japan and China during the years 1931 and 1932 were manufactured by Government factories and by private firms, respectively?
  Mr. COLVILLE: No arms or ammunition have been manufactured in Government factories for export to China or Japan. Complete information as to the source of second-hand arms exported is not available. It is possible that some may have been made originally in Government factories, but the proportion is certainly small.
  Mr. D. GRENFELL: Has not the hon. Gentleman checked the quantity of goods so made and manufactured in Government factories and sold by private dealers?
  Mr. COLVILLE: Yes, so far as possible such a check has been made, and the information is contained in the last part of my answer.

  IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.
  Mr. de ROTHSCHILDasked the Prime Minister whether arrangements have been made for the representation of the Crown Colonies, separately or collectively, at the forthcoming Ottawa Conference?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The interests of all the Crown Colonies and other non-self-governing dependencies will be represented at the forthcoming Ottawa Conference by the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
  Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: Have the Colonies been consulted? Have there been any conversations between the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Colonies themselves; and, if the Secretary of State for the Colonies goes

  1037
  to Ottawa, will he speak only on behalf of the Colonies, or also on behalf of the Government?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Ministers of various Departments will speak for those Departments and for the Government. That is the practice which has always been followed at Imperial Conferences.
  Sir P. HARRIS: Is not the situation different owing to the fact that it is a case of bargaining for terms; and will not the Crown Colonies have a special interest on this occasion, apart even from this country?
  The PRIME MINISTER: If my hon. Friend will look at the legislation which has been passed, he will find that the Colonies occupy a special position.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does the Prime Minister expect any good to come out of the Ottawa Conference?
  Captain SOTHERON-ESTCOURTasked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to make coal one of the subjects of discussion at the Ottawa Conference, especially in regard to Canadian purchases from the United States; and whether, if so, he will ensure that coal experts to advise are in attendance at Ottawa?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As explained by the Secretary for Mines in reply to a previous question, the possibility of extending the sale of coal from the United Kingdom in Canada is being carefully studied as part of the preparations for the Ottawa Conference. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, East (Mr. Hall-Caine) on 21st March.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any chance, when these Ministers are in Canada this year, of getting any more ships than were got last time?
  Mr. BATEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear when he goes to Ottawa that Canada will be given no more preference, unless Canada buys more coal from this country and less from the United States?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have no doubt those who do go to Canada will note that observation.

  NATIONAL FINANCE.
  Mr. CHALMERSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in framing the Budget proposals, he will refrain from proposing to spend capital taxation as revenue; and whether he will confine the expenditure of taxation of capital to the reduction of debt?
  Major ELLIOT: My hon. Friend must not expect me to anticipate the Budget Statement.
  Mr. CHALMERS: Is it not a fact that capital taxation is being spent as income in every country since the War; and is not that the major cause of unemployment?

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (STAFFING).
  Mr. LOUIS SMITHasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the cost of the Civil Service and of the redundancy of certain Departmental staffs, he will arrange to have all extra posts which may be created, either in the Customs and Excise or in the Revenue Department, filled by serving civil servant's and not by outside entrants?
  Major ELLIOT: Civil servants who become redundant in one Department are, wherever practicable, transferred to fill vacancies in their grade in another. A considerable number of transfers to the Department of Customs and Excise have recently been arranged. It is not, however, practicable to provide for the more specialised needs of that Department without recourse to the normal methods of recruitment. I am not aware of any proposal to create extra established posts in the Department of Inland Revenue.
  Mr. SMITHIs the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that many of these experienced valuers engaged on the valuation of land might well have suitable experience for checking the values of imported goods?
  Major ELLIOT: Wherever practicable civil servants are transferred to fill vacancies in other Departments.
  Mr. McENTEE: Is it proposed to make any further transfers of redundants from the Post Office?
  Major ELLIOT: I am afraid I should need notice of that question.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    TRAINING CENTRE, SHOBDEN, HEREFORDSHIRE.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Minister of Labour what is the position, as indicated by reports to his Department from training centres, in respect to the complaints made by trainees at Shobden, Herefordshire, transfer instructional centre regarding food and accommodation; and how many of these trainees have left the centre before their term has expired?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I am not aware of any such complaints and shall be glad to know on what information the hon. Member bases his question.
    Mr. TINKER: Will the hon. Gentleman investigate it if I send him the case?

    ANOMALIES REGULATIONS.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour the names of all the organisations from which he has received resolutions of protest against the administration of the Anomalies Act and asking for the repeal of that Act?
    Mr. HUDSON: I am afraid this information could not be got out without a laborious search through all the files.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it not a fact that certain Conservative associations, including the Conservative Association of Nelson, have asked for the repeal of the Act?
    Mr. HUDSON: That may well be.
    Mr. MAXTON: Are protests coming to the hon. Gentleman's Department ignored completely?
    Mr. HUDSON: No, Sir. Careful notice is taken of their contents.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour what proportion of the number of persons who have ceased to sign the register since October have gone off the register owing to the working of the Anomalies Act?
    Mr. HUDSON: I regret that statistics giving the information desired are not available.
    Mr. THORNEasked the Minister of Labour how many cases under the Anomalies Act have been refused benefits by public assistance committees; and from how many of these committees he has received representations calling for the repeal of the Act?
    Mr. HUDSON: The public assistance committees are not concerned with the Anomalies Act, and I am afraid I cannot understand the hon. Member's question. Perhaps he will be good enough to discuss it with me later.

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Labour the principal industries where there is an increase of employment and the industries where employment is less?
    Mr. HUDSON: Full particulars will be found on page 103 of the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" for March.

    TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS.
    Lieut.-Colonel GAULTasked the Minister of Labour if he will make inquiries for the purpose of ascertaining whether there are any public assistance committees which take into account and make deductions for prospective relief from British Legion funds to unemployed ex-service men before awarding them extended benefit?
    Mr. HUDSON: Such assistance should clearly be taken into account, but the question to what extent there should be a consequent deduction from the amount of transitional payments is a matter within the discretion of the public assistance committee and should be determined in the light of the special needs of the individual applicant.
    Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: Does the hon. Gentleman consider it just that voluntary funds should be utilised for liquidation of the liabilities of the State, and, if not, will he be prepared to introduce amending legislation to put this matter right?
    Mr. HUDSON: I could not accept the assumption in the question. This matter is one entirely for consideration by the public assistance committees.

  FOREIGN CONCERT ARTISTS.
  Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider

  1041
  the desirability of instructing His Majesty's representative in the United States to define the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards foreign artists coming to this country, especially since there has been no change in policy and because of American anxiety on the subject?
  Mr. HUDSON: My right hon. Friend has thought it necessary to scrutinise rather more closely applications in respect of concert artists, but apart from this there has been no change of policy, nor is any change contemplated. Even as regards concert artists, the number of refusals has been very small during the last six months. Out of a total of 1,161 applications for foreign artists to appear in concerts, theatres, or variety halls, only 60 were refused; as regards the United States, there were 135 applications and only seven refusals, none of which affected actors or concert artists. I hope that this statement and these figures will dispel any misapprehension that may exist on the matter, but my right hon. Friend is in consultation with the Foreign Secretary as to any further steps that may be desirable in order to make these facts known.
  Mr. LAWSON: Is it not a fixed principle with the Ministry of Labour in scrutinising these applications that these foreign artists are only accepted where they are actually going to increase the engagement of British artists?
  Mr. HUDSON: I do not think there has been any change in the regulations since the hon. Gentleman himself was responsible for this Department.
  Captain McEWEN: Can the hon. Gentleman say who is officially responsible for carrying out these regulations? Is it the Home Office or the Ministry of Labour?
  Mr. HUDSON: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is responsible for issuing permits with regard to engagements, but the question of admission to this country rests with the Home Secretary.

  MEXICO (BRITISH INVESTORS).
  Mr. WEST RUSSELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the self-constituted
  1042
  international and American committee of loan houses dealing with the default of the Mexican Government has never been accepted by the unorganised body of British investors as representing them; and, since that committee has, during 18 years, obtained no redress for them beyond some small sums, will he now recognise the right of British investors to be represented by a British Government official delegated to negotiate on their behalf with the Mexican authorities about the proposal to extend the default further to 1934?
  Sir J. SIMON: I am fully aware that the International Committee of Bankers have no mandate from British bondholders to conclude an agreement, and that in consequence the agreement which was arrived at in December last between the Committee and the Mexican Government only constitutes terms which the individual bondholders can accept if they so desire. When the time comes to put the new agreement into force, the bondholders will, it is understood, be requested by the committee, as was done previously, to deposit their bonds, thereby indicating their approval of the terms of the agreement. If they do not choose to accept these terms, they will be free to negotiate individually with the Mexican Govermnent. I do not consider that intervention on behalf of the British bondholders alone would at the present moment lead to any more tangible result than has already been obtained by the International Committee. Such action might indeed, on the other hand, have the effect of nullifying such advantages as the bondholders have already been able to secure through the intervention of that body and of which they will be able eventually to avail themselves, should they so desire. I must add that it would not be practicable for His Majesty's Government to intervene on behalf of individual bondholders.
  With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the second part of the reply given to my hon. Friend, the Member for the City of Chester (Sir C. Cayzer) on the 21st March, and to the first part of the reply given to my Noble Friend, the Member for Perth (Duchess of Atholl) on the 29th February.

  DANUBIAN COUNTRIES (ECONOMIC RESTORATION).
  Mr. HUTCHISONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can make a statement on the policy of the British Government with regard to the projected Danubian economic agreement?
  Sir J. SIMON: I have nothing at present to add to the answer I gave on the 21st March to my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon).

  NYASALAND.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS(for Mr. LUNN) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been drawn to a draft Ordinance which is before the Legislative Council in Nyasaland, named an Ordinance to make provision for the expulsion from the Protectorate of undesirable persons, whereby the ordinary law courts of the Protectorate are to be superseded by the authority of the Governor in Council; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Ordinance referred to is based on similar Ordinances which have been found necessary in Dependencies with similar conditions to Nyasaland. But the whole question of such legislation is at present under my consideration.

  INCOME TAX (DIRECTORS' FEES).
  Mr. H. WILLIAMS(for Mr. HANNON) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has now considered the question of allowances in the case of directors' fees which have been voluntarily reduced owing to the economic situation during the past year; and if he will provide that assessments be not made in such cases for the full amount?
  Major ELLIOT: I assume that my hon. Friend refers to cases in which directors agree to a reduction of their fees for a part or the whole of the year 1931–32, ending 5th April, 1932. In such cases the reduction will be taken into account for Income Tax purposes. Owing to the operation of the preceding year basis,
  1044
  the reduced figures will of course form the basis of assessment not for the year in which the reduction takes place but for the following year.

  IRISH FREE STATE.

    OATH AND LAND PURCHASE ANNUITIES.
    Captain PETER MACDONALD(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he has had a communication from the Irish Free State Government regarding that Government's attitude towards Land Purchase Annuities due to this country and other Treaty obligations, and, if so, what was the nature of his reply?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I was officially informed yesterday by the High Commissioner for the Irish Free State that, in the opinion of his Government, the Oath of Allegiance is not mandatory in the Treaty, and that the Irish Free State have an absolute right to modify their Constitution as tile people desire. It is manifest that the Oath is an integral part of the Treaty made 10 years ago between the two countries and hitherto honourably observed on both sides. We are addressing to His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State a communication which will snake our standpoint clear beyond a possibility of doubt.
    With regard to the Land Annuities, we have received no official communication from the Irish Free State Government, but from a, statement reported to have been made yesterday by Mr. de Valera in the Free State Senate we understand that the Free State Government propose to retain the Irish Land Annuities. These Annuities are payments which the tenants of purchased estates make in order to repay the sums lent to them to buy their land. The Irish Free State Government are bound by the most formal and explicit undertaking to continue to pay the Land Annuities to the National Debt Commissioners, and the failure to do so would be a manifest violation of an engagement which is binding in law and in honour on the Irish Free State, whatever Administration may be in power, in exactly the same way as the Treaty itself is binding on both countries.
    Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he intends to publish the reply which he has sent to His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State?
    Mr. THOMAS: Undoubtedly the reply of the Government will be published, but, in this connection, I feel sure that I express the sentiment of the whole House when I say that it is not a time for panic. It is a serious matter, and the best way to deal with it is not to have a Debate in the House, but I assure the House that all communications will ultimately be the property of the House as a whole.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I was not suggesting that there should be a Debate. In view of the fact that the Irish Free State statement has been published will the right hon. Gentleman see that the Government statement is also published at once?
    Mr. THOMAS: Certainly, but when I say at once, I mean at the appropriate moment. Immediately in any exchange of communications the Irish Free State Government publish theirs, we will send a considered reply and that reply will be made public.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman's statement mean that the whole of the annuities must he paid, and that no remission of any portion will be allowed to the Irish Free State?
    Mr. THOMAS: I do not propose to go into any detail. My answer is clear and explicit. The annuities are a bargain between the two people hitherto honourably kept as a debt owing to us, and we intend that that agreement should stand.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is that a declaration of war by the right hon. Gentleman? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] It is a declaration of war. That is what it is—going to war for £3,000,000.
    Mr. MAXTON: I believe it is obviously impossible, with the information that we have, to enter into Debate on this subject, and it would be out of order at this moment, but I want to suggest that the House should have the opportunity of debate before final policies are decided, and not after. I want to ask the
    1046
    right hon. Gentleman if it is not the case that this present Government have been negotiating with practically every country in the world about the revision of treaties and reduction of debt, and if the Irish nation are going to be treated at least as well as foreign nations?
    Mr. THOMAS: I would again urge the House to remember not only my difficulty, but my anxiety not to say anything at this stage that will embitter the situation or make it more difficult; but, equally, I must make it clear in this House and to the country that the answer I have read out, which leaves no shadow of doubt on two points, namely, the Oath and the land annuities, is the considered judgment of the Government, and that is where we stand on the matter.
    Mr. MAXTON: Obviously, the right hon. Gentleman has the support of the majority of the House, but I am sure the House will not mind a minority expressing its view also. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman if his statement to-day does not amount to this, that there will be no negotiations with Ireland on the question of her relations with this country, that he has made a statement to-day, that our decision is taken on the issue of the Oath and the land annuities, and that there will be no ordinary friendly negotiations—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why should there be?"]—with the Irish Government, such as he would have with any other nation in the world?
    Sir ROBERT HORNE: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers may I ask this: Has Ireland asked for any negotiations in this matter?
    Mr. THOMAS: Let me make it clear to the House that I do not know any party in the House, and for this purpose I include the party of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), that has ever subscribed to the policy that a bargain or treaty between two sides could with impunity be repudiated by one. So far as the British Government are concerned, my answer is an answer to information received by me that one side in this particular matter repudiates their side of the bargain, and I desire again to repeat to the House that I have made the position of the Government quite clear, and there need

    1047
    be no doubt whatever where we stand; but, equally, I have made the declaration so that those who do believe in an honourable agreement, and that an agreement by two sides can only be altered by the consent of the two sides, should have no apprehension or doubt as to where the British Government stands.
    Mr. MAXTON: War, war!
    Mr. BUCHANAN: A declaration of war, sheer war!
    Mr. LOGAN: I wish to ask one question. I do not want to get into difficulties in regard to this situation. [Interruption.] That is quite true, and I will be very discreet. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman: Was the communication of yesterday a telephonic communication or was it documentary?
    Mr. THOMAS: The communication of yesterday was expressed verbally to me, and confirmed afterwards with a document, so that there could be no doubt as to its meaning, and, indeed, Mr. de Valera himself last night confirmed that view; and it is on that that I have given my answer.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the statement he has made is a decision of policy or the statement of a point of view of this Government as to the meaning of the Treaty? Is it not a fact that the Irish Government have stated a different point of view as regards the meaning of the Treaty?
    Mr. THOMAS: The Irish Government's intimation to me that I read to the House stated their views. The answer I gave stated our views. That is clear and definite.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. LANSBURY: I wish to ask the Prime Minister if he will tell us what the business will be when the House reassembles?
The PRIME MINISTER: Tuesday, 5th April: Committee stage of the Transitional Payments Prolongation (Unemployed Persons) Money Resolution.
Wednesday and Thursday: Report and Third Reading of the Wheat Bill. The Report stage of the Transitional Pay-
1048
ments Prolongation (Unemployed Persons) Money Resolution will also be taken on Wednesday.
Friday: Second Reading of the Transitional Payments Prolongation (Unemployed Persons) Bill.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders will be taken.
Resolved,
"That this House do meet To-morrow, at Eleven of the Clock; that no Questions shall be taken after Twelve of the Clock; and that Mr. Speaker shall not adjourn the House until he shall have reported the Royal Assent to the Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses, but that, subject to this condition, Mr. Speaker at Five of the Clock shall adjourn the House without Question put."—[The Prime Minister.]

INDUSTRIAL COUNCILS.
Mr. MANDER: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to encourage the formation of industrial councils and to legalise voluntary agreements when so desired."
Already this Session I have introduced two Measures on industrial subjects, and I fully realise that they are controversial, but the one I am bringing forward to-day comes, I think, under the heading of non-controversial, because it has the support of Members belonging to every party in the House. A Bill of the same nature was introduced in 1924, when the Second Reading was carried, on a Friday, by an overwhelming majority. On that occasion the whole of the Conservative party voted for it, the whole of the Liberal party and nearly the whole of the Labour party. That shows the volume of support which the Measure can command in this House. There are in the country at the present time about 37 joint industrial councils, and, including other bodies of a similar nature, there are about 47. They have been doing a great deal of excellent work of a voluntary kind, where the two sides of industry are equally represented—employers and employed—through their respective organisations. In spite of their good work they have been hampered by the fact that the decisions arrived at are purely voluntary and have no legal force, and in fact need not he carried out if anyone does not choose to recognise them. Unfortunately, there have been a certain number of cases where the few employers have defied the decision of the whole trade, have undercut wages, and

1049
produced a most unsatisfactory position. Such a state of things is very bad, not only for the good employer, but for the workers.
This Bill attempts, in a very moderate and limited way, to prevent occurrences of that kind. It provides for the formation, on a voluntary basis, of joint industrial councils with equal representation of the two sides. The Measure suggests the discussion of a number of industrial questions described in the Schedule, and the most important Clause authorises the Minister in proper cases to make statutory the decisions arrived at by the joint industrial council. First of all, there is to be an agreement of the two sides and an application to the Minister. If the Minister issues an Order, it can be annulled by a Resolution of this House or the other House. The limited powers under the Bill are amply safeguarded, and nothing of a dangerous nature is ever likely to be put forward. I think it is very relevant to point out that powers of this kind are jointly asked for by many industrial councils themselves. Let me give the example from my constituency of the lock, latch and key industries where the joint industrial council, with the unanimous approval of both sides, asked for powers of this kind. This Measure is purely permissive, and it need not be made use of unless it is desired. You must have agreement on both sides, you must have the consent of the Minister, and the agreement must have the consent of both Houses of Parliament. I hope hon. Members will feel, when this Bill has been printed, and when they have studied it, that it is non-controversial, and we are simply doing something to help those who are trying to help themselves in industry along the lines of conciliation and peace.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mander, Sir Percy Harris, Mr. Granville, Mr. David Grenfell, Mr. Lovat-Fraser, Mr. Macmillan, and Sir Cooper Rawson.

INDUSTRIAL COUNCILS BILL,
"to encourage the formation of industrial councils and to legalise voluntary agreements when so desired," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, 7th April, and to be printed. [Bill 52.]
CHESTER CORPORATION BILL.
Reported, with Amendments [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make provision for the regulation of street trading in the borough of Walthamstow; and for other purposes." [Walthamstow Corporation Bill [Lords].]
WALTIHAMSTOW CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.

    UNEMPLOYMENT.
    Mr. DAGGAR: I think every Member of this House will agree with me when I say that there is no more important question at the present time claiming our consideration than the problem of unemployment. If any justification for a discussion of this question is necessary it is to be found in the speech of the Lord President of the Council, delivered by him on the 15th of this month, at Ilford, in the course of which he used these words:
    "This present House of Commons will give the Government authority for anything they want to do, provided it is designed to help the finances, trade, industry and employment in our country. I admit that we shall be judged when the time comes by what we have been able to do for the employment of our people. That is far and away the gravest and most serious question we have to face."
    The Minister of Labour in a speech delivered at Nottingham on Saturday last made this statement:
    "I believe that we are justified in entertaining feelings of restrained optimism as to the future."
    4.0 p.m.
    Those of us who occupy these benches entertain feelings of unrestrained pessimism as to the future. The Labour Minister also stated that the figures on the unemployment register were at their peak in September last when they reached 2,825,000. We heard a good deal of criticism of the Labour party when they were in office in regard to the total of the unemployed, but the Minister of Labour has the honour of being a member of a Government under whose administration the greatest number of unemployed persons we have ever known are on the register. I want to be quite frank with the Government, and I wish to say that I do not expect them to solve the problem of unemployment. The object of this discussion is to emphasise again certain aspects of the unem-
    1058
    ployment problem. The Lord President of the Council, in the speech to which I have referred, said that unemployment statistics were very misleading unless they were read with comprehension. I take it that that is an observation which can be made in connection with the use of any figures, but I submit that there are two figures which, with or without comprehension, will never be mistaken either by the single man or the married man who has a wife and two children to maintain, and those are the figures of reduction made by this Government in unemployment insurance benefit, in the case of the single man from 17s. a week to 15s. 3d., and in the case of the married man from 30s. to 27s. 3d. a week. We are told by representatives of the Government that there are more persons in employment since the National Government was formed, but is that statement correct? It depends, in the words of the Lord President of the Council, whether the figures are read with the necessary degree of comprehension. For instance, if we take October, November or December of last year and compare the number of unemployed during any of those three months with the number of unemployed registered in January of this year, we find that there was an increase in January compared with October of 70,700; compared with November, an increase of 145,200; and compared with December, an increase of 227,300.
    Even assuming that there are more men in employment at the present time, what earthly consolation is that to the man who has been unemployed for years? According to the official figures, on 25th January of this year, if we exclude persons normally in casual employment, there were upon the register 2,131,298. According to the statement which accompanies those figures there were 128,834 more than a month before, and 255,968 more than a year before. If we include the persons who are normally in casual employment, we have a total figure of registered unemployed of 2,728,411, which, again, is 218,490 more than a month before, and 135,761 more than a year before. If regard is had to the increase as compared with a month before, we find that the increase of 218,490 is the largest monthly increase

    1059
    ever recorded in this country. I am aware that, according to the same source of information, on 22nd February the number of persons on the unemployment register, including those normally in casual employment, was 2,112,927, which was, as was pointed out in the Gazette, 27,238 fewer than a month before, but we must bear in mind the other fact that it means 83,515 more than a year before.
    We on these benches are very much concerned about the effort which has been made by the Government to guarantee regular employment for those who happen to be in employment at the present time, and the provision it is proposed to make for the persons who are idle. Quite recently a detailed statement was issued by the National Federation of Building Trade Operatives, according to which schemes have been held up or abandoned by local authorities in the interest of economy to the value of something like £50,000,000, which is 25 per cent. of the normal annual value of building trade work, which is estimated to be within the region of £240,000,000. Had those schemes been allowed to operate, they would have provided 12 weeks' employment for every man in the trade concerned; in other words, it would have provided 12 weeks' employment for 858,170 persons who are trained for this particular kind of work. I am aware that the reliability of those figures has been questioned, but I submit that they have never been corrected, and, until they are corrected by the critics, they stand as being a reliable statement as to the position in the building industry.
    What a contrast with what is now proposed in Germany, where there are schemes under consideration which will provide employment for something like 1,000,000 men! I know the argument which is adduced by those opposed to these schemes being carried out: it is that the money cannot be found. I cannot understand why £1,000,000 a week for unemployment benefit is regarded as a burden, while £1,000,000 a day in interest on the War Debt has never been described in this House as a burden. I am comparatively a new Member of the House, and I am amazed at the different language which is used when an effort is made to reduce the unemployment expenditure, and when it is a question of
    1060
    subsidising or giving grants to industry. Whereas unemployment benefit is always referred to as a "dole which demoralises the recipients," doles to industry are "a means of resuscitation." It is always "doles" to the unemployed and "financial assistance" to industry. The recent proposal to grant a subsidy of £6,000,000 does not even carry that degree of honesty, because it is simply referred to as a quota. Many new Members must be amazed at the language selected when industry is to be subsidised. The word "murder" gives one an unpleasant thrill, but substitute the word "homicide," and we are left undisturbed. I am not impressed by the contention that the money cannot be found. Money can be found in this country. If it is possible to find money to destroy life, it is to the discredit of this country that money cannot be found to maintain and sustain life. In any case I prefer the German method of providing employment for the unemployed. The Lord President of the Council, in the speech to which I have already referred, said:
    "It is quite true that there generally is an improvement in trade in the last quarter of a year, but we have to remember that the improvement in the last quarter of last year was not shown in the last quarter of the preceding year. Let us hope that the check that has at last come may form the springing-off ground for those better times so long overdue."
    The Minister of Labour also stated in the speech to which I have also referred:
    "There is some hope that the corner has been turned."
    I am pleased to know that there now appears to be some unity among Members of the Government, and that every week-end they have commenced to sing the same song. No word in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was more frequently used than the word "hope." I submit that our people, particularly the miners, have been living on hope since 1920, that they have experienced considerable disappointment in endeavouring to live upon faith, and that at the present moment many of our people are being supported by charity. I represent a mining constituency. The Division, for local government purposes, is administered by three local authorities. At the top end of my Division, in 1920, there were from 4,000 to 5,000 miners employed, and now there is working only one pit, which employs 220 miners. In the Aber-

    1061
    tillery area there have been five pits closed. In the Abercarn area we have one pit working. So that at the present time, as far as one company's interests are concerned, we have got only four pits working in the whole Division, where, in 1920, there were over 18,000 miners. The Secretary for Mines was in my Division last week, and there was only one pit of the Ebbw Vale Company, and that at the extreme end of the Division, which made it possible for him to see the working of a colliery.
    Whenever questions of a commercial or financial character are discussed in this House letters received by Members are referred to, especially if they contain additional orders due to the tariff policy of the Government. I want to read a few extracts from a letter which was recently sent by the education committee of the Abertillery Urban District Council to the Prime Minister—why to the Prime Minister, I hope I shall not be asked to explain. The letter states:
    "Parents are not in a position to provide sufficient food, clothing and boots for their children in attendance at schools of the authority. It is true to say that the position has been somewhat relieved by the introduction of provision of meals to necessitous school children, but much difficulty is experienced in obtaining funds for the provision of suitable clothing and foot-wear. The urban district council have opened a special fund in order that boots might be distributed amongst scholars, but the moneys available are not nearly sufficient to meet the need … It is most pitiful to see some of these little ones attempting to reach school with no soles to their boots, and very poorly clad."
    That is typical of the conditions in my Division. I have a letter here from the British Legion. I hope I shall not be expected to give the name of the place from whence it came, except to say that it is from my Division. It reads as follows:
    "The joint sections of the above organisation have requested me to make an appeal for assistance to relieve the excessive distress existing amongst the unemployed in. … Owing to the reduction in unemployment benefit, the means test and the chief collieries being closed for the past eight weeks, I can assure you that the distress in this area can truly be regarded as excessive. Although other areas in distress have received wide publicity through the Press and other organisations, this is the first appeal to be made from this district. Any donations, such as cash, new and worn clothing, boots, or any other necessary commodity you can send us will be deeply
    1062
    appreciated, and distributed after the most careful investigation to the most necessitous cases."
    That is an appeal for clothing for children who are in their present position largely because of the great distress that exists in the Division. That is not an exception. I have also a letter from Merthyr Tydvil, which was printed in the Press. At Merthyr Tydvil there is an insurable population of 20,000, of whom 3,000 are compelled to appeal to the public assistance committee. The letter is signed by the mayor of the town and also by the rector and the rural dean and by a Free Church minister. It says that it is pitiful in the extreme to watch children going to school with their bare feet protruding through their boots.
    I have referred to my own constituency because it is typical, not, only of the district of South Wales, but of many of the mining areas in Great Britain, and we want to know, and are entitled to know, what the Government are doing in order to attract new industries of which we have heard a great deal in this House during recent discussions. What are the Government doing, or what are they proposing to do, in order to attract new industries to these districts in South Wales, which cannot by any stretch of imagination be described otherwise than as derelict? We have been told by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade that 21 factories are in course of erection, and that statement has been corroborated by the Lord President of the Council, who stated during his speech that:
    "One of the interesting results already of our departure from the Free Trade policy has been a certain influx of foreign manufacturing business. That tendency has been rather exaggerated in the Press, but it is a real movement and I would remind you that we in England have owed a good deal in the past to some of these importations of new manufactures."
    He went on to point out that these industries which it was proposed to set up in this country were to be set up without the aid of British capital, and he was pleased with the fact that the building of these factories is largely dependent upon capital from foreign countries. Ha continued:
    "We brought weaving, a typical British industry to-day, from the Flemings. It was the French Huguenots who taught us how to make silk; and so it is to-day that we find the toymaker from Nuremburg, the

    1063
    clock makers from the Black Country, the perfumery and toilet accessories made in Paris are coming over to be made in this country, and also the finest kinds of ladies' stockings from Saxony. Those are industries that will be valuable to us because they will not only provide work to meet the demands of our own customers at home, but they will broaden our equipment for competitive orders coming from abroad, and increasing, I hope, our exports and trade."
    It is very remarkable that an almost identical speech was delivered in February, 1927, by the same right hon. Gentleman. He then stated that the newer industries were flourishing, and that there were more men and women in employment at that time than there were before the War. The only difference between the speech of 1927 and the speech of 1932 is that in 1927 he stated that the increase in population had beaten us. Here is another instance of complete harmony between the members of the present Government. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade and the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council are singing the same song at week-ends, but does either of them believe that the mere making of toys, or clocks, or ladies' silk stockings, or perfumes or face paints, will have any substantial or material effect in reducing the amount of unemployment in this country?
    There is a phase of the question of attracting new industries to this country to which, perhaps, I might be permitted to refer. I should like to know whether the Government have considered whether it is more economical to attract new industries into those areas where houses are already in existence for housing the people, or whether it is preferable to leave those in charge of such industries to plant them where they may desire? The question is whether it is not more economical to attract these industries to the areas to which I have referred, or to allow them to be established at places like Slough or Dagenham. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary could do a sum for me? If the policy for which he is at present responsible is capable of making possible the erection of 21 factories in so short a time, how long will it be before the whole of this country is covered with similar factories when the complete tariff policy of the Government commences to operate? The
    1064
    Minister of Agriculture has undertaken his task at the proper time. Had he been a little slower, there would, according to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, be no land on which to grow wheat in this country, because, at the rate at which these factories are going up, they will soon cover the whole country.
    I have been associated recently with a movement in South Wales the object of which is to attract, if possible, some of these industries into the distressed areas, and the following particulars may be of some importance, as bearing upon the question whether it is not more economical to do as I have suggested, and as has been suggested in this movement, namely, to attract those industries into South Wales. I attended a conference at which 10 local authorities in South Wales were represented, and, in the course of the discussion, my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) quoted the case of a town of 14,000 inhabitants, and pointed out that the actual cost of building a town to house a population of that size would be between £2,000,000 and £2,500,000, or, roughly, a charge of 150 per head of the population, men, women and children. If it were assumed that all the industries in the localities represented at that conference were becoming extinguished, and the communities were to be moved elsewhere, the cost of re-housing them would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of £25,000,000. That would be the first cost; and, if other items were taken into consideration, the figures became staggering. With these facts in mind. I would ask the Government to consider whether it is not better to attract these new industries into existing areas, instead of allowing places like Dagenham and Slough to be over-populated, as will be the case within a very short time.
    I want now to refer to the effect of the French and German quotas upon the employment of miners in Great Britain. I do so with the specific object of ascertaining from the Government whether any importance is to be attached to their declaration that tariffs can be used as a lever. It is true that the 15 per cent. French surtax has been removed from the coal that leaves this country for France, and the Government have prided themselves on that achievement. But

    1065
    what did they do? They did not use the tariff as a lever to compel France to reduce or lift her surtax, but simply arranged an interview between the British coalowners and the French Government. That is all that they did, and even the lifting of the 15 per cent. surtax has not made possible the employment of one miner in South Wales or in any other district in Great Britain. We are told that there is no connection between the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act and what France and Germany have done with regard to the surtax and the quota. Is that true? I find that the first information made public in this country as to what France intended to do was on the 15th November, and yet, before the 15th November, this Government had introduced a Measure imposing a tariff upon certain articles coming from France into this country. On the 15th November we had the first public news that France intended to reduce her quota of British coal, and on the 20th November the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act commenced to operate; and to assume that there is no connection or relationship between the attitude of France and the tariff policy of this Government is a reflection upon the intelligence of the French people, because they knew that immediately a Tory Government was in a position to legislate in this country tariffs were the only policy that such a Government would have, other than the policies of the Labour party or of the Liberal party.
    In my opinion the Government have done nothing to affect the French quota. Mr. W. A. Lee, the Secretary of the Mining Association of Great Britain, stated, after his return from France, when the French Government had decided to reduce the Surtax, that:
    "The additional quantities of coal from Continental coalfields thus allowed to enter France have resulted in the reduction of the general quota, first to 80 per cent, then to 72 per cent., and, finally, to 64 per cent. In effect this has been discrimination against Great Britain and in favour of Germany. It has been contrary to the interests of the French mines and the French mine owners have, in fact, complained that 500,000 tons in excess of the quota have been imported from Continental countries."
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. Lee went on to say that the actual amount is very much more, and also that the British delegation informed the French authorities that they would have
    1066
    to take the matter up again with the British Government immediately upon their return. I desire to know whether it is the intention of the Government to arrange another interview for the representatives of the British coalowners, in order to see if it is not possible to increase the quota of British coal? With reference to the German quota, it has created a very serious situation for the miners. I find that British coal exports to Germany have been reduced from 5,386,000 tons in 1929 to 3,733,000 tons in 1931, a reduction of 1,653,000 tons in two years. Before the War we were sending into Germany something like 9,000,000 tons a year. It is estimated that the reduction in the German quota will put something like another 8,000 of our miners out of work and, in my opinion, that is evidence that tariffs are not an effective instrument and that you cannot hope to secure reciprocity by acts of retaliation. That is borne out by a German, Herr Bennhold, who spoke for the Prussian Administration of Mines quite recently. He said that the real cause of the coal crisis was the depression in German industry and that it was quite understandable that there should be a desire to preserve the limited home market by excluding British coal imports. He also lamented that Great Britain's depreciated currency and new tariff policy were not favourable for an international agreement and said that for some time to come the German coal industry would have to rely upon its own fighting powers. For the Government to assume that there is no relationship between the actions of the French and German coal importers and the tariff policy of the Government is a reflection upon the intelligence of those people, who did not anticipate a change in our fiscal system immediately upon the formation of the National Government. I found this information in the Press on Monday:
    "Germany has secured the Brazilian Central Railway contract for 75,000 tons."
    It is understood that there is some disagreement as to an amount of money that is due to the Welsh coalowners, and as a result there was no desire on their part to make a bid for this contract. We are also informed in the Press that the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office have had the facts placed before them and that representations are being made to the

    1067
    Brazilian Government in the hope of a settlement being reached on the matter. I am hoping that the Parliamentary Secretary will give us some indication in order that our people may have real hope, and not the false hope that they have experienced recently in statements that there are more in employment and that we are about to turn the corner. That cannot be borne out by statistics even if you use them with comprehension. You cannot convince either the British or the South Wales miner. In 12 months, from February, 1931, to February, 1932, unemployed miners have increased in Great Britain by 54,390, and in South Wales and Monmouthshire during the same period there has been an increase, according to official figures given in answer to questions in the House, of 17,536. Again, I shall be told that Labour was in office during part of that time, but, even if you compare December, 1931, with February, 1932, the increase in the number of unemployed miners in Great Britain has been 37,500, and in South Wales 20,280. It is no consolation to tell us that there are more people in employment when there has been that substantial increase in the number of unemployed miners. I have endeavoured to secure some hope from the last statement made in the House by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour. He said:
    "I venture to think that the goal that I have indicated, namely a constructive attempt to find other occupations 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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1932; col. 1412, Vol. 262.]
    The Tariff Act has not been in operation for any considerable length of time, but surely the effect of the Abnormal Importations Act should be an indication as to whether it is possible to absorb some of our unemployed. What do we find in connection with that piece of legislation? According to figures submitted by the Minister of Labour on 25th January, 1932, in 12 industries which are directly or indirectly affected by that piece of legislation there were no fewer than 334,413 unemployed.
    Earlier in my speech I referred to a statement made by the Lord President of the Council. I deliberately did that
    1068
    because I attach more importance to the statements of the night hon. Gentleman, who is a loyal, sincere Conservative, than I do to the unreliable statements of the one-time Socialist who is now Prime Minister. I hope I shall not be asked why it was that the education authorities in my division wrote to the Prime Minister, but in any case they did not write him in anticipation of being promised anything in the form of a humane administration of existing regulations or of new legislation, and they might before writing that letter be informed of this statement, which is to be found in the last speech that the right hon. Gentleman delivered in the House. This is what he promised, if it is a promise:
    "The Government bas approached its work in a spirit of realism. It has examined the whole facts. Observation has to be made over the whole field. I am not committing the Government but the Government has decided to produce legislation. I have shown that it is the mandate that we are carrying out."
    He completed his speech by saying:
    "I have really very little to say."
    That is typical of the right hon. Gentleman. He will probably be known in history as the man who could say a lot and mean nothing and take a tremendous lot of the time of the House in saying it. I do not expect this Government to cure unemployment. No Government can. It is a characteristic of all Governments that they legislate after the facts, and this Government more than any, because they believe in perpetuating a system under which all our people cannot be employed. I am asking them to leave alone the authorities who are humanely administering the so-called means test. No more incorrect language has ever been used than to refer to it as the means test. It would be much more correct, much more honest and much more honourable if the letter "s" was dropped and it was referred to as the "mean test." You can only deal with the unemployed by one of three methods. You can either starve them, or sustain them, or shoot them. You have not the courage to do two of those things, and you have not up to now had the decency to sustain them during their period of unemployment.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: The hon. Member has criticised one of my right hon. Friends on the ground that he spoke a lot and

    1069
    did not mean very much. He himself has fulfilled, in the last 50 minutes at any rate, one of those criticisms that he directed to my right hon. Friend. Listening to his speech, I felt it a little remarkable that I did not remember having heard his voice raised in criticism of the Administration of which he was a, supporter during the last 12 months, when they were making such a shambles of the country that it may well take the most heroic efforts to get it out. The hon. Member's voice was not raised at this time last year. What was the Government of that time doing, in his own words, to attract new industries to the country? The programme was an original one—to raise the school-leaving age, to limit the number of motor cars at election time, to introduce a Trade Disputes Bill, which would only once again upset and exacerbate the most bitter feeling that had existed since 1926, to introduce a Land Tax, which was not going to be a pennyworth of use in industry, and to subject industry to the heaviest burden of taxation it had ever yet been called upon to pay. Those were their contributions and, at any rate, the achievements of the present Administration can fairly stand comparison with that kind of failure. What can Governments do to attract new industries To my way of thinking, they can do three things. They can provide steady and stable administration; they can reduce taxation, and they can give those industries some kind of shelter behind which they can develop and expand. Under each of those heads, the present Government have, at any rate, embarked on a programme which shows a little more promise than that with which the electorate was gulled during two years of Socialism.
    It is not often that the Ministry of Labour gets bouquets thrown at it, and certainly I cannot recollect having delivered one at its door myself, but I think it deserves a tribute for the way in which it has dealt with the local authorities in respect of the requirement that they should administer the means test. They were faced with a very difficult position. They were asking local authorities to carry out a duty which is obviously distasteful, and against which there was a good deal of resentment in different areas and, with a great deal of tact and good temper,
    1070
    they managed to get that system adopted throughout the country with a minimum of friction. Not only is a tribute due to the Ministry, but it is also due in very large measure to public assistance committees up and down the country which are carrying out what is admittedly one of the most difficult and disagreeable tasks that those public-spirited men and women have ever been called upon to perform with, on the whole, great satisfaction and a lack of any hardship. Speaking for Nottingham, a great industrial centre, which has felt its full share of the blast of unemployment, and which has suffered for a great many years, I can say that so far as my constituency is concerned, I have had during the last five months only one complaint of the application of the means test by the public assistance committee, and it proved on examination to be unfounded. At the same time, it is obvious that the unequal application of the test in different parts of the country must bring difficulties and anomalies. Judged by every reasonable and logical test, nobody could expect a system to work which had as many forms of application as there are local authorities, but it is the old example of those instances so frequent in the administration of this country where in practice the theoretical objections prove to be ill founded.
    Nevertheless, there is one matter about which I am extremely anxious to have some information from the Minister. Can the Minister tell us, when he comes to reply, whether there is a tendency in any part of the country for the means test to be applied in such a way that what I may call the fixed assets of the unemployed, are treated as spending value rather than—as up to reasonable limit, in my view, they ought to be treated—as capital assets from which a fixed income return ought to be received. In that connection, if there is any such tendency on the part of public assistance committees in different parts of the country to require unemployed men and women to liquidate fixed assets from small cottage property and little investments, and even to come down to furniture, I feel very strongly that it is a matter which the Ministry ought to correct by means of a circular. Obviously it cannot control, but at any rate it can

    1071
    guide, and it can rely upon local opinion following an administrative expression of opinion of that kind.
    Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: Is the hon. and learned Member aware that the public assistance committee has to treat an application for transitional payment as if it is an application for public assistance and therefore must take into consideration the fixed assets of the family?
    Mr. O'CONNOR: I am not complaining, and I think that it would obviously be right that the fixed assets should be taken into consideration. I am suggesting that it ought not to be necessary to treat them as assets that could be liquidated and used as current income, and any general tendency of that kind above a reasonable limit I should certainly deplore. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to conclude, he will find that there is not a great deal of difference of opinion between us upon that line. I would remind the Minister that the signal demonstration of solidarity which occurred in the country last October was very largely due to the fact that property in this country was widely and deeply distributed, and went down by its roots into the very humblest homes of the land. We could not with equanimity contemplate the facing of a renewed crisis when those roots had been shaken and when that ownership of property had been permitted to be dispelled. The idea of many of us on this side of the House is the wider spread of property, and any measure or method which involved the distribution of the property and forcing it into liquid channels would not be in conformity with my principles at any rate.
    There is another matter which I should like to mention. Nobody can doubt that unemployment insurance at the present moment is in a chaotic condition. The temporarily unemployed are obviously receiving harsh and unequal treatment. There is not the smallest justification upon the merits of the temporarily unemployed either for the rate of contribution which they are paying or for the low rate of benefit which they are receiving. In a solvent insurance scheme which comprised only those who are temporarily unemployed, leaving out that hard core
    1072
    of unemployment which has broken the back of every attempt at unemployment insurance, leaving that apart, the benefits might be very much greater and the contributions obviously might be very much less, that is, in a watertight scheme of insurance. The obvious answer to that is that nothing can be done, no initiating step can be taken, until the report of the Royal Commission has been received.
    I should like to know what the Government are doing to expedite the receipt of that report. The Commission is presided over by a distinguished judge who sits in the City of London. He still sits in the City of London. He held sittings for the greater part of last week and the week before. Surely it ought to be possible, in view of the extreme urgency of this problem and the absolute necessity of devising legislation to make a watertight scheme which will segregate unemployment insurance from transitional payments upon some national basis to make representation to the City of London to release the learned judge to pursue his duties in this connection the whole of the time so that the Report of the Commission may be expedited.
    One unfortunate lesson the country learnt from the last Administration—it was almost worth having the last Administration, bad as it was, in order to teach the country that lesson—was that you cannot cure unemployment by expenditure, and that whatever employment you give in that way you merely "cut off," on the other hand, on account of the burden you impose upon industry for the raising of the expenditure. That lesson was learnt quite early in the lifetime of the last Government, and probably their obvious break up both of hopes and of activities dated from the moment when they discovered that the solution of spending money was in fact no solution at all. The solution of expenditure of money is rather like an inadequate eiderdown on a winter's evening; when you cover your shoulders, you uncover your toes. If a Government spends money, industry cannot meet its needs; it slackens down and has to face a burden which is excessive and impossible to carry.
    But outside the realm of public expenditure there is a great deal that can be done, and is being done in private

    1073
    directions in the country at the present time, by way of providing, not employment, but occupation for a good many of those unfortunate men. I should like the Minister to tell us what view the Ministry takes of those schemes. There is the well-known scheme at Brynmawr by which derelict refuse tips were transformed into very attractive public gardens. There have been similar schemes in various parts of the country. There has been boot-and-shoe making, and cabinet-making by unemployed men for the benefit of people who were in difficulties themselves, and which has had no profit-making end. There would appear to be a vast possibility of the expansion of useful occupations of that kind for men who are on transitional payments in the areas in which they are not likely at an early date to see any resumption of industrial activity. Nobody suggests that the subject of private profit should come in at all, but by little or no expenditure a good many of those centres could be set up, and especially at a time like the present, when the State itself is an enormous employer of labour.
    I suppose that the historian in the future will look upon us as the most absurd and insane people in the world. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Exactly, I will give the instance which I have in mind. We have the postal service rim by the State. We have about half the facilities we enjoyed before the War, much less efficiency in every respect; we cannot get a telegram delivered just when we want it and so we do not send it; we have no Sunday services, and practically no really efficient express postage servitce; and at one and the same time we have 2,500,000 men unemployed from whom a selection could be made to perform useful public services, not for profit or advantage, but simply in recognition of the fact that those who are in receipt of public, money are entitled to be called upon to do public service for the rest of the community. I hope that in looking through the various types of Government employment it may be found possible for some occupation to be provided for a good many of those men who would be only too delighted to do it for the maintenance of their self-respect and self-esteem and also for the benefit of the community as a whole. When all is said and done, the real hope for the unemployed of this country will not be to-day
    1074
    in a discussion upon the Consolidated Fund Bill. The real hope for the unemployed, if they can only see it, will be when the Budget is introduced after the Easter Recess.
    Mr. COVE: Does the hon. and learned Member mean that unemployed men should run about with telegrams, and take letters about? I would like to be clear about the matter.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that if in a country area there are a number of unemployed men and there are not enough people to deliver telegrams, and those men are in receipt of transitional payment, they ought to be supplied with bicycles and sent out to deliver them.
    Mr. THORNE: Who is going to buy the bicycles?
    Mr. O'CONNOR: I would rather buy a few bicycles than see those men standing against the street corners doing nothing.
    Mr. THORNE: You say that spending money will not find employment.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: Certainly.
    Mr. LOGAN: The hon. and learned Member said something about historians looking upon us as absurd—
    Mr. O'CONNOR: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to reply, I have no doubt, in a few minutes. The real hope of dealing with the unemployment problem is not, as I say, to-day, but it will occur when the Budget is introduced. In my view at any rate, there is no real hope of stimulating industry successfully without a very drastic reduction of direct taxation. Sir Josiah Stamp, who is by common agreement one of the most eminent economists in the country, has said that every addition of sixpence to the Income Tax adds 500,000 men to the list of unemployed. The date upon which this country turned the corner and began to decline in industrial prosperity was the date when Lord Snowden added his extra sixpence to the Income Tax a oouple of years ago. He "lost the 'bus" on that occasion. Had that step not been taken, conversion operations would have been possible which subsequently were not possible. Industry received a blow from which it certainly has not recovered at the present time.

    1075
    Many Members of the House are receiving deputations and representations for the restoration of the cuts which were imposed upon various forms of salary last October. I hope that it will be borne in mind that the salaries which are being paid after those cuts are only being provided at the cost of a burden of taxation which is strangling and oppressing industry, and upon the reduction of which the revived activity of industry really depends. The first obligation, if there be a surplus—and surplus seems to be in the air at the moment—will be to apply it towards the reduction of direct taxation. You can only arrive at a solution of the unemployment difficulty by facing the other way and releasing capital for industry so that industry may absorb the men whom Governments have proved continuously unable to absorb.
    5.0 p.m.
    A lot is being said about the Budget being balanced and that therefore there will be a surplus which can be raided. I hope that nobody in the House is under the misapprehension that except on paper the Budget is in fact balanced. Death duties, for instance, which obviously are capital taxation, during the last 10 years yielded £63,500,000 more than was applied to the redemption of Debt for the same period, so that the destruction of that obviously capital asset has been greater than the amount which has been applied towards the redemption of Debt for the same period. Lord Lothian, who is a Member of the Government, calculated that at least £200,000,000 of the present direct taxation was produced by the sale and destruction of capital, and that was long before the additions to direct taxation made last September. Those additions have resulted in a position in which the direct taxpayer at the present moment is bearing 66.16 per cent. of the total taxation of the country. The indirect taxpayer, not including any yield that may come from the Import Duties Act, contributed at the time when that Act was introduced, only 33.84 per cent.
    Those are staggering and startling figures and show that the life-blood of industry is being taken and that industry is being left blood dry. How can we compete with other countries, raise our industrial efficiency and reorganise our industries if at one and the same moment
    1076
    we are depriving industry of the only method by which it can compete and reorganise? There is a great deal to be said for a Soviet There is a great deal more to be said for a Soviet which takes the responsibility of equipping industry and supplying it with its capital than there is for a system which leaves industry in private hands but at the same time deprives private industrials of the power to keep industry going and to keep the wheels of industry going round.
    One has only to look at a single instance to see how vital is the reflow of capital into industry. Take the case of the co-operative societies. They are the only retail distributing organisation in this country at the present time which is consistently expanding and going ahead, and the reason for that is that their earnings and reserves are not burdened with this colossal weight of taxation. Therefore, they are able to put aside funds with which to expand and improve their organisation and premises. The conclusion that I invite the House to draw is that never until we turn our backs upon the mounting of direct taxation at anything like the present rate can we hope to see any real revival of industry. Without that there is no hope of conversion and no hope of our really retaining the stability of our exchanges or preventing the flight abroad of capital whose use here we render unprofitable by the present rate of taxation.
    Many of us on this side of the House look at the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to stand firm upon this issue and not to be frightened by any threats of resignation from whatever quarter they may come. If they do that, I am sure that they will find that those who threaten resignation upon an issue of this kind are going contrary to the feelings of the vast majority of hon. Members who sit on this side of the House who, I am sure, feel with me that, taking the long view, the only hope for reestablishing industry is by lightening the burdens that are upon its back. If the Government do that, I am convinced that they will do a great deal more than listening to any projects that are put before them to establish industries in this country largely at the expense of the direct taxpayer.
    Mr. CAPE: In taking part in this Debate I should like to comment upon the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor). The hon. and learned Member always interests me when he makes a speech, because he is so old fashioned in his ideas and arguments. He seems to be so forgetful that. one cannot be annoyed with him. One feels a sort of sympathy for him. He has told us what a reduction of Income Tax would mean to industry. He must have forgotten that twice since 1920 the same story has been told to us, not by him, but by other eminent men belonging to his party. They told us that industry would flourish if we had a reduction of Income Tax. Although we have had two reductions in the Income Tax rate during the period to which I have referred, it is a striking fact that the years immediately following the reduction of the Income Tax were the worst that we had during that period. I cannot see that a reduction of Income Tax would give that fillip to industry which the hon. and learned Member has tried to indicate.
    He made a point in regard to the absorption of unemployed men. His argument is to exploit the unemployed man to lower the standard of life of the employed man. He gave as an instance the Post Office and suggested that unemployed men might be utilised in the public service for the delivery of letters and telegrams. If we used unemployed men to do that kind of work we should either have to pay the men for the work or we should have to say that we were conferring a boon upon them by allowing them to do something for the State because they happened to be unemployed. We should have to dismiss the rural postmen and the telegraph messengers in order to put the unemployed men into occupation. What else the hon. and learned Member meant I cannot understand. Such an idea would mean that for every man we put into work we should be putting another man out of work. There is one way in which the hon. and learned Member seems to have been fortunate as representative of the Central Division of Nottingham. He tells us that. although he has some doubts as to the application of the means test, in the area that he represents he has only had one case of real complaint in
    1078
    regard to the application of the means test, and that on investigation of the case it was shown that no other course could have been taken than that which had been taken.
    I have not been so fortunate. I come from a district where the relief committee is as sympathetic as any committee in the country and has tried to apply the means test orders in the most humane manner, but more than one person has approached me and complained of the hardships which the means test has imposed upon them. I do not want to deal with the question of the means test now. Much as I differ from it, I realise that it is in operation as the result of a vote of this House and that an obligation has been placed upon the public assistance committees to put the means test into operation. I do, however, agree with my hon. Friend that even if the Ministry of Labour cannot dictate what policy shall be adopted by the committees in the application of the means test a circular might be issued to local authorities advising them what things ought to be ignored or taken into account in connection with an application for transitional benefit. It appears to me that the Ministry has made up its mind that it will give no advice whatever, because in answer to a supplementary question this afternoon the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry adroitly avoided the real issue by saying that the public assistance committee has discretionary power. We want to get them beyond the Poor Law basis and to say that the income of an unemployed man should not be calculated on the same lines when he is applying for transitional benefit as is done when he is making an application under the Poor Law system.
    A large number of the men who have appeared before the committees applying the means test have served their country in its hour of need and have been granted a certain amount of money, not for their service but on account of disability incurred during that service. It is unfair to calculate that source of income against them when assessing the amount of transitional benefit. We should all be horrified if an employer of labour said to an ex-service man: "What pension have you?" "I have 15s. a week," replies the ex-service man. Whereupon the em-

    1079
    ployer says: "I pay £2 10s. a week as the normal rate, but seeing that you have 15s. a week pension, I am only prepared to give you £2 a week." I do not think that any Member of this House would stand that sort of thing. That is why we say that when an ex-service man applies for transitional benefit lit is not fair that his pension should be taken into account. There are also men who have been disabled in industry and who are receiving money as compensation because of the disabilities they incurred when they were working in heavy and other industries under a private employer. In that way they do work for the country, and we contend that in their application for transitional benefit they ought to be fairly treated with regard to their compensation money.
    Unemployment has been debated in this House for many years. It was debated before I was a Member of Parliament. It has been an issue at the last eight or nine General Elections, and almost every party has said that it had a remedy for the unemployment problem. I have never made such a statement, because I am satisfied that under the present system of society, the present method of running industry and the stranglehold that the financiers of this country have upon industry, no Government will be able to solve the unemployment problem. It is, however, fair to say that some Governments have made frantic attempts to minimise the problem. Regardless of What the last Government may have done in connection with unemployment, I maintain that if we go into the political history of parties and consider what the Conservative Government did in 1924 to 1929 we shall find that their record is much worse than the record of the last Government, and that record was not a good one. The Conservative Government's record was a bad one. It upset every industry in the country. The Conservative Government from 1924 to 1929 did make slight efforts to make the country believe that they were doing something to solve the problem, and when the Labour Government came into office they also tried to do something towards a solution, but both of them failed. The present Government, however, have not tried to do anything. They have not made any attempt to solve the problem.
    1080
    In my county, which is not a big one, I find that at the present time the number of wholly unemployed miners is 3,587, or 31.5 per cent., while the temporary unemployed miners number 466, or 4.1 per cent., a total percentage of 35.6 of miners in that county unemployed—the highest percentage of any county in England. That is 2.9 per cent. higher than 12 months ago. These are the figures given in the Labour Gazette. In the iron and steel industry the percentage of unemployment in the county of Cumberland has gone up from 44.2 per cent. to 47.2 and in the iron ore mining industry the percentage of unemployment in 1931 was 30.8 but at the present time it is 40.6.
    We are constantly hearing through the Press and in speeches from Members of the Government as to how industry in this country is flourishing. According to these statements it would appear as though employment was rising at a very rapid rate. I have not been able to find out where this increase in employment is taking place; I cannot find out where the boom in industry has occurred, of which we hear so much in the public Press. At any rate, these statements cannot apply to the northern counties of England, because instead of there being any signs of improvement in industry and trade we are constantly hearing of reductions in employment in almost every industry in the northern counties. We are entitled to some information as to what efforts the Government are making to help industry. This Government has made no attempt to solve the problem of unemployment except to put into operation the Import Duties Act. There has not been sufficient time to enable us to say whether that Act is going to have a good effect or otherwise, but we can have our opinion as to what will be the results of the Act, and we look with great fear and alarm to its operation, because even if it put a few more men into work in some industries it will dispossess a great many more and in a year's time we shall have more unemployment than we have to-day.
    The Government also have gone out of their way to prevent men working. They have stopped all relief works. I am not one of those who jump up and put supplementary questions to Ministers at Question Time. I sit here listening to the answers given by Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries, and some of them,

    1081
    I admit, are very adroit, most of them evasive and sometimes they are amusing. Questions have been asked of the Ministers of Health and Transport as to whether they have sent circulars to local authorities telling them to stop any further public works. The answer has been that they have not done anything of the kind, but that they have drawn the attention of public authorities to the need for economy. While they have not told them in direct language that they must not proceed with new works, they have given a strong intimation that 4f they do so they will get into trouble. When a public authority receives a letter from a Government Department warning them not to enter into any further expenditure they immediately say that they must obey the order of the Government and stop all relief works.
    At the present moment in my own county there is such a complete stoppage that we have not one public work at present in progress throughout the whole of the county. We had road schemes and bridge schemes, but everyone has had to be stopped; and if you take into consideration the number of men out of work in the heavy industries and the number of men out of work through the stoppage of these relief schemes the unemployment in the county of Cumberland stands about the highest of any county in the British Isles. But the stoppage of these relief works means also that the spending power of these men is reduced, their standard of life is lowered, and the business men of the district are suffering keenly the lack of spending power on the part of the workers in that area. The money that goes into any industry comes from the purchasers of the commodity manufactured by the industry, and if money is not in the community they are unable to buy these goods. It will not matter whether you have an import tax or not, if you cannot sell these goods the industry will still go down. Therefore, I say that the stoppage of relief works reflects on the business people of a locality, and they have to bear a, burden which is probably greater than is generally realised.
    In addition, the Minister of Agriculture by an order can give grants for the development of allotments. That scheme has gone. The hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor)
    1082
    referred to an estate at Brynmawr, where there was a scheme for the development of allotments. Provision was made for the purchase of seeds at a reduced rate. The Government have entirely washed their hands of that scheme, but the Society of Friends have come in and are trying to do what ought to be done by the Government. If we want to keep some of our unemployed men occupied and help in the raising of foodstuffs for themselves and their families, surely money spent in that direction is well spent? The Society of Friends see that they can be of great benefit to the unemployed man and his wife and children, and also of some benefit to the State. I should also like to ask the Secretary for Mines whether his Department is doing anything in regard to the carbonisation of coal. Have any further steps been taken in this direction? Probably this is not the appropriate time for putting that question, but I hope he will consider the matter.
    The Minister of Labour has had a good deal of correspondence with the General Council of the Trades Union Congress in regard to the Anomalies Act. That Act was passed by a Labour Government. I was one of those who was not very much enamoured of its provisions, and that applies to most members of the Labour party. But there is a provision in that Act by which an advisory committee could be called together to suggest certain regulations for carrying out the provisions of the Act. A correspondence extending from 9th December to the 14th March has passed between the Minister of Labour and the secretary of the General Council of the Trades Union Congress. It may be asked why the Trades Union Congress should want to interfere. They have just as much right to interfere as the Employers' Federation. They represent from 4,500,000 to 5,000,000 workers in this country, and they have a, perfect right to put questions to the Minister. I think the Minister accepts that position. They have asked that the advisory committee should be called together to consider the working of the Anomalies Act, but up to the present time the right hon. Gentleman, in his usual courteous manner, has given them a blank refusal and has said that at the moment he is not prepared to do anything. I think he should attempt something in this direction in order to case the position.

    1083
    While I realise that we cannot solve the unemployment problem this afternoon I hope the Minister will give us some indication of the steps the Government propose to take in order to minimise the problem of unemployment 'as it confronts the country to-day.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. SUTCLIFFE: In addressing the House. for the first time may I ask for that leniency and kind indulgence which it so generously accords to one who speaks here in his early days. I have listened with great interest for some weeks to many speeches, in fact, it may be called a constant stream of oratory, and I now feel that the time has come for me to push off from the shore and join that stream. It has been said that the great source of pleasure is variety. If that is so, we who have listened so attentively since we came to this House must have derived very great pleasure from the Debates, because the topics that have been discussed have been so many and so varied. They started at the top with a. tariff Debate and the wheat quota Debate, and getting nearer the bottom we had the discussion on the musk rat and its evil effects on certain members of the community. As representing a constituency almost wholly given over to the cotton industry I feel that I could not do better than join in a Debate on unemployment, especially as so many of my constituents are in the unfortunate position of being unemployed. Let me refer first to the events of last autumn. The outstanding feature of those events was the great rally to the National Government on the part of a vast number of the unemployed in every part of the country. They saw in this Government new hope and a new prospect of finding work—that work which had been lacking in many cases for years. What struck me most was the earnestness, the trust that they imposed in the Government. At last, they felt, there was someone and there was a Government which would find them genuine honest work.
    The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Cape) has said that the Government have done nothing towards providing work for the unemployed. I think the test must be this: Are they discontented and disappointed with what the Government have done up to date? They are not disappointed in any degree whatever. The
    1084
    vast majority of them are content. In some cases, in many cases, they are waiting patiently, but they are content with the knowledge and sure hope that the Government mean to do something definite for their good. I suppose that it is the business of an opposition to oppose. It seems to me that this Debate started with the idea that the Opposition must do something to justify its existence. At the General Election no one said that the unemployment problem could be solved in seven weeks or even seven months. It was said on every platform that the solution would take years and years. I think the House will agree that so far the Government have done well and have gone some distance along the road to a solution of the problem. Surely no Government can ever have done so much in so short a time as the present Government have done. We have only to consider a moment and we see a great return of confidence in the country since the Government came into power, confidence which is the admiration and indeed the envy of the whole world. We have largely restored our financial position in this short time and we are on the way to restoring our trade position too.
    Let me look at the figures of unemployment in the cotton industry, with which I am particularly concerned. In January, 1931, there were 43.9 per cent. of operatives unemployed. In January, 1932, the number had fallen to 28.2 per cent., and in February, 1932, it had fallen to 26 per cent. The numbers actually at work at the end of last month were over 75,000, which is no less than 16.9 per cent. more than a year previous. This does show a definite improvement. It is not very long ago since Lancashire had the greatest cotton industry in the world; the whole world relied on Lancashire for cotton goods. In 1912 the production was as much as 8,000 million yards, of which 6,900 million yards were for export. In those days Lancashire goods accounted for nearly three-quarters of the total international trade in such goods. It was not until Japan and India started to compete that England began to lose her priority in cotton manufactures.
    The world slump of 1921 also added to the injury. In 1924–25 the demand had gone back to what it was in pre-War days. Meanwhile India had come along

    1085
    to such an extent that no less than 1,000 million yards of Indian trade had been lost. In place of 1,600 million yards in 1927 only 390 million yards went to India in 1931. Meanwhile the percentage of unemployed in the British cotton industry rose from 10 per cent. in 1927 to 27 per cent. in 1931. So the position has been going from bad to worse, largely due, in the case of India, to the Socialist Government, which let matters get entirely out of hand by being so lenient with those who were the greatest enemies of this country. If it had not been for the firm stand which has recently been taken in India by the present Government, we should have lost a great deal more of our trade in cotton goods with India.
    Therefore I welcome unreservedly the constructive work which has been done so far by the National Government. We all know that it is only a beginning, and that there is plenty more to be done, but we also believe that we shall have a nice little time in which to do it. In the few months of the Government's existence we have made an extraordinarily good start. I welcome the definite improvement which has already taken place as a result of the firm hand in India. Inquiries from all markets there are improving and arriving in larger numbers, even from Bombay, which is the centre of Congress activity. I also welcome the tariff policy of the Government, because it is likely to lead to greatly increased employment even in the Lancashire cotton trade, though that trade is not so dependent on tariffs as are some industries. Whatever hon. Members opposite may say, taking the situation as a whole there has been such an improvement as did not seem possible last autumn, and I am sure we, can all look forward to further increased prosperity as the months and the years of this National Government go by.
    Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: As a Lancashire Member it gives me great pleasure to extend the congratulations of the House to another Lancashire Member on his maiden speech. It is not my intention to follow him in his remarks about the cotton industry. The hon. Member did his business very well indeed, and I think that his constituents in Royton will be quite pleased with a Member who will see to it that cotton interests are not in any way neglected in this House. We have raised this question of unemployment
    1086
    for three reasons. In the first place we want to remind the House of the desperate plight of the unemployed. We also want to show that the lot of the unemployed has not improved since the present Government was formed. Thirdly, we want, if we can, to get some better statement from the Front Bench as to improved treatment of the unemployed in future.
    As to the first reason, it should not be necessary to spend any time in proving that the plight of the unemployed is desperate. I was rather surprised that the hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) should have tried to show that the Government had brought about some improvement in the lot of the unemployed. I speak mainly for the mining industry, and when I compare the latest figures issued with the figures of 12 months ago, I find that the increase in unemployment in the mining industry is nearly 6 per cent. In Lancashire and Cheshire it is 7 per cent. We fail to find any satisfaction in the activities of any Government when the figures at the end of six months show a substantial increase in the number of unemployed in the mining industry.
    When I turn to another industry, the building industry, I find again that during the same period the increase of unemployment has been 7 per cent. Needless to say the increase of 7 per cent. in the mining industry in Lancashire means a very heavy increase indeed. We are not satisfied that all that could be done to find employment for the unemployed miners is being done by the Government. On many occasions we have called attention to the various methods of treating coal. We have been put off times without number by statements that the matter is being investigated, and that the Government hope to make some definite announcement on the question at an early date. We hope that to-day the Secretary for Mines will be able to give us more encouragement than we have had in the past regarding the various methods of treating coal which have been put forward by the authorities.
    One other question I want to refer to is the means test. We have been told on many occasions that the Minister of Labour cannot do more than he is doing and that a commission is now sitting.

    1087
    Cannot he do something to expedite the report of that commission? Let us find out what the commission think about the matter. I call his attention to what is happening in the country, especially in Lancashire. We find, in Lancashire, that some authorities are treating persons under the means test in a vastly different way from others. The Minister yesterday in reply to a question stated that the percentage of those applying, who were disqualified under the means test, was 26.1 for the county area of Lancashire, and in one of the boroughs, namely, Wigan, the statement is that the percentage disqualified was 11.6. My Division happens to surround Wigan. Most of the unemployed in Wigan are unemployed for the same reason as the unemployed in the Ince Division. They have worked at the same collieries and have been stopped for the same reasons. But we find that men who have worked together and circumstances of whose cases are almost identical, are being treated differently, simply because some of them live inside the Wigan borough and others outside it, in the Ince Division.
    I hardly think that the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary can approve of a system of applying the means test which treats differently, almost identical cases, because one man happens to reside in the borough area and the other in the county area. We hope that the Minister will take action to remedy that state of affairs. Lancashire has been severely hit by unemployment, and it is being treated worse by the public assistance committees than almost any other county. There was some reference in the Press to the possibiltiy of the Minister having to intervene in Glamorgan because Glamorgan had been too generous. If generosity is a reason for intervention I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, as a Lancashire man, will agree that meanness is also a reason for intervention.
    I refer to two cases, to which my attention was called last week-end, to show how this system is working. I take, first, the case of a man with a wife and two children who is living with his father-in-law. Because of that fact the father-in-law has been allowed one pound instead of 23s. 3d. The man now states that there is a possibility of his wife getting work, and he has been informed by a member
    1088
    of the local guardians committee that if that should happen, and if he should have an increase of income in that way, he can take it for granted that there will be a further reduction in the transitional benefit paid to his father-in-law. I realise the limitations under which the Parliamentary Secretary has to work, but if a wife is prepared to go out and work in such circumstances as these to augment the family earnings I hope that it is not to result in a further deduction from the transitional benefit of the father-in-law. I have another case of a miner with a wife and one son. They gave the son a secondary education for which they went into debt. Now the son is earning just under £3 a week as a clerk, and, being single, he has to pay Income Tax. The whole of the father's transitional benefit has been knocked off on that account, and the son, for whose education his parents are now in debt, has to keep them. I know the difficulty of dealing with such cases, but I hope that instances of this kind will receive the attention of the Minister.
    The Government have evidently decided not to do anything directly to find work. The recent speech of the Parliamentary Secretary indicated that the Government do not think that there is any hope in that direction. They regard it as a wrong policy, and, taking that view, they are entitled to discontinue that policy. But, since they have implicit faith in tariffs, and have decided not to create work schemes, we ask them to see that these unemployed people are treated properly. We of this party have stood in the past for work or maintenance. We still stand for that principle. Our contention is that the man without a job is as much entitled to a job as any man who is in a job. We have always contended that the man without a job is as willing to work as any man in a job. If the Government are unable to provide work for these people—and it is work that they want—surely we cannot be charged with asking too much, if we say to the Government: "At least provide these people with an income which will keep them in a physical condition to be able to perform their work in case they do get employment." The present 15s. 3d. is too little.
    The hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham says that if there

    1089
    should be a surplus ion the forthcoming Budget it should be used for the reduction of direct taxation. He argues that by that means employers will be enabled to find more employment. I hope that the Minister as a Member of the Cabinet will see to it, if there should be a surplus, that the 10 per cent. deduction, made in the name of equality of sacrifice, is restored to the unemployed. Surely no Member will say that there ought to be a reduction in direct taxation as long as the unemployed are suffering a cut of 10 per cent. Our case is that in the interests of the country the 10 per cent. ought to be restored. Last Friday night I spoke to a friend—not a supporter of mine but a supporter of the National Government—who keeps a boot and shoe shop. He was at the door of his shop and I asked him, "How is business" He replied, "Very bad indeed." In front of the shop stood 20 or 30 children, not one of whom was properly shod. I said to him, "Surely there is a need there for boots and shoes?" and he said, "There is the need but they have not the means. These are the children of unemployed people. How can they buy boots and shoes with the present rate of benefit?"
    If an increase in purchasing power means employment, I think that the nation would gain an advantage by the restoration of the 10 per cent. cut, because it would enable the fathers and mothers of those children to buy the boots and shoes which they need. Our approach to the problem of unemployment differs from the Government's approach to it. We frankly declare that we see no hope of solving the problem under the present system. We admit that there is no hope of that system being changed by this Government, but, in the meantime, while waiting for the day when people will sit on those benches opposite who are determined to change the economic system—while waiting on that glorious day to come—may we not ask this Government to do a little more to see that those for whom they do not intend 10 find work by direct schemes at least get such a rate of benefit as will enable them to provide reasonably for their dependents and at the same time assist trade? I hope the Minister will realise that our sole purpose in raising this discussion is to get a gleam of hope from the Government, an indication that they intend to do
    1090
    something in the direction of finding work, and also that they will see to it, should there be any surplus in the forthcoming Budget, that the unemployed get fair treatment.
    Mr. MORRISON: No Member of the House, in whatever part he may sit, will complain of this subject having been raised before we separate for the Easter Recess, and I am certain that all have appreciated the tone of the Debate up to the present. In spite of the great events which have taken place this Session, the unemployment question has been in the minds of hon. Members all the time. It has been a sort of recurrent and persistent base to the proud music of triumph that has been heard. As the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar) said, it is a matter of the gravest concern to anyone who has sufficient imagination to visualise the condition to which so many of our citizens have been brought particularly in depressed areas like South Wales.
    My reason for intervening is to direct attention to three points. The first is a point which was touched upon just now by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald), namely, the question of direct taxation and unemployment. Whatever we may think about the condition of the unemployed and the adequacy of the pittance by which they are kept alive to-day, there can be no doubt in the mind of any hon. Member as to the existence of a relation between the incidence of direct taxation and the amount of unemployment from which this country has so long suffered. If we are bending our energies to curing unemployment, which means giving work, rather than merely alleviating unemployment by a pittance, then it seems to me that this question of the load of taxation upon our people must be faced with as open minds as we can bring to bear on the subject. The position of our industry is surely this. In order to maintain in work our vast industrial population we must either have foreign markets which will absorb the products of our people, or, if that foreign market is taken from us by circumstances outside our control, we must see that the home market is, as far as possible, reserved for their energies and is made as capable as possible of purchasing the goods which they produce.
    We have made an alteration in the fiscal system, designed to preserve to

    1091
    some extent the home market for the activities of our own people but I urge upon the Government that there is no use preserving the home market, in order to give employment, if that home market is exhausted by heavy direct taxation and is unable to purchase the goods when it is reserved. All taxation is bad, but from the point of view of its effect upon unemployment, direct taxation has a worse effect than indirect taxation. If you impose indirect taxation it may be said that you will send up the price of some goods, but, if the purchasing power is there, untapped at the source, it will find its way into freer channels. If it cannot be expended upon the purchase of the taxed goods, it will find some other way of expressing itself that will give work. But in the case of direct taxation you tap the source of the reservoir of purchasing power and that is the wrong way to help the position of the unemployed. The position is this: The purchasing power of the people is like a reservoir. If it can flow at all it will give work and set the wheels going. If there is a leak in the reservoir, or if it is tapped at the source then the feeble trickle that escapes cannot turn any wheels or give any work.
    6.0 p.m.
    The House has been disappointed by the increase in the numbers of the unemployed in the early months of this year, but the House has been exhilarated by the figures published in the newspapers showing the magnificent response that has been made by the direct taxpayers to the great calls that have been made upon them. Surely the two filings are coincident. It cannot be denied that the general conditions for industry in the first few months of this year have been better than for a long time past, but there has been some countervailing influence at work which has prevented us from reaping the full benefit of that improved spirit in the country, and I suggest that it is to be found in the fact that you have, in the first three months of this year, drawn out of the pockets of the direct taxpayer this vast sum of hundreds of millions of pounds. They have found it, but how? Let us try to follow it out.
    Taking the higher range of incomes for the moment, it has meant that a man who has been called upon to pay this big sum
    1092
    has had to postpone for this year building that new wing, buying that new motor car, or going in for some other form of expenditure which would give work. In the moderate ranges of income, it has meant perhaps that a man has had to give up that long-cherished dream of a piano that he wanted to buy, or some such article as a wireless set or a gramophone on which he has set his heart—on such things people do set their hearts—and which, if he had realised his ambition, would have given work, but he has had to put it off till the taxes are paid. If you come to the lowest range of direct taxation, you find a man perhaps who has had to give up the hope of that bedroom suite in Jacobean oak, to be delivered in a plain van, or a new carpet for the parlour floor, or who has had to make his wife go without a new hat, or who has had to make his three years' suit last for four years.
    That is the way in which the money has had to be found, and that is not the end of the story. A great deal of this direct taxation that has been paid in this quarter has been paid on money borrowed from the banks, and it means that the ordinary citizens, faced with this call, having borrowed the money, perhaps, for the first time in their lives to pay this national obligation, are in the position of men who have a debt with their banks. It means, from the banks' point of view, less money to lend for industry, and, from the point of view of the man with the overdraft, that he must economise until he is clear of the debt. What does economy mean in the long run? It means sacking men, putting people out of work. If a man is discharged from a factory because of bad trade, the employer is the hand that gives him that fatal push, but the arm behind the hand is the consumer, who has had to economise and not buy the wares of the employer, and the shoulder behind the arm and the hand is the benevolent, all-wise State, which has by taxation lowered the purchasing power of the community in that respect.
    Every time we in this House increase direct taxation we present to hundreds of thousands of our fellow-citizens, in the pay envelopes which they receive at the end of the week, an intimation that their services are no longer required, and every time we fail, when the opportunity arises, to reduce direct taxation, we are sending

    1093
    a fresh message of hopelessness to the men who are in the queue; and, for my part, I do not think the unemployed man who has suffered the sorrows of unemployment would thank you for a prolongation of that unhealthy financial condition, even if you did give him an extra sixpence or shilling for his unemployment pay. Indeed, I think that that was the mandate that we got at the last election. They have discovered that this policy of high direct taxation brings misery to thousands and thousands, and they resolved to try the other way, and I hope the Government will be democratic and follow what the people want.
    The second point that I would like to mention is that I hope the Government will not pin its faith, for an improvement in our conditions, solely on what is called rationalisation. In my view, these schemes for the reorganisation of industry are more theoretically than practically sound. There is a limit, in my view, to the extent to which you can gain economy and increase efficiency by grouping together organisations under the same directing head, and that limit is to be found, in the first place, in the scarceness of super-men who can run these vast and unwieldy organisations. If you carry it too far, you get the control so diffused in Departmental channels that it ceases to be humane or efficient when it comes to the man who is employed.
    I would rather that the Government should turn its attention to the development of industry by the small producer. The larger organisation is vulnerable by its very bulk; when it falls, it involves thousands in its ruin. I would sooner see industry developed along separate cells of independent producing units, bulk-headed, as a ship is bulk-headed, for safety, than I would see the rationaliser's dream of paradise, of one board of directors for every industry in the country. I submit that at the present time there are great agencies working for that. The development of electricity has rendered it no longer necessary for men to crowd under one roof in order to get the power, and at the same time great developments have been going on in the way of hiring the complicated and expensive machinery of modern production and so enabling small producers to acquire those engines that are necessary for their purposes
    1094
    without purchasing them. I hope that that tendency, which is a natural tendency and a natural reaction from some of the bad features of the present system, will be encouraged by the Government.
    The last point to which I wish to refer is the question of markets. When we are seeking new markets in which to sell our goods, we should look oversea, I agree, but in looking oversea we should not forget to look at home. There is a great market, a vast potential market, at home which has never had a chance for a hundred years of absorbing its proper quantity of the nation's manufactures. I refer to our depressed agricultural community. Let us give a chance to the people of the countryside to get a reasonable prospect of prosperity. You have there a field which would well repay the most generous cultivation by the Government. It would repay it in increased employment for industry as well as increased financial stability and in a better balancing of rural and urban life in the whole nation. It is a market which is nearer than China, and it is a, market, too, which is more populous than that of Australia; and I hope that we shall develop it. It has the great advantage that we should have no dangerous repercussions on our currency or exchange, and it is the best way of correcting the balance of trade. So, while I rejoice at the steps taken by the Government towards improving the condition of our agriculture, I would urge them to go still further and faster along the line of advance. It will repay them handsomely to follow it in dealing with this great, human, troublesome problem of unemployment.
    Mr. BATEY: When this Debate opened, my hon. Friend the member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar) carried my mind hack to the Debates that used to take place in this House on unemployment six or seven years ago. We believed then, in all sincerity, that unemployment was as bad as it could be, but we have learned in the intervening years that it has simply got worse and worse and worse. Each year, each month, it seems to have got worse. Last Friday night I went to one of our large mining villages in Durham, and the poverty that one met with there simply staggered one. When I left that mining village,

    1095
    I made up my mind that, if it was possible to intervene in this Debate, I would do so for the purpose once again of directing the attention of the House to our distressed mining areas. The poverty in these distressed mining areas is simply appalling, and I am certain that if we could succeed in getting the Minister of Labour to go up to the county of Durham and to spend his recess there going into these distressed mining areas, the Minister himself would not be satis-fled with things as they are, but, in the goodness of his nature, would want something more to be done than is being done at the present time.
    In my opinion, the poverty in our distressed mining area of Durham is due to two causes. One is unemployment, and the other is low wages. I will deal first with the question of unemployment, and I am glad that the Minister of Labour is here, because I want to say to him that the unemployment benefit which men are receiving now may be sufficient to feed them, but it is not sufficient to provide them with clothes. When one sees these people that one knew so well just after the War, clean, and respectable, and well-dressed, and sees them now in their distressed condition, one can see that the unemployment benefit fails to provide either clothes or boots or shoes, and one sees the stamp of poverty upon them straight away. The means test is making the poverty in our distressed mining areas worse. The Minister of Labour told us that in the county of Durham we have no fewer than 223,671 cases that went before the public assistance committee. A quarter of a million cases going before the public assistance committee—far more people than there are in some of the large provincial towns. And of those cases, 14,794 were cases in which the benefit was reduced and 7,000 have had their claims refused. The policy of the Government in this means test is simply a policy of making poverty and distress worse in our mining areas. As a matter of fact, the means test is a human outrage upon our people.
    The Prime Minister is not here this evening, but I hope the Minister of Labour will convey to him two points to which I should like to draw his attention. The last time the Prime Minister was in Durham, visiting his Division, he
    1096
    was talking of the means test, and that night he deliberately promised that he would have the means test looked into. I want to ask whoever will reply to-night whether or not the Prime Minister has carried out that promise. If the Prime Minister had been here, I should have put the question to him, and I should have expected an answer. Therefore, I want the Minister who replies to tell us whether the Prime Minister has done anything to carry out his promise. We recently had three large demonstrations in the north of England, and my colleague on the Front Bench was the speaker at the largest. A north of England paper, which is not a Labour newspaper, set down the attendance as 150,000. At these demonstrations resolutions were passed protesting against the means test. They were sent to the Prime Minister, and I would like to know if he received them, what was his answer, and what steps he proposed to take?
    The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Morrison) said that the Government made their policy perfectly clear at the last election, and that they made it clear that they meant to reduce unemployment expenditure. If I understood the hon. Member properly, he seemed to agree with that policy. There is one thing which the Prime Minister did not make clear, and he did not spread the net before the bird as he ought to have done. He did not make clear to the people of Durham that the Government meant to pursue a policy like this. He took an altogether different line, and if he had not, he might not have been a Member of this House. The Minister of Labour delivered a speech recently. One always speaks with respect of what he says; he is worth a far better post than the one he has got. He said:
    "What is more important, the number in employment in September was 9,326,000 and those now in employment number 9,403,000, an increase of 77,000. These bald facts do, at any rate, justify some hope that the corner has been turned."
    Does such an increase justify the Minister of Labour in saying that the corner had been turned? I put a question to the Minister of Education to-day asking how many boys had left school. I determined to put that question after I read the statement of the Minister of Labour. The Minister of Education said, in answer to my question, that in three years 905,800

    1097
    boys had left the elementary and secondary schools; that is, nearly 1,000,000 boys had left school in three years. Can the Minister of Labour tell us how many of those boys have entered industry? These boys ought to be entering industry year after year, but, if only 77,000 more persons are employed, it is clear that they are not entering industry. Does the Minister of Labour or the Education Department take an interest in these boys, and follow them up to see whether they enter industry?
    Mr. PIKE: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House if trade unions are taking the interest that he suggests that the Government should take?
    Mr. BATEY: The trade unions are organised for one thing, and we pay for that one thing. We pay the Government for another thing; we pay the Departments to do this sort of work, and we expect them to do it. I believe that the great bulk of these boys are not entering industry. In our own county we have thousands of boys leaving school who ought to be entering the coal mines but cannot do so, and they are simply drifting. Mr. Justice McCardie, speaking a few weeks ago, said that crime in this country was worse than it had been for the last 60 years. What else can we expect if young boys on leaving school cannot get work? It is only natural that they will drift into mischief. Most of the serious crime that is happening to-day is committed by young men between the ages of 17 and 202. Only yesterday a report appeared in one of the northern papers of the case of a young lad who had been tried at a Durham court. During the hearing the police chief made this statement:
    "It is time some of these lads were brought to their senses. They are neither use nor ornament. Like others, if they have money they gamble, and, if they have not, they interfere with other people."
    Unless something is done to provide employment for these young lads, they will drift, more and more into mischief and will simply go from bad to worse.
    The last time I spoke in an unemployment Debate, I dealt with the question of the machinery of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. I would like to ask the Minister if we have made any progress with regard to this machinery. I notice in a White Paper that has been
    1098
    issued by the Ministry giving the figures for the year ending 31st March, 1931, that the cost of administration has jumped enormously. We used to think that the cost was excessive when it was £5,000,000. I see in this White Paper that the cost of administration is now £6,319,292 12s. 2d., which, I take it, does not include the new administration of the means test. The House of Commons has a right to know what will be the cost of the new administration on the top of this excessive cost of administration. The Minister of Labour has got away in answering questions by saying that the Ministry is not in a position to make a statement at the moment. After so many months in which the public assistance committees have been at work, during which the machinery has been created, the Minister of Labour ought now to be able to tell the House the cost of that new machinery so that we can know the total increase in the cost of administration.
    I have not time to deal with the cost of training, or transference, or the cost of the courts of referees, which has been increased four times since 1927, or the cost of the umpires' courts. I would like, however, to deal with the cost of the interest upon the debt of the fund. This White Paper says that the cost for last year for interest was £2,521,352 3s. 2d. In the last 10 years £10,000,000 has been debited against the fund for interest. The Government should take steps to reduce this interest. The interest charges vary from 4½ per cent. to 5¼ per cent. That is an excessive percentage, especially when we remember that we are sitting on this side of the House and the Government are in power because of the use that was made of the Post Office Savings Bank at the last election. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] That is so; the Labour party were charged at the General Election with using the money of the Post Office Savings Bank for the Unemployment Insurance Fund. The people who invest in the Post Office Savings Bank get only 2½ per cent., but the Unemployment Insurance Fund is having to pay up to 5* per cent. for the selfsame money. The Minister should take some steps to reduce that.
    We are in a worse position than we have been for years in the provision of

    1099
    work. In 1929 the Labour Government laid upon the Lord Privy Seal's office the duty of finding employment. [Interruption.] He may not have done very well. Do not tell we what we did in 1929. The Government have got the man who was leading us then; he did nothing for us, and he will do nothing for this Government. The Lord Privy Seal on 29th October, 1930, said:
    "When we look at the unemployment statistics, we find that roughly 2,200,000 people are unemployed. We can trace them all in the industries. We know exactly where they are employed. We can examine the industries and find out why they are unemployed, and we ought to be able at least to some extent to develop a policy for dealing with this problem at its source."
    That sounded hopeful then. I am wondering whether all the machinery of the Lord Privy Seal's office has been destroyed, or whether that machinery, which then looked so well, has been transferred to the Ministry of Labour. I want to hurry on. [Interruption.] Well, I am sorry.
    HON. MEMBERS: Order!
    Mr. BUCHANAN: What is the "Order" about? Give this man order.
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. BATEY: I want to deal with the question of low wages, and I regret that the Minister of Mines has left the House. The very low wages received to-day by our people in Durham do not enable them to make any provision for the time when unemployment overtakes them. We have, roughly speaking, 100,000 people employed in the coal-mining industry in Durham, and the average earnings last year were only 35s. 5d. per week—[An HON. MEMBER: "On part-time"]—as compared with 41s. 2d. in 1929. The total wages paid in Durham last year amounted to £10,000,000, against £13,000,000 in 1929. That drop was due, I confess, to part-time. The average number of days per week worked during 1931 was 4.49, against 5.18 in 1929. The men were ready to work, but there was not the trade. The number of shifts worked last year wan 27,000,000, compared with 35,000,000 in 1929. Those figures show that our people are getting wages which are not decent wages and do not enable them to provide for a single day's unemployment.
    I shall not attempt to go into the arguments about the loss of our export trade.
    1100
    We are one of the districts, with South Wales, which is suffering on account of the tariff policy of the Government. [Interruption.] Well, we believe that, whether we are right or wrong. Also, I am not dealing with criticisms in regard to Germany or France. I wish to emphasise a point which was brought up in a supplementary question to-day, and that is that the Government ought to be careful, at the Imperial Conference at Ottawa, about giving any more concessions to countries like Canada. Last year Canada bought less than 1,000,000 tons of coal from us, and more than 11,000,000 tons from America, and as long as that is the position the Government ought to be careful about giving any more preference to Canada.
    Now that the Minister of Mines has come back there are one or two things to which I wish to draw his attention. My colleague from Cumberland referred to the need of the Government doing something to promote the extraction of oil from coal, because in that direction, I believe, lies the salvation of the coal industry. I know that it would be expensive to set up the necessary machinery, but I believe it is the one essential means of providing employment in the mining industry; and it is also a necessity from the point of view of the country. We are spending this year £50,000,000 on the Navy and £17,000,000 on the Air Force, but without foreign oil our battleships and our aeroplanes would be useless. If war broke out and foreign countries cut off supplies of oil our battleships would not be able to leave these shores and our aeroplanes could not rise from the ground. In the interests of this country it is essential that the experiments in extracting fuel oil from coal ought to be developed, and I would like to see the Ministry of Mines institute an inquiry into it. One sees in the Press that it would cost £8,000,000 to set up plant to deal with 1,000 tons of coal a day, and that is a staggering figure, but the Ministry of Mines ought to start an inquiry into the whole question and see whether something cannot be done in so important a matter.
    Another thing I would like the Ministry of Mines to inquire into is the use of machinery in mines. A previous speaker stated that he does not believe in rationalisation, and neither do I. I believe that one of the mistakes of the Labour

    1101
    Government in 1929 lay in giving too much support to rationalisation. I question whether the use of machinery in mines does reduce the cost of production; certainly, the price of coal does not indicate it. Machinery is being installed in our mines and our people are being thrown out of employment, and there is no other employment they can get. I am sorry that I have occupied so much time, but this is a subject on which I feel very keenly.
    Dr. LEECH: As a new Member, I rise with some sense of embarrassment, and also of perturbation, to venture to address this great and historic House, and I must beg your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, together with the indulgence of the House during my effort, hoping that its consideration will be extended to me as generously as it has been extended to other Members who have proceeded me. Although I am a new Member of the House I am not a stranger to it. During the last 30 years I have spent many hours in the gallery, and have heard many great speeches. I have heard the eloquence of many Members reverberating through this House—great oratorical efforts by Members even of the present day; and I have been very much impressed with the atmosphere of the House. I may be pardoned, perhaps, for making these observations, but the rhetoric of Disraeli, the diction of Bright, and the eloquence of Gladstone made indelible impressions upon the minds of some of us in past days. Though I am a young Member of Parliament I am not altogether young in years, and I recall that the subject of unemployment which we are now considering is not a new one. I have heard it debated in this House—from the Gallery—on many, many occasions. It is one of the most menacing problems with which the country has been confronted for, perhaps, the last 100 years, and it will be understood that it is has a special concern for me as representing a great industrial constituency in the North of England, Newcastle.
    I would claim that Newcastle was the birthplace of the iron and steel industry, and of the shipbuilding industry, but the spectacle to be seen there now is a picture of tragedy. For miles and miles along the river front of that great waterway the Tyne stand smokeless chimneys, empty shipyards, empty steelworks, and
    1102
    blast furnaces which have been closed down. Altogether it is a picture of tragedy beyond parallel. I have been amazed on all occasions, and more particularly this afternoon, by the denunciations of the Government for their attitude on the unemployment question and their incapacity to deal with it. Those denunciations from right hon. and hon. Members opposite sound strange indeed when one remembers that during the time they were in office the unemployment figures were more than doubled. I firmly believe that the only cure for this great and menacing trouble is work. This is not a time for political theories or class ideals. It is a time for practical thought and practical action, and in answer, to those who have spoken from the other side I claim that the present Government, during the short time they have been in office, have sown the seeds of success. The Government were sent here with a mandate from the country. Beyond question the people had realised at last the gravity of the nation's peril, and were determined to put an end to it. They put their confidence in the National Government candidates and sent us here with a mandate to get on with the job, and since the Government took office much has been done. The seeds have been sown, they are now germinating, and ere long we shall see the consummation of our greatest hopes and our noblest desires, a rehabilitation of our depressed industries and a resuscitation of trade generally such as will bring about the general happiness, contentment and prosperity of our people.
    This subject has, at different times, been approached from all angles, and so many arguments have been used that they are now entirely exhausted. At any rate, I do not propose to traverse the many paths which have been trodden to-day, because that would be but repetition, and the taking up of unnecessary time, and it is not my intention to keep the House more than a few minutes. I have referred to the germs of success which have already been sown, and now I want to refer to the year 1903, when it was my pleasure to hear a speech delivered by Mr. Joseph Chamberlain in the Olympia at Newcastle when he made his great pronouncement on fiscal reform. That speech made a great impression on the 3,500 people who were in that building,

    1103
    because Mr. Chamberlain spoke with great forcefulness. I have also some recollection of the address which Mr. Joseph Chamberlain gave in Glasgow. I remember that at Newcastle Mr. Chamberlain, who was a victim of gout, came on the platform in great pain, and he said:
    "I have come before you not because of the gout but in spite of it, to declare my policy on fiscal reform."
    Mr. Joseph Chamberlain was undoubtedly a great statesman endowed with great vision and foresight, and he was able to see clearly through the industrial fogs on the horizon at that time. He knew what was necessary. He knew that he must have the people with him, and he made a declaration to the effect that it was necessary to make a great change in order to lay the foundations of our liberties and maintain our national institutions. He had great faith in the people, and he declared that it was necessary in some way to get the greatest number of men and women to take their share in the responsibility of Government, and to achieve that object he was in favour of an extended franchise to men and women. Mr. Chamberlain knew that it was necessary to have the men and women of the country with him by extending the franchise, which he advocated, and his son the Chancellor of the Exchequer has now put into practical operation the policy which was advocated by his father 30 years ago, and he will have the satisfaction, ere many months have passed, of seeing in operation she noble aspirations and hopes which his father held within his breast.
    I said at the outset of my remarks that, in my judgment, it was necessary, in order to relieve unemployment, to get the wheels of industry revolving, and until that is accomplished we shall not make much progress. We cannot get over the fact that we have been living in a Free Trade country for many years, but now the time has come when some change must be made. I admit that Cobdenism in its time was right, and played a great part in this country, but, owing to changed circumstances, national and international, we ceased to be the leading manufacturing country of the world. At one time we were delighted to admit all raw and other materials because
    1104
    we were the chief manufacturing country of the world, but things have greatly changed, and a new fiscal system has necessarily been brought about.
    I want to say, as forcibly as I can, that what we are now doing is no experiment, because it is something of which we have had experience already under the Safeguarding Acts. I think it has been generally recognised in this House that during the time the Safeguarding Acts have been in operation, thousands of people have been employed who were not employed before those Acts were passed, and who before that time were walking the streets. We know that in every industry where the Safeguarding Acts have operated they have been a success. The industries have been restored, although some of them before the adoption of those Acts were passing into oblivion. Not only were those industries restored and more people employed, but in no case was there any increase in the price of the goods manufactured in those industries. That fact, at any rate, is very significant, and it is a telling story in favour of the introduction of the fiscal changes which have been introduced by the present Government.
    I will now come to the question of steel, because that is one of the great industries in Newcastle. I have been reminded that in 1930 no less than 3,000,000 tons of manufactured steel were imported into this country. I am told that 40,000 men are employed in the manufacture of 1,000,000 tons of steel, and therefore if the 3,000,000 tons of steel which were imported into this country in 1930 had been manufactured here, 120.000 people would have been employed. That total embraces steelworkers and craftsmen of all kinds, and English craftsmen are the finest in the world. British workmen are being deprived of all this work in consequence of the old policy of Free Trade. The manufacture of that 3,000,000 tons of steel in this country would have involved the consumption of millions of tons of coal, with the consequent employment of a large number of miners. It would also have meant much to the transport service both by rail, water and road. I think it is sufficient to point out to Members of this House that while only 457,000 tons of steel were manufactured in this country in one month in 1931 the imports

    1105
    of steel for the same month were 278,000 tons, or 61 per cent. of our total manufacture.
    The subject is so vast that I do not know how to deal with it further without traversing the paths which have been trod this afternoon by others experienced in these matters. I repeat that we can reduce unemployment only by getting the wheels of industry going, and we can find work for our people only by the means which have been adopted by the Government. We have scarcely had enough time to see our schemes maturing, but that time will come as sure as I am standing here. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank Members of the House for the forbearance and courtesy which has been shown to me and I am satisfied that we are in for a good time. We have had to wait a long time but there is a good time coming for our industries which I believe will bring happiness and prosperity and contentment to the people of this country.
    7.0 p.m.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The hon. Member for West Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Dr. Leech) has told us that he was privileged years ago to hear speeches made in this place by Gladstone, Disraeli and John Bright. I congratulate the hon. Member upon now having himself spoken in a House which contains for him so many great memories. If as he looked down on those statesmen he conceived an aim to sit on the same seats which they occupied, I congratulate him further upon having attained his ambition. The hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar), who opened the Debate, called attention to certain difficulties which our export trade was encountering and he suggested that the curtailment of the purchase of British coal by certain foreign countries was in the nature of a retribution visited upon this realm for having revised its fiscal arrangements. This country would indeed be in a humiliated position if it were to sacrifice its autonomy to regulate its own affairs as seemed to it best. I think a reference to the dates will be sufficient to disprove the charge which the hon Member has made. The Abnormal Importations Bill was introduced on 18th November, 1931, and the Import Duties Bill on 4th February, 1932, whereas the French quota system came into existence on 1st August, the Belgian on 15th October and the
    1106
    German, in so far as it is a matter of complaint, on 1st October. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterle-Street (Mr. Lawson) is making a speech sitting down. I am dealing with this matter historically. I under stand that the hon. Member is going to speak and the House will have the advantage of hearing any corrections he is able to make of my narrative. I call attention to the dates, and say that to anyone who considers the dates, it is obviously impossible that these quotas were in the nature of a riposte to any action of ours.
    Mr. DAGGAR: The hon. Member does not do me justice. My statement was that the first public intimation of the attitude of the French buyers of British coal and of the French surtax was on the 15th of November, and that Bill was under discussion in this House and became operative on 20th November, five days later. In addition to those facts which cannot be disputed, it is a reflection on the intelligence of the French people if they did not anticipate that with the advent of a Tory administration, tariffs would be our policy.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The fact remains that the surtax was imposed in France two days before the Financial Resolution of the Abnormal Importations Bill was introduced into this House. Therefore, it is not true to suggest that these measures taken by foreign countries are retaliatory upon us. Even if they were, we could not give up our rights to self-government. Although the German system of import licences has been in existence for many years, it was on 1st October that the first material restriction was made in our apportionment. On that date it was reduced from 420,000 tons to 300,000 tons per month. Subsequently, on 1st February, it was further reduced to approximately 200,000 tons per month. On 1st March it fell to 150,000 tons, and I understand that it is to fall still further on 1st April to 100,000 tons. The reasons given at the time these restrictions were made were the depression in the German coal industry and the strain which they were under in obtaining foreign exchanges. Those were the explanations offered by the Germans to us—not the explanations which were given by the hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate.

    1107
    The Government and the British people are sympathetic towards the troubles which confront the Reich, and they have given tangible proof of their sympathy. Nevertheless we have a right to complain if any reductions which are made in the German quota do not fall equitably upon all the countries concerned. That is the ground of the protest which we have made. Our commercial relations with Germany are regulated by the Anglo-German Commercial Treaty of 1924 and, under that treaty, neither Power can impose or maintain on the imports of the other prohibitions or restrictions which do not apply equally to the imports of like articles produced or manufactured in any other foreign country. It is because in our view these restrictions are a discrimination imposed against this country that we have made representations in Berlin, and within the last few hours we have had the full text of the reply. The House would not expect me to comment upon it at this stage until it has been studied in detail, but the Government does not desire to minimise the serious effect which this German action has had and is having upon our coal industry. Whatever its rights may be in the matter, it expresses the hope that the German people will wish to preserve the amicable relations that exist between the two countries and that they will see the justice of our point of view. After all, our market is far more valuable to Get-many than the market of Germany is to us.
    That is the history of this matter, and I have brought it up to date. It is not only a question of restricting coal. This quota method has put a new complexion upon the commercial relations of all trading peoples. It is a feature that has come into great prominence lately. France not only restricts the coal exports from this country into her own domains, but she restricts the importation of certain agricultural produce and has recently extended her quota system to cover a large number of manufactured articles, such as toys, sheet and hoop iron, wireless apparatus, electrical material, enamel ware, leather, hardware, furniture and machine tools. That identical system operated by France has been followed by other countries, and it is becoming a very serious factor to other
    1108
    exporting nations. In France this system dates from August last. Latvia and Esthonia, also operate the system. The Netherlands has recently applied it to shoes, to woollen and worsted piece goods, to knitted wear, to raincoats and to clothing and also to certain cotton goods. Switzerland has applied it to a large number of articles of which the only one with which we are concerned is motor cycles. Czechoslovakia, Turkey and various other countries have followed suit.
    Mr. LAWSON: Does this apply to this country or to all countries?
    Mr. HORE - BELISHA: To all countries. The quota system is becoming a very serious factor in commercial relations, and it is a fresh development to which we must adjust ourselves. There used to be a doctrine that imports paid for exports. It had an almost universal validity but, where a quota exists, the doctrine is falsified at once. You can regionalise your mines, you can nationalise your mines, you can rationalise your mines and you would not sell one scuttleful more coal to France and to these countries which operate a quota than the apportionment which they give you. We are at a grave disability as an exporting nation. No matter how cheaply you wish to sell, you could not find a purchaser for your goods in excess of the quota. I say to the House that it is no good trying to operate a commercial system in accordance with a theory which no longer exists. This is not the world which Adam Smith knew, this is not the world which Cobden knew, this is not the world which we knew up to a few months ago.
    Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: Will he tell us for our information how we can pay for imports if we do not pay for them by exports at the present time?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My hon. and learned Friend has participated very actively in Debates on Measures taken by this Government to adjust our balance of trade. It is not a doctrine of Free Trade or of sanity that a country should buy more than it can pay for. Obviously France is quite ready to sell any amount of goods we may take, but if we cannot export goods to that country perhaps he will tell us how we can pay for goods bought in that country.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: The only way we can pay for imports is by exports.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: We are back at the same point I made. If you are not allowed to send your goods to France in excess of the quota how can the doctrine of exports paying for imports prevail? You cannot pay for those goods, you cannot take those goods except by sending gold, which is a very inconvenient method to which there are distinct limitations. My hon. and learned Friend has tried very hard to create a new heaven and a new earth and one happens to have been created without his assistance. I can understand his chagrin that no number of questions which he may address to me in his best forensic style can get over the facts.
    There is another limitation upon trade to which we must also have regard and which relates to the second point raised by the hon. Member who opened this Debate and that is the restrictions upon exchange. You can sell to a large number of European countries, to a number of Baltic countries and to a number of South American countries, but you cannot receive payment owing to the restrictions they place upon exchange. The consecrated method of doing business is to draw a bill upon your customer which you get discounted and thus finance the transaction. You cannot, to-day, get a bill drawn upon many foreign countries discounted because those countries prohibit the purchase of foreign exchanges. That has further modified the familiar aspects which we used to recognise in our commercial transactions. Brazil is one of those countries in the category of which I am speaking. As the hon. Gentleman said Brazil has entered into an arrangement with Germany which comes to this, putting it into commonplace language, that Brazil delivers coffee and Germany delivers coal, and there is a transaction known as barter. I do not quite know why the hon. Gentleman raised the point unless it were to suggest that we might have put ourselves in the shoes of Germany and accepted Brazilian coffee in return for the delivery of coal. If that be the suggestion I shall answer it at once.
    Mr. DAGGAR: That is not the suggestion I made.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The hon. Gentleman raised this matter and I cannot see the point of raising it unless the suggestion be that we should put ourselves in the shoes of Germany.
    Mr. DAGGAR: I gave the transaction as an example and as it affects the miners. It was simply one of the three points I made which included the effect of the quota in Germany and in France. Here is another instance where we have been injured. In addition I quoted the fact from a commercial newspaper which stated that the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade were aware of the difficulties the South Wales coalowners had in connection with the transaction to which I referred.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am very glad that I did draw the right deduction. The only way in which you could help the miners on those lines would be to put yourself in the place of Germany and accept a delivery of coffee, which, apparently was the transaction that Brazil desired, in return for a sale of coal. That is what I thought the hon. Member must have meant. The answer is that we do not want the Brazilian coffee; we buy our coffee elsewhere. We bought last year from Brazil only 8,000 cwts. of coffee out of a total purchase of 764,000 ewts. Consequently, if we had taken coffee from Brazil, we should have taken less from those countries from which we now buy it, notably Kenya.
    Mr. DAGGAR: I did not make any suggestion that this Government should enter into a similar transaction. The point that I endeavoured to emphasise was that, according to the newspaper report, the South Wales coalowners were not anxious to enter into such a transaction with Brazil, because of previous difficulties with that country, and I wanted to know what the Government are doing in connection with that matter.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have no desire to do the hon. Member any injustice. At any rate, I have presented what I thought was an answer to the question that he was raising, without any malice or any suggestion of making any specious point against him. If he says that statements have appeared in the Press to the effect that the South Wales coalowners were not particularly desirous of obtain-

    1111
    ing this contract, they must be the judges of what is lucrative business, because they have to satisfy themselves, not only as to the possibility of making profits, but as to the possibility of paying wages. So far as Brazil owes us money, I can only assure the hon. Member that representations have been made to the Brazilian Government on the point, and that certain instalments are being received in respect of debts due to us.
    As I have already pointed out, these are some of the disabilities under which export trading nations are suffering, and we have to adjust ourselves to these new circumstances. We have to become less dependent upon these new circumstances, and to place our reliance upon more certain and stable foundations, such as making for ourselves, so far as possible, what we previously purchased from abroad, and, for the rest, purchasing from those countries, notably Imperial countries, where we get ordinary transactions carried through without difficulty. The hon. Member asked what would be the effect of the change of policy and the abandonment of the traditional course that we have pursued, and he recalled that, in moving the last Order under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act, I had referred to the setting up of certain factories here. He poured scorn on the types of articles that he said were being made. He thought it monstrous that ladies' stockings should be made here instead of in Saxony. [Interruption.] He had better address his complaints to the workers who are making those stockings. Anyhow, I am in a position to give him the information which he desires. Since I mentioned this matter in the House, on the 3rd February, the number of cases notified to the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Labour, or the Home Office—cases in which foreigners were desirous of establishing factories here—has increased from 250 to 438. There have been 195 German concerns who have made inquiries; 34 Belgian; 24 from the United States of America; 21 Swiss; and 97 from other countries; and, in addition, there have been 67 British concerns contemplating an extension of production with the aid of foreign experts. The trades mainly concerned were textiles—76 cases; hosiery —48 cases; leather trades—29 cases; electrical trades—22; radio—23; clothing (ex-
    1112
    cept hosiery)—24; and production has already started in 35 factories.
    The hon. Member asked what was being done towards getting these new factories established in the distressed areas. I must tell him at once what will, indeed, be obvious to him, that anyone who is going to set up a factory must be allowed to choose his own site, and he will have regard to the rates and transport facilities. In so far as the Industrial Adviser of the Board of Trade can persuade him to go to distressed areas, that is the policy which is pursued. An industrial development organisation has been formed in every district. These industrial development organisations are representative of all the interests concerned, including the trade unions, and it is their business to try to encourage the attraction of factories to their particular districts. The Government is assisting in every way that it can. Incidentally, all the information collected by the regional surveys is placed at the disposal of these industrial development organisations.
    I hope I have dealt fully with the points that were raised by the hon. Gentleman who initiated the Debate. I have called attention to the difficulties which stand in the way of expanding our export trade; I have called attention to certain changes, upon which we should all ponder, in the commercial relations of peoples, such as the establishment of quotas and the exchange restrictions, which do make it impossible for an exporting country to extend its export trade outside a certain limit. We have had to take account of these facts, and we have offered to the country a policy which is intended to meet the difficulties which they present. At any rate, we have made a breach with the past, because the conditions which governed the past have altered. One door is closed, and another has been opened.
    Mr. TINKER: Every time we enter upon these Debates, the gravity of them seems to become greater. Times without number we have seemed to have some hope for the future, but, when we get the reply of the Government, things always seem to be going from bad to worse. The Parliamentary Secretary has been very glib in his replies, telling us what the retaliation means and the steps which the Government are taking to try to get over

    1113
    it. We think, however, that the policy of the Government has not helped much. We think that the policy of tariffs will only bring retaliation, and that ultimately the result will be different from what is expected. I am not going to deal with that question on this occasion. The country decided at the last election that power should be given to what is called the National Government, and, while the National Government is in power, we have to try to get the best conditions that we can for the unemployed. We want to prevail upon the Government until the measures which they are adopting do something for the unemployed by reducing unemployment, at least to take such steps as will ensure that the unemployed shall be better protected than they are at present. That is our chief argument in these Debates.
    I desire to refer to the question of allotments, which has been brought before the House several times. I think that a certain amount of help can be given in that direction. I was present the other day when the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) put a question to the Minister of Agriculture. The hon. Member asked, in view of what the Government have said as to the likelihood of a betterment in regard to the Budget balance, that some relief might be given to the allotment workers through the Society of Friends. The Minister of Agriculture replied that he understood from the Society of Friends that, in connection with their scheme for assisting unemployed persons who were taking up allotments to obtain seeds, fertilisers and implements, they had not so far refused any application owing to lack of funds, and that they hoped that, as a result of their further public appeal, they would not find it necessary to do so. He stated, further, in reply to the last part of the hon. Member's question, that it would not be possible for the Government to provide towards the cost of the scheme. That is the position of the Government at the present moment. I think they might reconsider that position. I have a cutting here from the "Manchester Guardian," dated the 24th February, in which it is stated that the Society of Friends were making a direct appeal for help, stating the difficulties in which they were, and it goes on to say:
    1114
    "The Society of Friends are anxious to find the means to give 75,000 to 100,000 unemployed persons the possibility to cultivate a garden or allotment. The scheme, which is worked on strictly self-help lines, provides an unemployed or impoverished man who is willing to cultivate an allotment with seeds, tools, fertilisers, etc., at half the wholesale price. Last year the Government"—
    that was the Labour Government—
    "recognised the work and paid £23,000, which covered the unpaid half of the wholesale prices, plus the cost of administration. This year the economy axe has cut off this financial aid, and the Society of Friends, finding that no one else was able to save 64,000 men from disappointment and despair, are endeavouring to raise the necessary £30,000 to carry on this rapidly expanding work."
    I would say to the Government that, if they have any surplus at all when Budget time comes round, this is a most useful way of helping the unemployed to keep their status and character, and to be ready when the times do change, as the Government promise they will.
    To show the eagerness of unemployed men in this direction, I would like to relate one or two incidents in my own constituency. During the time of the Labour Government, when Dr. Addison brought forward his scheme, which he had so much difficulty in getting through, for smallholdings, I went round to tell my people that there was some hope in this direction. I pointed out to them that it was necessary, if the scheme did come, for them to take advantage of it, and the number of men—colliers—who were eager and anxious to take up smallholdings was amazing. I directed them to write, and many of them did write in the hope that something would come of it. Last week in my constituency one of these men came to me with a letter which he had had from the Ministry of Agriculture in reply to his application. Not being familiar with these things, he thought that the matter was going on, and that there was still hope that his application would receive sanction. This is the reply that he received:
    "I am directed to refer to your letter of the 8th instant"—
    that was the 8th March—
    "and to say that, in view of the over-riding necessity for economy in national expenditure, the Government have decided that it is not possible for the time being to allocate funds for the provision of smallholdings under the Agricultural Land (Utilisa-

    1115
    tion) Act. The Ministry regrets, therefore, that it is not in a position to take any further action in the matter."
    These men are all anxious to take any opening that can be offered to them, and I hope that the appeal which we earnestly make from these benches on behalf of the unemployed will meet with some response from the Government when they get the time and the money.
    7.30 p.m.
    I want to turn to a matter that has been mentioned before in reference to transitional payments and the public assistance committees. My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) pointed out what is happening in his own locality. He may not be so badly placed as I am. I have been very anxious to find out what is happening, and how the money is being paid, because my desire is that at least there shall be some kind of uniformity between one district and another. It is difficult to go to any meeting and try to persuade people that the Government are determined on this and that it has to be worked when at the same time they know that there is such a difference prevailing between one district and another. May I give the figures which have led me to intervene in this Debate? From 12th November, 1931, to 22nd February, 1932, the applications for transitional payments for the whole of the country were 3,212,862; payment allowed at the maximum rate of benefit, 55 per cent.; payment allowed at less than the maximum, 35.3 per cent.; needs of applicant not enough to justify payment, 11.7 per cent. I asked the Minister to give me the district or county showing the greatest number of disallowances. Leicestershire is the highest, with 31.5 per cent., and Durham is the lowest, with 1.3 per cent. In the Lancashire Administrative County the numbers we have dealt with are 192,275; payment allowed at the maximum rate, 17.4 per cent.; payment allowed at lower than the maximum, 56.5 per cent.; and those not entitled to anything at all, 26.1 per cent. This shows a great disparity compared with the figures for the whole country and one begins to wonder whether it is altogether fair that this should be allowed to go on.
    We claim that these figures prove that there is something wrong 'with the administration in Lancashire, and we are hoping that the Minister will
    1116
    take steps to alter it. I have had certain correspondence over this. I have been told of a man removed from one administrative county into Lancashire and his payment was reduced. That is difficult to understand. It is difficult to persuade a man who has had that experience that things are fair, and it is difficult to persuade me. I hope the Minister will recognise that there must be some uniformity in these matters. Where there are pensions or workmen's compensation awards there should be a definite scale laid down of what should be taken into consideration. There may be differences between localities in the matter of rent and cost of living, but in the case of pensions for War injuries or for long-time service or compensation awards, or anything like that, there ought to be some kind of uniformity, and the Minister ought to show that he is willing to give a sense of fairness to the whole administration. Unless he can do that, protests will constantly be coming from these benches, and we are being driven to it by the protests that we are getting from all the unions. I am constantly receiving representations that something should be done to alter what to them is a wrong state of things.
    To show the feeling that prevails, I have a letter from a friend who used to work alongside me in a mine. He says that he has been a collier for 40 years and has brought up a family of eight children. Now he is out of work through no fault of his own, and they have stopped his dole because he has children who have stayed at home above the allotted age. He has three sons over 21 years of age who are helping to keep the family. He asks: "Is it fair for a man who has struck a bad patch that he should be stooped because he has children, and that there should be nothing coming from the dole or from transitional benefit?"
    Cases like this, to my mind, are certainly not fair to the genuine unemployed man or woman, and they demand attention from the Minister. If there proves to be a surplus on the Budget, I trust the Government will have regard to what is being done for the unemployed man. When the Prime Minister made his appeal to the country, he said the state of the finances was such that everyone

    1117
    must bear his part of the burden. The burden falls very heavily on the unemployed man. The 10 per cent. cut was too much. If there is a surplus, I hope one of the first things the Prime Minister will do will be to put the unemployed man and woman back into the position in which he was before. May I also urge this. One of the things that might happen to the country is the flaunting of wealth as against poverty. I remember reading a newspaper article by a correspondent in Russia many years ago, describing the conditions there. He said there was a big banquet at one of the big palaces and in the streets were men and women starving. He wondered how long it would last. We all know what happened to Russia. What prevailed in Russia, extreme wealth on the one hand and poverty on the other, will inevitably come to this country unless those in charge of affairs try to deal more fairly with those who are down and out. I hope the Government will realise that, because we on these benches are as anxious for the country to stand firm and secure as anyone opposite.
    Mr. GEOFFREY PETO: We have just heard a very reasonable and closely-argued speech, with much of which I am in cordial agreement, but I hope that, if the Budget balances on the right side, as we all hope, the main object will be to secure more employment for our people rather than to restore the cuts. I am certain that is what the nation wants, and it is particularly what the unemployed want, because it is much more vital to them than the restoration of the 10 per cent. cut. The Debate has divided itself into two parts, as is inevitable with an unemployment Debate. There have been suggestions, first of all, to secure a reduction of unemployment, and, secondly, suggestions for mitigating the hardship and despondency which is inevitably associated with unemployment. With regard to the reduction of unemployment, there has been a singular lack of fresh ideas. We have been told we have done nothing. We maintain, on the other hand, that we were returned to pass a measure of Protection for our industries which we hope and believe is going to materially improve employment. We have done so in quicker time than anyone thought was possible, and we now have to await the results.
    1118
    What do the arguments on the other side amount to? Merely to the policy they pursued for two years, a more reckless expenditure on schemes to provide work and increasing the allowances for unemployment benefit. Where did that lead us? It led us to an increase of unemployment from 1,000,000 to nearly 3,000,000. It led us to the most disastrous financial crisis that this country has been faced with for many years. It seems to me extraordinary that, after the lesson of the general election, and even of the Dumbartonshire bye-election, Members should still get up and put forward views which have been hopelessly rejected by the whole country. Have they nothing new to suggest? Every now and then they throw out some idea that nothing can really be done until industry is completely reorganised. Who is going to bring forward the proposals? We have not heard any proposals for the complete reorganisation of industry. It has all been thrashed out in one of the Committee rooms by Members who lost their seats. You cannot go on putting that bluff across the country. If the Socialist party think that Socialism will help the country, why do they not bring forward a scheme? Why do they not mention any other country where it has been tried and where Socialism has produced any improvement?
    I want to make a few suggestions for the mitigation of the difficulties of the unemployed and the hardships that they are suffering. I should like cordially to echo what the hon. Member said about allotments. I pressed for that when I was in the House from 1924 to 1929, and I think the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and the Under-Secretary for Scotland also pressed for it. More might be done in that direction. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour is sympathetic, but we want a little more than just sympathy. If the whole cost would be only £30,000 a year, the Government might help to some extent. We all know that the more taxation you put upon the country the less employment there may be for the people. I am the last person to urge reckless expenditure, but for a very small sum like that you can provide healthy employment and better food for the unemployed and a more cheerful life for them, and therefore

    1119
    the right hon. Gentleman the Minister might really favourably consider the suggestion.
    There is the provision of rooms for the unemployed. At Bilston, the constituency which I have now the honour to represent, the urban district council, fortunately, had some empty rooms, and they placed them at the disposal of the unemployed. The rooms are run by a committee of the councillors and of the unemployed, and friends have sent newspapers, games and so on. All through the winter those rooms have made a great deal of difference to the comfort of the unemployed as compared with the discomfort of standing at the street corners in all weather, or of sitting idly 'at home as they had to do before. I think that more might be done in that direction, and I suggest to the Minister of Labour that they should pass on the idea to local authorities.
    When I was in my constituency in January 'a good many people approached me, and no doubt people have also approached other hon. Members, with regard to the means test, and they told me that they had only so many shillings a week—a small sum—to support themselves and their families. When I went into the matter and they showed me their cards, I found that they had dates representing four weeks printed on their cards and that the same sum was entered against each week. In practically every case which was brought before me, a few days after the public assistance officer had investigated the case some member of the particular family had lost his job, so that the figures given to the public assistance officer no longer held good. Those poor fellows thought because it said on their cards that their allowance for the four weeks would be the same amount each week, that the sum was fixed absolutely, and that no alteration in circumstances could affect it. I told them that they could appeal to the public assistance officer and point out that since the figures had been given to him somebody had lost his job, and that therefore the position was not as had been stated. Where circumstances have altered and means have been reduced, there is every reason why the case should be reconsidered.
    1120
    There is the question of men who have been in employment and have lost their jobs and who have suffered at some time or other some industrial accident, such as the loss of fingers or a hand. They say that it is extraordinarily difficult for a partially crippled man to get a job. The position was rendered worse in many cases, because the employer, as part of the compensation agreement, had promised to continue to find work for the man, and, owing to hard times, bankruptcy and so on, had not been able to continue to provide employment. Therefore, a man lost the job which was provided for him by the only employer likely to employ him. I would urge the House and the Government to tackle this problem and to try and find some way of dealing with it. It is not satisfactory that a man should be entitled under the provision of an Act passed by this House to benefits and then not be able to get them owing to the insolvency of his employer. I know that the Home Office is taking up this question, and I hope that they will succeed in obtaining a solution.
    There is also the question of the training of these industrial cripples. In countries like America, Germany, and Belgium you have the employer and the employed, the trade unions and the big insurance companies, all working together on training schemes in order to restore the industrial cripple to industry. There is no reason why a man who has lost some of his fingers or suffered other injury should not be at least as efficient—and they are often more efficient—as men with every limb. In this country they are compensated according to the law, and they are generally found a job of sweeping the yard or something like that, because the employer has promised to keep them on. That is not satisfactory. I remember that the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), when he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry if Labour, very kindly took the chair for us last summer at a meeting where the question of the training of cripples was discussed, and he showed great sympathy with the movement. I am sure that he would have done all that he possibly could to help us if his Government had not fallen, but I am also certain that my hon. Friend the present Parliamentary Secretary will show his sympathy. I hope that some scheme may be evolved. It is no credit to us in this great country, with

    1121
    highly organised trade unions, insurance companies, and employers' organisations, that there is practically nothing existing for training the industrial cripple and settling him on his feet again so as to be able to earn his livelihood.
    These are a few suggestions which I wish to put forward. It is difficult in this kind of Debate to put forward anything new, but it is the duty of all of us to intervene if we have anything helpful to offer. I hope that more and more—and I think the feeling has been so today—the question of unemployment will get out of the arena of party politics, and that we shall all concentrate upon trying to provide employment and making the lot of the unemployed better.
    Mr. LAWSON: I appreciate the way in which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bilston (Mr. G. Peto) has spoken of the question before the House. The speech of the hon. Member for Cirencester (Mr. Morrison), in which he opened with a very full appreciation of the gravity of this great problem, almost convinced me that we were going to have from him one of those contributions which we know he is able to make, giving us something of the breadth and depth of this colossal problem. I think the House will agree that I am one of those who never, if possible, confines himself to making debating points upon this matter. I have lived in the North of England all my life, and I have noted to my grief during the last 14 years since the War ended a whole area going down, stage by stage, and great masses of men and women going into the very depths of hopelessness and despair through no fault of their own. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bilston has just pleaded for consideration to be given to the disabled men. But the thing which has amazed me has been that you have had, first, the admission that the State should be responsible for the great mass of the unemployed, then, that there has been a tendency to thrust them back upon the local community, and then, that there has been an increased tendency to thrust them back, as in the case of the means test, upon the family. That may be, to one sitting in philosophic case in a chair, an ideal way of settling things.
    The old economists wrote about the economic theory with very great ability,
    1122
    but when it came to actual practical application—whether it was Adam Smith, Cobden or anyone else—it was another thing altogether. I remember when I was hewing coal at the pit I used to read some of those economists, and there was an economist who was very eloquent upon what was called the law of diminishing returns. I used to think when I came from the pit that what they wrote was splendid. I remember how well they phrased their terms and reasoned their case, but when I received my pay note at the week-end what I had read did not seem to be quite as eloquent and as well reasoned as it was when I read it in the book. That is the position with regard to the means test. The country does not understand the problem, and I do not think that the House thoroughly understands it. I do not believe that we shall ever get down to fundamental principles in the solving of the unemployment problem unless and until we realise that it is a world problem. The Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me when I say that the main burden rests upon about six areas in this country and that it has rested there for a considerable number of years. Those localities are burdened down with debt. Unemployment is so widespread that families and individuals are in a lamentable state. When it comes to thrusting the weight of the burden back upon the families the result is lamentable as far as areas of that kind are concerned.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) mentioned the fact that I had been present at a great demonstration. It was one of the most striking demonstrations I have ever seen in my life. It was in a district where men and women, whose clothing is almost threadbare, make attempts to look decent and clean and as smart as possible on a Sunday. They came in a wonderfully organised style. The crowd was so great that the police themselves were rather afraid of such a great gathering in that place, and yet the police, I believe, would be the first to pay tribute to those men and women. The gathering was associated with two counties largely representing coal and running right down to the mouths of the Tyne and the Wear, where you have shipbuilding industries, or where you once had them, at any rate, and allied heavy industries. The people came

    1123
    from those areas. I would ask the Government to take note of the protest which was made at that demonstration, because it really is expressive of what the people in those areas are feeling. They passed a resolution against the means test root and branch. I hope that the Government will carry out the promise of the Prime Minister 'which was mentioned by my hon. Friend, that this matter would really have to be looked into. The Prime Minister cannot do anything else. There is not a Conservative Member from the north of England who would go into those meetings and who knows the circumstances of these people, but must admit that this means test method of handling the problem has been tried and very much found wanting in its effect upon the lives of the people.
    8.0 p.m.
    May I develop the picture that I tried to draw, in view of the answer that was given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade? I hope that I shall not give any offence, but I think that his treatment of the subject might have been much more serious. The problem that he was handling might have been much more accurately understood, in which case he would not have answered in the terms and in the spirit that he did. I am sorry that he is not here. That was certainly the impression that I got. What is the situation It is all very well saying that we must have some different method of dealing with this matter, and that Cobden has been tried, and so forth. We do not care about Cobden or even about the late Joseph Chamberlain. What we know is that pits are being laid idle as a result of the German quota operations. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade admitted, as did the President of the Board of Trade, that the German quota was discrimination against us. Why have the Germans discriminated against us? Because they want to retaliate for the new fiscal system of this Government. Mr. Lee, the Secretary of the Mining Association, which is the coalowners' association, has made that point pretty clear. He says:
    "It is a counter measure to the tariffs. It is a purely political measure designed to force England to the conference table."
    That means that the miners of this country are between two fires. The Government have declared war upon other
    1124
    countries. If you stop the imports of a country it may be a pacific method, but it is really a declaration of war. Germany has answered that challenge by reducing our exports of coal to Germany by one half, and it is admitted that the bulk of the collieries that are being hit by this new system are in the north of England. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade tried to get out of the argument by suggesting that this was not retaliation for the imports duties. As a matter of fact, the week after the Bill imposing import duties was passed in this House the Germans brought their new quota system into operation. If the Parliamentary Secretary has any doubt on this point, Mr. Lee, the Secretary of the Mining Association, does not doubt it, neither do those who are on the spot in the north of England. What does the "Newcastle Journal" of Saturday, 5th March, say? That is not a Socialist newspaper but a Conservative newspaper. It states that 1,000 miners are ceasing work at Dawdon Colliery. That is a colliery in the possession of the family of a Member of the present Government, the Secretary of State for Air, the Marquess of Londonderry. He is one of the owners of that colliery. His manager says that this is the result of the French quota and the German quota, very definitely. There are other collieries, Beamish, Silkworth and others which have been closed directly as a result of the operation of the quota system in Germany. I am looking for the hon. Member for Newcastle, West (Dr. Leech) who made his maiden speech with very great self-possession, which I admired. I am looking for him in order to draw his attention to certain facts. The "North Mail" says:
    "Another reduction in the number of miners employed in Durham has taken place, and the outlook for the summer is very gloomy indeed."
    When the hon. Member for Newcastle West spoke about the possibilities of tariffs in their effect upon that area, I wondered whether he had been down to the mouth of the Tyne during the last few years. If he had, particularly in the last few months, he would have noticed the increasing depression that has taken place in that area. I am pleased to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade in his place. I will repeat what I said in his absence.

    1125
    I said that he did not appreciate the gravamen of the problem with which we are dealing and that if he would go into one of those areas—an area with which he is not very familiar, although he has been visiting there in what I might call a surreptitious way during the last few months—and would try to understand the gravity of the problem he would certainly have handled the matter more seriously.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: What does the hon. Member mean by "surreptitiously"?
    Mr. LAWSON: It was rumoured that he was visiting some of the areas, collecting information on behalf of the Government, but no one seemed to know when or how, or with whom he was conferring. Whether he saw the representatives of the coal owners or the steel representatives I do not know, but he certainly did not take into council as far as I can gather any of the representatives of the workers in those areas. If he had understood the gravity of the situation in areas of that character he would have handled this problem tonight in a much more serious way than he did. I would ask him to realise the fact that it does not matter twopence to us in the North of England and in the mining areas who is going to win this war of tariffs between the present Government and the German Government, but what does matter to us is that, as a direct result of the policy of the Government, pits have been closed. If hon. Members of this House are counting upon doing this, that or the other as the result of tariffs and they went to live in these particular areas, they would not be as serene as they are or as optimistic as they seem to be in regard to the matter. I so not care twopence what may be the result of tariffs or of Free Trade, but I know that these particular pits have been closed. I urge the hon. Member to bring pressure to bear upon the Board of Trade and to see that, whatever takes place, these pits have to be considered and the livelihood of the workpeople has to be taken into consideration, because of the long strain and stress that has been laid upon them.
    The unemployment problem is really a, world problem. I have been a Member
    1126
    of this House for 12 years and I remember, and those who have been in this House for the last few years will remember, that once upon a time we were told that if we proceeded with emigration it would go a long way to solve the unemployment problem. Conservative Members may hardly believe it, but we have heard in this House expressions just as eloquent in regard to the hope held out regarding emigration as have been held out with regard to tariffs during the past few months. Next, we were told that if we had transference it would go far to mitigate the problem. It has not mitigated the problem. In the Labour Government we held the view that great things could be done by schemes of relief, and we did help 200,000 men in that respect, but we did not do what was hoped would have been done. I could quote scheme after scheme in regard to which hopes have been raised only to be dashed to the ground.
    What is at the back of the minds of hon. Members who support the Government? They came here hoping that in a few months things would begin to hum. As a matter of fact they are no better than they were when the present Government came into office. The latest figures for unemployment are 2,700,000. Last September the figures were 2,811,000. What are the facts? I have asked for information regarding the people who have lost their benefits and their transitional payments. I am informed that 232,962 claims for insurance benefit and applications for transitional payment have been disallowed by the courts of referees in Great Britain. Of the applications for transitional payments submitted to public assistance committees, 377,512 have been turned down. That makes a total of 510,474. It is pointed out that these figures represent claims, not persons, and that in some cases they are duplicated. In addition, 77,000 women have been struck off benefit under the Anomalies Act. The grand total is about 600,000 claims which, of course, include duplications. It cannot be denied that a great number of the people register in order to get their Health Insurance cards stamped. Most of the men and boys admit that that is a fact. It is not an exaggeration to say that over 100,000 of those who have been turned down were registered.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: The Minister says 140,000.
    Mr. LAWSON: If you are going to compare the September figures with any other figures you must add that 140,000 in order to get a true estimate of the position. I take no delight in these facts, but we are being told on platforms outside that there is a reduction in the unemployment figures. People are being fobbed off with the story that an improvement is being made, whereas the real fact is that no improvement has been made, and in those areas where the Government should have helped things are actually getting worse. Take the question of the mining areas, and the iron, steel and shipbuilding areas in the north-east of England. In these districts the unemployment figure rises to 23 per cent. and 25 per cent., and in some areas actually to 47 per cent. as against 20 per cent. average for the whole country. That did not happen yesterday, it continues year after year. When this country went off the Gold Standard and we got the value of a depreciated pound, the unemployment figures fell. In October the figure in these north-eastern areas was 317,000; in November it went down to 304,000, and in December to 284,000. I was pleased indeed to see the figures going down; there was a movement for the first time for a considerable period, and these exporting areas were bound to be favourably affected by the abolition of the Gold Standard. In January the figures went up to 289,000, and in February to 294,000. We were rapidly getting back to the position when the Gold Standard was abolished. Undoubtedly, the retaliatory action of other Governments has almost neutralised the effect of going off the Gold Standard, and it is apprehended in the North that they will almost extinguish our export trade.
    I hold that this unemployment problem goes much deeper than the House and the country has yet realised. The tragedy is not because men are unemployed, but because once they are unemployed they have lost their place in life and their standing in society. This problem follows us like some great shambling creature of evil which we do not seem able to get rid of. But, fundamentally, the problem has to be faced on much bigger lines. I hold that
    1128
    it is an international question. Why should we trouble because men have been relieved of heavy work? We only get trouble because leisure is not spread equally among all classes of the people. We only get trouble because some men are denied food and clothing whilst others are employed, well clothed and well fed. We only get trouble because some people lose their place in life and do not get the ordinary needs of life satisfied.
    The real solution of the problem is a decrease of hours and an increase of standards. It does not matter to the British coalowner whether the men work seven hours, six hours, or five hours a day, as long as he knows that people in other countries are in the same position. One of the things which the Labour Government did was to get the 7½ hours Act through the Convention, thereby, putting Germany and France and Belgium and Holland and the rest of the world in a like position to ourselves as far as hours were concerned. That took hours out of the competitive market. The Government must at some time or other get down to that problem. They will have to do it. Anyone who reads the statements coming from Germany and France and the various proposals that are made will know that there is a great universal feeling arising for some international and systematic method of lowering hours and increasing leisure, and generally raising the standard of life, so that people will have more consuming power and thus assist in getting industry going again. I know that hon. Members will say that we were in office for two years and did not get the Washington Hours Convention ratified. We made a gallant attempt although we were only one-third of the House of Commons. There were great difficulties in the way. There were difficulties with employers and with trade unions, but what is the good of worrying over facts like that? One thing is certain, that the Labour Government managed to level out all the difficulties with the trade unions and with some of the employers. I was empowered, as the British delegate to the last Geneva Conference, to say that we were prepared to put it through the Convention and ratify it in the next session of Parliament.
    What is happening now? I do not want to be too hard on the Government on this matter, but I am apprehensive,

    1129
    not merely because the policy of the Government is becoming severely nationalist and taking us out of the international arena but because the Minister of Labour himself is not paying attention to this matter. I give all credit to the staff at the Ministry of Labour. Many of them are able and efficient men, but not even the best officials are a substitute for the Minister himself in our international councils. When great Britain begins to send Ministers to these conferences Germany and France and Belgium will send Ministers, and they will begin to talk real business. But if one country does not send a Minister none of them do, they send officials, and thus neutralise the power of the International Labour Office. The more I see of these great conferences and hear expressions of opinion from workers and employers, the more I believe that unless this country and other countries take the international way of facing this great international problem, unless we and other peoples concentrate on these lines, this unemployment problem will end this Government, as it has ended other Governments, and unless it is definitely and resolutely faced it will not only end Governments but it will end Parliaments too.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I think I ought to begin by paying a tribute to the very restrained way in which the case has been put from the benches opposite. I will deal with one or two of the points that have been raised in the Debate, and first of all with the statement of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson). I hope that neither he nor the hon. Members for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar) or Workington (Mr. Cape) think that the Government do not take a very serious view of the effect of the restriction of the German quota. We are at one in that matter. The only point on which we differ is in their allegation that this restriction is due to our tariffs. I do not think I need go over the points made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, but I repeat that we take the most serious view of the matter, and it is not my intention in any way to minimise the bad effect the restriction is having on employment in the coal-mining industry of this country. In our opinion, we are
    1130
    better off by having a tariff, because it is a really good weapon for retaliation in the last resort.
    The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street quoted a number of figures by which he tried to show that the condition of unemployment had worsened in this country since the National Government took office. I have never placed very great reliance on that type of argument, because in this connection figures can be made to prove almost anything. I am now going to quote a series of figures which prove the exact opposite of what the hon. Member was trying to maintain. As he took the date on which the Labour Government went out of office, I propose to take the same date, although otherwise I frankly say I would not have done so. Take the coal-mining industry. When the Labour Government came into office in June, 1929, the number of men on the colliery books was 937,000. When the Labour Government went out of office, in August, 1931, the figure had dropped to 820,000, the lowest figure in recent years. The total number of days worked that week was 3,713,000.
    Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: It was summer time.
    Mr. HUDSON: I am giving the figures for the dates selected by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street. I agree that it was summer time, but the hon. Member took those dates and I am entitled to take them too. They are the figures of the numbers of workmen on the colliery books as supplied to the Mines Department. The hon. Member quoted the number of men unemployed. I am quoting the number employed.
    Mr. LAWSON: Will the Parliamentary Secretary give us the figures for October?
    Mr. HUDSON: I shall be glad to give any figures that I have. On 3rd October the total was 823,000, on 10th October 826,000, 17th October 831,000, 24th October 831,000, 31st October 832,000. As I have stated, in August the numbers were 820,000, whereas on 12th March, the last date for which I have figures, the number was 837,000, and the number of days worked, instead of being 3,700,000, was 3,900,000. So far as mining is concerned, the case is not that which the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street would have us imagine it to be. The hon. Member also referred to the International Labour

    1131
    Office and the Washington Hours Convention. I must say that I thought he was very brave to mention the Washington Hours Convention, because, as the House remembers, this Convention has had a very chequered career and various Governments have endeavoured to find ways of ratifying it But none of them has succeeded, and it was left to the hon. Member's late thief, Miss Bondfield, to announce with a great flourish of trumpets that the Convention would be ratified. Two Bills were introduced into this House during the late Labour Government's term of office, but, for reasons which I have been unable to fathom, those Bills never got even the pretence of a Second Reading. It ill becomes the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street to talk about delay in ratifying the Washington Hours Convention. The Government have many other very pressing matters to attend to, but as soon as those matters are out of the way the Government will give the question very serious consideration. Next, the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street referred to the question of Ministers attending meetings of the governing body at Geneva. I am happy to tell him that my right hon. Friend proposes to go to Geneva next April.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: To get level with the other fellows at Ottawa.
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. HUDSON: The hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) asked whether we had any knowledge of persons holding fixed assets being compelled to realise those assets by public assistance authorities. As far as I am aware that practice is not being adopted. We stated in our circular that public assistance authorities had plenty of discretion to avoid hardship by the forced realisation of assets. The hon. and learned Member asked about the date of the Commission's Report. The Commission has been meeting regularly, I understand, and when the legal duties of the chairman have prevented his attendance the Commission has sat without the chairman. We hope to receive the report in the comparatively near future. I understand that it has been decided to obtain a certain amount of evidence as to the working of the means test, a very reasonable precaution, but nevertheless
    1132
    we hope that the report will not be too long delayed.
    The next point was one raised by the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), who referred to figures that he had received to-day from the President of the Board of Education showing the number of children who had left school during the last three years. The hon. Member wanted to know how many of those have found employment. The hon. Member must realise that every year a large number of persons die and naturally go out of insurance, and their places are taken, also naturally, by the younger generation. The percentage of unemployment for juveniles is considerably less than half that for adults, and I think that something over 80 per cent. of the juveniles who are to-day unemployed have been unemployed for less than three months, which shows that the huge majority of the 900,000 have actually gone into industry.
    It will be within the knowledge of the House that owing to the decline in the birth-rate during the War, there will, in the course of the next two or three years, be a considerable drop in the numbers of those leaving school, but although that will substantially benefit the position of the children of 14 to 16 years of age, there is still the grave problem of unemployment of juveniles between 16 and 18 years of age, obviously not affected now by that drop in the birth-rate. The problem is causing my right hon. Friend and myself considerable concern, and I venture to make an appeal to employers generally, if they find in the course of the next two or three years that there is a shortage of juveniles whom they can employ owing to this drop in the War-time birth-rate, that they should endeavour to make up the shortage from the boys between 16 and 18, who are at present in rather a bad way. We have endeavoured to meet the problem to a considerable extent by encouraging the provision by local education authorities of junior instruction centres, and in cases where the number of juveniles likely to attend was not sufficient to make it worth while to set up a centre, by arrangement with the local education authorities, for unemployed juveniles to attend other classes already in existence. Last year, I am glad to say, no less than 150,000 juveniles passed through the centres or the classes, and

    1133
    another 24,000 boys and girls attended classes belonging to the local education authorities.
    When I last spoke at this Box on 3rd March I ventured to suggest to local authorities that this was one of the most valuable of their many activities and I deprecated the selection of this service as one on which to exercise any economies that might be necessary. I regret to say that since that speech we have had information that several local authorities propose to make this particular cut and I appeal to any hon. Member who represents a Division where that sort of thing is taking place, to exercise whatever influence he may have to prevent it. In any case it will be a matter for serious consideration by the Government, if this practice of cutting down these activities spreads, whether it may not become necessary to impose a statutory obligation upon local authorities to carry out this service. I do not say that it will be necessary to do so. I hope that we shall avoid the difficulty but it is a matter for consideration next autumn if the practice continues.
    The hon. Member for Spennymoor raised a question about the cost of administration. Obviously, part of the increased cost is due to the large increase in unemployment compared with 1930. He asked what was the cost of the machinery set up by the public assistance authorities. I regret that I am not in a position to give that information. We have not yet got complete returns but we are getting them in and I hope shortly to be able to tell him if he puts down a question. He went on to say that the Government ought to take steps to decrease the interest on the debt. Such a suggestion, I think, comes extraordinarily badly from a Member of the Labour party because they, above all others, are responsible for the size of the debt and it scarcely lies in their mouths to say that we ought to diminish the amount of the interest. Then various Members including my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. G. Peto)—
    Mr. BATEY: Is the hon. Gentleman not going to deal with the question which I raised about the Prime Minister and the means test?
    Mr. HUDSON: I have not had time to investigate that matter fully, but I under-
    1134
    stand that there was no actual promise made, and that the headlines in the paper to which the hon. Member was no doubt referring, and in other papers, were apparently statements taken from their context. I am informed that the statement in the headlines is not to be found in the actual verbatim report.
    Mr. TINKER: Another example of the Prime Minister's vagueness.
    Mr. HUDSON: Various Members, including the hon. Member for Bilston, referred to the question of allotments. It was found necessary to save a sum of £30,000 by various economy cuts; nevertheless, the Society of Friends have for this year come to the rescue, and I understand from Mr. Robson that they have secured or feel confident of securing sufficient funds to enable over 75,000 allotments to be provided this year. I think everyone will agree that that is a very fine effort indeed. I was very glad to see in various parts of the House a general impression that allotments were a sound method of spending money, because that agrees entirely with the view which I personally have always taken. My hon. Friend the Member for Bilston also mentioned the question of the training of industrial cripples. Quite obviously that is one of the problems on which we hope the Royal Commission will report. The House will remember that we made a sample analysis for the Royal Commission. I had those percentages translated into actual figures recently and those figures are extremely serious. I did not know that the hon. Member was going to raise the point, and I have not the exact figures here, but, speaking from memory, I think they show that to-day among the unemployed persons there are between 600,000 and 650,000 who may be classed as below the level of employability, and who for various personal and physical reasons would be unlikely to obtain employment except in periods of booming trade. That is obviously a serious problem which sooner or later the country will have to tackle.
    The only point left for me to deal with is the needs test. I still think that a great deal of criticism on this point, both in the House and outside, is due to a complete misapprehension of the origin of the needs test and the reasons why it has been imposed. There was and is no desire on the part of the Members of the

    1135
    Government, or the majority in this House, to pauperise a large proportion of our population or to inflict upon them the so-called stigma of the Poor Law. The problem which faced the Government last September was to secure that transitional payments—which I would again remind the House are nothing more or less than relief paid for out of the Exchequer instead of out of the rates—were only made to persons who were really in need of such relief. For considerations of time alone, it was obvious that it would be impossible to set up new machinery under the Ministry of Labour. Even apart from such a consideration there was the difficulty of training a supervisory staff and also the question of cost. It was therefore decided by the Government that the best way was to entrust the inquiry into needs to the existing machinery of the local public assistance authorities.
    Then came the next problem, which was: Could you trust the local authorities to pay out moneys, not from their own ratepayers, but from the Exchequer? It was felt that there was bound to be some risk, and, in the case of certain authorities a very considerable risk, in allowing this to be done, but it was thought that the best check against any possible extravagance or waste of national funds would be to lay down that, as far as the inquiries into means and the determination of the amount to be granted were concerned, persons applying for State relief should be treated in the same way as if they had been applying for relief out of the rates. That is the justification and origin of the relative paragraph in the Order-in-Council. It is not that that Order is due to any Machiavellian desire on our part to pauperise a large portion of the population.
    As the House knows, the Government of the day went further and issued the Circular L.A. 3, which was intended to indicate to local authorities that, provided they decided each case on its own merits, they had within the framework of the existing Poor Law sufficient latitude to be able to treat each case fairly and sympathetically on its merits. My right hon. Friends the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Health have repeatedly said the same thing, both in this House, and outside, and I myself on the 26th November ventured to sum up
    1136
    our policy as being an endeavour to pursue a middle course so as not to allow of lax administration of national funds, but at the same time to see that the requirements of the law were interpreted in the sympathetic and sensible manner which we both desired and intended.
    Taking the country by and large, I venture to think that we have no reason to suppose that the local authorities have not had due regard to these considerations in the work that they have done. We have heard of many indications of hardship. I read only the other day in the paper, a, Labour paper, of alleged hardships in London. I have taken the trouble to have them checked. The first that I come across in reading through the list of alleged hardships is the case of a single man where the income for a family of three persons is 44s. a week, and the next is a case where the income for a family of three is 60s. a week. I suggest that those are not cases of real hardship, and if that is the best case that the Labour party can put up—[Interruption.] That is the case that is put up for London.
    Mr. LAWSON: I will give the hon. Gentleman one that is a scandal.
    Mr. HUDSON: Indeed, in my opinion, the administration of this whole scheme has proceeded with far less friction than many experienced people believed to be possible at the outset. That cases of hardship should occur is inevitable, but the fact that they bear such a small, I would even say such a tiny, proportion to the total number of cases decided, is a matter for congratulation and shows the extremely conscientious way in which the local authorities have carried out a very onerous and a very difficult task.
    I would now like to turn to a point that has been made by various hon. Members, and especially by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). Hon. Members opposite have asked, as they have every right to do, for figures for Lancashire and other parts of the country showing the total numbers and the proportions and percentages of determinations at full rates, at less than full rates, and at nil, and they have been struck, as everyone must have been struck, in the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT yesterday, at the apparent considerable discrepancies and variations

    1137
    between one area and another, but I venture to think that they have drawn an entirely inaccurate conclusion when they assume that these variations are the result wholly or even mainly of varying degrees of strictness in the administration of this scheme. If you get a particular area where you have a very high percentage of determinations at full rates, it may be due to administrative reasons, but even where you get anything like the normal percentage, many other causes come in.
    In the first place, it must be remembered that the grant of assistance to a large number of persons on the basis of need in any particular area must have some relation to the economic conditions of that area, otherwise there would not be the large number of persons requiring assistance to rescue them from need. To take an example, if you look at London, where, owing to the great variety of industries, the percentage of unemployment has always been much lower than in other parts of the country, you would naturally expect that the results of a needs test would be entirely different from the results, say, in Lancashire, in Monmouth, or in County Durham; and what we expect, we actually find.
    In the second place, public assistance is based, as the House knows, on the household as the unit. The hon. Member for Leigh thinks it ought not to be so based, I gather. I gather that a father ought not to be expected to maintain his son or to help to maintain him, or that the son ought not to be expected to help to maintain his father. I, personally, disagree, and I believe that the huge majority, not merely of this House but of the country, believe that you have to maintain, fundamentally, the family as the unit. In any case, whatever our opinions may be, the practice of public assistance authorities is to regard the household as the unit, and consequently the nature of local Industries, has a tremendous effect on results. If you get a coalmining area, where normally there is a male breadwinner as the chief support of the household, and that head of the household falls out of work, the whole resources of the household are destroyed, but if, on the other hand, you get an area like Lancashire, where the normal custom is for many members of the household to work, and especially
    1138
    in areas where there is a large percentage of women employed, you will find that there is a considerable amount of money going into the household, even though the male breadwinner may be temporarily stopped; and these variations have a tremendous effect on the percentages shown by the public assistance authorities in their determinations. In Lancashire in particular, I believe, where you have an area with a great deal of short time being worked and where large numbers of mills are spasmodically open and shut, even if you had an absolutely standardised administration, you would still find considerable and legitimate variations between the different areas and the different towns.
    The third great cause of discrepancy, I think, arises from the variations between the scales of the various local authorities. It is clear that if one local authority's scale for a single man is 15s. 3d. and the neighbouring authority's scale is 15s., you will find in the case of the first authority a very large percentage of determinations at full rates and a very small percentage at less than full rates and in the case of the second authority you will find exactly the reverse. On paper, it looks as if there was a tremendous difference of administration, but in actual practice probably the administration is the same and the net effect on the recipients is very small indeed.
    The fourth cause for these various discrepancies is the fact that the scheme is being administered by local authorities on the basis of public assistance practice, and public assistance practice, just like any other practice of local authorities, varies. Many of these variations may be real economic variations and differences in the various parts of the country. Many of them also reflect the different relations that the public assistance scales bear to the predominant wage rates in the district. Other discrepancies again arise out of the economic variations between one area and another. If you ask for an illustration, I would suggest the question of the provisions of fares for persons in search of work, and you must make a greater allowance in London for fares for persons in search of work than if they were living in some small provincial town.

    1139
    Finally, rents and allowances for rents also vary, and these variations have very little to do with actual differences of administration. Further, local variations are nothing new. On the contrary, before the 1929 Local Government Act they were very much greater than they are to-day, and as long as there was only a small number of persons concerned, the subject of these variations was not a matter of any public or political interest, and the people in the districts concerned were perfectly satisfied. It is only when the numbers suddenly get greater and the question of Exchequer money arises that we get this sudden demand for uniformity. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has said that he is proposing to hold conferences in various areas in the next few days in order to see whether a greater uniformity cannot be introduced.
    I come now to the last of the causes of lack of uniformity. It is fair to say that most local authorities have carried out their duties and their responsibilities towards the Exchequer with a great degree of care. A few authorities here and there are departing in their administration of the scheme widely from anything that might be called the letter or the spirit of the law. When you find in any particular area three or four authorities carrying out the law properly and one authority flagrantly disregarding it, obviously the ensuing variation in practice causes a great deal of embittered local comment. I have every sympathy with such complaints. We are taking the matter of these recalcitrant authorities seriously in hand.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: How many are there?
    Mr. HUDSON: The last thing we want is—
    Mr. COVE: How many are there and where are they?
    Mr. HUDSON: There is one in the close neighbourhood of my hon. Friend's constituency.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Where is that?
    Mr. TINKER: Does this apply to both ends of the scale or only one end?
    Mr. HUDSON: The authorities that are flagrantly acting in disregard of the law are causing discontent in the areas
    1140
    of the authorities that are carrying out the law. Therefore, we propose to deal with those authorities first.
    Mr. LANSBURY: What is the law? You have laid down these scales.
    Mr. HUDSON: They are not even carrying out the Order-in-Council which says that there are not to be two different scales, one for their own people and one for ours. If these local authorities remain contumacious, we shall have no option but to supersede them, because it is clear that the gross injustice—
    Mr. COVE: Which are the local authorities?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): The hon. Member knows that he cannot interrupt unless the hon. Member who is in possession of the House chooses to give way.
    Mr. HUDSON: If they remain contumacious we shall have no option but to supersede them, because it is clear that the gross injustice as between recipients of transitional payments in adjacent areas cannot be allowed to continue. We hope, however, that these authorities will listen to reason, and will pay heed to the representations that we are addressing to them. I will only add this further observation. I have, and I am sure that everyone has, the greatest sympathy with the unemployed, but more particularly with the man who has exhausted his 26 weeks' benefit. He has for years been induced to believe that he can go on drawing benefit indefinitely out of a seemingly inexhaustible insurance fund. Repeated warnings that this practice was leading the whole scheme into bankruptcy and disrepute have been disregarded, but the fact that the country now realises the extent to which this has gone is no consolation to the man who is thrown off standard benefit. Many hon. Members have asked me whether I do not think it hard that a man who has worked almost continuously since the War, who has been hard working and thrifty, and a good man in every sense, and is now thrown out of work through no fault of his own and has exhausted his 26 weeks' benefit, should now have to apply for transitional payment.
    9.0 p.m.
    I agree that it sounds, and is, hard lines, but it is worth remembering that he has been put into that position as the

    1141
    result of the actions of politicians for many years, and especially of the late Labour Government when they relaxed the conditions under which benefit could be drawn. Too many persons who were right outside the insurance scheme, or who did not really need benefit, have been allowed to dip into the till, until now the reserves that should have been built up to help this poor hard-working man have been changed into a staggering debt burden of £115,000,000. May I remind the House of the figures which I gave last week in answer to a question of the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox)? I said then that the weekly income of the fund is insufficient to meet its outgoings by £295,000, and in addition transitional payments are at present costing the Exchequer £835,000 a week. In other words, the total cost of unemployment is still at the staggering figure of £114,000,000 a year. When some hon. Members talk, as I heard them doing today, about restoring the cuts in the dole, I would remind them that the income of the fund is at present still nearly £300,000 short of the expenditure every week.
    One of the disturbing features of the unemployment problem is the fact that long-term unemployment seems to be increasing at the cost of short-term unemployment, and it is long-term unemployment that is causing so appalling a drain on the fund. We had an inquiry made for the Royal Commission the other day as to what happened in 1930. It may perhaps interest the House if I gave the percentages which were published by the Commission, and converted them into figures. In 1930, 4,200,000 separate individuals drew benefit. Of these, 2,500,000 drew benefit for up to 17 weeks, and they cost the fund £21,000,000. At the other end of the scale, 107,000 persons were unemployed for a whole year, and they cost the fund £5,850,000. That great disproportion in the cost as between the short-term and the long-term unemployed renders it absolutely essential to have a needs test in the case of persons who are out of work for more than 26 weeks.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street wanted to know what I thought would be the future cost of unemployment under this Government. That is a question which I think it is perfectly impossible to answer. I
    1142
    venture to think that as our home market becomes more thoroughly organised by our home manufacturers, and the rest of the world returns to sanity and order, we shall be able to recapture some of our old time prosperity and see the unemployment figures fall. But at whatever figure you set the final total, whether you are an optimist and set it below 1,000,000, or a pessimist and think the figure will be 1,500,000 or 1,750,000—
    Mr. MAXTON: Or whether you are a realist.
    Mr. HUDSON: Whatever you are, whatever total figure you finally decide, it will be a colossal figure regarded from its human side. On 3rd March I suggested that we had to develop a new technique, and said that I hoped to see various experiments carried out by public-spirited persons. Some hon. Members subsequently asked me if I could give them any account of the experiments already made. I am glad to say that in the interval the National Council for Social Service have brought out a booklet, called "Work with the Unemployed," which gives particulars of several of the experiments already in operation. In conclusion I would like to quote one or two sentences from that booklet, because I believe that it is along such lines that we may bring relief to the lot of the men who otherwise would be standing idle in the market place wasting their substance and losing their capacity for useful work:
    "The greatest need of those who are out of work is, of course, opportunity to earn their livelihood. In the absence of that opportunity they need especially two things in addition to the provision for bare maintenance made by the State. They need occupation that will develop their capacities and keep them fit, mentally and physically. And they need the chance to join in social activities that will help to maintain their self-respect. Moreover, experience has proved that the most successful schemes are not only those which the men themselves help to organise but are in many cases those which are unpretentious and inexpensive. Many have failed because they were wholly devised by some outside body and were planned on lines which did not appeal to the men and women in question. Many more successful schemes might be started if it were realised that with the co-operation of the men themselves elaborate or expensive provision is quite unnecessary."

    1143
    My hon. Friend the Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) said he hoped I would give some indication of the attitude which my right hon. Friend adopts or will adopt towards these proposals. As a final quotation, I would like to read the final paragraph of the letter which he has caused to be addressed to the Secretary, of the National Council of Social Service:
    "For the rest, the Minister very much welcomes the action of those unemployed men who are giving services voluntarily for the benefit of others while they are in receipt of payments from public funds and until they can obtain work; and he would be very glad to know that similar action was being taken in other districts."

    HOME AFFAIRS.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I wish to raise other subjects of which I have given notice to the Home Secretary, but before I go on to them I must confess that I have sat here to-day in a fever of torment through wanting to take part in the Debate on unemployment. The one thing that strikes me as being similar in the two subjects is the difference of treat-merit meted out to the rich and the poor. Places like Glamorgan, where they are going to treat poor people more or less decently, are attacked, while those local authorities which rob the poor are to be aided and abetted in that robbery. It seems to me that the only resource of this National Government is to attack the poor. Times without number I have asked the Labour party to accept their share of responsibility for what has been done, and I shall continue to do so, but at the same time I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be none the less manly in asking his supporters to take their share of responsibility for the wrongs done. If wrongs were committed, the chief man responsible is the head of the Government, and it is as dishonest for him to run away from certain of the things for which he is attacking others as it is wrong for the Labour party to try to avoid their share of responsibility for the means test.
    There are three subjects which I wish to raise with the Home Secretary to-night—the question of political prisoners and their treatment, the question of two persons who wish to be admitted to this country to attend a meeting, and
    1144
    the question of Dartmoor Prison and certain recent happenings there, particularly as reported in this morning's Press. According to the information I have, it is a very difficult thing to define a political prisoner. Certain people say this and other people say that, but my own description of a political prisoner is a. person who associates himself with a movement or a cause not for any personal gain but with the object, no matter how mistaken it may be, of benefiting others than himself. Taking that as the definition of a political prisoner, although he may commit a wrong in the eyes of the State, I should say that it is no wrong, nothing that would defame his character in the eyes of his fellow-citizens. There are Members of this House who have been in prison who come within that category, and because the cause was one out of which they did not seek any personal gain their fellow Members have always regarded them in a different light from other prisoners.
    At the moment there are about 230 men and women who have been sentenced for what I should term some form of political activity. Most of them have been sentenced for taking part in unlawful gatherings, riotous mobs, threatening, as we say in Scotland, danger to the lieges, threatening the peace of the neighbourhood. There are persons in prison because they have gathered with their fellow citizens to protest against what they think is a wrong. Apart from the question of political offences, when there is such a thing as the means test, when the standards of living of unemployed people are being attacked, it is inherent in the nature of men and women to demonstrate to the full. It would be wrong to expect such people to demonstrate in the calm fashion of other folk who are bringing grievances forward. If people thought, for instance, that their religious liberty were being taken from them, it would be conceivable that those folks, who were fed, would march out in an orderly way; but in the case of men and women whose lives, almost, are at stake, and who see their kith and kin being reduced to worse than penury, to starvation, it is not reasonable to expect that they will demonstrate in a quiet and orderly fashion.
    Such people have demonstrated in order to bring their wrongs before the

    1145
    public, and they may have been disorderly, they may have gone to certain quarters carrying danger with them, but when the Government reduce the standards of life of those people they are more responsible for the danger than are the people themselves. They are arresting those men and interfering with their liberty, and more than 200 of them are now in prison. No one questions the right of those people to demonstrate. In these cases the police and the authorities, instead of trying to see how far those poor people can demonstrate without doing any harm, immediately proceed to use the baton to suppress them, and they arrest them at the earliest possible moment. Those men are afterwards tried for an alleged offence—it is not for embezzlement, or theft, or anything of that kind—and they are given sentences. After looking over a number of the sentences in these cases and comparing them with the sentences passed upon rich people for much more serious offences, I find that they are very much out of proportion. In the case of the rich people, the sentences are for deliberate and sheer theft by men who never knew what it was to see their wives and children starving, and yet they get off with sentences of nine months. On the other hand, some poor fellow who has watched his wife going down the hill day by day, who watches his bairns grow up without the education they so much need, takes part in a demonstration, and he receives a most wicked sentence.
    I am not going to raise the question of sentences now, because Members of the official Labour party have had negotiations with the Home Secretary on that matter, and they think that there is a chance of those negotiations being successful. I hope there will be some kind of success, and I do not want to prejudice the chances of success by interfering at this moment. If those negotiations are not successful, I shall return to the subject. There is the case of the printer in connection with the Invergordon affair who received a sentence of 18 months, and a man in Battersea was sent to prison for 12 months for taking part in a demonstration in London. The Home Secretary has told me that those men have a right of appeal. In the last case I have mentioned the man did appeal, but he was turned down. Take the case of the men who criticised the Invergordon
    1146
    affair. Those men had a right to take action, and may I point out to the Home Secretary that those men never said half the hard things that Home Secretaries and Under-Secretaries said at the time of the Ulster business? These men never tried to do one-tenth part of what was done at the time of the Ulster crisis, and yet some of them for their writings upon this subject have received heavy sentences and the printer was sentenced to three years' imprisonment. Two men were sent in connection with the Invergordon affair to get the sailors and soldiers to mutiny and to work them up, and those men afterwards gave evidence which was used against the men themselves. I think that was a mean and contemptible thing.
    As far as I can gather, the law in England is that political offenders are dealt with in the first division, but in Scotland the practice is slightly different, and it is for the Prison Commissioners to say whether a case is a political offence or not. If it is decided that a man is a political offender he can wear his own clothes, have his own bed and food sent in from outside, and a certain paper approved by the Governor can be sent to him. I ask that the men I have referred to should be treated as political offenders, because they are not criminals or blackmailers. Blackmailing has been looked upon by the judges as one of the worst crimes in the country, and yet blackmailers have not received sentences as long as some of the men to whom I have referred. Could not these men be treated as political offenders? Theirs is not a crime of personal gain, but is purely associated with a political movement. It was not even a movement like that of Ulster. Other men in this House have been associated with movements of a similar kind. In 1917 the Prime Minister, in the midst of the War, tried at Leeds to organise a soldiers' and sailors' council, and to get them to unite, but he was never touched. The Home Secretary's predecessor in the last Conservative Government, then Sir William Joynson-Hicks, now Lord Brent-ford, is a man whom I once described as the most stupid, honest man in this House. There was the general strike. If the strike was wrong, who was to blame? At the end of it he got justices taken off tale Bench. It was the poor people who followed that suffered. Lord Brentford gaoled the poor people who followed, and

    1147
    then he invited the General Council who led the strike to meet at Buckingham Palace.
    9.30 p.m.
    The Prime Minister in the midst of the War could attempt to organise a movement. Everybody knows he cannot resist making an appearance where he is a great man. He must be among the plaudits. He was not the only one. The Lord Privy Seal was there, too, and, worse still, Viscountess Snowden was there. It was a movement during the War which had for its purpose the usurpation of Parliament, the overthrowing of the Constitution and the setting up of a new form of Government. They occupy honourable places, but the poor man suffers. The Prime Minister sees them rot in gaol, and has not the decency to treat them as political offenders. That is contemptible conduct. I do not want to say anything unfair to the Home Secretary, but he belongs to a race that has given much to the world and this country. It is a race that has been tolerant, and has given us a good deal in the way of culture. You would have thought that, being of such a race, he might in this connection have extended, as many of his race have done before, clemency to the poor. He has very many benevolent thoughts and actions and so I ask the Home Secretary, if he cannot release these men—as a matter of fact he ought to let them out—whether he cannot treat them as political offenders? It is not being kept in prison that worries these men, for, after all, their standard of life is not much different. What worries them is that they have children, and they are wondering what is happening to their bairns outside. They have committed no criminal offence. If you cannot release them, treat them in accordance with that great heritage that Britain is supposed to have, namely, with toleration, such as other countries have not got.
    There is another matter I want to bring to the Home Secretary's notice. A meeting is to be held in London to-night under the auspices of the Workers' International Relief Committee. Two men were to take part in that. I must apologise for not knowing how to pronounce their names very well, but I have never posed as a foreign affairs expert, though I represent more nations than any other Member,
    1148
    as mine is a constituency composed of all nations. One of them is an author. I have read his books published at the end of the War. His name is Barbusse, and the other, a member of the German Reichstag, is Herr Munzenberg. One is a Communist and a member of the Reichstag, and the other the author of a well-known book. The right hon. Gentleman will not let them come in. Maybe the Home Secretary will say that it is a Communist meeting. I am not concerned about that. Why should not an Author and a member of the German Reichstag come over here and make an appeal for funds? Why should they not come and give their views? Am I to be told that while Communism is legally to be spoken of in this country, a meeting with fellow-Communists from abroad is to be illegal?
    It may be said that these men stand for the overthrow of the established order by unconstitutional means, though I think the right hon. Gentleman would have difficulty in proving his case. I would admire the Home Secretary if he were logical even in that. Hitler in Germany stands for the overthrow of the German regime, as we now know it, by violence and unconstitutional means. His lieutenant and first in command was over here a few months ago running about the whole country. Then in Spain there are the governing men, who, apparently, will take power by any means, and who are allowed to run about Britain. These two clean men, however, cannot get in, though ex-Royalty from Spain and rich men can come in. Such men are allowed to come across here and express their ideas and policy without the Home Secretary interfering. I hope the Home Secretary will not say, "Ah, but it was my predecessor who agreed to this kind of thing; it is his decision that I am adhering to." That may be, but please do not blame me for his predecessor. I am not accepting it from him, and I am sure that most of the Labour party in this House will not accept it. I never held myself responsible then for it, and am not doing so now. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if this had not been done by his predecessor, he would have done it were he starting the matter anew.
    I turn to the third issue that I want to raise, that of Dartmoor. I think we ought to have discussed the whole

    1149
    inquiry at Dartmoor much earlier than we have done. I am not suggesting that the slightest blame for that attaches to the official Opposition; I do not think they are to blame. There were other urgent subjects, such as unemployment, that must be tackled first, but I often wish that we could have had a day to discuss the question of Dartmoor and the last inquiry in connection with it. Why should not that inquiry have been held in public? It may be that this question is one concerning criminals, but it is a question of great concern to a large number of people in this country. The men who are being dealt with in Dartmoor may be bad men; it may be that their character is indefensible; but the worse they are—this may sound funny—the more defenceless they are, and, therefore, the greater is the need to see that you are fairer with them even than you would be with anyone else.
    This inquiry was held in private behind closed doors. Again this may appear funny, but I am deadly serious. The convicts had no representative. If an inquiry is held into, say, the conditions of labour, if there is an inquiry into anything, the men whose conditions are to be inquired into will be represented in some form or other. Why should not the convicts have been represented at this inquiry? After all, it was their conditions that were being inquired into; why had not they the right to have someone there, and why should the inquiry have been held in private? The report has been issued. I am not going into its details. The Sunday Press put it in better language than I could. It was a mixture of melodrama that might have put "East Lynne" to shame. There was nothing in it but melodrama, and on this report the Home Secretary brings prosecutions against the men. I should not be in order in discussing the prosecution, but I think I am in order in saying that it has been ordered by the Home Secretary. It would have been better for him and for everyone else concerned if, instead of taking this melodramatic action, he had not prosecuted them at all. There comes this morning the Press intimation that, according to the "Manchester Guardian," 46 convicts have been dealt with for certain alleged forms of uprising in Dartmoor. The "Daily Herald" makes it 50, and heads its paragraph:
    1150
    "Fifty Dartmoor Men put on Bread and Water.
    Nerve-racked Convicts talk of Suicide.
    Fifty men who took part in last Sunday's disturbance at Dartmoor have, it is understood, been put on bread and water."
    I do not know that men in prison are very different from men who are outside prison. The great difference, probably is some turn at the beginning of life. Someone got a chance, and others did not. I am in Parliament, and, when I look at fellows who are in prison, I feel that it would have been quite easy for me to get, not into this House, but into a prison cell. If I had not got in here, I should have had no job, and God knows where I should have been. It was only a twist that kept me from being in their position, and them from being in mine. It is useless and stupid to talk about their being bad. Take the case of murder. What usually constitutes murder? A sudden flash; the quickness of the mind; it is done, and he is there.
    These men behind prison doors, when they rebelled, had a reason for it. It is the same as in a trade dispute, when men strike. They may be wrong, but, depend upon it, they have a good reason. That reason may be shown to be wrong afterwards, but at the moment there is a reason. In the same way, when men in prison, under the restrictions of prison, rise and rise again, there is a reason, and there is more than ever a reason when, after all the discipline and all the suffering that they have to endure as a result of their previous actions, even while the prosecutions are pending they do it again. They have a reason for doing it; they do not do it just for fun. The Governor has been changed, and still the men are prepared to risk all. Some of them would sooner accept death as a way out.
    Why cannot the Home Secretary have a proper inquiry from the men? Why cannot he see what is wrong, and give the men every facility, with someone to represent them at a proper inquiry? Is he himself satisfied that the men are getting a fair and square deal? Why is there the difference between the men in Peterhead Prison and the men in Dartmoor? In both cases they are criminals, and yet up there there is quiet, and down here there is nothing but trouble. What is the cause of the trouble? Is it only

    1151
    the prisoner? If you like to do so, you can shove it all on to the prisoner, because he is defenceless and has few friends. I ask the Home Secretary: Is that straight? Is it honest? To sum up my three points, I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will release almost all the prisoners now in Invergordon, and, if he cannot meet us there, I ask that they should be treated as the Prime Minister would have been treated had he been put in prison during the War as a political offender. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to allow the eminent French author and the German Communist from the Reichstag to come and address his meetings and develop intercourse with those who hold his views in this country. Lastly, I ask him to see that the conditions of the men in Dartmoor—they may be felons, but they are still human—are improved and that the prosecution shall be withdrawn. While he may earn some criticism for doing that, in my view it would be the wise and courageous thing and future generations would thank him for his statesmanship and courage.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Some months ago I wrote to the Home Secretary on the subject of the suppression of meetings of the unemployed. I think a lot of the difficulty that has arisen in London is due to the fact that meetings have to a very large extent been suppressed near the exchanges. Holding meetings outside the exchanges was regarded as causing disorder and inconvenience to those inside. I think I suggested that places might be set apart near the exchanges where meetings could be held. I still think that, if you are going to prevent marches, and to prevent meetings at certain places and not provide others, you are bound to have resentment and trouble and difficulty. I do not take the view, strange as it may sound from my history, that the police can do other than lock people up who break the peace or attempt riot. The police must preserve order. But I think the authorities have another duty, to take every precaution to prevent disorder arising. This question of public meetings in the streets has been a subject of controversy ever since I was quite young, but nearly always a Liberal Minister, and certainly a Labour Minister, ought, it seems to me, to take the line that the meetings should be held so long as they
    1152
    cause no inconvenience. Knowing London as I do, and knowing most of the exchanges as I do, I think it is always possible to get a place near an exchange where meetings can be held. The Home Secretary ought to be glad to give facilities for people to air their grievances and to be addressed.
    I know I am open to be told that I was a Member of a Government that did not do the things I am going to ask for now. The very first thing that I took a hand in in the House was the question of the imprisonment of Tom Mann and two printers because of the printing of the "Don't Shoot" manifesto, and meetings held in support of it. A committee was formed to preserve the right of free speech. It was a committee of very prominent Liberals, as well as Socialists and strong individualists like my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). We took our stand on the principle that a constitutional Government such as ours ought to allow people to say what they like and not interfere with them unless they actually break the law. There was never a more seditious leaflet issued than the "Don't Shoot" manifesto, and no one did more to distribute it than I and my right hon. Friend and a gentleman whose name I forget now, but he was a leading Liberal and the Home Secretary would know him very well. We never got locked up, but the others did. We carried on the agitation, and in the end the then Liberal Government released the prisoners before the expiration of their sentence.
    I recall that because I want to go on to another agitation which the right hon. Gentleman knows a good deal about—the Suffrage agitation. Not one of these men that my hon. Friend has pleaded for has done anything worse than the lady whose statue is in the gardens outside here. The statue was unveiled, to his credit, by the Lord President of the Council. He made a very nice speech on that occasion and paid a great tribute to the lady for the services she had rendered and for her unselfish work on behalf of a, great cause. I know that, if anyone breaks the law, he must expect to be dealt with. I do not question that at all. I myself have been dealt with on one or two occasions. But I am certain that, if the Liberal Government had taken action against the Carsonite rebellion, the same demand would

    1153
    have been made that was made for the prisoners in the Jameson Raid, that they should be treated as political offenders. I want to support that for two or three reasons. The chief one is one's own experience. There is nothing so bitter or so horrible in a prison, however decently you are treated, as the loneliness of it. It is a terrible feeling that you are apart from everyone and that, in a way, you are denied all the ordinary privileges of life.
    The Home Secretary may say there is no such thing as a political prisoner. That was said to 33 of us in Brixton Prison. But Mr. Shortt, the then Home Secretary, broke through all the ordinary rules, and allowed the 33 Poplar prisoners, of whom I was one, for the six weeks that we were there, newspapers and a good many other privileges of association and so on. That was done without any Act of Parliament and without any new law or new regulation, just as the suffrage women received no end of advantages and privileges that ordinary prisoners did not get. We 33 were treated as people who were in prison. We had committed an offence, but it was recognised that our offence was one which had to do, as the hon. Member says, with something that was impersonal, and, from our point of view, for the good of the community. We obtained those privileges as far as the prison was concerned without any alteration of rules or alteration of the law in any way. Mr. Edward Shortt did it himself, and therefore I ask the Home Secretary to consider whether these are not cases, and especially those who are on penal servitude, where he should give some amelioration.
    None of us, I think, can, deny the truth of what the hon. Member has said, that, comparing crime with crime or offence with offence, the worst that can be said of the Communists is that they have on occasion made speeches which have led to breaches of the peace. Other people have committed offences which in my view are actually very much worse, and, as to the sentences, there is no comparison between them at all. I would beg of the right hon. Gentleman to let those men have some reading matter other than from the prison library, and to see that they have useful occupations, not merely in making mats or sewing mail bags, but so that they can use their brains and
    1154
    their hands and thus relieve the deadliness of prison life.
    10.0 p.m.
    Henri Barbusse is one of my friends, and I am not ashamed to stand here and say that in my judgment he is a fine man to have for a friend, and I count it an honour that I possess his friendship. I think, whoever did it, whether it was the Home Secretary or whoever was responsible, that it is a disgrace to this country that the man who wrote "Under Fire" and "Jesus" should be kept out of this country. Barbusse is one of the great figures in liberal Europe, and that he should have been denied admittance because apparently the Government are afraid that he might make a speech on Communism—I do not know that he is a Communist even—but that he should make a speech of which they might disapprove is, I think, something which is a little unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman. The member of the German Parliament, too, ought to have been allowed to come in. Surely we have not reached the point in this country when we are afraid of allowing people to make speeches upon subjects of which we happen to disapprove, and surely it cannot be that we are afraid of allowing even propaganda. I remember asking the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman, Lord Brentford, when he was Home Secretary: Is the advocacy of Communism illegal in this country? He said: "No, certainly not; anyone is at liberty to say and preach whatever doctrine he pleases, but we stop them short of action." That summarises what he said, and that is my position, and it is the position which ought to be taken up in regard to speakers coming from abroad. I do not wish to prevent other hon. Members from speaking and I should not have risen except that I feel that public meetings, certainly in London, ought to be encouraged by the Home Secretary rather than discouraged, and that if they are held at inconvenient places the authorities ought to try and find places less inconvenient.
    I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not say to us that there is no such thing as first-class imprisonment and first-class prisoners, or treatment for political offenders, because there is. There are 1,000 precedents for dealing

    1155
    with one set of prisoners differently from another set. Although this House may hate Communism, hon. Members must admit that many of the men and women who advocate Communism are as decent and as good as any of us in this House. It was because the House and the country recognise that the women who were advocating the suffrage and who did no end of illegal things and brought themselves within the clutches of the law were in earnest and were fighting for what they thought was a great cause, that all the privileges were granted to them during the agitation. That being so, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider these cases, and if he cannot release the prisoners that he will give them at least the treatment for which we are asking this evening.
    Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: The matters which have been raised place upon my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary a responsibility which I have no doubt he will hasten to discharge, and I beg his pardon for intervening for two minutes. I was not aware that these matters were to be raised, but I desire to say a word or two upon the second subject raised by my hon. Friend opposite. I confess that I was shocked this morning to read somewhere that M. Barbusse, and a member of the German Parliament, whom I do not know, had been refused admittance to this country. M. Barbusse I know as one of the most distinguished literary characters of the world, and I beg of my right hon. Friend, who has now resumed the office which he held some years ago with great distinction, not to accept responsibility in that office for any action which may bring the administration of justice in this land into disrepute. It really is a matter which will excite comment up and down this country and outside this country that a man of the distinction of Monsieur Barbusse should be refused admission to this land. Putting matters at their worst, supposing Monsieur Barbusse intended to address a, public meeting, even for the advocacy of Communism—a subject in which I have not the slightest interest and for which I have no respect—that exercise would be within the meaning of the law of England. If M. Barbusse proposed to
    1156
    do that, it would be no reason for interfering with his actions here.
    I would, with the greatest possible respect, because we are very old colleagues, ask my right hon. Friend to hesitate to refuse to allow this distinguished literary man to enter this Realm, except for reasons, substantial and compelling reasons, which can be placed before the House. As to the other matter, I have no knowledge of the Member of the German Parliament to whom reference has been made, but I would point out that many Members of this House belong to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, where we are in association with Members of Parliaments in all lands. The knowledge that a Member of any Parliament had been excluded from this Realm, is a matter which strikes me with astonishment. Therefore, in accordance with the traditions of this land and the traditions of this House, I hope that no action will be taken by the Home Office in respect of this Member of Parliament, or any other Member of Parliament, which is calculated to bring the administration of justice into disrespect and I hope to hear from my right hon. Friend either that the report is inaccurate or that there is in the possession of his Office information of a serious character which warrants this astonishing proceeding.
    Dr. O'DONOVAN: I think that something should be said from the level of a back bencher in defence of our police. They are men like unto ourselves, as respectable as ourselves, and it would be simply shocking if the newspapers tomorrow printed an attack upon the police, wholesale and savage, and no back bencher had said one word in their defence.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Who made the attack?
    Dr. O'DONOVAN: The attack upon the police is gross and, to me, offensive. We are told that it is their policy to club, arrest and baton. It should be said by those who have working class and poor constituents, and who meet the police daily, that those attacks find no echo in the heart of this House. When the Easter holiday is approaching there is no better season to appeal for clemency for those in prison. The lot of prisoners appeals to every human heart, but if one is to appeal to those who have the great

    1157
    responsibility of government, that appeal should not be embroidered in brimstone or written in words of sour disdain. It does not help the cause of clemency if we are told that the murderer is just as other men. It does not help the cause of clemency to be told of the anguishing need of those upon whom the country we hope has passed just judgment. An appeal for clemency can properly be made, but there must be no assumption that those who have been justly judged are perpetually dealt with afterwards, unjustly.
    I think the country has been shocked, not so much by the public proceedings that have followed the incidents at Dartmoor, but by the mental torture to which public servants have since been subjected at the public inquiry. Simple men who occupy the position of prison warders are not trained to stand with case and comfort suggestions that their impulses are bloody and that their actions are on the level of beasts. Although those of us who are trained to be cross-examined know that questions put are pure advocacy, we must recognise that for the working class to be cross-examined in that way is a serious mental torture. Our hearts should not bleed with pity only for convicts, but for those who make it their life's work and duty to look after their care and maintenance, as well as their imprisonment.
    We cannot advance the cause of the poor or the oppressed by the grossest of hypocrisy. When adjectives like "filth" are used and applied to one section of the community, common honesty makes us say that owing to the filthiness that is prevalent in humanity we have to spend thousands of pounds to keep going in England venereal centres which are not attended by the class that has been so unworthily attacked to-night:
    "The colonel's lady, and Judy O'Grady, Are sisters under their skins."
    but to suggest that the colonel's lady wears always scarlet stockings and that Judy O'Grady is always virtue, and virtue only, is to mislead the poor, who always need help and honest advice.
    I have been distressed to-night to hear such bad philosophy as to suggest that in England freedom of opinion should always be encouraged. That is a gross cruelty to those who follow out in action that line of thought. Expression of
    1158
    opinion is vanity and foolery if that expression of opinion when it has been translated into action is punished with imprisonment. To imprison and punish in that way is fool's philosophy. Opinion that is dangerous, opinion that is wrong, should, if government has any principles behind it, be first warned and then suppressed, and I was encouraged and refreshed to hear that the Home Secretary has issued orders to prevent the entry into England of opinion which if put into action must lead to deplorable scenes of public disorder. Let us be simple. Anyone can hold the opinion that bigamy is delightful, but if we put that opinion into practice His Majesty's judges take cognisance that we have put that opinion into practice. It is far better to warn our children that bigamy is not tolerated and to prevent its advocacy rather than that they should put that opinion into practice and that we should punish the poor bigamists afterwards. I agree that we cannot be logical. Perhaps the most disorderly gentleman in English history was Oliver Cromwell, and his statue is outside this House and not within it.
    The Leader of His Majesty's Opposition in this House has put it to us, quite seriously, that gentlemen should be let into England because they are his friends. I have "friends" in Claybury Asylum, but they are kept incarcerated. I have friends whom I love, but as to their faults I should be horrified if the world knew them. Friendship overleaps the bounds of harsh judgment, or judgment of any kind, but it is very terrible to me that from the Front Opposition Bench the Government should be appealed to to allow into this country friends of the right hon. Gentleman, as if friendship were the only passport to England's shores.
    Then it is suggested that a gentleman should be allowed to come into this country because of his literary distinction. Goodness! What awful stuff has been printed and what minds have been ruined by gentlemen of literary distinction. One of the most famous of murderers, Charles Peace, was a musician of distinction. He found his way to the gallows in spite of his artistic tendencies. Surely there are better claims for entering peaceful England than literary distinction, however eminent. I believe that those who reach a position in Government in England are neither trivial in their

    1159
    decisions nor irresponsible in what they do. Although I would add my voice in an appeal for clemency I would not attach to that appeal for clemency a sour and harsh denunciation of those who very humbly carry out the powers which Parliament puts into their hands.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir Herbert Samuel): The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) who initiated this discussion has spoken with his customary sincerity and power of appeal, although his speech seemed to me to be marred here and there by exaggeration, to which the hon. Member for Mile End (Dr. O'Donovan) has vigorously and forcibly drawn attention. His first and chief request was that certain offenders should be treated in prison as political offenders. I agree that the offences committed by them are not what might be called offences of degradation. They are not offences such as robbery or fraud, or wanton assault, but were committed in pursuance of what they conceived to be some public cause which demanded self sacrifice in one form or another. But the Prison Acts which I have to administer and outside of which I cannot go make it quite clear what classes of offences are to be regarded as political offences. The prisoners who have committed them may be confined in what is called the first division. They are offences of sedition or seditious libel. Those are the offences which come within the category ordinarily understood as political offences. The right hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Lansbury) was one who 11 years ago was the guest of my predecessor of that day. He and his colleagues were sentenced technically for contempt of court and came under what are known as the debtor rules. They were of the highest grade of respectability among prisoners, and under those rules it was within the discretion of the Home Secretary of that time to give them certain privileges. There were special circumstances also with regard to some, but by no means all, of those who committed offences during the suffragette agitation.
    But these other offences of disorder in the street or tumultous assembly, and still less offences such as those of inciting to mutiny, have never been regarded as
    1160
    political offences, and if I were once to single out prisoners who had been so convicted I should be setting a precedent which would be found in the future to be injurious to the public interest. When the hon. Member for Gorbals says that these people were suffering from a bitter sense of the injustice of their lot and were goaded into crime because they were not allowed to demonstrate the feelings they held, there I think he is in error, for no one is prosecuted or convicted in this country merely because he desires to exercise the rights of free speech or to express his grievances against the state of society or against his own particular misfortunes, provided that he does it in an orderly fashion and in places that do not involve obstruction or produce disorder.
    The hon. Member mentioned that a rule was made by the Commissioner of Police that such meetings were not to be held in the neighbourhood of the Employment Exchanges, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite supported that complaint. But it was found in practice that when, outside Employment Exchanges in some thoroughfare, persons came and held political meetings and delivered orations from some suitable eminence to the crowds there collected, it did give rise to obstruction and disorder and hampered the business of the Exchanges. Therefore, the Commissioner of Police, without any prompting from me but on his own initiative and in accordance with his duty to maintain order in the public thoroughfares, gave instructions that the police were not to permit meetings at these spots. But at the same time I announced publicly in the House that if applications were made to the police authorities for alternative sites at no great distance from those places, where meetings could be held without inconvenience, certainly the police would give every facility for gatherings of that character. My hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals did an injustice to the police in certain language that he used, and when he thinks it over in a calm hour possibly he may regret having said that the police never thought how they could facilitate an expression of the people's dissatisfaction, but thought only how they could stop demonstrations, how they could arrest and how they could club the people.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I am not denying what I said, but what I meant was that the police were acting under the instructions of the authorities. I did not place the responsibility on the individual police, but said that the authorities were the instructing body.
    Sir H. SAMUEL: The hon. Member has not correctly stated the facts, for if we consider what has been happening during this last most difficult winter, and the vast number of unemployment demonstrations that have been held in various parts of the country and in the Metropolis, if we consider how many of them have passed off quite peacefully, in how very few cases there have been conflicts between the police and the demonstrators, and how in each case it was because the demonstrators refused to conform to police instructions as to the route of procession, or attempted, contrary to the Standing Orders of this House, to penetrate in large bodies into Westminster Square or Palace Yard—if all that is taken into account the general feeling will be that the police throughout the country have acted with the greatest forbearance and tolerance, and have done their utmost to give full scope for the expression of public opinion and social views, while at the same time performing their primary duty of maintaining public order.
    Where action has had to be taken it has been where people have made trouble. Where people deliberately make trouble they must expect to get into it, and if the Home Secretary were to intervene and release the offenders, the effect of that would be—known as the action would be instantly throughout the country—to encourage large numbers of similar cases elsewhere. Instead of the demonstrators taking pains to conform to police instructions that they should carry on demonstrations in an orderly fashion, the number of conflicts with the police would probably be multiplied, if people thought that they would be immune from penalties. To condone one occasion of violence would be really to invite others. That would be no advantage to the State. As to the cases in Mardy in South Wales which the hon. Gentleman mentioned but did not dwell upon, I shall follow his example by not referring to them further. I only mention them in' order to demur to the word "negotiations" which he
    1162
    used. I have received representations from some hon. Members representing South Wales and I am advised that, in the first instance at all events, the right course would be to make an appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. That is the method provided by Parliament for securing reconsideration of sentences in the first instance. But while undertaking to give attention to these representations, it would be improper for me or any Home Secretary, as I am sure every hon. Member will agree, to enter into anything that could be called negotiations regarding the exercise of the Royal Prerogative.
    I come to the other cases mentioned by the hon. Member some of which were also referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley. They were cases which have arisen out of the Communist agitation. It is perfectly legitimate for those who hold Communist views to endeavour to persuade their fellow-countrymen to adopt that policy. They have a right to express their opinions, to publish their newspapers and leaflets, to stand for Parliament and to advocate their policy by such means as are generally open, in this land of free speech, to all citizens, provided that they do not advocate or assist in carrying out measures of disorder and tumult or any other definite offence against the law. That rule has been freely followed. Many of them have, as we know endeavoured to carry through their policy by standing for Parliament and advocating it at the polls. There were at the last Election, 26 Communist candidates and the opinion of the nation was shown by the fact that 21 of these lost their deposits, that none of them was elected, and that in an electorate of 30,000,000 voters they only obtained some 75,000 votes.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: May I submit that the right hon. Gentleman is about the last person who should make that remark because it is only a year or two since the Liberals in this House were not much more in numbers and—I say it quite seriously—were sneered at in the most offensive fashion. May I say, further, in regard to the great Labour party, that it is not so many years ago since Keir Hardie was a lonesome figure here. That is no argument.
    Sir H. SAMUEL: I am not sneering. I am only pointing out the fact that

    1163
    people hero have an opportunity to propound particular creeds, no matter how extreme they may be and it is left to the judgment of the electorate to decide what their fate shall be. Some of us may have suffered from those judgments when they have been adverse; perhaps the hon. Member and his friends on some occasions may have in the past endured, and, presumably, in the future may endure, the same fate.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: We are enduring it now.
    10.30 p.m.
    Sir H. SAMUEL: But I should be very sorry that it should be imagined that I sneered at or derided anyone. Since the War, with regard to the Communist movement there is a new situation. There is, as all the world knows, a definite political force at work in very many countries, organised and subsidised from a centre. Its ultimate motive may possibly be to improve the lot of the poorest classes throughout the world, but it seeks that end, if that be its end, by promoting immediate troubles, by methods of strife and by endeavouring to bring about a cataclysm. Against that, the nations must protect themselves, for this movement is not native and spontaneous in each country but is promoted from elsewhere and, as all the world knows, is maintained by subsidies. The hon. Member for Gorbals mentioned that in his view certain parties in Germany were also advocating a form of revolution. If that were the case and they extended their activities over the international scale and sent emissaries here and there to foment revolutions, then those emissaries would have to be treated in exactly the same way as those who are stopped from entering this country for similar reasons.
    As to the two gentlemen who were to have spoken at a meeting here this evening, and who have been prevented from entering this country, both of them are connected with these international propagandist organisations. Herr Munzenberg is the leading spirit of an organisation called the Workers' International Relief Organisation, which, although it has an apparently innocuous name, is one of that great network of international Communist organisations of which the world is well aware. He has been already expelled on account of these activities
    1164
    from Sweden, Switzerland, and Austria. He is also an active member of another league, which is of so extreme a character that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) was expelled from it. As long ago as 1922 he was on the list of persons who were for those reasons prohibited from entering this country. I did not place him on that list; he was there, and indeed my predecessor refused to remove him from it, and the question that I had to answer was whether I should remove that ban in order to enable him to come to England, in order ostensibly to address a meeting in favour of international peace, with the strange slogan on its handbills of "Hands off China!" with the possibility, indeed the probability, that while here he would engage in very many other activities.
    The other gentleman is Monsieur Barbusse, who, undoubtedly, is a person of great literary distinction, but who is also connected with this form of propaganda. He was coming to England, not as a writer, in which capacity he would have been very welcome, but as a propagandist. He has been also on the list of persons to be excluded since December, 1924, and again in this case it seems that there was no reason for lifting this ban. If this international movement did not exist, if this dangerous propaganda had stopped, if conditions had become normal, then indeed such bans as these might be lifted, but that time, I fear, is not yet.
    The members of these organisations, having failed by political means in this country to secure the support of the electorate, having failed also to secure their ends by fomenting industrial disturbances, as they have endeavoured to do from time to time, have now avowedly—there is no secret about it—endeavoured to seduce from their allegiance, if they could manage to do so, the armed Forces of the Crown. That is deeply resented throughout those Forces, but none the less the State has to take proper action to prevent the Army, the Navy and the Air Force being subjected to these subversive influences; and on various occasions persons have been detected, have been fairly tried, have been clearly convicted of carrying on measures of that kind, of endeavouring to seduce individual soldiers or sailors and to make them into similar propagandists

    1165
    among the rank and file of the Army and naval ratings, and have been sentenced to imprisonment. That is not a legitimate form of political propaganda. They cannot be treated in any sense as political offenders. So grave is that offence that Parliament has enacted that the maximum penalty for it is penal servitude for life. Such sentences, of course, have not been imposed. Sentences have been far more moderate than that, but the State must make it perfectly clear that activities of that kind cannot in any circumstances be tolerated and will be sternly repressed. So I must frankly tell the House that I cannot consider for a moment any measures of leniency for those who engage in that particular form of activity.
    Lastly, the hon. Member for Gorbals referred to the occurrences at Dartmoor. He complained that the inquiry that was held by Mr. du Parcq, now Mr. Justice du Parcq, was held in private, and suggested that it should have been in public with legal assistance for those who were in prison at Dartmoor. That inquiry, however, was in no sense a trial of anyone, and my hon. Friend from the beginning has misunderstood its purpose. That, inquiry was administrative; it was ordered by myself as responsible for the administration of prisons in order that I should be informed and, through publication, that the whole country should be informed what were the actual facts of those lamentable occurrences that took place ire January. No one was charged through that inquiry; it was in no sense a trial of any individual. Subsequently, it was necessary, of course, to take action and to penalise those who had taken part in those grave disturbances. Therefore, I took the very action which the hon. Member desired, so that what was done should be done with full publicity, and that the prisoners impugned and charged with serious offences and liable to serious penalties, should have legal defence available for them. But the hon. Member says that it would have been far better if they had not had any trial at all. So I am wrong in all ways. If an administrative inquiry is held in the prison, that is wrong; and if there is a public trial before a judge and jury, as there will be, with counsel allotted to the prisoners at public expense if necessary, in order that their case may be fully presented and fairly heard, my hon. Friend condemns that policy also.
    1166
    I feel sure that the course taken is the right one; that the light of publicity should be thrown on these events; that the prisoners should have the opportunity of defending themselves before their fellow citizens; and that any penalty of a serious character which is imposed should be imposed by a judge after the verdict of a jury and after a full trial, rather than that ordinary disciplinary methods should be taken behind closed doors by the prison authorities. The hon. Member complains of methods that have been adopted in the prison at Dartmoor—I think he said to-day—owing to occurrences that took place on Sunday. That occurrence was not of a very serious character. A small group of the men refused at one time to return to their cells, and the governor had to be sent for. He ordered them to go back to their cells, which they did without any disturbance. There was no violence of any sort. At first they resisted orders, but afterwards obeyed them. But an occurrence of that kind could not be passed over, and consequently the governor, within the very moderate limits which are allowed by the prison rules, had to take disciplinary action. The hon. Member objects to the fact that this disciplinary action took the form of confinement with low diet, bread and water. That penalty is permitted by the prison rules, but only for a period not longer than three days.
    If some penalty has to be imposed, of what kind should it be 7 In the old days all those men would have been flogged, which action would be permitted if the Board of Prison Visitors ordered it, but now such a penalty would not be enforced for an offence of that character. This ordinary, mild, dietary punishment for a short period of three days is the one provided by the prison rules, and it is very difficult to find any alter-native, which is not brutal or inhumane, which would mark the fact that a prisoner has committed an offence against discipline. I am sure the House will realise that when there are 400 men, some of them convicted of crimes of violence, almost all of them recidivists who have been in prison more than once, and all sentenced to fairly long terms of imprisonment—at least three years' penal servitude—it is no easy matter to maintain proper discipline, particularly when public opinion will not allow any of the severe punishments which used to be in vogue

    1167
    in earlier times. We must protect the governors and the warders of our prisons in the administration of the very difficult task that devolves upon them.
    As to the matters which are now sub judice, of course no one in this House can speak. The trial will take place and those matters will be further investigated. As for the maintenance of discipline in the prison meanwhile, the accounts of disturbances which have been printed in the Press have been most grossly exaggerated. The prison has been quiet now for a long time past, and offences such as that which took place on Sunday have been practically non-existent since the serious outbreak of 24th January, but in the maintenance of discipline, as I say, authority must be supported. The Home Secretary of the day, whoever he may be, has more disagreeable duties to perform than, I think, any other member of the Government—many duties unpleasant, many stern, sometimes even grim, but someone has to perform them in the national interest; but whoever the Home Secretary of the day may be, I feel sure that if those duties are performed conscientiously, but with fairness, coupled with restraint, and, where possible, with sympathy, he will always have the support of the House of Commons.
    Mr. MAXTON: It is an extraordinary paradox of British political life that Liberal Home Secretaries always seem to be the Home Secretaries who insist on carrying out to the last letter of their official duty the imposition of restrictions on liberty. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition referred to instances of modification of prison treatment made by Conservative Home Secretaries. My hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) referred to concessions in the way of kindlier treatment made by Lord Brentford when Home Secretary. To-night we have got from a Liberal Home Secretary a complete non possumus on everyone of the three points brought forward by the hon. Member for Gorbals. He stands on the strict letter of his duty, and in the doing of it he makes the assertion, presumably of Liberal thought, that political offenders in this country are to be treated precisely after the manner of the foulest criminal who happens to come within his grip.
    1168
    That is his proposition. He will not case that discipline by one jot or tittle. It is interesting to know, in view of democracy, that no one will be permitted to come into this country from foreign lands who may conceivably speak of our free democracy, of our methods of governmental and political action other than those to which we are accustomed, and which produced only 75,000 votes at the General Election. The people are supposed to be so feeble-minded, so easily influenced, so easily swayed, that if two distinguished foreigners come here and talk about Communist theories, of which we have heard before, they will be contaminated. Herr Munzenberg, the German delegate, cannot speak a word of English and M. Barbusse has about as much English at his command as the Leader of the Opposition has command of French.
    It is assumed that these two men can upset the whole balance of our body politic. That may be good Home Secretaryship, but it is not good Liberalism, and it is far from being good democracy. It is not right, it is not a fair game, as the hon. Member for Gorbals has pointed out, that wealthy people can pour into this country from any corner of the globe and propound any political or social doctrine they please without interference. In the case of the Fascist organisation, no steps have been taken by this or any other Home Secretary to prevent their meetings taking place. Here is something which appeared in last night's paper which raises a question of taste as well as decency. It reads:
    "The latest exploit of the Free Trade Liberal Ministers is causing fresh comment at Westminster. They are parties to an invitation which is bringing to London the representatives of 12 nations to hold a Free Trade demonstration a fortnight before the Budget. The date of the Conference is 1st April, but Sir Herbert Samuel, Sir Donald Maclean, and Sir Archibald Sinclair will not be there. Lord Snowden, who is also on the invitation committee will attend. Mr. Lloyd George is not on the invitation committee, nor has he been invited to be present at the Conference. There was no intention to attack the Government. On the contrary several Ministers including Sir Herbert Samuel, Sir Donald Maclean, Sir Archibald Sinclair and Lord Snowden are on the invitation committee … There is to be a dinner on 31st March, tickets, 10s. 6d."—
    I do not know whether the Home Secretary is to be present—

    1169
    "On 1st April, there will be a conference lasting all day. There will be delegates from Germany, France, Norway, Sweden, Holland, Denmark, the United States, Argentina, Belgium and Austria, etc. No definite resolutions are to be moved … The foreigners, however, will be able to see at least a junior Liberal Minister. Mr. Harcourt Johnstone, one of the Samuel Whips is going."
    The hon. Member for Mile End (Dr. O'Donovan) criticised the Leader of the Opposition on the ground that we must not allow personal friendships to decide political questions. I want to say the same thing to the Home Secretary. These distinguished delegates who are coming from Germany, France, Norway and Sweden, his personal friends presumably, are coming to attend this Liberal Free Trade demonstration which I am sure must be very obnoxious to the Government of the day and of an international nature. Is there going to be any difficulty about the passports of his guests? Conservatives of the extreme order may have their Hitlerite friends over here and Fascist friends from Italy and the Royalist counter-revolutionaries from Spain and Portugal, but if they are working people who wish to discuss their political problems with men from other countries of a similar tendency, then the Home Secretary says, "No, it is too dangerous." That is not fair play. It is not democracy, and it is not decent or gentlemanly. I think a Free Trade demonstration within the next few weeks, and particularly just before the introduction of the first Budget of a Protectionist nation, is entirely out of place. It is bringing foreign nations in to interfere with the internal policy of this country. The Home Secretary may say, "Ah, but they are not going to advocate revolution." He does not know. Most of the dastardly things done in the political life of Europe, including the late War, have been done by Liberal statesmen with all the highest moral reasons for doing them, and always protesting that never, never under any pretext would they resort to the use of violence. Then they go to war, and there is violence all over the place.
    I do not know what may be the result of the coming together of all sorts of freak politicians from the various European countries, but I am prepared to allow them to come together and talk, because I believe in freedom of thought,
    1170
    because I believe in freedom of speech, because I believe that, if people are given an opportunity for the free exchange of free opinions, they will, in the main, come to intelligent and reasonable decisions. I am asking the Home Secretary to apply that principle even to people whose political views are obnoxious to himself, as he seems to apply it to his own personal political friends.
    Certain strictures were passed upon my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals over the Dartmoor matter, but my hon. Friend did not raise the question of the trial, or make any comment upon the work of the warders, except to say in passing that it was out of order to discuss in this House a matter which was presently sub judice. That was all the reference that he made to it; so that the criticisms of the hon. Member for Mile End were beside the point. My hon. Friend made the point that only in Dartmoor has there been trouble. Even supposing that the echoes of Dartmoor must have got into every other prison in Britain, there has been no disturbance in any of these. I do not believe that the trouble in Dartmoor arises because the prisoners in Dartmoor are worse than those in any other prison in Great Britain. They are exactly the same types as are in Peterhead. You have to find the cause of that trouble, not in the characters of individual prisoners, but in something about the administration of that prison at the beginning.
    My hon. Friend did not ask impossible things of the Home Secretary. He asked that, instead of having two inquiries—a private inquiry at which there was no possibility of the prisoners' case being put, and then a public trial of a selection of prisoners, selected by whom we do not know—he asked that, instead of that, there should be one public inquiry that would have been aimed, not at getting victims, for the Home Secretary used an argument which seemed to indicate that probably what he wanted were examples, but a public inquiry that would probe to the causes of the trouble; that we should not look for victims at all, but, having found the causes, should provide the appropriate remedy.
    11.0 p.m.
    As regards the question of reduction of sentences, it is all very well to say kind words about the police. The Home Sec-

    1171
    retary pays tribute to the police because in only one or two parts of the country have clashes arisen between the police and the unemployed. But are we not just as much entitled to place the credit of that to the unemployed as to the police? I know that in the Glasgow trouble—for which, of course, the right hon. Gentleman has no responsibility—in the one case of which we know intimately, and where I sat in court and listened to the trial, it was only after three or four great peaceful demonstrations had taken place, and after the police had adopted a truculent and bullying attitude towards the crowd, that a disturbance took place, and it was only then that people were brought into court. Then we have the case cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals, of a young person in Battersea who, resisting arrest, made a bit of a struggle with the police, as 99 out of 100 of us would do. The first thing any citizen, however law abiding, would do when a policeman put his arm upon him, would be to shake him off. I do not care who he is. This man resisted arrest and he is sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment. The Home Secretary says that this is the ordinary procedure of the law and that it is right. The man can have neither reduction of sentence nor decent treatment in gaol. I hope that the Home Secretary will take note of the representations that have been made here publicly and also those made to him privately to reconsider the three issues which we put before him with a view to bringing something like leniency and decency into these operations, particularly with regard to the more extreme political offenders.
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: As one who joined in the representations to the Home Secretary, I rise simply to confirm the statement made by him regarding the Mardy case. My colleagues from South Wales who are not present would wish me to say that we did not regard our conversations with the Home Secretary as negotiations on the matter submitted to him.
    I would like to say one or two things about other matters and would like the Home Secretary to be very careful in regard to representations made from his
    1172
    own side. The hon. Member for Mile End (Dr. O'Donovan) who appears to have been so unfortunate in his friends, so displeased with his literary indulgences, and so disappointed with philosophy, appears to have a grudge against the whole world. We sympathise with him but we hope the Home Secretary will not be unduly influenced by speeches of that kind made by his own supporters. The hon. Member is a Celt, like myself. Let us hope that in the days immediately ahead of us a great deal of toleration will be given to that nation and individuals of that nation.
    Dr. O'DONOVAN: I should like to express my complete disavowal of any connection between the struggle of Ireland for freedom and the Communist movement.
    Mr. GRENFELL: The hon. Member has a grudge against Communism, as a good many people had against the Fenian movement. I believe there is a political disease in Europe arising partly out of an economic disease which is expressing itself in every European country. Never before has Europe been so torn with political difficulties as at present. Henri Barbusse is a great champion of liberty and, whether he is connected directly with the Communist movement or not, he is known as a member of the League of the Rights of Humanity, which is supposed to be connected with the Communist movement. Nobody denies that the League has done very useful work. I have read his exposure of the conditions in certain European States where no Britisher could stand by unsympathetically and witness the hardships imposed upon people of the very highest character.
    If they are guilty of any crime at all, they are guilty of political crime in the highest sense of the word. I hope that we shall not make a mistake in excluding these men. There is another highly distinguished German—Einstein. He is perhaps the most brilliant man of this generation in the world. Einstein has been connected with the same league, and he is doing exactly the same kind of work as Henri Barbusse is doing on the occasions when he goes away from his country. I believe that the Home Secretary is Liberal enough, and will remain Liberal enough, to have regard to the very serious difficulties and complexities of European politics at the present time

    1173
    and that he will in this country provide asylum for men who may require asylum. I hope that Henri Barbusse will find his way into this country, and that the ban placed upon him in December, 1924, by a Tory Home Secretary will once more be raised. He is doing good work, good humanitarian work, and it will redound to the credit of this country if he is allowed to enter.
    Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

    GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 AND 1929.
    Resolved,
    "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade
    1174
    under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Harrogate Gas Company, which was presented on the 8th day of March and published, be approved."
    Resolved,
    "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Nantwich Urban District Council, which was presented on the 8th day of March and published, be approved."—[Mr. Bore-Belisha.]
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

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

UNEMPLOYMENT.
  TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS.
  TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS.
  OLDHAM.
  OLDHAM.
  CARNARVONSHIRE.
  CARNARVONSHIRE.
  ANOMALIES REGULATIONS.
  ANOMALIES REGULATIONS.
  INDIA (ARREST, MADRAS).
  INDIA (ARREST, MADRAS).
  POSTAL AND TELEPHONE SERVICES, DURNFORD.
  POSTAL AND TELEPHONE SERVICES, DURNFORD.
  RAIL AND ROAD CONFERENCE (REPRESENTATIVES).
  RAIL AND ROAD CONFERENCE (REPRESENTATIVES).
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  ALIENS ORDER (MR. KUMBLEBEN).
  ALIENS ORDER (MR. KUMBLEBEN).
NATIONAL FINANCE.
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
  BEER DUTY.
  BEER DUTY.
  MANCHURIA.
  MANCHURIA.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The VISCOUNT MERSEY on the Woolsack.
ROCHDALE CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
WALTHAMSTOW CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
TANGANYIKA AND BRITISH HONDURAS LOANS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
NANTWICH GAS ORDER, 1932.

  HARROGATE GAS ORDER, 1932.
  LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing on the Paper in my name.
  Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

EAST AFRICA.
LORD OLIVIER LORD OLIVIER rose to call attention to certain recommendations made in the Report of the recent Joint Select Committee of Parliament on Closer Union in East Africa; to enquire what action has been taken or is contemplated by His Majesty's Government in connection with those recommendations, and especially with regard to native interests in land; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Report of the Joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament on Closer Union in East Africa is so important a
1000
document and, in view of its practical unanimity, so authoritative, and moreover the body of evidence given in the Appendices, which obviously determined the findings of that Committee, is so illuminating, that I think your Lordships will be glad to have from the Government a statement rather fuller than has yet been given as to how far they have been able to proceed in pursuance of the recommendations of that Committee. A few weeks ago we had a very interesting discussion on the action taken by the Government on one of the principal recommendations—namely, the Mission of Lord Moyne to Kenya to enquire into questions of taxation and finance, in respect of which the action taken by the Government manifestly gave much satisfaction to all members of your Lordships House. In another place a very brief statement was made by the Secretary of State regarding the action taken by the Government, but I wish to ask the Government to-day to give us a little fuller statement, especially with regard to the recommendations of the Committee which will be found in Paragraphs 105 and 106 of their Report.
First of all I should like to ask what the Government have been able to do in the direction of the unification of transport and Customs. A very brief statement will be quite sufficient. Further, as to what they have been able to do to carry out the recommendations of the Committee in regard to certain matters which were pressed upon their sympathetic consideration relating to the Registration Ordinance, the cultivation by natives of coffee and other export crops, the hut and poll tax, the problems arising from the use of cattle as currency, and the development of educational, agricultural and veterinary services in the reserves, I do not suppose the Government will be able to say anything very definite, except perhaps a general indication that they have taken action in the matter so that the Government may be better informed.
Thirdly and principally I desire to ask for information as to what has been done with regard to Paragraph 105, subsection (ii) of the recommendations, which runs as follows:
"In view of the nervousness among the native population as regards the land question, a full and authoritative inquiry should be undertaken immediately into the needs of

1001
the native population, present and prospective with respect to land within or without the reserves, held either on tribal or on individual tenure. Pending the conclusion of this inquiry, no further alienation of Crown land to non-natives should take place except in exceptional cases with the sanction of the Secretary of State."
I wish, my Lords, to deal with some points arising especially in regard to the Colony of Kenya, but I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Lugard, is going to deal for our benefit with the very far-reaching question, which underlies the whole of our action in Kenya and elsewhere, of the relations between the Crown and the natives of Africa and the various Orders-in-Council or judgments with regard to their land rights. That is a position which I have several times, in my humble and unlearned way, tried to bring before this, House in regard to Kenya and other parts of Africa, and I am very glad we shall have an opportunity of bringing the matter before the House at the present time.
In connection with the question of land tenure, I want to make some observations on the first sentence in Paragraph 106 of the Report, which states:
"While the evidence was conclusive that no forced labour is employed by European settlers, or for the purposes of private enterprise, it is not denied that forced labour is occasionally made use of in all three territories on Government work, and further that on still rarer occasions such labour is unpaid."
I shall have to raise some questions on that finding of the Committee—namely, "that no forced labour is employed by European settlers," as a sort of corollary to what I am going specially to discuss. Regarding Kenya I wish to quote from the Ormsby-Gore East Africa Commission's Report, which states on page 28:
"The legal position appears to be that no individual native and no native tribe as a whole has any right to land in the Colony which can be recognised by the Courts."
That of course is strictly in accordance with the superb judgment by Lord Summer on the British South Africa Company and the Crown in regard to the ownership of land in Southern Rhodesia. I call it superb because it sticks in one's memory.
The noble Viscount said it was perfectly clear that whoever had any rights in chese lands the land did not belong to the natives. That is a phrase which sticks in one's memory and is a very curious basis for our dealings with native
1002
rights in Africa. I shall deal with the paradox of the position later, but the Ormsby-Gore Report proceeds:
"This position is summarised in an often quoted extract from a decision of the Kenya High Court in a Kikuyu land case in 1921."
This is the judgment:
"In my view the effect of the Crown Lands Ordinance, 1915, and the Kenya (Annexation) Order in Council, 1920, by which no native rights were reserved and the Kenya Colony Order in Council, 1921, as I have already stated, is, clearly, inter alia, to vest land reserved for the use of the native tribe in the Crown. If that be so, then all native rights in such reserved land, whatever they were under the Gathaka system, disappeared, and the natives in occupation of such Crown land became tenants at will of the Crown of the land actually occupied."
The Ormsby-Gore Commission says:
"This judgment is now widely known to Africans in Kenya, and it has become clear to them that, without their being previously informed or consulted, their rights in their tribal land, whether communal or individual, have 'disappeared' in law and have been superseded by the rights of the Crown.
"It is true that the Kenya Government cannot alienate land from a native reserve without the previous sanction of the Secretary of State for the Colony, but for various reasons we are doubtful whether in the past this has provided adequate security."
Now, my Lords, with regard to the fundamental provision I am going to appeal to Lord Lugard, who had himself originally made the treaties with these native tribes, as to whether there was any understanding or not on their part that they were to be deprived of their land rights by the treaties made, or under the Protectorate afterwards extended when the East African Protectorate was made, because, as I shall show your Lordships later, the fundamental grievance of the natives is that they never surrendered their land rights and regard it as usurpation on the part of the British Government that it should be assumed they had done so. This position was put in a somewhat clearer form by Sir E. Hilton Young in the Chairman's Report on the Central African Territories. He said:
"With regard to land, for example, the areas in which white settlement is to be permitted and what areas should be definitely reserved for permanent occupation by the natives are matters of fundamental importance which should not be decided for one territory without reference to the others. The land question is complicated both in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland by the presence of large concessions owned

1003
by the British South Africa Company and other British corporations, the British South Africa Company holding 2,775,260 acres in North Nyasaland and 2,758,400 acres in the Tanganyika district of Northern Rhodesia, and the North Charterland Exploration Company 6,400,000 acres in the East Luangwa district of Northern Rhodesia."
Seeing that the Joint Select Committee dealt with the whole question of East Africa, I hope that any inquiry will also cover the native rights in the other parts of East Africa to which I have referred. Sir Edward Hilton Young proceeds:
"On such estates in both Protectorates there arises the difficult problem of dealing with the rights of resident natives—a matter which should be decided on uniform principles, the main object being to secure the title of the natives to the land in the reserves and to give them as firm a right of occupancy as possible in the areas covered by the concessions."
I would like to know whether any action has been taken by the Colonial Office upon that recommendation of the Hilton Young Commission, now about three years old.
The point of the matter which I am raising is rubbed in by the representation made by the Kikuyu Native Association to the Ormsby-Gore Commission in 1924, in these terms:
"When the white man first came we did not understand that we were to be deprived of any of our land, nor that they had really come to stay. A small piece of land here and there was sold to a few of the first pioneers and to one or two missions voluntarily by its owners in the time of the Imperial British East Africa Company. When the British Government took over the administration of the country we were still unaware that our possession of the hind would be questioned or challenged.
"Then from about the year 1902 increasing numbers of white men arrived and portions of the land began to be given out to them for farms, until large areas in Kyambu, Limoru, Kikuyu, Mbagathi, about Nairobi and at Nyeri and beyond had been disposed of in this way. These lands were not bought from their Kikuyu owners, and any compensation they received for land actually under cultivation only, and that at an extremely small rate per acre, was quite inadequate. The natives on them had either to become squatters on what had been their own land or else move off. Many of them to-day are squatters on up-country European estates and many have become wanderers moving from one estate to another."
Very shortly after that Report was published, I raised the point in this House, and I asked about these people whose land had been taken away from them
1004
through alienation to European settlers. I was put off by such answers as that there were no natives in the places settled, because the Masai had cleared them all off. I have never been able to get anything more definite than that statement at that time. It was sometimes said that no natives were there because of severe drought. I raised the question as early as 1925, and asked the Government what they were going to do about it. I raised the same question again when the Rhodesian Land Commission reported. I asked the Government: What are you going to do about the natives who used to have land on the farms granted to British settlers, and whom the Crown are now charging rent for holdings which were formerly their own freeholds? I never got any satisfactory answer. There the matter rested until about three years ago, 1928 or 1929, when I raised the question again in this House, and I again got no satisfactory answer because Lord Lovat, who was answering for the Colonial Office, had not been briefed upon the subject, and simply stated generally that he had the assurance of the Governor of Kenya that full provision was made for all the needs of the natives, present and future, in the Colonies. I had to be content that that covered what he called the needs, and I called the claims, of the natives, but it did not satisfy me. I had, however, no further evidence to go on.
One of the results of this Select Committee, and of closer investigation made by the Government of Kenya into native land rights, is that we have very strong evidence fully supporting all the claims made since 1924 of the stealing away of native lands and granting them to Europeans. That is the point that I wish to bring to a head and to ask the Government what they are going to do about it. Some part of the extracts of evidence I will read to your Lordships. There is a very valuable and useful Report drawn up under the directions of the Kenya Government on native land tenure in Kikuyu and Kavirondo. They are very useful documents and show an elaborate and very reasonable and complete system of law, with regard to which the Commissioners themselves say:
"Throughout the Kikuyu province it is a common thing to find individuals cultivating and sometimes living on land belonging to another clan or sub-clan. This is more

1005
common in the Kiambu district than elsewhere by reason of the fact that there are a great many individuals who once were members of land-owning sub-clans but whose whole holdngs of land (secured by native law) were alienated to Europeans and who could not acquire new holdings since they could not move on beyond the reserve boundaries into unoccupied forest land."
I will read a further paragraph, Paragraph 58:
"There are far more men in one particular district, the Kiambu district, occupying permissively and without native right, land on the holdings of other men who have a, tribal right because a very large number of native holdings were alienated to Europeans in the days before reserve boundaries were fixed, and then a great many natives who had rights on the holding of their clan on the land alienated suddenly found themselves homeless and with no land which they could cultivate in their own right."
So that it is perfectly clear that neither the drought nor the Masai have entirely cleared these, districts. Paragraph 24 says that within, the present boundaries of the native reserves overcrowding has been caused, and the disturbance caused by European settlement has undoubtedly increased the difficulty. Some clans claim that the whole of their holdings were lost to them by being alienated by Government to the settlers.
It appears from these very interesting Report's that, natives dispossessed from their property in their own clan holdings, which are their own individual or family property, cannot acquire, or have very great difficulty in acquiring, similar rights in the holdings of any other clan or sub-clan. They can only get land to cultivate on sufferance and as a favour. They are called Ahoi, which is the plural of Muhoi A Muhoi means an "asker"—one who comes to another and asks permission to cultivate part of his land, and obtains it purely on the basis of friendship. The negotiation begins quite in the manner of civilised communities on the basis of standing a drink. The Muhoi takes beer to the man whom lie wishes to ask for such permission; the latter, if agreeable, consults the other elders of his clan or sib-clan, and if they consent ho shows the Muhoi whore to cultivate. Very often a man Cannot get sufficient land space for his cultivation from one individual, but becomes the Muhoi of several people concurrently.
He cannot acquire any higher right by purchase unless it is offered to him. It is
1006
a great, insult to offer a native proprietor to buy land of him, even if he is a member of the same clan. Presumably such an offer would be held to indicate a suggestion that the landowner was hard up. We can remember when it was considered a breach of good manners on the part of wealthy Americans to offer money to the proprietor of an ancient English estate. The Kikuyu has still that primitive notion of etiquette.
In early days, however, the Report says, a Muhoi could generally, when he was rich enough, manage to find a willing seller. Nowadays, however, there are fewer offers to sell land, and so Ahoi tend to stay on indefinitely as such. A Muhoi cannot build on the land allowed him for cultivation without special permission, which requires the consent of the clan or sub-clan. Further, in the Dagoretti district and in the neighbouring Kiambu districts thousands of Kikuyan families were dispossessed by the grant of their lands to Europeans, and it is now impossible for them to obtain by purchase lands for cultivation or for building houses for themselves elsewhere. That is very much more substantial evidence—it is an absolutely irrefutable statement—of the grievances which I have been trying to bring before your Lordships for many years than I have ever had before, and I feel sure that such important statements as were brought before the Joint Select Committee must have impressed them when they made that recommndation that a very thorough and searching inquiry should be made into the adequacy of land provided for natives.
Now I go further and I say a memorandum has been submitted to the Colonial Office by the Kikuyu Central Association. I have it here. A list has been compiled of the number of persons who have been expropriated from land in Kenya alienated to Europeans. I would only say that this list has been drawn up with a view to substantiating the general statements made. This list specifies eighty-two distinct expropriations of clan holdings, which are named, affecting 7,832 individuals and their families in different settlements, and a total area of 88,746 acres. That is a document which surely must be enquired into in connection with the land inquiry. I am not prepared to say that some of the statements may not be exaggerated, but

1007
they cannot be exaggerated to any degree that would leave the residuum of truth entirely negligible. I simply refer to that statement, which I know has been put in, and part of the correspondence which I shall ask for is any Report which has been received from the Government of Kenya upon it. I do not ask for it today, but that is one of the Papers that I move formally for, and I hope that at some time it will be laid, because that will be a very crucial demonstration.
I wish to quote some part of the evidence given before the Joint Select Committee. Canon Leakey, speaking of the squatters who have been evicted, entirely supports the statement I have been making. He says (page 251):
"Neither can these squatters be told to go back to where they came from. You cannot 'go back' to a place you have never been in before; yet we hear on all sides 'they can go back to the reserves.'"
He tells the Commission that they do not come from the reserves; they come from Europeans' lands. Then he says:
"It seems to me absolutely imperative that before any more land is alienated to whites—"
and this is a point which the Committee took—
"large portions of Crown land should be set apart for the squatters who will most certainly want to come back to non-European owned land, if not for themselves, probably for their children."
One of the recommendations of the Committee was that no further alienations should be made. I see already in the East African Standard that a motion is to be moved at the Convention of Associations strongly protesting against any such policy, and saying it is ridiculous to raise the question of reserves again. It says a Committee appointed by the Government has said that the reserves are ample, and that ought to settle the matter; and the Convention of Associations apparently intend to press on with the question of further settlement. They say that the Government should not suspend the alienation of fresh lands. That is a point which, members of the Select Committee will perhaps remember, was gone into by the Committee, and Sir Humphrey Leggett was asked: "What are the reasons why the white settlers are so anxious for the alienation of further land not to be restricted?" He gave three reasons. The first was that the
1008
Government required revenue. If I were to give the second and third reasons I should be told that I spoke bitterly and cynically, but I should like to refer members of the Select Committee to the reasons which were given for the settlers in Kenya desiring further alienation of lands, because it throws a light on such resolutions as are now put forward, traversing that proposal that no further alienation should be made. Sir Humphrey Leggett's evidence is on page 353 of Appendix II. I hope that no attention whatever will be paid to that protest, if the protest is made, and that this necessary procedure of suspending the alienation will be adhered to.
Further, in support of what I have been saying, Mr. Maxwell, the Chief Native Commissioner, entirely endorses the statement that many natives have been evicted or have been compelled to remain as squatters upon their own lands. He says there is a great congestion in part of the Kiambu native reserve, and the native reserves of the Bunyore and the Maragoli are very overcrowded, and he attributes it largely to the same cause as Canon Leakey had attributed it to. Chief Koinange Mbiu, who gave evidence before the Commission, was very definite on the point. He repeats the point that was made before the Ormsby-Gore Commission, that the British Government did not fight the natives and occupy the land as the result of conquest, but that they made treaties with the natives to protect them and to take care of them and their properties. He therefore asks that the Government may buy some of the European farms and restore them to the natives who have not sufficient land. It is a fact, he says, that many natives are roaming about without a place to live in. Some land was sold to Europeans while the natives were still residing on it, but these native residents are now called squatters and must work for the present European owners, otherwise they will be driven away from what was their own land.
Here is a very special case which has been raised several times within my knowledge. It is stated that Chief Koinange says that in the Kiambu district from about 1911 to 1914 native land called "Gathaka"—that is, owned land under native law—was taken by the

1009
Government and sold to Europeans. The Government promised the natives that it would compensate them to the amount of Rs.50,550 for the land, but they have still not yet been paid. That same claim is made in the petition from the Central Native Association—that there was a pledge to pay Rs.50,550 for certain land and that this has not been paid. I hope that some definite inquiry will be made by the Colonial Office into that assertion which is made by the Chief and by the Association. Chief Koinange goes into sundry other matters of jurisdiction and So on, with which I do not want to deal. But I do want to deal with this point which he makes, that there has been an actual eviction from the land of natives who had a very well-ordered and established native system of land tenure, which, if you examine it, is a very reasonable and sensible scheme of jurisprudence administered by its own officers.
The Chief says that the trouble is that a number of the actual clans who were land-owning families had their land alienated over their heads, with them on the land, and eventually pressure was brought to bear on them to make them leave it. That is why they have had to go away, far from their own country, as squatters. Chief Koinange says that it is not the Government who are there at the moment who are responsible for this, but it was the Government which was in the country at the time when Mr. Ains-worth and Mr. Hobley were the Commissioners. But the situation remains because no native has any land rights in Kenya. The land has been granted by the Crown en leases of 999 years to Europeans, free of encumbrances. The Europeans have taken the ground from the Government free of all equitable claims of occupants and free of all encumbrances whatever. If a European buys land and there are these natives upon it, the land is absolutely his land, but there are these native squatters on the land. He may allow them to live upon his land, but he may not treat them as fixed tenants. He may give them as a favour a certain amount of land to cultivate, but he may only do so upon that beneficent principle which General Hertzog is anxious to establish all over South Africa—that the native may only be there as a labour tenant under a legal obligation to labour on it for 180 days a year, subject to legal penal-
1010
ties of fine or imprisonment if he does not comply with that obligation of 180 days labour a year.
If he is on Crown land he may be able to graze his cattle on payment of so much per head. If he is on the land of a settler, as appears from the evidence, he may in some cases run cattle on that land which is subject to no encumbrances. The settler allows the native who comes back to his old cultivation to run cattle on that land on the condition of the settler himself having all the milk for his dairy. That is why I refer to this statement in the Select Committee's Report that they were satisfied that there was no ground established for any suggestion of forced labour for Europeans in Kenya. But if you take a man's land and give it away to somebody else, and he has to go away from it, and there is no place for him to go to because he cannot buy land as the Government has made no provision for him buying land, and if you say to him: "You may stay where you are and grow maize and potatoes or run your cattle upon the land on condition that you work for the man to whom the land has been given for 180 days a year at wages of about 4d. a day or, perhaps, 4d. a day and rations," I ask noble Lords on the Government Front Bench, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, this question: Do they consider, if you take away a man's land and give him no alternative to living on that land except that he shall work for the new owner for 180 days a year, is that or is it not forced labour? It is a perfect equivocation when you have taken away people's land and have not provided them with compensation or with anywhere else to go to, and say to them: "You may stay on that land, but it is on condition of your labouring under penal sanction for the present owner of that land," to contend that that is not forced labour. That is one of the things I want further pursued.
I do not think I need elaborate my case further upon that. I have here many quotations showing that great numbers of natives have been evicted from their land in this manner. What I want to ask the Government is, what is the position in Kenya, in Nyasaland and so on, of natives in regard to the land, and what is the principle on which they are going

1011
to proceed to deal with them? If for the moment we take account of native law and custom, all of these natives would have equitable claims upon that land. It is, no doubt, a very good doctrine to say that the King is the owner of the land. But we know that the land is encumbered with all sorts of equitable tenures upon it of which the British law takes notice.
I have a great admiration of the work done by the noble Lord, Lord Lugard, throughout Africa in regard to what is known as the indirect system of government, because that starts with the view that where you have a community which has sane and intelligent customs and laws, it is the most stupid thing in the world to try to thrust the ram-rod of your British law into those works and appoint a head man to administer it. If you read those most interesting reports on the Kavirondo and Kikuyu land systems you will see that those land systems are very well thought out, very equitable, and very sensible, for the purposes of the tribe which has to live upon the land. Everybody in Africa has to have land to cultivate. In these over-crowded reserves enormous numbers of land cases arise. In fact, I saw once in a Report of the Kavirondo Association that they were asked how their men were employed and they said that a large part of the time of the men was taken up in deciding land cases. As they have no written records, and no written law, and as this is a matter for those learned in the law and having a good memory, a great deal of palaver is obviously necessary to deal with land cases. Still it is a good and intelligible system; it is a well established social system which, it seems to me, it would be the greatest mistake in the world to attempt to destroy or overrule. It may be necessary in some cases slightly to modify it in order to introduce the power of making permanent buildings and so on, and those may be matters which will have to be dealt with by the Board that is to be set up under the Native Trust Regulation Law.
I now pass from the question of the rights of the expropriated natives to the more general question, just touching on the point, which Lord Lugard will deal with, of native administration. One of the great complaints in connection with land,
1012
as in connection with other matters, is that in appointing authorities over tribal communities the Government have not had regard to the native custom with respect to the appointment of a Chief. They have appointed head men and other paid officers, and introduced them into the administration of the tribes. The head men so appointed are the paid servants of the Government, and, therefore, loyal to the King and do what he tells them. When the head man does what the Government tells him in regard to land cases he is constantly complained of, it being said that he acts contrary to native law. We ought not for a moment, in any action we take under the Land Trust Board, to try to interfere by executive action from above with the established land law systems of the native tribes which appear to me, I am bound to say, to be extremely well adapted for the maintenance of the tribe, and to prevent the starvation and pauperism which threatens the natives everywhere.
That brings me to the question of the Native Land Trust Ordinance itself. I am not going to deal very much with that. We have legislated for the reserves by placing them under the trusteeship of a governing Board constituted of the Governor and certain white officials, and certain—four I think it is—white residents. That is a Board constituted by legislation. We do not know what the future of Kenya is. I suppose I ought to regard with confidence the future of Kenya under the conviction that the Crown and the Colonial Office will not relinquish control of those affairs, but will have in addition rights of the sort granted by local Ordinance. In view of the experience which we have had in South Africa of what has happened to the natives there it seems to me that it would foe a most terrible breach of trust. I am of opinion as a matter of principle—I am quite sure Lord Lugard will take this view—that all these dealings with native lands on behalf of the Crown ought to be made by order of the King in Council, or by some similar Ordinance, and not be left to local legislation. If we are going to maintain our position there, that, I think, ought to be done.
At the present time you have a Land Board tribunal which contains no native upon it at all. There is a provision in the law that the Governor may, when he is satisfied there is any native of sufficient

1013
ability, appoint native members to the Land Board. Such of your Lordships as heard the native representatives of Kenya before the Select Committee would admit, I am quite sure, that those natives—and I am quite confident there are a great many other natives—are absolutely well qualified to sit upon a native Land Board dealing with native affairs, and obviously very much better qualified than most of the people in Kenya who have had to do with native affairs hitherto. I think the time has Rome when the Secretary of State should insist that the Native Land Board should have upon it native representatives.
There is only one other matter that I am going to deal with. There is no definite report on it, but the Committee in regard to the Report suggested that, a further inquiry should be made into education. This matter to some extent arises in connection with land and it is only so far as it concerns land that I am going to deal with it. The whole question of African education is one that deserves a full debate to itself, and it cannot be properly dealt with to-day. Complaint is made now that a number of schools have been closed—schools which were founded by the missionaries. The natives say: "We made these grants to the missionaries, not in fee simple; we gave them the land to use for the purpose of schools. The schools have been closed. The missionaries are not now carrying on the schools, although we gave them the land for that purpose and built their schools for them. Now that the schools are not being carried on we ought to have the land and the buildings back again." I think that is good equity. The difficulty appears to have arisen in this way. There seems to have been a sort of triangular quarrel. First, some of the missionaries said: "We do not like your native puberty customs, and will not have your children in school unless you abandon them." The natives said: "Our puberty customs are our own concern. Our children come to your schools to be taught, and we are pleased that you should teach them. Go on doing so." But the missionaries in some cases tried to exercise a religious censorship, and said: "We will close the schools." On the other side, the Government said: "We do not approve of the curriculum in your schools, and, therefore, we will not give
1014
you the grant." As a result, certainly more than a dozen schools have been closed either by the decision of the missionaries or very much against the wish of the missionaries; certainly in all cases against the wish of the natives.
The natives granted the land for these schools. They say that they did not give it, but that they granted it for the schools, and, having granted the land for the schools, and the schools being no longer carried on either by the Government or the missionaries, they say the land ought to be restored to them. That is one point in connection with land which arises in regard to the subject of education which I hope will have some attention. I have kept your Lordships longer than I intended to do, but a shorter time than I should have taken had I thought it necessary to buttress my case with further evidence of which I have a great mass at my command. The evidence goes to prove that those natives were expropriated from their own property, from what under any equitable system would have been recognised as their property. They have been expropriated without compensation, their land taken away from them, and themselves left where they could not get other land, so that they have been compelled to stay upon the land as bonded workers for proprietors. That is an evil which I am quite sure the majority of the Select Committee must have recognised. I hope the Government are going to deal with this matter in Kenya and also in the whole of Rhodesia. I beg to move.
LORD LUGARD: My Lords, the Motion which stands on the Paper refers primarily to the recommendation made by the Joint Select Committee of Parliament which the noble Lord has just read to you. The nervousness which was referred to in that recommendation was attributed in the Report of the Parliamentary Commission which visited East Africa under Mr. Ormsby-Gore as long ago as 1924–25 to a feeling of insecurity of tenure, and to expropriations of land on behalf of Europeans. These alienations of land were effected by virtue of principles and policies not peculiar to Kenya, for the justice of which the European settlers were in no way responsible. They quite naturally were anxious to acquire land on the best terms they could. In this connection an article to which prominence

1015
was given in the leading East African paper was sent to me recently, in which the writer declares that the number of squatters on white estates is a growing danger to the future of European settlement.
Speaking from the point of view of the settler, he says that "the large majority of farmers dare not do away with squatters for fear of a dearth of labour." Hitherto the system had been beneficial to the settler, but it was now a menace to the closer settlement project. He emphasises the difficulty of dealing with this large and continually increasing number of detribalised Africans, established in the very centre of European estates, whose numbers, he asserts, are very greatly in excess of the registered number of 133,000. The noble Lord, Lord Olivier, said that there is no longer any room for them in the reserves. In South Africa it is estimated that there are over 1,600,000 of such squatters apart from the urban population, for whom there is no room in the locations. Kenya would seem to be tending towards the same dilemma. This local aspect of the question has been dealt with very fully by the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, and the Colonial Secretary announced in another place the other day that an inquiry is in contemplation regarding it, but I would remind your Lordships that of the nine British Dependencies under the Colonial Office in Africa only two—Kenya and Northern Rhodesia—have adopted the system of native reserves which obtains in the Union of South Africa.
The recent legislation in these two territories for the creation of a Native Land Trust Board applies only to these reserves—a comparatively small part of the total area of those countries. The question remains as to native land interests outside the reserves, and in Dependencies where there are no reserves. The Ormsby-Gore Commission were not content merely to discuss the adequacy of the reserves. "It is essential," they said, "in the interests of both native and non-native that there should be some clear definition of rights." Emphasising the explicit terms in which in the White Paper of 1923 His Majesty's Government had declared its trusteeship for the native races, they recorded the view that
"it is essential both to satisfy the apprehensions of the natives and to ensure justice
1016
that the representatives of native interests should be given without delay a legal status in regard to the tenure of native lands and the terms upon which the Crown holds native lands."
It is to this wider aspect of the question of native land interests that I desire as briefly as possible to ask your consideration, for the decisions which are arrived at in regard to Kenya must necessarily indicate the principles of British policy in the future in other African Dependencies. I do so with some reluctance, for I am conscious of my inability to handle so difficult a subject—especially in its legal aspect.
The late noble and learned Viscount, Lord Haldane, delivering the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in what is generally known as the Swaziland case in 1926, described the judgment as one of "far-reaching importance," since it dealt with "the true character of the native title to land throughout the Empire." "Land," he said, "belongs to the community" whose title "generally takes the form of a usufructuary right … and may be extinguished by the action of a paramount Power which assumes possession or the entire control of the land." The assumption of possession and the extinguishing of native rights may, it seems, be effected either by an act of State or by the exercise of powers under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890, irrespective of any treaty or pledge to the natives. "This method of peacefully extending British dominion," as Lord Haldane expressed it, is unquestionable in law and cannot be challenged in any Court. There is no mention of compensation.
The extinction of native rights in Swaziland would, as I have said, be irrespective of any treaty or pledge made to them, for the judgment explicitly says that any pledge made in the Swazi Convention of 1924 cannot legally interfere with any subsequent Order-in-Council. The pledge had, however, also been recorded in Clause 14 of the Schedule to the Act of Union of South Africa, which the noble Earl, Lord Buxton, quoted in the debate in this House on July 11, 1925—that is to say, prior to this judgment. It declared that
"it shall not be lawful to alienate any land in Basutoland, or any land forming part of the native reserves in Bechuanaland or Swaziland from the natives inhabiting those territories."

1017
The inclusion of this declaration in the Act confers, I am told, a statutory right which cannot be revoked by an act of State, but only by an amending Statute against which the natives would have a light of appeal in the Courts. It is not clear to a layman whether the interpretation of that clause in the Act of Union by the Privy Council differs in any way from that assumed by Lord Buxton—namely, that the land rights of the Swazis in their reserves are guaranteed in perpetuity, even if Swaziland is transferred to the Union, or whether the judgment of the Privy Council has in any way modified the protection which it was assumed was given by that clause.
The case of the Masai tribe versus the Attorney-General of Kenya in May, 1913, when Kenya was (like Swaziland) a Protectorate, also rested on the alleged breach of a pledge by Government, and t was ruled by the High Court that since the status of the inhabitants of a Protectorate in relation to the Crown is that of protected foreigners, the Court could not interfere even if a wrong had been done. The agreement made with them by the Government could, like the Swazi Convention, be set aside by an act of State. It follows that what is frequently described as "the usual clause" in a treaty or convention by which the rights and property of the natives are safeguarded is really practically valueless as a safeguard. Later, when Kenya had become a Colony, some natives of Kikuyu claimed possession of certain lands in the area reserved for the use of the Kikuyu tribe by proclamation under the Crown Lands Ordinance, 1915. The High Court ruled that by this Ordinance and the Kenya Order-in-Council, 1921, no native private rights had been reserved, and the natives had become tenants at will of the Crown and were not entitled to the possession of the land claimed.
It appears therefore that equally in a Protectorate where the status of the natives is that of "British protected persons" or protected foreigners, as in the Swaziland case, to which the Privy Council decision referred, and as in the Masai case, when Kenya was still a Protectorate, or in a Colony where the natives enjoy the legal status and rights of British subjects, as in the ruling of the High Court to which I have just referred, "no individual native and no native tribe
1018
as a whole" (to quote the words of the Ormsby-Gore Commission) "has any right to land in the Colony which can be recognised by the Courts"—unless, I presume, it has been conferred upon them by Statute. Largely, no doubt, in consequence of the Reports of the Ormsby-Gore Commission and of the Hilton Young Commission, which have been quoted by Lord Olivier, steps were taken to protect the interests of the natives in the land set aside as reserves in Kenya by setting up a Land Trust Board, but as I have pointed out, it is only in Northern Rhodesia and Kenya that the system of reserves has been adopted in Crown Colonies.
The noble Lord has already dealt with the subject of these Land Trust Ordinances, and in regard to them I will only ask whether by these instruments any legal title to their prescriptive lands has been conferred upon the natives, or whether they are still, even in the reserves, only tenants at the will of the Crown? Some doubt appears to exist in this matter, since Mr. Thomas, a former Secretary of State for the Colonies, went so far as to describe the Kenya Land Trust Ordinance when it was discussed in the House of Commons, as "eyewash." In all the cases I am discussing there is no question of voluntary cession, and indeed it may, I think, be said without fear of contradiction that no ordinary native Chief has any power under native law to cede to any person the community rights in land. The claim of the European Powers to confiscate or extinguish native rights and "to take possession or entire control of the land" is presumably based on the right of conquest, or alternatively upon what The Times calls "protective processes," and which I may perhaps be allowed to call "potential conquest"—namely, assumption of sovereignty by virtue of ability to suppress by superior force anyone who objects to the assumption. African tribes are ready to sacrifice their lives in defence of their land, but they cannot stand up against aeroplanes and modern weapons.
Professor Berriedale Keith in his book on "The Constitution, Administration, and Laws of the British Empire," published in 1924—a work which is, I believe, accepted as a reliable authority—asserts that "it is a fundamental principle that British political sovereignty or protection does not mean the confiscation of

1019
native land interests." There was a previous decision of the Judicial Committee bearing on this subject, delivered by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Sumner, in 1919, known as the Mata-bele-land case. Recalling that Lord Derby in 1885 and Lord Ripon in 1895 had declared that Great Britain does not claim land rights in a Protectorate, he said that these statements referred to territories "in which the existing sovereignty of Native Chiefs continued and was respected." Where land is tribal or communal the tribes may on the one hand, he said, be
"so low down in the scale of social organisation that their usages and conceptions of rights and duties are not to be reconciled with the institutions and legal ideas of civilised society … On the other hand, there are indigenous people whose legal conceptions, though differently developed, are hardly less precise than our own … and are no less enforceable than rights arising under English law."
In conclusion he summed up by deciding that "whoever now owns the unalienated lands, the natives do not." The recognition of the right to hold tribal lands would therefore appear to depend on an opinion as to the degree of civilisation to which the holders had attained. Would not a difficulty arise as to who is to give that opinion on behalf of the Crown? It could hardly be given by the person who proposes to take possession of the land.
These decisions of the Privy Council were to some extent based on the nature of African land tenure as described by Lord Haldane, but we have it on very high authority that in a single province, even in a single tribe, it may vary greatly, and in some cases individual ownership has been established. If information is required as to the nature of African land tenure in any particular district it can best be obtained from institutions engaged in African research, there are at the present time projects—chiefly with the aid of American money—for intensive study of the subject. The term "ownership," for instance, may even in this country be subject to restrictions and easements, and community ownership in Africa is none the less real because it may be qualified as regards the user by concurrent restrictions and obligations. Another term which is frequently used in these decisions is "an act of State," and it is important for the layman to realise what is meant by the
1020
term. It is clear that an order by the Governor as the King's representative in the exercise of the Royal Prerogative constitutes an act of State but that in practice it should have the covering approval of the Secretary of State. The Ormsby-Gore Report states, however, that
"cases have occurred where a Governor.… has either not reported his action to the Secretary of State, or has reported it so long afterwards that it was not really practicable to reverse the action he had taken."
Mr. Amery, speaking in another place, said that "there had been a feeling that the consent of the Secretary of State had been given from time to time perhaps more readily than might be desirable."
The method by which native land rights can be extinguished seems in West Africa to have taken the less usual form of a Statute instead of an Order-in-Council. In the Northern Nigeria Lands and Native Rights Ordinance of 1911, which was, I believe, drafted at the Colonial Office and enacted by order of the Secretary of State, Mr. (later Viscount) Harcourt, all lands whether occupied or unoccupied, and all rights over the same
"are declared to be under the control and subject to the disposition of the Governor, and shall be held and administered for the use and common benefit of the natives of Northern Nigeria, and no title to the occupation and use of such lands shall be valid without the consent of the Governor."
The lands which were at that time more immediately under consideration were those of the Moslem Emirates and the occupiers enjoyed such title as they might possess under the Maliki code of the Koranic law, which was the lex loci. No exception was made by the Ordinance in regard to town properties, the undisputed private property of individuals, or regarding Wakf lands (namely, religious endowments) if any such existed.
It repealed the previous Statute which had excluded from the definition of "Public Lands" (namely, lands which could be dealt with as Crown Lands) any land in actual occupation under any local law or custom. Surely the rights of these people under Mahomedan law and under the pre-existing Statute were, as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Sumner, has said, not less enforceable than rights arising under English law? The effect of this enactment was, however, to confiscate all these lands, even though

1021
legally occupied by the same family for generations. In order to obtain a legal title the occupier had to obtain a right of occupancy from the Governor, tenable far seven years (a period too short to plant cocoa or other permanent crops), and subject to a land rent payable to the Government. It may be said that the Governor was by law bound to dispose of the land for the benefit of the people. Such a phrase is capable of wide interpretation, and it does not alter the fact that under the original law an occupier had no legal title unless conferred by the Governor, and could be dispossessed at will without compensation. The people were however ignorant of the fact.
There was an irony in these results, for the intention of the framers of this law, us expressed in the preamble, had been lo protect native rights. The strict letter of the law has never, I think, been enforced, and it has since been modified and enacted in Tanganyika, where the Governor made a formal pledge to the natives that communal land occupied in accord with native law would be rent-free and the occupier would be, "treated exactly in the same way as if he had a written title such as Europeans have." Such a pledge has, however, been shown to be of little value as a guarantee. The appointment of a Committee to determine now this Ordinance could be applied to other parts of West Africa gave rise to wide-spread apprehensions among the natives, and subscriptions wore set on foot for deputations, to England, and the Committee, after taking an immense amount of evidence, no doubt at considerable cost, was dissolved during the War, and the matter dropped. For in these territories British policy had gone to the other extreme, and the various Governments do not, I believe, own a foot of Crown land, unless won by reclamation from the sea-bed.
In the case of Tejani versus the Government of Southern Nigeria in 1921 (known as the Apapa case), in which the Privy Council judgment was also delivered by Lord Haldane, it was ruled that native rights in land had been recognised at the time of cession, and also by a local Ordinance, which, for the purpose of conveying title to land acquired by Government recognised the fee simple to be vested in the Chief. The land in question was a treacherous swamp, which had never been inhabited or cultivated, and
1022
had been reclaimed and solidified at very great cost by the Government for a railway terminus, before it could be utilised. The appellant succeeded in his claim for compensation and the public revenue was mulcted in costs. But it would seem to a layman that the native rights had been no lese protected in Northern Nigeria until cancelled by the Statute to which I have referred, though rights of ownership, as Lord Haldane said, are undisturbed by change of sovereignty.
I should trespass unduly on your Lordships' patience were I to discuss the apparent anomalies which exist in other Dependencies in Africa—especially in Uganda and Nyasaland—in regard both to native rights in land and as to the question of rights in minerals. Your Lordships will agree that the principles governing native interests in land throughout the Empire ought to be clearly understood by all who administer our Colonies, but the cases which I have quoted will I think serve to show that there is some confusion in the minds of laymen, and that is the reason why I am asking, as both the Ormsby-Gore and Hilton Young Commissions have already asked, for some definite and clear exposition of British policy, and of the principles to which His Majesty's Government desire to give effect in Africa. The law as it exists has been laid down in these decisions of the Privy Council, the highest and final authority in the Empire. The larger question remains: Does the law and practice conform to the intentions and desires of the British democracy I Should a trustee be able to extinguish the rights of his ward without compensation, with the object in a Protectorate of peacefully extending British dominion? If we may judge from declarations made from time to time by the Government of the day in White Papers, and by members of every Party in Parliament, including members of the present Government, and from the public Press, it is very doubtful whether it does.
The Times, for instance, in a long leader, observed that the Swaziland Judgment "calls into consideration that principle of equitable treatment and honest dealing which lies at the root of the British system." Commenting on what it described as "the doubtful interpretation of the Foreign Jurisdiction Act" and the alternative of an act of

1023
State, which even if a wrong has been done cannot be questioned by the Courts, it recalled the strictures passed by Lord Watson in the Pondoland case in 1897. The assertion by the High Commissioner of South Africa at a recent session of the Mandates Commission, that under British law land rights could be extinguished by an act of State without compensation, was received by the members of that Commission with incredulous surprise, and the Ormsby-Gore Commission apparently found it difficult to reconcile the ruling of the High Court with the principle of trusteeship, for it would seem that the law as it exists admits the right of the trustee by an act of State to confiscate the interests of the ward, without compensation and without right of appeal to the Courts, or at any rate that it cannot restrain him from doing so.
The right of resumption for a public purpose with compensation fixed by arbitration is of course unquestioned; it applies equally to non-natives and to natives. The right of the Crown to dispose of land which is not in beneficial occupation by natives is, so far as my information goes, recognised by all foreign Powers. Should not the principle apply without racial discrimination to all land not effectively occupied, as Mr. Runciman contended in the House of Commons in the debate of July, 1925? The decision whether land is or is not in beneficial occupation must rest with the Governor-in-Council, but it would seem desirable, before appropriating, as Crown land, land supposed to be vacant, and disposing of it by sale or lease, that a competent authority should certify that it is not in beneficial occupation, or required for reasonable expansion of the population in accordance with the declared policy of Government.
Should not natives have a title to the lands they occupy equally valid in law with that of non-natives, instead of being tenants at will of the Crown, liable at any time to be dispossessed by an act of State without right of appeal, if unprotected by Statute, or even, it would seem, liable to be dispossessed by the repeal of any statutory protection they may possess, against which in practice it is difficult for them to appeal? Would it not be possible in the case of ignorant tribes—I am not referring only to reserves—that the legal title to community
1024
or family land should be vested in a single and competent authority—as for instance the Chief Justice—who would be charged to act as legal trustee? Where land is held on individual tenure as in the case of personal property in a Moslem city, or even in the case of family tenure as in the Gathaka system among the Kikuyu, should not registration be recognised as prima facie proof of individual—or even of family—ownership?
The sale or lease of tribal lands (unless expropriated for a public purpose) should only be allowed in exceptional cases, and the assent of the whole community should be verified and not dependent on the word of a nominated or possibly venal Chief. In short, while the Crown should have the right of disposal of all lands not in beneficial occupation, should not all remaining land be subject to the same law and practice, and should not the occupiers have the same legal rights without distinction of race? By the right to dispose of waste lands and of minerals (which generally speaking have been discovered and can only be exploited by foreign agency) the Local Government is enabled to raise revenue which is wholly spent for the public good; without these resources expenditure must be met by taxation, direct and indirect, and all taxation restricts purchasing power and trade.
The use and disposal of the land is intimately bound up with the whole social fabric of an African tribal community. The authority of the Chief is to a great extent based on his position as custodian and guardian of the land. The land is of vital importance to a people whose lives and actions are controlled by a belief that they are in constant contact with the spirit-world; for the place where their ancestors lie buried is tenanted by their spirits, and those spirits form, in the conception of the African, an integral part of the living community. Their approval or disapproval is the basis of the moral code, and of the sanctions by which law and order are maintained.
You cannot therefore transfer at will Africans who hold these beliefs from ancestral to new lands where they would be deprived of the guidance and control of the ancestral spirits. A man who has been evicted from his land, or become a squatter on the estate of a white man, can only, we learn, be received as a

1025
tenant ex gratia on the family land of friends, liable at any time to be turned adrift as the pressure of population increases. He becomes a serf for he is unable to return to his tribe, which has no land available. I do not say that these conceptions are universal, but they are held by many millions in Africa. How for they persist in communities which have nominally accepted the creed of Islam or Christianity, and what are the conceptions of the pastoral Hamitic tribes are still little known.
I am sorry to have taken up so much of your Lordships' time, but I can assure you that this is no trivial matter. For the reasons I have given, the land question is one of transcendant importance to the African, bound up with his religious conceptions and his social life. If this question is neglected or ignored now, you will have occasion—as South Africa has—to regret it in the future. I do not expect, or indeed desire, that the noble Earl who will speak on behalf of Government should attempt to give a reply here and now to the questions I have raised, but among all the preoccupations of our National Government I hope that this question may receive the consideration of the Secretary of State, not as regards Kenya alone, but in the larger aspect which I have endeavoured so inadequately to present to your Lordships.
LORD PASSFIELD: My Lords, there is: little that I can add in support of the statements put to your Lordships by the noble Lords, Lord Olivier and Lord Lugard, but I would like to add my testimony and my support to what they have brought before your Lordships. I was convinced during the inquiries which I necessarily had to make for two years or more that the present uncertainty with regard to the legal position of the Africans who thought they were owners of land was a very serious danger already, and one that was likely to become much greater as time went on. This applies in particular to the position in, Tanganyika, although there the Governor, by suitable declarations and assurances, had quieted the indigenous population on the point, but quieted them, I am afraid, only for a time. As the noble Lord, Lord Lugard, said, that mere promise of the then Governor is a very feeble support to rely upon when that, Governor has passed away and circumstances have
1026
changed, and I have been convinced that it would be very desirable if, in some way or other, quite definite titles could be given in proper cases to the African peoples, not only in Tanganyika, but in Kenya and Uganda so far as it is applicable there, and Nyasaland and elsewhere.
That is altogether different from the question of the protection of the reserves in Kenya and Northern Rhodesia. I have noticed sometimes an assumption growing up among those who are not Africans in Kenya—among the non-natives in Kenya—that the settlement of the reserves amounted to a division of the Colony between the Africans and those who have been called, not disrespectfully, the immigrant races. That is entirely wrong. The assignment and definition of certain areas as native reserves had no relation whatever to the question of dividing up the Colony between white and black. It did not at all imply that all that was outside the reserves was to be alienated in due time to the white population. There was no such assumption whatever in agreeing to the definition of the reserves. The reserves were for a very definite purpose. They were to be under special protection—which I hope is rather more effective protection than my noble friend Lord Olivier thought—but that must not be taken in the very least to imply that all the rest of the land which was outside the reserves was to be alienated in due time to the white settlers.
No such assumption lay in that action at all. And, as a matter of fact, the Governor was told at the time, and has been repeatedly told, that the British Government expected to have an inquiry into the sufficiency for the needs of the present and prospective population of the land which is in native occupation, with respect to land within or without the reservations, held either on a tribal or an individual tenure, and that declaration was repeated as a strong recommendation by the Joint Committee on page 44. You will notice it is not an inquiry whether the reserves are sufficient for the prospective needs. It was never intended that they should be necessarily. The whole of the land of Kenya in so far as it is not alienated is available for the prospective needs; of the native populations if those needs are made out. The

1027
Joint Committee very definitely said unanimously, and without any sort of criticism, that pending the conclusion of this inquiry no further alienation of Crown land from the native should take place except in exceptional cases with the sanction of the Secretary of State.
I do not want to suggest for a moment that it will be found that the prospective needs of the native population, even on the largest assumption, are such as to compel a permanent reservation of the rest of the land which is not yet alienated for them, and for them alone. I do not pretend that at all. But it is quite clear that there ought to be an inquiry at the earliest possible date into what are likely, so far as can now be seen, to be the prospective needs of the future native population, and that no alienation should take place which would prevent those needs being met. The importance of that has been recognised in Southern Rhodesia, where a division of the land has taken place but where a very large area has been reserved for future disposition in case the prospective needs of the native population should turn out to require it. The terrible consequences of not making provision for the prospective needs of the native population are now to be seen in the Union of South Africa. The Union of South Africa will have very serious trouble to undergo in the near future because of this neglect in the past to make provision for the prospective needs of that native population.
I am not competent, and of course I have had no opportunity of preparing myself even if I were competent, to discuss the more serious and ultimate question that the noble Lord, Lord Lugard, has raised with regard to the possible legal title of natives to land which has been for long past in their occupation. As a layman, I do not feel so perfectly sure that the legal decisions that the natives were nothing but tenants at will of the Crown amount to a denial that they have any rights which the Courts can enforce. Even tenants at will may be subject to easements and obligations of one sort and another. I do not think that the decision of the Courts, that the natives in those circumstances were nothing but tenants at will of the Crown, necessarily negatived for all time an inquiry into what customary
1028
obligations there were on the owner which the Crown in its equity would desire to respect. I fancy it would be possible after such an inquiry to establish some machinery for the recognition and maintenance of such customary rights as could then be put on record and recognised. However, whether that can be done or not, I would urge your Lordships to believe that it is very necessary that the question should be cleared up, because of this uncertainty which has been inspired in the native population in a large part of East Africa as to whether they have any legal rights and whether they have any title, which they can protect, to the land of which they are now admittedly in occupation. That ought to be enquired into.
To go back to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, about forced labour, I think, if I may say so, he was rather scoring a logical victory in a matter as to which I fancy there is no dispute about the facts. When the term "forced labour" is used, it is surely meant that the person who is subject to forced labour can be punished for not doing the forced labour which he is called upon to do by the competent authority. In that sense—and that is the sense in which "forced labour" is used in the International Convention to which His Majesty's Government has given its unreserved assent—I do not think there is any forced labour in Kenya at this moment at the hands of white settlers, or indeed in any private enterprise whatsoever. That, at any rate, is what the Government have been assured over and over again. Whatever forced labour exists in the strict sense of the term is, first of all, a certain amount of forced labour for the Government for public purposes, called out by the Local Government, and, secondly, certain forced labour by native custom, which the chiefs are entitled to exact of the people of their several tribes. It is not quite easy to put that down immediately by any legislative act.
His Majesty's Government have come under obligations by this International Convention to take steps to put it down at no distant date—I have forgotten what the term is. So far as I know there is no question between the parties, and there is no difficulty in the Colonial Office as to what is the intention of the Government on this question. I shall be glad if

1029
we can be told whether any steps are being taken, and what has been done. But the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, asserted that because a man has had his land taken away from him and has practically no means of livelihood except by accepting service on onerous terms from a certain employer, it may be the owner of the land on which he was squatting, that is forced labour. Although I entirely agree with the noble Lord that there is an element of force about it, I would remind him that a great many inhabitants, shall we say, of Western Europe have found themselves in the position of having been driven off land and, not having any land, finding themselves under the obligation, in order to live, of accepting employment even from some of those who have taken their land away from them, under conditions which were not always what they liked, though they were compelled to accept those conditions or starve. In Socialist speeches we do not generally refer to that as forced labour. It is certainly not forced labour in the sense in which that term is used in the International Convention to which the Government have acceded.
I should like to emphasise what the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, said about the difficulty in Kenya regarding the schools. It is a misfortune that some of the missionaries have given up carrying on some of their schools. I do not know, and I cannot enquire why, they should have taken that step, but it seems to me to be clear that if they have ceased to keep schools on those particular plots which were undoubtedly ceded to them, in so far as they were really ceded, or which they were given permission to occupy in order that a school should be kept there—if they give up keeping schools, either those plota must revert to the tribe which parted with them or they must not be allowed to be alienated in any way. They must be kept available for reinstating the schools as soon as it is possible to reinstate them. That is one of the things which I think the Governor ought to look after. I have a great admiration for the missionary bodies, but, I do not trust even a missionary body not to turn a disused school into cash, in order to carry on its mission if it has an opportunity of doing so. It is quite clear that in equity it ought not to be allowed to turn those school buildings into cash or exchange them for land. They will be
1030
wanted as schools whether they are carried on by the missionaries or not.
I will not take up any more time except to say again that I generally support the plea of Lord Lugard for a definite assertion of settlement, or a statement of what is the position with regard to natives in occupation of lands from which, they have not yet been extruded: and, consequently, I would ask whether something cannot be done to expedite the inquiry, which I hope has already been started, into the needs, present and prospective, of the natives in Kenya, within the reserves as well as outside the reserves, for more land, or whether the land is already sufficient. In that must be included the needs of those 150,000 or 250,000 so-called squatters on the alienated white lands, because they, too, are increasing in population. They, too, cannot be compelled to remain there for ever at wages; they, too, will want to swarm off, and they, too, will be a serious difficulty in the future if there is not land available for them to go to.
LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, like the two noble Lords who have just sat down, I had the privilege of serving on this Select Committee, and I would say that it was a very happy, if lengthy, experience. We approached the subject from many different angles with many different and antagonistic views, and yet we were able to find a very considerable measure of agreement. It is in fact the case that we did only actually divide on two points. I cannot but wish that the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, had seen his way to form one of that body. I think that he would perhaps, as many of us did, have found reason to modify some of the views he held and still holds. I do not think, for instance, he would have come to your Lordships and told you about these dreadful cases of dispossession of land from natives. The Committee were very anxious to thrash that matter out, and they had very much evidence on that point. Naturally the witnesses brought forward what they presumed were the best cases to prove their point. Now this was one case. Application was made by a public utility company—an electricity company—for 20 acres of land which ten years previously, to my certain knowledge, had never been occupied by natives. They wanted the land for the purposes of an electricity supply for Nairobi, and—this is

1031
the point—the application had been refused. If that is a case that it is thought worth while to bring forward, surely it is not a very strong case.
I do not think also that the noble Lord would have told your Lordships that harrowing tale about the slavery of natives, with regard to which he asked me a pointed question. The answer to his question is, I think, a simple one. If the facts had been as he stated them, the answer would have been the one he wished to have, but they were not. With regard to these squatters, as I well know, in the vast majority of cases this is what happened. These natives came out of the reserves, from their own lands, and settled on private lands, where they live in a more spacious fashion, without paying rent, the only obligation upon them being to work a certain amount of time at the current rate of wage, whatever it might be, and, if they did not like it, they could at any moment leave and go back again, or go anywhere else. Now, if I am asked whether that is slavery, I must most emphatically say it is not. That is my answer to the noble Lord. I sometimes have a wish that the noble Lord had, during his career, been at one time or another a Governor of Kenya Colony, because I have noted, not without admiration, how, when the territory which he administered with such conspicuous success had fallen on evil days, he whole-heartedly championed its cause even against his old political companions, and I think, perhaps, even against his own old political convictions; and I believe that if he had been Governor of, shall we say, Kenya, we should find him just as eager a champion of that place as he is now an eager and ever-ready critic of it.
On that Committee we came to several conclusions and recommendations—I think some nine or ten. None of them are of a very striking nature, but we felt that as a whole they were designed to do good to the countries involved and all their inhabitants and not to any particular section of the population. I do not know as yet what the Government are doing in regard to those recommendations. They have not had very much time. One of the things which they have definitely done is to send out the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, to investigate a matter upon which we had very much evidence—that is the incidence of taxation,
1032
and whether it bears hardly on any particular section of the population. I rather regret that the noble Lord was not given somewhat wider terms of reference because it seems to me, when you send out a, man of his great qualifications, he should have had something rather more important to do than those particular terms of reference enable him to do. I myself think from the evidence that we had, and from other evidence I have heard, that he will come to the conclusion that there is little, if any, unfairness in the incidence of the taxation, and his time will, I am afraid, be to a certain extent wasted.
If the Government, have not done very much as yet—and as to that I do not know; we shall hear about it presently—are there not some new factors that have occurred since the Committee sat which have altered the situation? I venture to think that the problem now is rather of a different nature from what it was when our Committee sat. The whole of East Africa has fallen on evil days. If we take Kenya—and after all Kenya was the raison d'être of this Committee—I would ask you to think of three factors. First of all, there is the personal loss Kenya has suffered in the death of that great leader. Lord Delamere. There are many people who may not agree with his policy, there are many people who may not agree with the ideas he has expressed, but I do not think that anyone who knew Lord Delamere can have any doubt that he was a high-souled and absolutely unselfish patriot, and there is no doubt whatever that he was a great leader of men. Successive Governors have not found the white population, or even other sections of the population, entirely easy to handle. They are not easily led, yet Lord Delamere for 25 years had their undivided adherence to his policy. In this country his death would be no doubt a loss, but in a small country like that I think his loss is irreparable, at all events for the moment.
Secondly, East Africa and Kenya have suffered from the economic blizzard, like the rest of the world, and, possibly, they have suffered more for this reason. That country is largely built up, as I think are most young Colonies, on credit, and I would remind your Lordships that by the disastrous decision of, I presume, the banking community, the almost universal

1033
overdrafts in that country were increased some few years ago by 50 per cent. when the rupee was stabilised at 2s. There is one other cause which I think is even graver than those two, and that is the invasion of East Africa, and especially of Kenya, by vast swarms of locusts which have entered that country in great clouds, ten or fifteen or twenty miles long, so thick that they have obscured the sun. They have come down and they have destroyed the grass so that there is no grazing. They have destroyed the wheat, they have destroyed the maize, they have destroyed the native's food. I will here point out to your Lordships that had it not been for the much-criticised British Government and for the sometimes maligned British settlers, there would have been a famine in that land followed by a death-rate unparalleled—I say this advisedly—in African history. As it is I believe there have been no deaths from famine and I think that is something of which we may be legitimately proud.
Those three causes have put a very different complexion on the problems of Kenya and the problems of East Africa as a whole. The state of that country is at the moment very bad and the whole future of colonisation is at stake. It may be that from those factors colonisation will fail, and if it does I suppose the noble Lord will not be displeased, but I am sure that he will feel regret for those who have given up their lives and fortunes in work which at all events is legitimate. Personally I think that these men will succeed and will come again, because they are men of the sort who, having once put their hands to the plough, will not be easily deterred from achieving their end, but it must be years, at all events, before they get back to even a moderate state of prosperity. I venture to think that that is the problem, the problem of East Africa as a whole, which at the present moment overrides the lesser issues which we dealt with in this Report. I think the whole ship is in danger now and that the problem is to save it. When it is saved we can then consider which of the passengers shall have the better cabins.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, the four noble Lords who have taken part in this debate have all spoken
1034
bviously with great knowledge. I am afraid that I cannot claim that advantage, and indeed I should have been very hard put to it to reply to those noble Lords at all had not the noble Lords, Lord Olivier and Lord Lugard, both been good enough to send to the Colonial Office a précis of what they proposed to say. Therefore I have been able to some extent to prepare a reply. The Report of the Joint Select Committee, as I told your Lordships on the last occasion, has been referred to the three Governors in East Africa for their Report, and they have been asked to send Despatches to the Secretary of State for the Colonies stating how far they feel the recommendations of the. Committee can be carried into effect. Some answers have been received, but my right hon. friend the Secretary of State is not yet in a position to make a full announcement of the policy of His Majesty's Government. I hope that he will be able to make it at an early date, but meanwhile I can, at any rate, give your Lordships information on some points on which he has already made up his mind and tell you what action he has taken. As your Lordships are aware, the Governors meet early next month—I believe the date is April 11—at Dar-es-Salem, and a large number of points which the Joint Select Committee referred to, and which have been referred to again this afternoon, will come before the Governors for consideration and for report to the Secretary of State as to the conclusions at which they arrive.
I think no noble Lord dealt with the question of taxation to-day. That was referred to on the last occasion, and, as your Lordships know, my noble friend Lord Moyne left this country on February 24. I suppose by now he has arrived in Kenya. As regards railway rates, the Secretary of State is considering whether he will employ a railway expert specifically to go into the question of railway rates and to explore it forthwith, pending the appointment of an adviser on transport as recommended by the Joint Select Committee.
As regards the land question, which has been principally dealt with to-day, I can give your Lordships some information. I will not attempt to deal with the question of the legal position which was raised by my noble friend Lord Lugard. I am not qualified to do so and

1035
certainly your Lordships would not expect one either to criticise or discuss the judgments which have been given from time to time in our Courts of Law. Of course, as your Lordships know the Government—it does not matter which Government it is—has to follow the decisions given in the Courts until legislation brings about a different situation. Some steps have been taken already to deal with the question of native rights in land. The noble Lord opposite, Lord Passfield, himself produced an Ordinance in 1930 to provide for the reservation of land for the use and benefit of native tribes in the Colony of Kenya, and, as he stated, that made a reservation of land to the natives in perpetuity. The Secretary of State has gone a good deal further than that. He is about to appoint a Commission to go into the various questions connected with land in Kenya, and although I am not at present able to give your Lordships the personnel of that Commission, I can give you the terms of reference.
They are rather long, but I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I read them in full, because they very largely answer the questions which have been asked by the noble Lord, Lord Olivier. These are the terms of reference:
"1. To consider the needs of the native population, present and prospective, with respect to land whether to be held on tribal or on individual tenure.
"2. To consider the desirability and practicability of setting aside further areas of land for the present or future occupancy of (a) communities, bodies, or individual natives of recognised tribes, and (b) detribalised natives, that is, natives who belong to no tribe or who have severed connection with tribes to which they once belonged."
Your Lordships will see that that deals straight away with the question of the adequacy of native reserves, both for the present moment and for the future, and that it also deals with the position of the detribalised natives which was particularly referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Olivier. The remaining terms of reference are:
"3. To determine the nature and extent of claims asserted by natives over land alienated to non-natives and to make recommendations for the adequate settlement of such claims whether by legislation or otherwise.
"4. To examine claims asserted by natives over land not yet alienated and to make recommendations for the adequate settlement of such claims.
1036
"5. To consider the nature and extent of the rights held by natives under Section 86 of the Crown Lands Ordinance, 1915 (Chapter 140 Revised Laws) and whether better means could be adopted for dealing with such rights in respect of (a) land already alienated, and (b) land alienated in the future.
"6. To define the area generally known as the Highlands, within which persons of European descent are to have a privileged position in accordance with the White Paper of 1923.
"7. To review the working of the Native Lands Trust Ordinance and to consider how any administrative difficulties that may already have arisen can best be met whether by supplemental legislation or otherwise without involving any departure from the principles of the Ordinance."
Your Lordships will agree that those terms of reference cover largely the questions which have been raised to-day and your Lordships will not, I am sure, expect me to give any information on these matters, which really now become sub judice, because obviously we must await the Report of the Commission which I hope will be set up in the course of a very few days.
The noble Lord, Lord Olivier, raised the question of the constitution of the Central Board. He quoted from the paragraph in the Ordinance which I think showed quite clearly that in the course of time an African or Africans will be appointed to the Central Native Lands Trust Board. At the present moment. although there are no doubt one or more natives who are qualified in many ways to sit on that Board, it is not, after all. the only qualification that they should have sufficient education and intelligence; they should also be considered representative by the natives. At present I understand the Governor does not feel that those conditions are fulfilled.
LORD OLIVIER: Were they not fulfilled by the delegates to the Select Committee?
EARL STANHOPE: I understand not, and that therefore he does not feel that the time has arrived to appoint a delegate to that Central Board. Then the noble Lord asked me whether the Secretary of State would be prepared to publish the communications he had received from the Kikuyu Central Association and the replies to those representations. I am afraid the answer is in the negative and for the same reasons as were formerly

1037
given by Lord Passfield, who refused to recognise the Kikuyu Central Association as representative of the natives and also said, as I am sure Lord Olivier would agree, that any representation that comes from a Colony must be forwarded through the Governor. That is a view I am sure the noble Lord would have taken when he held that honourable and distinguished position. The representations made by the Central Association have therefore been sent back to the Governor, who will, no doubt, if he thinks fit, forward them on. Obviously that correspondence could not be published because in so doing the Central Association would be recognised as representing the natives, whereas the previous and the present Secretary of State do not think that body adequately does so.
The noble Lord referred to Reports regarding land tenure in the Kikuyu Province and the North Kavirondo Reserve, both extraordinarily interesting documents. Those of your Lordships who have read those Reports will recognise something of the difficulty of giving title in land. If I remember correctly, it was pointed out that often the boundaries between the land held by one clan and that held by another, or that held by one tribe and that of another, had better be marked out by the growing of trees—in one case fig trees—and that these trees should not be grown elsewhere. Picture the position when you have to put that on a map and definitely to say in a legal document—here is a title to land, this belongs to this individual and that to that! Obviously it means a very full survey and going into the question of not only who the owners are now, but who they were in the past. I think it has been shown quite clearly by my noble friend Lord Cranworth that East Africa is not in a financial position at this moment to engage the large. number of highly-skilled officials that would be necessary for that survey and land register, and although obviously it is a thing that any Government would like to do, I am afraid that at the present moment it does not look very hopeful having regard to the financial position of those parts of His Majesty's Dominions.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, dealt very fully with the question
1038
of forced labour. I understand that the Governor has himself stated that he wishes to reduce the amount of forced labour, but that if it was cancelled at present it would lead to a good deal of misunderstanding, and that the Chiefs and tribes themselves would very much object to it. There is of course no forced labour on behalf of private individuals. It is either labour on behalf of the Government or on behalf of a tribe in such things as the making of a road or possibly irrigation or drainage. Those are obviously matters to the advantage of the inhabitants themselves and in the present state of large parts of the country it would be obviously advantageous that headmen and possibly Government officials should be given some power to have such work undertaken by natives. It is, I think, generally agreed that this must come to an end, but it is not a matter which, having gone on for very many generations in that part of the world, can be suddenly stopped by a decree.
The noble Lord, Lord Olivier, raised a question regarding missionary schools. I am afraid I am not at present in a position to answer that question. I was not aware that any missionary schools have been closed recently. The question of the land they were granted in respect of their schools is one I will ask the Secretary of State to consider, and I am sure he will take such action as may be found necessary. In regard to grant, I think the noble Lord would agree that where a missionary school does not come up to an adequate standard it should not receive a grant of public money. That would be detrimental to education and to the Colony as a whole. The progress in regard to education in these three Protectorates seems to me, from what I have read, to have been very notable and the schools for the training of teachers are one of its remarkable features. Natives are being trained to be able to go out and themselves become teachers in schools. I understand that the need for these schools is clearly proved, that natives are attending in very fair numbers, and then becoming really valuable in other parts of their areas.
I must agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lugard, in what he said as to the transcendant importance of land in these Colonies and I will certainly ask the Secretary of State to consider the matter

1039
I am sure that after the very valuable speech of the noble Lord he will be in a better position to consider the very difficult points which have been raised in relation to the legal status of natives. I hope I have answered most of the questions asked me. I must apologise to your Lordships for not being fully acquainted with all of them, but if your Lordships saw the mass of correspondence and the number of Commissions' Reports and Blue-books on the subject, I feel sure you would have some pity on me.
LORD OLIVIER: My Lords, I am sure we are all deeply grateful to the noble Earl for what we recognise must have been a heavy task, in getting up this subject adequately to give us the comprehensive reply which he has given. At the same time the noble Earl will not think it is any reflection on himself if I express regret that we have not in this House a direct representative of the Colonial Office, because if we had, although he could not have given a better reply, yet we feel it is nice to have somebody whom we can hit back if we do not get a satisfactory reply. I want to thank him very much for the statement he has made, which I am sure noble Lords will join me in doing. With regard to the instructions which have been drawn up for the Commission which is to be sent out to enquire into the land question, they seem to me really to cover the whole ground which it is necessary to cover, and they do cover those special points as to what is to be done for people who have been expropriated. The instructions seem to be thoroughly satisfactory and to give scope for clearing up the difficulty.
With regard to one point, the noble Earl said he could not promise to lay Papers, as I suggested, on the ground that the Kikuyu Central Council had not sent them in through the Governor, and the Council was not recognised by the Governor as representative of the natives. That is a minor point, and if those representations are made to the Commission they will be dealt with. I may say that in that letter no point is really raised which is not raised in the Report of the Select Committee, or in the evidence before the Select Committee. So, if the new Commission go thoroughly into their work they will have to deal with all the points raised in the
1040
letter, and I shall get as much satisfaction as if the noble Earl promised to publish that letter and the reply to it. One point has been raised which is of considerable interest. Lord Passfield took the view, apparently, that there was no restriction in any part of the Colony upon the alienation of the land of the natives. It was a point raised before the Select Committee, to which Lord Stanhope has referred in speaking of certain privileges given to Europeans in the highlands. It is a point which seems to be very vague, having regard to a question put by Lord Passfield to Sir Edward Grigg's and Sir Edward Grigg's reply, and I hope it will be cleared up by the proposed Commission. It is a perfectly clear point and one which they will look into in seeing what land is necessary for further extension.
There was, further, the point about forced labour. Lord Cranworth has left the House, but I was going to express my thanks to him for his solicitation about my spiritual welfare. He referred to the question of forced labour, and with regard to that I am sorry to say that I cannot pay the same compliment to Lord Passfield as I would like to have paid, because I think he showed a considerable obscurity in his treatment of the subject. I should like to bring him before a Committee of Conscience of my Party, and to put him through a cross-examination as to what he said. I do not go into the question of forced labour for public works. I am quite satisfied with regard to the present position of forced labour for public works. That has been thoroughly settled; but I say that if you have a man owning property, and you take away his property and tell him that he may not live there unless he works for another man, under an Ordinance, that is forced labour.
EARL STANHOPE: That may happen to anybody, even in this country.
LORD OLIVIER: Because a man is bankrupt he loses his property, but where a man says "This is my property," and the Government takes it away from him, and says he shall not live on it unless he works for another man, that is forced labour. I ask leave to withdraw my Motion, because sufficient satisfaction has been given to the House by what the noble Earl has said.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

RATING AND VALUATION BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That this Bill be now read 2a—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

ROTHERHAM EXTENSION BILL. [H.L.]
The Order made on Wednesday, the 16th instant, appointing certain Lords
1042
the Select Committee to consider the Bill, discharged.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I desire to inform you that I am proposing that to-morrow there shall be a Motion to suspend Standing Order No. XXXIX, in order that the Tanganyika and British Honduras Loans Bill and the Consolidated Fund Bill may be passed through all their stages. I think you will also wish to know that it is proposed we should sit at 11 o'clock. The Royal Commission will take place at 12 o'clock.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE:
As the noble Marquess is aware, we have no objection at all to the suspension of the Standing Order.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past six o'clock.