Sitting of 6 December 1933

Preamble
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER from this day's Sitting.
Whereupon Sir DENNIS HERBERT, The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Belper) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (North Buckinghamshire Joint Hospital District) Bill.
Bills to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,
  "to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Acts, 1899 and 1933, relating to Edinburgh Corporation," presented by Sir Godfrey Collins; read the First time; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Act of 1899) to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 13th December, and to be printed. [Bill 36.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  COAL INDUSTRY (CHISLET COLLIERY).
  Mr. T. SMITHasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that the Chislet Colliery Company, Kent, are
  1456
  attempting to enforce the use of naked lights underground, and that a ballot of the workmen concerned has resulted in an overwhelming majority against this proposal; and whether, in view of the desire of the workmen to be protected by the use of safety lamps, he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): I am aware that a number of acetylene lamps have been installed in Chislet Colliery. I am also aware of the result of the recent ballot of the workmen taken on the basis of a single answer to two questions, namely, whether or not they were in favour of the use of naked lights in the mine and also of paying the cost of upkeep. I have no power to enforce the use of safety lamps except under the conditions set out in Section 32 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, and, after careful investigation by His Majesty's inspectors, I am not in a position to maintain that any of them applies to this mine at present.
  Mr. SMITH: Can the Minister say whether, in view of the ballot, which was ten to one against the use of naked lights, the colliery company intend to take any further action?
  Mr. BROWN: I cannot say at the moment. I shall be very pleased to discuss the matter with my hon. Friend.

  IRISH FREE STATE.
  Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he will take immediate steps to bring to the notice of the natives of the Irish Free State, both in this country and the Free State, the disadvantages which they will suffer both in status and in the way of entering this country from the declaration of the Irish Free State as a republic?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): No, Sir. I do not feel that any steps such as those indicated are necessary. The contingency has not arisen and I hope never will arise. Further the advantages enjoyed by British subjects as compared with aliens in this country are sufficiently well known and appreciated to need no emphasis from me.
  Sir A. KNOX: Arising out of the reply, is it not a fact that in the event of the declaration of a Republic by the Irish Free State, no longer will immigrants from Ireland be allowed to come here to compete in the labour market of this country and take advantage of our schemes of social insurance; and is it not also a fact that domiciled natives of the Irish Free State in this country would be liable to be returned to Southern Ireland if they did not accept British nationality?
  Mr. THOMAS: There can be no doubt whatever as to the disadvantages of aliens in this country compared with British citizens.
  Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the status as British citizens, which was guaranteed by the treaty to the loyalists in Southern Ireland, will be guaranteed by this House, whatever happens?
  Mr. THOMAS: I have already said that I still refuse to believe such a contingency will ultimately arise. If it does, the Government will deal with it.
  Mr. HANNON: Is the House to understand from my right hon. Friend's reply that the door is still open for further negotiations if the Irish Free State desire it?
  Mr. THOMAS: The door has never been closed.
  Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has any further statement to make in relation to the Irish Free State?
  Mr. THOMAS: Yes, Sir. On the 30th November I received from Mr. de Valera a dispatch arising out of my statement in the House on 14th November. The dispatch was as follows:
  "Sir,
  I have the honour to refer to the statement made by you in the House of Commons on the 14th instant in reply to a question relating to the dispute between the British Government and the Government of the Irish Free State.
  2. On that occasion, having stated that the British Government were advised that the Bills to amend the Constitution of the Irish Free State, then before the Oireachtas, conflicted in important respects with the Treaty of 1921, you declared that the Irish Free State as a member of the Commonwealth was completely free to order her
  1458
  own affairs. You also said that it was the desire of the British Government to see the Irish Free State taking her full share as a member of the Commonwealth, not grudgingly but of her own free will, accepting the responsibilities and enjoying the privileges. You added that if the Irish Free State renounced the responsibilities she could not hope to enjoy the privileges of membership.
  3. Following this statement the Government of the Irish Free State feel obliged to make clear beyond any possibility of doubt the attitude of the Irish people towards the British Commonwealth. The Irish people have never sought membership of the Commonwealth. Their association with Great Britain and the Commonwealth has never on their side been a voluntary association. In every generation they have striven with such means as were at their disposal to maintain their right to exist as a distinct and independent nation, and whenever they yielded to British rule in any form they did so only under the pressure of overwhelming material force.
  4. The Treaty of 1921 involved no fundamental change in their attitude. They submitted to the Treaty because they were presented with the alternative of immediate war. Thy did not accept it as a final settlement of their relations with Great Britain. Still less did they regard the Treaty in the sense in which the British Government seek to interpret it—as giving Great Britain a permanent right to interfere in their constitutional development.
  5. The experience of the last 12 years has made it abundantly evident that lasting friendship cannot be attained on the basis of the present relationship. The Government of the Irish Free State infer from your statement of the 14th instant that the British Government also now realise the evils of a forced association and have decided not to treat as a cause of war or other aggressive action a decision of the Irish people to sever their connection with the Commonwealth. This attitude of the British Government appears to the Government of the Irish Free State to be such fundamental importance that it should be formulated in a direct and unequivocal statement. The Government of the Irish Free State would sincerely welcome such a statement. They believe that it would be the first step towards that free and friendly co-operation in matters of agreed common concern between Great Britain and Ireland which ought to exist between them."
  That was signed by Mr. de Valera. I have to-day sent the following reply:
  "Sir,
  I have the honour to state that your despatch of the 29th November has received our careful consideration.
  2. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom cannot accept the description of the relations between the two countries set out in paragraphs 3 and 4 of your despatch. They have stated their view as to the 1921 Settlement in my despatch of the 9th April, 1932, in the following words:

  1459
  'His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom entered into the 1921 Settlement with the single desire that it should end the long period of bitterness between the two countries and it is their belief that the Settlement has brought a measure of peace and contentment which could not have been reached by any other means. Further, as the direct result of that Settlement, the Irish Free State has participated in and contributed to the notable constitutional developments of the last few years, whereby the position of the Dominions as equal members with the United Kingdom of the British Commonwealth of Nations under the Crown has been denned and made clear to the world.'
  3. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom would point out that the Treaty Settlement was duly accepted by the elected representatives of the people of the Irish Free State, and that its acceptance was subsequently confirmed at succeeding General Elections in the Irish Free State. The period which elapsed between 1921 and 1932 was marked by the progressive development of friendly relations and co-operation between the two countries.
  4. Since His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are thus unable to accept the assumption in paragraph 5 of your despatch, namely, that Tasting friendship cannot be attained on the basis of the present relationship, they do not see any grounds for answering a question which is founded on that assumption. They cannot believe that the Irish Free State Government contemplate the final repudiation of their Treaty obligations in the manner suggested, and consequently they do not feel called upon to say what attitude they would adopt in circumstances which they regard as purely hypothetical.
  5. In conclusion I would state that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom feel that the free intercourse on equal terms with the other members of the British Commonwealth which the Irish Free State have enjoyed under the Treaty Settlement, culminating in the Statute of Westminster, is the surest proof of their freedom to work out their own destiny within the Commonwealth. We believe that the natural associations between the two countries are such that a close and friendly relationship between them is essential to their full prosperity, and I would once again emphasise what I have previously stated on many occasions, namely, that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are, and always have been, most sincerely anxious to work in friendly co-operation with the Irish Free State as a member of the British Commonwealth.
  I have the honour to be, etc.,
  (Sgd.) J.H.THOMAS."
  Mr. LANSBURY: Every one will agree that these dispatches are very important, and that all of us should give very close consideration to them. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether
  1460
  there is any intention on the part of the Government to allow the House an opportunity of discussing this matter before anything final is decided as between the two Governments. That is one question. The next is whether it is intended, also before any final decision is made, to call the other members of the British Commonwealth of nations into consultation, seeing that this is a matter that will, if carried to the end—the projected end—affect conditions in the other nations as well as here.
  Mr. THOMAS: It is very difficult to answer what, I am sure, the right hon. Gentleman will realise is a very hypothetical question for the Government. He talks of "before any final action is taken"; I have read to the House, not only our answer to Mr. de Valera, but the express desire and intention, so far as we are concerned, not to close the door to an honourable settlement. With regard to bringing in the other Dominions, I would emphasise what I have frequently stated, and I must repeat it very simply. We have never endeavoured, and do not desire now, to drag in any Dominion. The dispute between Ireland and ourselves originated because they repudiated some Treaty obligations. We took our stand, by simply saying that we could not enter into further negotiations with people who repudiate their existing obligations. That was the origin of the disturbance, and the cause of the whole dispute. We have never closed the door, and I hope never will, to a friendly settlement.
  Mr. LANSBURY: The right hon. Gentleman has not replied to either question. What I want to emphasise is that, in view of the very important statement by Mr. de Valera and the equally important statement of the right hon. Gentleman, no doubt there will be further communications, and I want a clear answer on these points: that, before the matter is carried to a decision, the House of Commons shall be informed, and shall have an apportunity of recording its opinion on the subject; further, I cannot imagine that the right hon. Gentleman wishes the country and the Dominions to understand that, in the view of His Majesty's Government, this dispute is one in which they have no concern. I cannot believe that that is the policy of the Government.
  Mr. THOMAS: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not mix two things, and I had better make the position clear, because I am afraid that it may be misinterpreted outside. When I replied on the question of the Doiminions, it was obvious that no one could talk about any member leaving the British Commonwealth and not realise that the Dominions would be affected. What I desired to make clear was that the original dispute between Ireland and ourselves was a dispute between us, and did not affect any other country. On the second point, the House of Commons naturally and obviously—I have already said that I hope that the contingency will not arise, but if it does arise—would be the first to be informed of the whole situation.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman tell them, "Go, and God bless you," instead of continuing the dispute?
  Mr. THOMAS: I hope in this Debate that none of us will say anything to embitter the situation.
  Mr. MAXTON: In view of the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition as to the whole matter being put before the House, and pending that, will the Dominions Secretary tell us, without revealing Cabinet secrets, what were the reasons that influenced the Government in deciding that it was better to evade Mr. de Valera's question than to answer it?

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    SOUTH AFRICA (JAPANESE HATS).
    Captain DOWERasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can now make a statement on the position in regard to Japanese manufactured hats that are being imported into South Africa and are being sold at 17s. 6d. per dozen under the designation Stettersby?
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: My hon. and gallant Friend's inquiry would appear to relate to a possible contravention of the Trade Marks Laws in the Union of South Africa. I understand that His Majesty's Government in the Union recently promulgated a Government notice to the effect that in view of the continued importation into the Union of goods marked with or bearing
    1462

    (a) False goods descriptions;

    (b) Trade Marks illegally used;

    (c) Colourable imitations of registered trade marks; and

    (c) The word "registered" in respect of a mark upon which inquiry is found not to be registered in the, Union;

    it has been decided by the Union Government to prohibit such goods from importation and to seize them as forfeited. It may be that the goods which my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind may fall to be dealt with under the above regulations, and if therefore further details can be furnished I shall be glad to transmit them to the Union Government for consideration. I may also add that an exchange dumping duty is applicable in the Union in respect of certain classes of goods imported from countries with depreciated currencies, and that as from 18th August last this duty was, inter alia, applied to "all men's and boys' hats other than tweed hats" imported into the Union from Japan.
    Captain DOWER: May I take it that if any further instances of any kind of Japanese goods sold under deceptive names are brought to the right hon. Gentleman's attention, that will apply?
    Mr. THOMAS: That is true, and the hat that my hon. Friend endeavoured to present to me has already had the desired effect, although I did not accept it.

    COASTAL TEADE (NAVIGATION LAWS).
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government has at any time recently considered the revision of the navigation laws with the object of assisting our coastal trade; and, if so, with what result?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): Yes, Sir, but it has not so far been thought to be to the advantage of British shipping as a whole to take the measures suggested.

    NICKEL (IMPORTS AND EXPORTS).
    Mr. LIDDALLasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the total amount of imports of nickel into the United Kingdom and of exports of nickel from the United Kingdom, respec-

    1463
    tively, during the first 10 months of this year, giving the figures relating to exports in respect of each of the principal countries involved separately?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: As the answer involves a tabular statement, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:
    The following table shows the total quantity and declared value of unwrought nickel in pellets, cubes, &c., imported into and exported from the United Kingdom, as registered during the ten months ended 31st October, 1933, distinguishing the principal countries to which the exports were consigned.

    —

    Quantity.

    Declared Value

    Tons.

    £

    Total Imports

    1,073

    217,144

    Domestic Exports

    3,955

    917,323

    of which consigned to Germany

    1,131

    262,750

    Japan (including Formosa).

    802

    194,790

    Soviet Union

    523

    116,437

    France

    426

    99,176

    Switzerland

    307

    71,216

    Italy

    301

    69,820

    Sweden

    154

    35,374

    Netherlands

    88

    20,374

    United States of America

    65

    9,454

    Re-exports (consigned almost wholly to the Soviet Union).

    305

    62,002

    KERBSTONE IMPORTS.
    Mr. BURNETTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the increase in the imports of Mysore kerbstone during recent months; and what steps he intends to take to deal with the menace to the British kerb industry?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware that there has been an increase in the imports of kerbstone from India. I would remind my hon. Friend that the Ottawa Agreement with India provides for free entry for kerbstone from that country.
    Mr. BURNETT: Was there any agreement at the starting of this industry that it would not compete in any way with the British kerb industry, and is that fact being kept in view?

    READY-MADE CLOTHING.
    Mr. HEPWORTHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the dumping of ready-made clothes on an increasing scale in this country; whether he possesses sufficient information to show its nature and extent; and to which of his Departments is entrusted the collection of statistics on this subject with a view to possible legislation?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I receive information from time to time regarding the importation of ready-made clothes into this country at alleged cut prices. The statistics of the importation of clothing are collected by the Customs Department in the usual way, and are shown in the Monthly Trade Accounts. I would remind my hon. Friend that any proposal for an alteration in rates of import duty is a matter for consideration in the first place by the Import Duties Advisory Committee.

    IMMUNITY CONVENTION.
    Colonel ROPNERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the present position with regard to the Immunity Convention?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand that, of the 19 Governments whose representatives signed this Convention, three have not yet signified their approval of the Supplementary Protocol.

    RUSSIA.
    Colonel ROPNERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has requested the Government of Russia to refund the extra dock and harbour charges levied on British ships between the expiry of the last trade agreement and the resumption of trade; and, if not, whether he will do so?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The charges in question were part of the counter-measures taken by the Soviet Government against the action of His Majesty's Government in connection with the Moscow arrests. A claim in this respect can only lead to counter claims arising from the same cause and His Majesty's Government, after full consideration, do not think that any useful purpose would be served by the action suggested.
    Colonel ROPNERasked the President of the Board of Trade the approxi-

    1465
    mate amount of the visible adverse trade balance against the United Kingdom in respect of trade with Russia during the last five years, and the total value of imports from the United Kingdom to Russia and from Russia to the United Kingdom for 1932; and whether he will insist on the adverse balance being made good as far as possible by shipping services?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: During the five years 1928 to 1932 the aggregate value of the imports of merchandise into the United Kingdom consigned from the Soviet Union exceeded that of exports from the United Kingdom consigned to the Soviet Union by £93,772,000. During the; year 1932 the imports of merchandise into the United Kingdom consigned from the Soviet Union amounted to £19,645,000. Exports to the Soviet Union amounted to £10,620,000, including reexports valued at £1,397,000. As regards the last part of the question, the increased use of British shipping services is one of the matters under discussion.

    SILK INDUSTRY.
    14 and 16. Mr. REMERasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if the question of imports of real silk into this country will be kept in the forefront of the discussions between himself and the Japanese delegates at present in this country and in India;
    (2) if, in any negotiations with the Japanese Government which are now proceeding, he will take into consideration the pledges given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech, and in the subsequent Debates on the Finance Bill, to the silk industry, that they would receive the benefits of protection given to every other industry in this country?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The interests of the silk industry will, of course, be carefully borne in mind in any negotiations between the Government and foreign countries, but I must point out that the discussions now pending with Japanese representatives in this country are not between Governments, but between representatives of industries.
    Mr. REMER: Are discussions taking place, as between the representatives of the silk industry and the Japanese representatives?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The discussions are taking place as between the representatives of the textile industry, but as to whether the silk industry is represented I could not say without notice.
    Mr. REMER: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Motion for Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.
    Mr. REMERasked the President of the Board of Trade if, in any discussions with the French Government with reference to a trade agreement, he will undertake that the promises given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his last Budget speech and during the Debates on the last Finance Bill as to the Silk Duties will be taken into consideration in any agreements which he may make with France?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: In the event of negotiations for a new commercial treaty with France being undertaken, all relevant considerations will be borne in mind.

    MACHINERY EXPORTS (JAPAN).
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade the value of textile and other machinery exported from this country to Japan during the past 12 years?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: During the 12 years 1921 to 1932, the aggregate declared value of the domestic exports of textile machinery and parts thereof from the United Kingdom consigned to Japan (including Formosa and Japanese leased territories in China) was £14,332,000. The value of the exports of other machinery and parts thereof during this period was £14,859,000.
    Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that includes second-hand machinery?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I could not say without notice.

    RETAIL PRICES.
    Mr. DORANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the hardship now being caused to retail traders throughout this country by the campaign of price cutting which has been inaugurated, he is prepared to receive a

    1467
    deputation on this question from the Tottenham Grocers' Alliance, together with other representatives of retail traders' associations?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: It would be convenient if the trade organisations concerned would be good enough to follow the usual practice and let me have a written statement of their views.

    PRESEEVED FRUITS (EMPIRE PREFERENCE).
    Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the imports of preserved fruit from foreign countries exceed in volume and value the imports of similar commodities from our Dominions and Colonies, he will with the object of encouraging production consider introducing a further measure of preferential treatment for preserved fruit from the British Empire?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would remind my hon. Friend that preserved fruits imported from British countries already enjoy a substantial measure of preference as the result of the Ottawa Agreements Act, 1932,'and otherwise. Such particulars of our imports for this year as are available suggest that the Empire share of the trade in these goods is expanding.
    Mr. HANNON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the desirability, in view of the importance of this trade, of enlarging the preference when the opportunity arises?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir. We always keep in mind matters of that sort.
    Miss HORSBRUGH: Will he also keep in mind the importance of the trade in this country and see that we do not let it go?

    TRADE BALANCE.
    Sir FRANK SANDERSONasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the approximate balance of trade for the nine months ended 30th September, 1933, after deducting invisible exports from the excess of imports over exports?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The excess of imports over exports of merchandise in the trade of the United Kingdom during the first nine months of 1933 was £182,302,000. It is not practicable to furnish an
    1468
    estimate of the invisible items entering into the balance of payments for periods other than a calendar year.

    WHEAT CONVENTION.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the present position of the Wheat Convention?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: As the answer is long I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The Final Act of the International Wheat Conference held in London in August last has been published as Cmd. 4449. The Act was signed on the 25th August by representatives of the 22 countries whose names appear on pages 5 and 6 of that publication. The representatives of certain countries signed ad referendum. The Act has been accepted by all the signatory countries except the Irish Free State. An international Wheat Advisory Committee has been set up in accordance with the agreement to watch over its working and application. This committee met in London on the 18th and 19th September, and again on the 27th and 28th November, and at its last meeting decided to appoint two sub-committees to consider proposals with a view to improving the world wheat situation. The United Kingdom is represented on the main committee and on the two sub-committees. The main committee will meet again in London on the 22nd January next to examine the reports of the two sub-committees and to consider what recommendations should be made to the Governments adhering to the Wheat Agreement.
    Export maxima for the various exporting countries adhering to the agreement have been agreed as follows for the year 1933–34 on the assumption of a total world import demand" of 560,000,000 bushels for that year:

    Million bushels.

    Australia

    105

    Canada

    200

    United States

    47

    Argentina

    110

    Danubian States (Bulgaria, Hungary, Rumania, Yugoslavia)

    50–54

    This leaves a balance of 44,000,000 to 43,000,000 bushels to be provided by Russia or other unspecified exporting countries.

    POTTERY TRADE (JAPANESE COMPETITION).
    Mrs. COPE LANDasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he proposes to take to check Japanese competition in the pottery trade?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statements that I made during the course of debate on the 9th, 23rd, and 29th November.
    Mrs. COPELAND: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Motion for Adjournment at the earliest convenient date.

  GERMANY (NICKEL IMPORTS).
  Miss RATHBONEasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fact that the exports of nickel to Grermany have doubled and those to Holland have increased six-fold during the first six months of 1933 as compared with the corresponding period in 1932, and that during recent weeks a German agent of the Farbenindustrie Corporation of Frankfurt-am-Main has been negotiating in Canada the purchase of 10,000 tons of unmanufactured nickel for immediate delivery in Germany; and, in view of this recent increase in the export of nickel from Canada to Germany and Holland, will he state whether his Department is in correspondence with the Canadian Government for the purpose of mutual assurance that the increased exports of nickel from Great Britain and Canada are not being used for the purpose of German re-armament?
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I am aware of the figures given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in reply to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) and the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lunn) on the 14th November. I have no information, beyond what has appeared in the Press, concerning the reported purchases of nickel in Canada by a German firm. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer to the reply given by my right hon.
  1470
  Friend to a somewhat similar inquiry by the hon. Member on the 28th November.
  Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: In order to get to the bottom of this matter, would it be possible to ascertain from the German Government by a friendly question whether this nickel is used for recoining or not?
  Miss RATHBONE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the abnormal imports from Canada into Germany and neighbouring countries are exciting very great alarm in Canada itself; and will the right hon. Gentleman consider some exchange of information with Canada on the subject?
  Mr. THOMAS: I would rather put it that they were exciting considerable interest in Canada. It is very difficult, and I am not sure that I am in a position to say that I can ask the German or any other Government what is the real object of purchases that they make My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has informed the House that his information is that the Germans use the nickel largely for coinage. I cannot go beyond that.
  Miss RATHBONE: May we know whether the Government have no sources of information regarding the destination of imports into Germany except the information given by the German Government; and do the Government regard that as a reliable source of information?
  Mr. THOMAS: I must not be taken as accepting the interpretation put upon it by the hon. Member.

  PATENT OFFICE.
  Mr. GLEDHILLasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of examiners employed by the Patent Office, their total remuneration, and the exact nature of their duties?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Examining Staff of the Patent Office numbers 308, and their total remuneration for the current financial year is £180,140, as shown on page 17 of the Civil Estimates, Class VI, Vote 1, where particulars will be found of the various grades and scales of salary. The duties of this staff are of a technical nature concerned with the examination and consideration of applications for

  1471
  Patents for inventions. If my hon. Friend desires to have further details of the duties I shall be happy to supply them.
  Mr. GLEDHILL: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these 300 odd examiners deal with only 400 specifications; and will he not consider, in the interests of economy, a reduction of the staff?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot accept those figures without careful examination.
  Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Has any inquiry been made in recent years as to the work of this office; and would it not be desirable to have one made now?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot answer that question without notice.

  BRITISH FILMS (EXHIBITION ABROAD).
  Sir F. SANDERSONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation with a view to controlling the sale of the rights of exhibition of British films in foreign and mandated countries, in view of the damage to British prestige by the exhibition of unsuitable films in foreign countries and, in particular, in Eastern countries such as Persia, Iraq, Palestine and Turkey?
  Mr. RUNICIMAN: I regret I cannot see my way to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.

  Vessels of 100 tons gross and upwards registered at ports in the United Kingdom, the registers of which were reported to the Registrar General of Shipping and Seamen as closed on account of sale to foreigners.

  Year.

  Total sold to foreigners.

  Vessels subsequently reported by Lloyds Register of Shipping Balance to be broken up.

  Balance presumably trading.

  Number of Vessesls

  Gross Tonnage

  Number of Vessesls

  Gross Tonnage

  Number of Vessesls

  Gross Tonnage

  1931

  …

  172

  570,654

  41

  210,776

  131

  (a)

  359,878

  1932

  …

  167

  645,862

  56

  331,684

  111

  314,178

  1933, to 31st Oct

  …

  191

  802,554

  37

  233,771

  154

  (b)

  568,783

  (a) Including one vessel of 5,201 tons restored to British Registry shortly after closing of registry.

  (b) Including one vessel of 3,046 tons sold and immediately repurchased and 13 vessels of 77,081 tons reported to have been sold for breaking up purposes, but demolition not commenced, so far as is known

  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    TONNAGE.
    Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider the desirability of negotiating an international agreement to reduce the volume of the shipping tonnage of each country in proportion to the present volume of its overseas trade?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid that my hon. Friend's proposal is not one which would find general acceptance.
    Mr. HANNON: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed the statement made by the head of a very important concern on this subject, suggesting the point in my question?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: That may be, but it takes more than one swallow to make a summer.

    BRITISH SHIPS (FOREIGN SALES).
    Captain CRAWFORD BROWNEasked the President of the Board of Trade the number and total tonnage of vessels transferred for trading purpose to foreign ownership, exclusive of vessels built to the order of foreign owners?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving such particulars for the years 1931–1933 as are available.
    Following is the statement:

    LOSS OF STEAMSHIP "SAXILBY."
    Mr. LOGANasked the President of the Board of Trade when it is proposed to institute an inquiry into the sinking of the steamship "Saxilby"?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: May I first take this opportunity of expressing my deep sympathy, in which I am sure the House will join, with the relatives of those lost in this disaster. The circumstances are under inquiry and whether a formal investigation is ordered will depend upon the result of those inquiries.
    Mr. LOGAN: Have inquiries been made to show whether this ship, which was carrying a heavy cargo of iron ore, was properly manned or not; is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there was only one able seaman on deck, one on watch and one man at the wheel; and does he consider that sufficient on a British ship to ensure safety of life at sea?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I can express no opinion on any of these statements. The facts can only be brought out in the course of the inquiry or investigation.

    SEAMEN'S PENSIONS (HOLYHEAD AND DUBLIN SERVICE).
    Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the men who serve on the railway boats sailing between Holyhead and Dublin are being refused pensions from the Royal Seamen's Pension Fund because the boats have been registered in Dublin since 1922, although the homes of the men are in Holyhead, and that a subsidy is paid by the Government to the owners of those ships for the carriage of mails; and whether he will take steps to recommend that the conditions under which pensions are granted from the above fund are amended to include such cases?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): Under the scheme governing the award of pensions out of the Royal Seamen's Pension Fund the qualification for a pension is dependent on the length of service in merchant ships registered in the United Kingdom, and a man whose service has been to a large extent on vessels registered in Dublin is consequently at a disadvantage. As no contribution is made to the fund in respect of men serving on ships regis-
    1474
    tered in Dublin, my right hon. Friend cannot regard the provisions of the scheme in this respect as in need of amendment.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that these seamen, who were on these ships before 1922, are being credited with rights of pension up to that date, and that since the registration of these vessels in Dublin no notice has been taken of their service in the ships after 1922; and, as these are British subjects sailing in what were British ships before 1922, cannot the regulations be rearranged so that they will be entitled to pension?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The statement made by the hon. Gentleman is correct, but the benefits of the fund only accrue to persons serving on ships registered in the United Kingdom ports.
    Mr. MACLEAN: The point of the question is whether the Minister cannot have the regulations re-arranged so that people who are resident in this country and are paying into the fund will be entitled to have the pension.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether this fund is governed by regulations issued by the Minister of Health, and, if so, is it not possible to alter them to provide for the suggestion of my hon. Friend?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: It is not possible to dissipate this fund by paying benefits to persons serving on ships in various parts of the world.
    Mr. DAVIES: Is it not possible for the Minister to transfer the reserves to the credit of these men into the Seamen's Fund?
    Major OWEN: Are not these men now deprived of benefit from this fund through no fault of their own? These ships were registered in Dublin in 1922 as a result of legislation passed by this House, and is it right that the men should be penalised?
    Mr. MAXTON: Having regard to the inaudible nature of the questions and replies, I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    STEAMSHIP "BLAIRMORE" (MANNING).
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether

    1475
    he is aware that recently it was proposed that the s.s. "Blairmore" should put to sea from Swansea with only a boatswain, a carpenter, two able seamen, and two apprentices on board; that as a result of a complaint by the National Union of Seamen two other apprentices were added; that in many steamships carpenters or able seamen have recently been replaced by ordinary seamen or apprentices; that many of all ratings have been dismissed from the British mercantile marine during the last three years as a result of reductions in manning; and what action he proposes to take in view of the complaints that have been made on this score to his Department by the National Union of Seamen?
    Sir VICTOR WARRENDER (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): I have been asked to reply. The Board of Trade are not empowered to interfere with the manning of ships except on the grounds of safety, and, provided safety requirements are met, questions relating to manning are, as the National Union of Seamen were informed in July last, matters for discussion between representatives of the owners and of the men. In the particular case to which my hon. Friend refers, the Board's surveyor satisfied himself before the ship sailed that the crew was sufficient for the safe navigation and working of the ship.

  GAS (LEGISLATION).
  Mr. LEWISasked the President of the Board of Trade for what reason no steps have been taken to introduce legislation in accordance with the recommendations made in December, 1932, in an interim report, and confirmed in March, 1933, in a final report, by the departmental committee appointed to advise as to the amendment of existing gas legislation?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: As I informed my hon. Friend on 28th November, this matter is under consideration, and I can assure him that active attention is being devoted to the difficult questions which are involved.
  Mr. LEWIS: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that until the law is amended, as suggested, large industrial users of gas have to pay more for their
  1476
  gas than they would otherwise need to pay; does he also appreciate that this is a very serious matter for certain industries, particularly having regard to the recent increased taxation on fuel oil?
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not also aware—having presumably read the last report of the Select Committee on gas undertakings—that unless care is taken, industrial consumers will have, to pay much more for their gas?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir. All these important considerations are borne in mind.
  Mr. CHORLTONasked the President of the Board of Trade if, in any new Bill to be brought in to remove the limitations which at present restrict the expansion of the gas industry, provision will be made for a widespread linking up of undertakings?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: This matter was examined by the recent Departmental Committee on Gas Legislation. The proposals in the Committee's First Interim Report (Cmd. 4065) relating to the powers of investment of gas undertakers were given effect to by the Gas Undertakings Act, 1932. The proposals in the Committee's Final Report (Cmd. 4288) are now under consideration.

  NAVIGABLE WATERS (OIL POLLUTION).
  Mr. WHITEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will approach the foreign Governments concerned in the International Convention of 1926 with a view to securing adhesion to the rules laid down in that convention that oily waste must not be discharged within 50 miles of any coast?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Governments of certain countries which were represented at the Washington Conference, 1926, have been consulted as to the desirability of bringing the subject of oil pollution before the League of Nations. The replies which have been received from some of the countries are under consideration. I should add that British shipowners and shipowners of the Netherlands and the United States voluntarily adopted the zone system of 50 miles recommended by the Conference.

  SHEFFIELD GAS COMPANY (GRID).
  Mr. CHORLTONasked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made with the gas grid of the Sheffield Gas Company linking up gas produced from various coke ovens for common supply; and if any extension of this area is contemplated?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am informed that the Sheffield Gas Company has laid approximately 12¼ miles of grid mains, which link up three coke ovens, and that steps are now being taken with the object of adding another 10 miles of main to the grid system in order to bring in two more coke ovens. The quantity of grid gas purchased during 1933 is, I understand, estimated at 1,637 million cubic feet.
  Mr. CHORLTON: Is there any proposition to extend this gas undertaking so as to take in still further coke ovens and enlarge the area of supply?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I should have notice of that question.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    WAR INVENTIONS (MRS. CAPRON'S CLAIM).
    Mr. DORANasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office on what grounds Mrs. E. Cloete Capron was refused permission to appear before the Tank Inquiry Commission; and if her claim may now be re-considered?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): The Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors is a body independent of my Department: but I understand that the claim advanced by Mrs. Capron was duly considered by its Investigating Committee who saw her in person, and that the claimant has from time to time been informed by the commission that no claim can be reconsidered except on the production of new and relevant evidence.

    CADET UNITS (GRANT).
    Brigadier-General NATIONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will consider restoring the 4s.grant per cadet belonging to recognised cadet units of the British National Cadet Association, in order to encourage greater numbers to proceed to the annual camp with their units?
    Mr. COOPER: It was clearly understood when official recognition of the Cadet movement was restored that no expense to Army funds would be incurred. I regret that I can hold out no hope that this decision will be reversed in present circumstances.
    Brigadier-General NATION: Can the hon. Gentleman say what was the total of the grant in the last year for which it was issued?
    Mr. COOPER: Not without notice.

  SCOTLAND.

    BAKERY TRADE (DISPUTE, INVERNESS).
    Mr. BAN FIELDasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the dispute between the Scottish Union of Bakers and Messrs. Telford, Electric Bakery, Telford Road, Inverness; that this firm has broken the agreement regarding the hours of labour; and whether, in view of the Fair Wage Resolution of the House of Commons of 10th March, 1909, in which it is laid down that contractors must observe hours of labour not less favourable than those commonly recognised by employers and trade societies, he will remove this firm from the list of those contracting for the supply of bread to the prisons department for Scotland?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am informed that, while the bakers actually engaged in the production of bread under the contract between the Prisons Department for Scotland and the firm in question are employed under conditions which satisfy the terms of the Fair Wages Resolution, bakers engaged on other work for the firm are employed in a manner which is not in accord with that Resolution. In all the circumstances it has been decided not to renew the contract, which expires on 31st December.

    FARM SERVANTS (WEEKLY HALF-HOLIDAY).
    Mr. HENDERSON STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has received for the provision, except during hay and harvest time, of a statutory weekly half-holiday for farm servants in Scotland?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I have not received any proposals of the kind mentioned by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. STEWART: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a strong desire on the part of these farm servants for this right, a desire which is not opposed by the National Farmers' Union, and will he in these circumstances take steps to explore the matter further?
    Sir G. COLLINS: No such information as that indicated by my hon. Friend has reached me, but I will make inquiries.

    POOR RELIEF, GLASGOW.
    Mr. McGOVERNasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of persons drawing able-bodied relief in

    STATEMENT showing the number of Able-bodied Poor chargeable at 15th May to the Parishes of Glasgow and Govan in each of the years 1922 to 1930 inclusive, and to the Burgh of Glasgow in the years 1931 to 1933, with the expenditure incurred on the relief of such cases in each of the years ended 15th May from 1922 to 1933 inclusive

    Year.

    Authority.

    Able-bodied Poor chargeable at 15-May

    Expenditure in connection with relief to Able-bodied poor during the year ended the 15th May.*

    Poor.

    Dependants.

    Total.

    £

    1922

    …

    …

    Glasgow Parish

    …

    …

    22,228

    50,796

    73,021

    304,927

    Govan Parish

    …

    …

    1923

    …

    …

    Glasgow Parish

    …

    …

    24,233

    54,130

    78,363

    736,462

    Govan Parish

    …

    …

    1924

    …

    …

    Glasgow Parish

    …

    …

    17,952

    41,504

    59,456

    732,886

    Govan Parish

    …

    …

    1925

    …

    …

    Glasgow Parish

    …

    …

    11,679

    29,676

    41,355

    454,366

    Govan Parish

    …

    …

    1926

    …

    …

    Glasgow Parish

    …

    …

    18,110

    43,755

    61,865

    642,044

    Govan Parish

    …

    …

    1927

    …

    …

    Glasgow Parish

    …

    …

    193,223

    39,470

    58,793

    1,012,528

    Govan Parish

    …

    …

    1928

    …

    …

    Glasgow Parish

    …

    …

    14,326

    32,655

    46,981

    972,352

    Govan Parish

    …

    …

    1929

    …

    …

    Glasgow Parish

    …

    …

    11,487

    25,616

    37,103

    783,248

    Govan Parish

    …

    …

    1930

    …

    …

    Glasgow Parish

    …

    …

    6,740

    18,062

    24,802

    669,149

    Govan Parish

    …

    …

    1931

    …

    …

    Glasgow Burgh

    …

    …

    8,418

    15,604

    24,022

    442,475

    1932

    …

    …

    Glasgow Burgh

    …

    …

    13,877

    25,075

    38,952

    606,398

    1933

    …

    …

    Glasgow Burgh

    …

    …

    21,573

    33,307

    54,880

    876,798

    *Includes administration expenses and repayment of interest on loans.

    NOTES

    1. The payment of relief to the able-bodied poor in Scotland was authorised for the first time by the Poor Law Emergency Provisions (Scotland) Act, 1921.

    2. For the purposes of the above table the areas of the parishes of Glasgow and Govan as they existed prior to the passing of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, have been taken as being roughly comparable with the existing area of the Poor Law Authority of Glasgow.

    Glasgow for each year since 1918; and the annual amount spent by the Glasgow parish council or public assistance committee for each year since 1918?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr, Skelton): As the answer involves a tabular statement, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The statement gives the figures from 1922 onwards, poor relief to the able-bodied having been authorised for the first time by the Poor Law Emergency Provisions (Scotland) Act, 1921.
    Sir WILLIAM WAYLAND: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many Irish are unemployed in Glasgow?
    Following is the statement:

    GLASGOW (PROVISIONAL ORDERS)
    Mr. McGOVERNasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the amount of money expended by the Glasgow Corporation in promoting Provisional Orders to be passed by Parliament for each year from 1912 to the end of 1932?
    Sir G. COLLINS: As the reply involves a table of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT
    Following is the statement:
    Statements showing the expenditure incurred by the Corporation of Glasgow in promoting Provisional Orders for each year from 1912 to 1932 inclusive.

    Year

    Amount of Expenditure.

    £

    s.

    d.

    1912

    …

    …

    …

    …

    None

    1913

    …

    …

    …

    …

    (1)75,604

    16

    3

    1914

    …

    …

    …

    …

    53

    4

    0

    1915

    …

    …

    …

    …

    28,253

    9

    4

    1916

    …

    …

    …

    …

    8,788

    1

    10

    1917

    …

    …

    …

    …

    41

    18

    8

    1918

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,024

    2

    0

    1919

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,273

    11

    1

    1920

    …

    …

    …

    …

    5,364

    8

    2

    1921

    …

    …

    …

    …

    2,661

    13

    8

    1922

    …

    …

    …

    …

    2,518

    13

    6

    1923

    …

    …

    …

    …

    8,101

    8

    2

    1924

    …

    …

    …

    …

    4,995

    10

    3

    1925

    …

    …

    …

    …

    7,497

    9

    7

    1926

    …

    …

    …

    …

    (2)43,569

    7

    5

    1927

    …

    …

    …

    …

    9,175

    6

    0

    1928

    …

    …

    …

    …

    5,381

    17

    11

    1929

    …

    …

    …

    …

    2,086

    9

    1

    1930

    …

    …

    …

    …

    5,852

    0

    2

    1931

    …

    …

    …

    …

    8,523

    6

    8

    1932

    …

    …

    …

    …

    422

    15

    7

    £221,189

    9

    4

    (1) Includes expenditure in connection with Glasgow Boundaries Act, 1912, of £69,935 8s. 9d. Of this sum £38,510 6s. 8d. represented expenditure of other local authorities paid to them.

    (2) Includes expenditure of £40,171 3s. 2d. under the Glasgow Boundaries Act, 1925.

    HOUSING.
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Department of Health has yet held a public inquiry into the housing conditions in the village of Standburn, Stirlingshire, in
    1482
    view of the fact that the Stirlingshire county council has taken no steps to improve the sanitary and hygienic conditions of the village?
    Mr. SKELTON: A public local inquiry into the housing conditions in Standburn is about to be held, and the Department of Health are now making the necessary arrangements.
    Viscountess ASTOR: If the hon. Gentleman finds very bad houses owned by people who refuse to put them in good order, would it not be a good thing, from the public point of view, to have them named?
    Mr. SKELTON: I do not think that question arises out of the question before me.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: They belong to Sir Adam Nimmo, the Scottish coalowner.
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the representations received from municipal tenants in favour of a reduction in the rents of municipal houses, he will consider the advisability of consolidating the Housing Acts relating to Scotland, with a view to a re-organisation of housing loans and the fixing of uniform rents for uniform types of houses throughout Scotland?
    Mr. SKELTON: Having regard to the wide variety of circumstances affecting the rents charged in different localities, my right hon. Friend considers that it would not be practicable to fix uniform rents for uniform types of houses throughout Scotland, and he does not propose to amend the Housing Acts with such an object in view.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how it is not possible for the Scottish Office to fix uniform rents for uniform houses?
    Mr. SKELTON: Without my going very fully into the question, my hon. Friend will realise that the rents fixed for slum clearance houses under the 1930 Act are very much lower on account of the size of the subsidy.
    Miss HORSBRUGH: Is it not the case that the local authorities also have power to fix rents, as well as my hon. Friend?
    Mr. SKELTON: That is so, but I do not propose to enter into a general debate on housing laws.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that they do so in conformity with the Scottish Office?
    Mr. SKELTON: The local authorities have the power of fixing rents, but the question before me is that of uniform rents, and to that question I shall confine myself. If other questions on the housing law are to be asked, they must be put down.

    WATER SUPPLIES.
    Commander COCHRANEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the difficulties in connection with the improvement of water supplies in rural areas in Scotland; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
    Lord SCONEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that during the past summer the water supply of a number of Scottish small towns and country districts failed either partially or totally; and whether he will confer with the local authorities concerned with a view to taking steps to augment the present supplies, and thus avoid a repetition of the inconvenience which this year's drought caused?
    Mr. SKELTON: My right hon. Friend is aware of the need for improving the water supplies in many rural areas in Scotland, and as already announced, it has been decided to make a Government grant available for the purpose. My right hon. Friend proposes to direct the special attention of local authorities to the matter and to urge them to carry out works of improvement with the assistance which the grant will offer to them.

    MARKETING COSTS.
    Mr. R. W. SMITHasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the report of the Scottish Reorganisation Commission dealing with costs of marketing has yet been received; and whether he will state the average cost per head in Scotland of marketing the various classes of livestock?
    Sir G. COLLINS: The commission to which my hon. Friend refers is presumably the Scottish Fat Stock Reorganisa-
    1484
    tion Commission, whose report, I am informed, is expected early next year. As regards the second part of the question, I am communicating to my hon. Friend certain particulars regarding charges normally incurred in the marketing of livestock.

    JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.
    Lord SCONEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that all recommendations for the office of justice of the peace, made by the lords lieutenant of Scottish counties, have to be approved by the Lord Chancellor; and if he will consider taking the necessary steps to have this function transferred to the Secretary of State for Scotland?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Justices of the peace in Scotland are appointed by the Crown by a Special Commission under the Great Seal, and the Royal Commission on the Selection of Justices of the Peace, in their report of 1911, recommended that, so long as these appointments are made by the Crown, the Lord Chancellor, as Keeper of the Great Seal, is the most suitable Minister to be entrusted with the duty of advising in the selections to be made. Since then, there has been no occasion to consider the subject.
    Lord SCONE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is slightly incongruous that a legal luminary who has ho knowledge of Scottish law should appoint Scottish justices?
    Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the political nature of the Lord Chancellor's appointments is giving widespread dissatisfaction, both in England and in Scotland?

  UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.
  Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received, and from what Scottish local authorities, protesting against the financial conditions of the Unemployment Bill?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I received representations of the views of Scottish local authorities generally on the

  1485
  financial provisions of the Unemployment Bill so far as they affect local authorities on Wednesday last, 29th November, when I met a deputation from the Convention of Royal Burghs, the Association of County Councils, and the Association of Counties of Cities.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the towns that I represent, Clydebank and Dumbarton, if the Bill goes through in its present form, it means an increase in the rates of 1s. 5d. on the £ rent?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I am sure that cannot be so.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman makes such a reply, because the councils have gone into the matter, and—
  HON. MEMBERS: Speech.
  Mr. LAMBERTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give an estimate of the annual liability to be incurred by the Treasury through the operation of Part II of the Unemployment Bill?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my right hon. Friend to paragraph 18 of the Financial Memorandum attached to the Bill.
  Mr. LAMBERT: Is this a fixed liability, or does it depend on the discretion of the Commissioners?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If my right hon. Friend will be kind enough to read the paragraph to which I have referred, he will see that it is discussed there and that such information is given as is possible.

  WAR DEBTS.
  Mr. WHYTEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the position is in regard to the proposed token payment to the United States of America in respect of the December payment of war debt; if he will consider asking countries debtor to the United Kingdom to make similar token payments to this country; and if he will inform the House what steps, if any, are contemplated for the further discussion of the position of war debts in general?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the White Paper pub-
  1486
  lished on the 7th November (Cmd. Paper 4448) and to the reply which I gave to a question by the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) on the 14th November, and to a supplementary question by the same right hon. Member on the 28th November.
  Sir F. SANDERSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the amount it is proposed to pay to the United States of America this month as a token payment is to be paid in silver?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. The power granted by Congress to the President of the United States to accept silver at a price not exceeding 50 cents an ounce lapsed on the 12th November. Accordingly, as stated in the White Paper, the payment will be made in American currency.

  INCOME TAX.
  Mr. LEWISasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, as a result of the recent judgment in the case of Mr. J. P. Grundy, the Income Tax authorities propose to demand payment of Income Tax on profits on sales of stocks and shares by private investors?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The judgment in question was based entirely on prior authority, and has not altered the scope of taxation either in law or in practice. I may add that it has no bearing upon the Income Tax position of investors.

  GOLD IMPORTS.
  Mr. LAMBERTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the net amount of gold and gold bullion imported into Great Britain during the past 12 months; and whether he will indicate the chief destinations of such gold and bullion and the respective amounts that have gone to each?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The net amount of gold bullion and coin imported into Great Britain and Northern Ireland during the 12 months ended 30th November, 1933, was approximately 41,000,000 ounces troy weight. I regret that the information asked for by my right hon. Friend in the latter part of the question is not available.
  Mr. LAMBERT: Cannot the Treasury give any information as to the destination of the gold?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I am sorry to say we cannot.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOAN BOARD (INTEREST RATES).
  Sir N. STEWART SANDEMANasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the surplus funds of the Public Works Loan Board are sufficient to allow of a reduction in the interest rates on all loans to local authorities to 4 per cent, or even lower?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): No, Sir; any such revision would endanger the solvency of the fund.

  ROADSTONE QUARRIES (WAGES).
  Mr. BURNETTasked the Minister of Labour the rate of wages paid to kerb makers in Great Britain and Mysore, respectively?
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): At roadstone quarries in the East of Scotland the recognised minimum time-work rate of wages for kerb cutters is 1s. 4¼d. per hour. I am obtaining information concerning rates of wages in other districts which I will send to my hon. Friend. With regard to the rates of wages in Mysore, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him on July 27th last by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade.
  Mr. BURNETT: Do not these figures imply that the Mysore worker gets two hours' pay for his day's work?

  JUVENILE EMPLOYMENT.
  Mr. LIDDALLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that a youth aged 16 has been employed in a cinema in Lincoln at a wage of 6s. 8d. per week of 65 hours; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent the employment of young persons for such long hours at such low wages?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): My attention had not been
  1488
  previously called to this case. The regulation of wages is not a matter for my Department, but, in accordance with the statement in the King's Speech, I propose to introduce this Session a Bill to regulate the hours of employment of young persons in the distributive trades. I am not at present in a position to say how far (he employment in which this youth was engaged can properly be brought within the scope of the proposed legislation, but my hon. Friend may be assured that the matter will be carefully considered.
  Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that this case is typical of scores of thousands of people who are suffering from low wages, and is it not possible for him to collaborate with the Minister of Labour so that the Bill he is introducing covers all cases of low wages?
  Viscountess ASTOR: If we bring more cases like this to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, will he see that these children come under the new Bill?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I cannot say more than that I shall give careful consideration to all the circumstances.

  FACTORY ACTS.
  Viscountess ASTORasked the Home Secretary whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation to amend the Factory Acts?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I regret that there is no prospect of any general amendment of the Factory Acts being undertaken this Session.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think, considering that every Government in the last 10 years has been pledged to amend the Factory Acts, that this would be a very good work for the National Government?

  FILM CENSORSHIP.
  Viscountess ASTORasked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the advisability of taking steps to transfer the responsibility of censorship of films from the film trade to the Home Office?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I am of opinion that it is best that final responsibility in this matter should rest, as at present, with the cinematograph licensing authorities.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that it is very satisfactory for the film trade to censor itself, and does he not know perfectly well that before the late Labour Government came in they hurriedly put in an ex-Home Secretary so as to protect themselves from this House; and will he give the House of Commons a chance of saying what it thinks about the film industry censoring itself?
  Sir COOPER RAWSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if the Film Censor Board have ever censored a film, and, if so, how many?

  TRAFFIC CONTROL (PEDESTRIANS).
  Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Home Secretary if he will ascertain the views of those directly responsible for traffic control in the Metropolitan area as to whether the control of pedestrians as well as vehicles by traffic signals would be in the interests of safety?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I would refer to the reply given on the 29th November by my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison). In giving further consideration to this question, the Minister of Transport and I will, of course, keep in the closest touch with the Commissioner of Police.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise how incongruous it is that traffic is bound by signals, and that when the signals go off the traffic finds pedestrians immediately in front of it?

  AFFORESTATION.
  Captain HEILGERSasked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye as representing the Forestry Commissioners the acreage already planted by the Forestry Commission in the county of Suffolk and the acreage limit to be planted in the near future; and the cost to date incurred by the Forestry Commission in the said county?
  Colonel Sir GEORGE C0URTHOPE (Forestry Commissioner): 13,213 acres have been planted by the Forestry Commission in Suffolk and 250 acres will be planted this season; the total expenditure incurred on forestry operations in Suffolk is approximately £159,500.
  Major OWENasked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye as representing the Forestry Commissioners how many acres were planted in Carnarvonshire in the present year; and what is the programme of planting for 1934 for that county?
  Sir G. COURTHOPE: 547 acres were planted by the Forestry Commission in Carnarvonshire last season and the programme for this season is 542 acres.
  Major OWENasked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye as representing the Forestry Commissioners how many forest holdings have been established in Carnarvonshire up to the present time; and how many it is proposed to establish in the near future?
  Sir G. COURTHOPE: 59 forest workers' holdings have been established by the Forestry Commission in Carnarvonshire and four more will be established in the near future.
  Major OWEN: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman satisfied with the rate of progress in the establishment of these forest holdings?
  Sir G. COURTHOPE: We would gladly establish more in Carnarvon and other counties if our funds permitted, but we have to make the best use of the limited resources at our disposal.
  Major OWEN: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman, in conjunction with the other members of the Forestry Commission, press for a larger grant from the Treasury for this purpose?

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    SLAVERY ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the names of the members of the Slavery Advisory Committee recently appointed by the Council of the League of Nations; and when the committee is to commence work?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): With the hon. Member's permission I will circulate the list of names in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As regards the second part of the question, the Advisory Committee will meet on the 8th January next in accordance with the Assembly Resolution of the 11th October, 1933, in order to draw up its Rules of Procedure, which will then be submited to the Council of the League of Nations for approval at its January session.
    Following is the list referred to:

    M. Albrecht Gohr, Honorary Secretary-General of the Belgian Ministry for the Colonies.

    Sir George Maxwell, K.B.E., C.M.G., late Chief Secretary to the Government, Federated Malay States.

    Mme. Isabel Oyarzabal de Palencia, Spanish Delegate to the International Labour Conference and to the Assembly of the League of Nations.

    M. Th. Mardhand, Governor of Colonies; Ex-Commissioner of the French Republic in the Caineroons.

    Commendatore Tullio Zedda, former Secretary-General of the Government of Eritrea; ex-Member of the Committee of Experts on Slavery (1932).

    M. Neytzell de Wilde, Head of the Department for Juridical Questions and for League of Nations Affairs at the Netherland Ministry for the Colonies.

    M. Jos´ d'Almada, Colonial Adviser to the Portuguese Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

    SAAR TERRITORY.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any statement to make with reference to the situation in the Saar territory; and what steps are being taken by the Governing Commission of the League of Nations to check Nazi terrorism?
    Mr. EDEN: The answer to the first part of the question is no, Sir. As regards the last part of the question, I have no information to indicate that the Saar Governing Commission is not discharging satisfactorily the duties entrusted to it.
    Mr. M. BEAUMONT: Is it the duty of the League of Nations to carry on propaganda of which the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) disapproves?

    PALESTINE (IMMIGRATION).
    Sir A. KNOXasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what quota of immigrants it has been decided to admit to Palestine in the first six months of 1934?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The quotas, which are termed labour schedules, are fixed in October and April. The quota approved last October was 5,500. The next labour schedule is due to be announced in April, 1934.
    Sir A. KNOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the quota is not too large to be absorbed by the country, having regard to the interests of the existing population?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have repeatedly stated that it is the consistent policy of the Government and of the High Commissioner to see that the schedule is strictly fixed in accordance with the capacity of the country.
    Mr. JANNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman also take into consideration the fact that Palestine is to-day a prosperous country and that the immigrants have made it prosperous?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It should be a prosperous country, and it would not be a prosperous country if we did not govern immigration in accordance with capacity.

  SILK DUTIES.
  Mr. REMER (for Mr. LYONS)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now in a position to make a statement with reference to the Silk Duties?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the correspondence between the Chairman of the Import Duties Advisory Committee and myself which was published on the 8th September last, to which I have nothing further to add.
  Mr. REMER: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Sir William Clare Lees has stated that it will make no difference to the negotiations with the Japanese if the Import Duties Advisory Committee proceed to make their decisions on this matter?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think I am prepared to accept that view.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Arthur Ronald Lambert Field Tree, Esquire, for the County of Leicester (Harborough Division).

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had agreed to the following Resolution, which they had directed him to report to the House:
That, after a Bill has been under consideration in Standing Committee, no application for changes in the composition of that Committee in respect of that Bill shall be entertained by the Committee of Selection.
Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had selected the following Eight Members to be the Chairmen's Panel, and to serve as Chairmen of the Five Standing Committees appointed under Standing Order No. 47: Mr. Cape, Sir Cyril Cobb, Mr. Entwistle, Sir William Jenkins, Sir Ian Macpherson, Mr. William Nicholson, Sir Hugh O'Neill, and Sir Samuel Roberts.
Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL) (PARLIAMENT ACT, 1911).
Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That, in pursuance of Section 1, Sub-section (3), of the Parliament Act, 1911, they had appointed Mr. Cape and Mr. William Nicholson from the Chairmen's Panel, with whom Mr. Speaker shall consult, if practicable, before giving his certificate to a Money Bill.
Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACTS, 1899 AND 1933) (PANEL).
Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That, in pursuance of the provisions of the Private
Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Acts, 1899 and 1933, they had selected the following Eighteen Members to form the Parliamentary Panel of Members of this House to act as Commissioners: Sir Adrian Baillie, Sir Samuel Chapman, Commander Cochrane, Colonel Crook-shank, the Earl of Dalkeith, Sir Patrick Ford, Mr. Leonard, Mr. Wellwood Johnston, Lieut.-Colonel Charles MacAndrew, Mr. Maclay, Mr. Neil Maclean, Mr. McKie, Mr. Milne, Lieut.-Colonel Moore, Mr. James Reid, Mr. Albert Russell, Mr. Stuart and Mr. John Wallace.
Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE) (PANEL).
Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had selected the following Eight Members to be the Panel to serve on Standing Orders Committees under Standing Order 98: Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte, the Earl of Dalkeith, Sir Francis Fre-mantle, Major Leighton, Mr. Mander, Sir Frank Sanderson, Mr. Annesley Somer-ville, and Mr. Tinker.
Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (COMMITTEE ON UNOPPOSED BILLS) (PANEL).
Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had selected the following Seven Members to be the Panel appointed to serve on the Committee on Unopposed Bills under Standing Order 111: Mr. Charles Brown, Colonel Clifton Brown, Captain Crawford Browne, Mr. Thomas Cook, Sir Geoffrey Ellis, Mr. Hanbury, and Mr. Logan.
Report to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [30 th November], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  Which Amendment was, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
  "this House declines to assent to the Second Reading of an Unemployment Bill which fails to recognise that all the victims of the unemployment which is inherent in the modern system of industrial capitalism are entitled to equal and honourable treatment and maintenance from national funds so as to preserve intact their value to and status in the community."—[Mr. Greenwood.]
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  3.51 p.m.
  Mr. McGOVERN: I desire to continue the discussion on the Amendment for the rejection of this Bill, and I want to say here that, so far as we are concerned, we are entirely opposed to the Bill in every shape and form. We take our stand, as is well known, in favour of a completely non-contributory scheme of benefits and allowances for the unemployed of this country. No doubt it is the duty of the Government to pilot the Measure through the House, to defend the substance of the Bill, and to take their stand on the Bill in the country after they have brought it in. The report of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, of which this Bill is the outcome, was the result, as everybody knows, of the deliberations of a Commission set up by the late Labour Government. The late Labour Government set up what might be regarded as a completely Tory Commission to inquire into what action" should be taken in order to put unemployment insurance in this country on a sound actuarial basis. The fund for a long time had been gradually going into a more and more bankrupt state, and various Governments in this House postponed taking action along these lines because, according to their advisers and to their own opinion, the depression that was taking place in this country was of a temporary nature. Various Govern-
  1500
  ments since 1918 or 1920 hoped, like Micawber, that something would turn up to put the fund into a state of greater solvency, but as time has gone on from 1918, the fund has gone more and more into that state of insolvency that we have seen within the last year or two.
  Owing to the fact that large sums of money had to be found from the taxpayers of the country in order to balance Budgets and deal with unemployment insurance, there were the usual scares that large numbers of people were drawing benefit who were not entitled to benefit, and we had wild stories from one end of the country to the other about unemployed people living in a state of complete affluence who were not anxious to work, and who were drawing benefits from the Employment Exchanges. If I may digress for a momant, I was surprised to hear, in the Debate the other day, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), who is usually credited with being astute and fair in discussion, introduce the old bogy of the man with £1,000 in the bank who was drawing unemployment benefit. This argument about the man with £l,000 in the bank has been used by many people in the Liberal, Tory and Labour parties at various times, in order to keep great masses of the people in destitution and in poverty.
  The Labour Government took action by setting up a commission. In most cases, when Governments in the past, Liberal and Tory, set up commissions, those commissions were composed of their particular supporters-people who believed in capitalism in every phase; but the Labour party, hoping to carry on as a Government, appointed a Tory commission with a small percentage of moderate Labour representation, in the hope that its recommendations would get through the House. We have been told from time to time on Labour platforms that it was the Liberal party that forced them to adopt the personnel of this commission, and that, if they had been able and free, they would have appointed a more sympathetic commission in connection with unemployment insurance. I am not going to grumble about the members of the commission. They believed in capitalism, and they believed that capitalism can only be carried on by protecting the people at the top at the

  1501
  expense of the great majority of people at the bottom. If that be their point of view, I have no grudge against them. But there were demands for interim reports, and in the first place a report was presented, and the Labour Government took action on that report. When this commission was set up, the then Minister of Labour, Miss Bondfield, said this:
  "We wish it to be recognised that the Royal Commission will be required to give us what light they can on the additional experience since the Blanesburgh inquiry; and upon the further evidence which they will collect and upon which they will base their recommendations we shall have to frame the next Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1931; col. 911, Vol. 248.]
  That was the statement of Miss, Bond-field, that when this Tory commission reported, the Labour party, if in office, would be prepared to accept its recommendations and upon them to frame the Bill. I want to say at this stage, that in connection with the first report that was made concerning the Anomalies Act—and I raise this point because it is important—this Bill is simply a continuation of the recommendations which were made and carried into effect. The first portion was the Anomalies Act, which was more outrageous in many ways than this Bill, bad as it is, because it deprived large numbers of people of the whole of the benefit they were drawing at the Employment Exchange. We have been making history within the last week or so. Mr. Greenwood, on 30th November last, speaking of the abolition of the not-genuinely-seeking-work Clause said:
  "When the late Labour Government altered that regulation and shifted the onus of proof from the worker there was a great outcry about anomalies, and the Anomalies Act was passed to meet the clamour in the House of Commons. The Anomalies Act still remains, although the justification for it has gone."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1933; col. 1105, Vol. 283.]
  He said that if this Bill passes, it will introduce practically a new not-genuinely-seeking-work Clause, and therefore the Anomalies Act is absolutely unnecessary. If that be true, I want to ask this question. We had a declaration last week from the Labour party concerning the means test. I want to know if they stand for the abolition of the Anomalies Act in its entirety. I am asking the official Labour Opposition, because if we make progress in the way they were doing last
  1502
  week in throwing over the means test, and they can throw over the Anomalies Act, then in about 50 years' time they will be competent to defend the working classes of this country. I am putting it to them definitely, in order to get it in the country, where they stand according to that statement, because, in my assumption, it is drawn up with a view to encouraging the belief in the country that they stand for the rejection of the Anomalies Act. I want to know whether they are prepared at this stage to declare for the overthrow of the Anomalies Act along with the means test, and not to go on defending the indefensible, while at the same time going to the country and making people believe that they are not supporters of either of these Measures. This is an attempt, in answer to the recommendations of the Commission, to put the fund on a sound actuarial basis. All Governments have been struggling for that, and the Prime Minister at Bedford on 14th November, 1930, when he was Prime Minister of the Labour Government, said:
  "Unemployment insurance as an insurance must be put back on an insurance basis."
  In October, 1930, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Snowden, at the Guildhall, said:
  "I think it is the duty of Parliament to face up to this problem, and put the Insurance Fund on an insurance basis."
  There was no repudiation of that point of view by the rank and file Members of the Labour party at that time. It is all very well to say, "We have now got rid of the Prime Minister. We have now got rid of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We have got rid of the intellectuals, and, therefore, we can go along and pretend in the House that we are a working-class party, that we have left our philosophy and policy of make-believe behind, or in front on this bench, and we stand as an orthodox working-class party." I would welcome an open declaration in the country by the Labour party that they have repudiated their past policy, and have taken a new line which is necessary according to the conditions we see to-day. But I see no change from the actual line of policy which operated when the Labour party were sitting on the other side of the House.

  1503
  The Labour party over this Bill are in a very difficult position, and I sympathise with them, because everything contained in the Bill they stood for. Last week they threw over publicly the means test in this House, although it still remains part of the policy of the Labour party at its annual conference, and it is not throwing over the test in any shape or form. It was done on the eve of the introduction of this Bill. They can only say that they stood against a Poor Law test, and as the Government now propose to take the power out of the hands of the actual Poor Law authorities, they had to queer the pitch last week in order to make a semblance in this House. I say that it is hypocritical in the extreme to come down to this House after the decision of an annual conference for the carrying out of a means test, and to say at that bench that they stand for the rejection of the means test in its entirety.
  I remember the hon. Gentleman for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) making the statement in this House, shortly after the beginning of this Parliament, that they had rejected a means test, though there have been open declarations by the Leader of the party that he stood for the means test. I do not care what Members are inclined to mutter or whisper. I say that if we know the policy of the Tory party, we are entitled to know the policy of the Labour party. They have no right to say that the Tory stands for the starvation of the working classes under the Insurance Bill, when they themselves during 1929 and 1930 walked into the Division Lobby for a 2s. standard for the unemployed man's child, and go back again to the country, as they did at Kilmarnock, and condemn this brutal Government—and I believe it is brutal. They are not justified in going to the country and saying that there is any demarcation, or line of division, between themselves and the Government at the present moment.
  Therefore, I say that we have really no official Opposition in this House. We have a sham Opposition. We have elements in the Labour party that do not approve of the means test, that did not approve of the Anomalies Act, that do not approve of any parts of the Labour party policy, but they will go to the by-elections and back candidates who
  1504
  go for all these things, and claim independence in the House while tied to the party machine in the country in every way. Let us hear what Mr. Citrine, speaking for the Trades Union Congress, said:
  "We therefore suggest that an Unemployment Benefit board should be constituted of three nominees of the Trades Union Congress General Council, three nominees of employers' organisations, one nominee from the Ministry of Labour and one nominee from the Treasury, together with an independent chairman."
  Our old friend the independent chairman! Where they get the illusion that there is such a person as an independent chairman, I do not know: he must either be drawn from the ruling class or the working class, either from the exploiters or the exploited. But the board comes along, and these people say that the board is all wrong, because the National Government have adopted the policy of the Trades Union Council and they see it in print. It reminds me of the soldiers of whom the famous General said, "I don't know what you think, but, by Heaven, they frighten me!" When they see the actual thing put into a Bill they say, "We do not want that," like a child buying a toy; it wants an engine, and, having got that, wants a doll. To continue the quotation:
  "We are convinced that the formation and functioning of such a board, by largely removing the question of unemployment benefit from the arena of party politics and by relieving the legislative congestion of Parliament"—
  I have seen the congestion when it has five months holiday in the year—
  "will ensure sound administration of the scheme on democratic and business-like lines."
  That is Mr. Citrine, of the Trades Union Congress. We shall be told by some people that he does not matter, but we know that he does matter. They are the men who walk to the rostrum with 250,000 votes never asked for by the rank and file, and vote down elements that are Socialistic in the movement.
  We are attempting to put the fund on a sound actuarial basis. We never attempt to put the Army and Navy on a sound actuarial basis. We never consider the cost of battleships, of guns, of tanks, of poison gas, of rifles, of Dreadnoughts, of submarines, of airships or aeroplanes. They are all put as a burden

  1505
  on to the people in order, we are told, to defend the interests of the country if it had to go to war. Why should we have to put human beings below that level? People are not unemployed because they want to be unemployed. People are running around and appealing in every way to get employment.
  The Unemployment Fund is in a state of insolvency, because capitalism is in a state of insolvency, not because individuals are not anxious or willing to work, not because they have done something deadly in the line of crime in any way. They are anxious and willing to work, but the State cannot give them employment, and as capitalism declines and declines, and goes headlong into disaster, with every step downward on the private profit-making system, various Governments come along to the House, and it is the fifteen and threepenny man, to whom the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) referred, who has to go down another step. I am not adverse to economy; I am not averse to sacrifices, to pruning with the knife, but I want to start from the top, and not from the bottom. I think that is the only logical way, and if you are going to place everyone on a means test, let us go right down the rungs of the ladder, and the man at the bottom will go up.
  The National Government, like their predecessors, say that they must put this fund upon a sound actuarial basis. The system of privately-owned industry has ceased to be self-supporting and, therefore, the needs of the unemployed must be adjusted to meet the needs of a bankrupt system of society. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay) yesterday approved the Bill as a sound, courageous piece of legislation. I do not see where the soundness of it is. I do not see where the courage is required, because I never thought it was courageous to set up machinery for the purpose of attacking the common people. The hon. Member said that before any of the cuts were restored to the teachers or to any other persons, including Members of Parliament I assume, there should be a 1s. extra for each child. Even that is a revolutionary demand compared with the Labour party.
  The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) last night waved his hands and carried on, threatening the Govern-
  1506
  ment and the ruling class with what the Labour party would do if they got into power. I know what they would do. He said, "We will assist the common people; we will abolish the means test, and we will take away the whole of this outrageous legislation."
  In December, 1930, when the Independent Labour party proposed 5s. for the unemployed man's child, he walked into the Lobby with the landowners, the coal-owners and the royalty owners and declared that 2s. was sufficient for the children of the unemployed man. It takes a brass cheek to come to the House and pose as a defender of the common people after having voted with Members of different political parties for a continuation of what is described by several medical men as a miserably inadequate scale of benefit for the unemployed man's child. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock said this was a courageous piece of legislation. They are doing a very drastic thing to the children from 14 to 16 years of age. They are taking 2d. a week from them, and at 15½ or 15 and 9 months, if they become unemployed, the father, who may be unemployed also, is going to be able to return to the 2s. standard for the three or six months until the child is 16. Is not that a courageous thing? The Government are giving 2s. a week for a boy of 15½ or 15 and 9 months with practically all the wants and desires of a man, including entertainment, food and recreation under this bold, comprehensive, courageous scheme brought in by the strong men of the House.
  The Prime Minister and his so-called National Labour supporters are in a coalition of all the elements which at one time they denounced. I do not say that people have not a right to change minds and their ideas, but he has become contaminated and debauched by the association of the Londonderry's and others who are his daily companions. He told the country over the wireless—fancy a man claiming to be a Socialist saying this: "We are putting through the cuts, but we want it to be understood that we are not cutting the 2s. benefit of the child." Was not that a generous thing, was it not a civilised thing, was it not a Christian thing that a great man with £5,000 a year, and another member of his family with £1,250 or £1,500, were not going to put through any cuts on the child drawing

  1507
  2s. a week. I remember the time during the War when I went with the Prime Minister to Glasgow. I was looked upon as the leader of his bodyguard. I helped to defend him with rubber pipes, lead pipes and various instruments of warfare at peace meetings. I never believed he was much of a Socialist, but I thought at least he would put up some fight in the War, and we defended him. At that time the Press, Liberal and Tory, were hounding him from one end of the country to the other, but to-day he is their darling and, when he sits on that bench, they all get behind him like beasts of the jungle in order to attack the working-class. I have been in houses where, since these cuts have been made, the people were practically broken hearted over what they termed his betrayal of working-class interests. They had almost worshipped the man, but now his name stinks in the very nostrils of every decent minded progressive individual throughout the length and breadth of the land. He played the Judas to the class who put him into supreme power and authority, and he used the poverty of the common people to get on to that bench and become the puppet and the darling of the people with whom he is now associated.
  What is the reason for the introduction of this legislation? It is simply that it is not the people in the House who rule. It is not the landowners; it is not the capitalists. We have a new financial ruling class, and the financial dictators lay down the lines of Parliamentary business, and they lay down to the Cabinet their wishes and desires, because they own and control almost every human being from one end of the land to the other. They are the King Herods of our 1933 civilisation. They abstract the energy of human beings in employment in order to provide luxury for themselves and their friends and, when creeping paralysis has overtaken industry and they can no longer employ the workers, they reduce their standards to the level of starvation and degrade the mothers and young women and destroy children more rapidly than King Herod under the system that is in operation to-day. Under this Bill you will make permanent the cuts which have been operated by the so-called National Government. The hon. Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) said yesterday
  1508
  that the country had been cheated by the application of these cuts. We were told that they were temporary and that as soon as the crisis had passed away they would be restored, and he demanded that they should be restored. He only showed that he was a simple supporter of the National Government, because the very essence of capitalist decline in every part of the world means that capitalism can never be stabilised and will never be out of crisis until it is finally destroyed in every way.
  Under this Bill you are dealing with one important feature, the question of training. The late Minister of Labour, Miss Bondfield, approved of training, and the Labour party at that time were committed to it. But the Bill sets up what might be termed slave camps. I believe they are practically on the model of the camps that have been set up by Hitler in Germany and Mussolini in Italy, and I can see at every stage of your legislation that you are quietly and cunningly setting up a dictatorship which, at any given moment, can suppress the whole of working-class institutions and working-class freedom and which may take the ownership and control of the lives of every human being and completely put your schemes of dictatorship into operation without a struggle. There is one called High Lodge at Brandon in Suffolk. There is no need for ex-service men to picture this. He knows what a desolate camp in the middle of a moor is like. He lived in them and they almost made going to War seem intolerable. Each man receives 3s. for each of the 12 weeks that he is at camp. If he is a man receiving 15s. 3d. in benefit, the Government deduct 12s. Whatever the man's financial position, he gets the standard 3s. rate of pay. I would never suggest that they would ask a man to work for nothing. They are not as mean as that. They give him 3s. a week. At first he is given light work to do and then, after physical exercise, he is promoted to heavier work.
  At High Lodge this consists of cutting trenches to guard again forest fires, land drainage and reclamation and trenching and shoring. No wonder the men sing, "Yield not to temptation." It is difficult to see what temptation they could yield to on 3s. a week in such a hell-

  1509
  hole, except the temptation to run away. They are up early-early to bed and early to rise. The ordinary men rise at 6, and the others at 6.30. After breakfast at 8 o'clock they start the day's work. The work is of the hardest description, and all for 3s. a week. The camps are full of men who have been kidded on to volunteer. The new Bill gives the Unemployment Assistance Committee power to make them compulsory. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who says this?"] The hon. Member is assuming that it is the "Daily Herald," but he is quite wrong. I would never quote from the "Daily Herald." It is the "Daily-Worker." There is another camp at Dunoon where the work is swinging a pick or hammer for eight hours a day. If you are caught smoking during working hours, the manager threatens to send you home, which means a loss of six weeks' money at the Exchange. It is just like the Army. You go on parade after breakfast and dinner and a loudmouthed instructor bawls out to his heart's content. If you want to go home for the week end, it costs a matter of 6s.—a fortnight's pay.
  We have no hope of defeating the desire of the Government to carry out the training camps, but we are certainly not without hope of being able to stir up trouble outside the House. We do not hope to convert Members to our point of view, but there is a great mass of people in the country whom we have hope of converting, because they are the unconscious victims of the present system. Therefore, they should be encouraged to revolt. Every action and activity, and line of obstruction and attack that we can take will be taken in connection with the attempt to put training camps into operation in this country; to use men in that way and put them into military camps and upon the soup kitchen standard of life. It is something like the German prisoners of war camps. We have got to a fine stage in this system of capitalism. Your system is going down into degradation when all that you can do and work for is to use their bodies ·and prepare them for future warfare in defence of capitalism in this country and abroad. We shall do all that we can to obstruct, not only the passage of the Bill, but to destroy the effect of the Bill in its application outside.
  1510
  There is the question of political influence which has been raised on many occasions. Every speaker says: "I am glad to see that this is being taken out of the political arena." Why should it be taken out of the political arena? Why should not working men and women be able to make known to their representatives their wishes and desires in a so-called democratic country? Why should they not be able to make demands upon the willing or unwilling politicians in this country? Why should it be taken out? There is no objection to the long line of financial deputations which come to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and no objection to lobbying, correspondence and Press which come to Members of this House. If you do not take particular interest in them, they threaten to turn their army and hoards against you at the election. That is all legitimate. It applies to big business and to the exploiting section, but we are not to be allowed to have the men and women who have fallen into the gutter in the backlands and in the slums coming to political meetings and demanding a humane standard of life from the governing authority and the ruling classes of the country. We see tariff boards, and lobby and Ministerial deputations permitted. I say that to keep unemployment insurance in politics is not only the life of politics, but it helps to galvanise, inspire and to keep going those who are desirous of evading the influence of those people.
  With regard to central and local boards, I would rather have the local board under the public assistance auspices. We have always been told by people who approve of capitalism that they would welcome a return of the good old days when every man in the workshop felt that the employer was his friend and when the employer went round with the personal touch. They say that he had a knowledge of their conditions and that there was more humanity and consideration in those times. But as rationalisation and combines have developed, there has been nothing but a keen sense of business responsibility, profit and dividend, and the human element does not count. If you are to operate this scheme, a great amount of play in connection with its application is absolutely essential. There should be on the local boards people who understand

  1511
  local conditions and appreciate the position of individuals, so that they can assess their needs in a more humane and decent way than a board sitting in London or elsewhere whose only job is to see that the fund is balanced irrespective of the tears, suffering and agony of the people in working-class areas. I know that there are some people who are not inclined to give consideration to that point of view, and, therefore, I would desire to see, if the Bill is to become law, that the local influence should be allowed to operate to the full.
  We have been told of the effects of the means test. There has been no dubiety so far as we are concerned. We have never stood for the support of any kind of means test at any time. We are antagonistic to a means test unless there is a means test applied to every individual in society. We realise what a means test under capitalism really means. By close knowledge and experience of local work I am able to understand the application of a means test in respect of the ordinary able-bodied man requiring relief from the parish council and the public assistance committee. Knowing what it means, I say to the House without any egotism that I believe there are not 33⅓ per cent, of the Members of the House who know what a means test really is. They do not understand it. There are to-day people on local authorities who do not understand it because they have never given study and time to the individual cases which come before them. From time to time, on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, and sometimes on Saturday, I have had to meet people at the public assistance offices. There have sometimes been 20 or 30 people, and I have sat on relief work from 9 o'clock till one o'clock on some days studying every individual case. A, B and C may have the same number of children and to all appearances have the same claim, but they may be absolutely different in every way. Their demands are different because of the many demands which they have to meet and of the difficulties in their family life. The means test is operated harshly, brutally, and in the most extreme manner.
  I will cite three cases, and ask hon. and right hon. Members to say whether they are right or just. There is No. 1, a girl
  1512
  of 23 years of age, earning £2 5s. per week. The father, aged 59, is unemployed, a brother, 28, unemployed, and another brother, 31, unemployed. None of these three men has any benefit at all because the girl's wage of £2 5s. has to go into the home to keep the father and two brothers. Many things happen. You undermine parental authority, because the father feels that he is a charge upon the daughter, and the brothers feel the same. Before they can get 6d. for a packet of cigarettes, a penny for a newspaper, a pair of socks—the mother is dead—before they can get anything, they have to go to the daughter with her £2 5s. a week. She is being denied holidays. She cannot get the ordinary decencies of Life. She cannot have a dress in order to go to a dance and make herself as becoming as those with whom she associates. The family are reduced to the gutter and are in poverty, with each individual in the home clinging to the girl of 23 years of age. Is there any hon. Member in this House who would defend conditions of that kind as applied to three men living out of the bare income of a girl of 23? Not even a penny can be put by for her future marriage, and in this case she is keeping company with a view to marriage. She cannot get a holiday, clothe herself decently, or get the ordinary nourishment she needs. It is a scandal and an outrage that this sort of thing should take place in the year 1933, when you have bountiful supplies of food and are destroying the results of the energy of the people in every part of the world in order to keep a bankrupt, selfish and soulless system of society in operation.
  I come to case No. 2 of a girl of 29, with £1 5s. per week as wages, and another girl of 32, with £1 8s., bringing £2 13s. into the home. There is the father, who is unemployed, the mother, and a sister of 26, none of whom has a single penny of benefit. Would any person care to say that this is equity and that he would like to go into my division and defend those cases in the interests of the National Government? I assure, hon. Members that they would be lucky to leave the division with their lives. Here is the case of a girl, a teacher, whose parents put the whole of their surplus money into educating her in the hope that they would, at some distant

  1513
  date, see her become a good citizen and take her place in life and be able probably materially to contribute to the home. The girl has £3 10s. The father is unemployed, there is the mother, a sister, aged 22, a brother, aged 19, and two boys at school, aged 12 and 9, respectively, and they are all living upon the £3 10s., and the girl herself is paying Income Tax. Would any Member care to defend such a case?
  Is there any Member in the House who is prepared to say that these cases are just or that they ought to be allowed to go on? This sort of thing is going on in thousands of cases throughout the country. Working-class people are being crucified at the present moment in order to keep the brutal and ruthless band of money barons in operation with their affluence, wealth and power in this country. We see the results of this sort of thing in Glasgow. The chief constable says that child crime is on the increase. I met a magistrate from Glasgow only yesterday, and he told me that when sitting on the bench last week he had before him a boy of 10 years of age who had been six times in the court this year for stealing. You find that the denial of money for sweets, pictures, and other little entertainments and decencies which the parents cannot afford to provide for their children is driving children to crime in this way. These people have desires just as every Member in this House. Why should not their wants be satisfied?
  It is now getting near to Christmas time. Last Friday there were two birthdays in my family, a girl of 23, and a boy of 5, both having been born on 1st December. I love my family, and I should like to see every child given an equal opportunity with my children. I look forward to being able to go home and to buy something in order to brighten the lives of those children at such periods. When it comes to Christmas time, the season when people are asked by their children for presents, what will be the position in the homes of the poor? Little children, ragged and ill-shod, will see others whose parents are in a happier position, with their tricycles, their Meccano sets and their games, and they will not understand why they are denied these pleasures. I have seen children—I am deeply interested in children—where
  1514
  that contrast operates. I have seen a child coming along the street, badly dressed, ragged, without boots. That child sees another, well and brightly dressed, and one always sees a consciousness developing in the poor child as it looks at the well-dressed child. One sees admiration, the face beaming; then the poor child takes a sly look at its own garments and slips away, feeling incapable of being in company with the better-dressed child.
  That is what the means test is doing. I know of cases in the area that I represent where children have been born in a home where the electric light or the gas has been cut off, where eviction notices have been served, and where the 40s. maternity benefit has been denied them; the woman lying in bed, with not a blanket, not a ray of hope, no nourishment, no comfort, no decency in the home, and we are told that this must continue. We are told that the means test must operate. If economies were essential, there is no man in this House who would be more ready to practice economies. I neither drink nor smoke and I am prepared to surrender part of my salary at any time if it can be shown to me that it is essential that it should be surrendered in order to meet the needs of the people who are less fortunate in life, but when I know that people at the top have the right to purchase, if they had the power, to consume 1,000 dinners while other individuals have not the right to one decent dinner, I say, quite frankly, that you cannot satisfy outraged humanity that it is essential that these things should continue.
  The men who operate this scheme of things ought to feel ashamed that they are using their power as a so-called National Government to harass their fellow men and women who are in a less fortunate position, to degrade them, to destroy them, to drive them into asylums and into early graves, because of a bankrupt system of society, instead of declaring that the system can no longer operate to the satisfaction and well-being of the whole of humanity. Let us reorganise on the basis of common ownership instead of private ownership in the interests of the few. We are hampering people to death at the present time. We know that they are suffering acutely under the system known as the means test, and

  1515
  I ask the House to pay serious attention to the question. You may pass your Bill and carry it through the Lobbies by the sheer numerical weight of hon. Members defending the National Government, but I tell hon. Members that in the slums, in the back lands, there will be a rumbling, a revolution of feeling which is gradually developing, as Members of the Government know, and which is encouraged and developed when the people of this country realise that nothing is to be got by pleading with this House or on the public platform, and that this House is using its majority to force through these Measures.
  I wish the Labour party would declare itself openly and unashamedly the working-class party and stop chasing after the middle-class shadow while losing the working-class substance. Let them take their stand along with the people who are in the gutter, inspire them, galvanise them into activity, bind them into one strong army of labour, with a strong policy and programme. If they take their stand in that way, men and women, without fear or favour, will cooperate with them on the basis of the revolutionary demands of the common people for the ending of capitalism. Do not imagine that in this Bill or in any Bill you are going to put oxygen into the dead carcase of capitalism. It is not a doctor's mandate that it wants, but the undertaker's mandate to cremate it. This system has outlived its usefulness. Let us go forward to the next step in civilised development. Commonly we produce and commonly we ought to own and distribute the goods of life. If the sufferings and the anguish of the people of this country in working-class homes could be condensed into one human cry, it would rattle and appal the people in high places. I for my part go out to the country every week-end and at every moment that I get the opportunity and tell the people there is no hope from this House, and that sitting in this House is a gang of hard-faced business men and women, with the outlook of the capitalist class. [Interruption.] Yes, hard-faced and hard-hearted in every way to the demands of the common people.
  Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: That is not true.
  Mr. McGOVERN: If my hon. and gallant Friend suggests that I am un-truthful I can only say—
  Sir W. BRASS: I say that the hon. Member's remark is just as truthful as those of the "Daily Herald" and the "Daily Worker."
  Mr. McGOVERN: My hon. and gallant Friend is not entitled to say that. He may defend the present system, but I am antagonistic to it.
  Sir W. BRASS: I am talking of the hon. Member's remark about our hard faces.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): I must call the attention of the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) to the fact that he is getting so enthusiastic about the system that he seems to have forgotten the Bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN: I am prepared to accept your Ruling, but I am not going completely into details or making any plea just now. I am dealing with the general effects of the Bill in working-class homes, and I can only say, in passing, that the hon. and gallant Member who interrupted me is too sensitive. His name makes him too sensitive. Brass is always much cheaper than gold. I would point out to the Government that there have been many periods in history where the ruling class have used their power—as the Government are using it in this Bill, and as they use it in the general lines of legislation in this House—to force through that which the people of the country on a referendum would overwhelmingly turn down. Therefore, the Government are not democratically carrying through the wishes and desires of the people. There have been many periods when people have been so carried away with their power that they have carried through legislation that has been harmful to the people, but the people in the end have risen from their slumbers, and have swept the ruling class away.
  I believe that we are within measurable distance of the time when the working class of this country will rise in revolt against those who are imposing this injustice upon them. We will encourage them to do so, knowing that only by a complete change of system, with the working class against the ruling class, and the working class transferring power from the present ruling class to themselves, with

  1517
  a new economic order, is there any hope. We shall live to see the day when the various political parties who have misused their power will be swept away into the limbo of forgotten things, and men and women, with courage, with knowledge and consciousness will take their place in a new system which will be substituted for the present bankrupt system.
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I shall not detain the House one tithe of the time that the hon. Member for Shettleston has taken. I want to make one point which has not been made in the Debate. There are in this very comprehensive Measure of social legislation three weaknesses, three omissions or ambiguities. One was dealt with very fully last Friday, and to a certain extent last night, and I do not intend to refer to it again, namely, the whole question of the control of the recruitment of juvenile labour into industry. That remains a question which the Government will have to tackle beyond and in addition to this Bill. There is, secondly, the whole range of questions referred to in the very remarkable speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay) last night—the question of the mode and operation of the Unemployment Assistance Board. It is clear that that board as it is set forth in the Bill at present may be the greatest organ of remedial action that has ever been planned in this country for two generations, or it may be a mere piece of bureaucratic machinery handing out payments at certain rates to persons qualified by assessment on the application of certain tests of means. We shall have to examine very closely during the Committee stage of the Bill whether it is possible to make clear by any Amendment of Part II that it is the remedial action which we expect that board to take, and that the board must be adequately equipped to take such action. I will say no more on those two points.
  I come now to the one point which I do want to make and which has not been made so far in the Debate. Part I of the Bill attempts to remove the Insurance Fund out of pure politics and to give it a financial administration representing the contributors to the fund and the beneficiaries of the fund. It does not stereotype the Unemployment Insurance scheme, because the Statutory Committee
  1518
  is to have very wide powers to vary contributions and benefit according to the financial position of the scheme, but it does tend to stereotype it in one respect—it tends to stereotype the whole scheme of contributions in their amount and their arrangement. There is one feature in Unemployment Insurance which I have always thought to be a scandal and that is the employers' contribution, a contribution assessed rigidly at so much a head for every person employed. That represents a barbarous conception of the relation between capital and labour—I do not pause now to consider in whose hands capital should be. Even if it is in the hands of a public authority surely it is a barbarous conception that the business of the holder of capital is not to employ labour, that the manager of capital in employing labour is not discharging his obvious duty but is assuming a risk against which he must insure himself and the State. So much for the conception of the thing, but think of the effect of it.
  I believe that insurance contributions fail in respect of Unemployment Insurance, Health Insurance and insurance against workmen's compensation liability. These insurance contributions are probably a greater cause of unemployment than any other single factor at the present moment. We talk a great deal about technological unemployment and the replacing of manual labour by the machine, but, surely, historically and economically, the motive for replacing man's labour by the machine is not that the machine is in itself cheaper but that the production of the machine is far greater than that of manual labour. In other words, the adoption of the machine in place of human labour is a characteristic of expanding industry, expanding production and expanding consumption. We know only too well to-day that in most of our staple industries there is no question of expanding production^ we are coming down, for the moment, to a more or less stationary rate of consumption. Therefore, the motive for the replacement of man by the machine, the ordinary economic motive, is much less to-day than it has been for the last 100 years. But on the employer who is considering whether it will pay him to replace human labour by the machine you put this extra incentive to incline him towards the machine that he has to take

  1519
  out, as it were, a sort of dog licence for about £5 for every single man he employs. That poll tax is throwing men out of employment steadily every day in this country. Obviously, it is difficult to devise an alternative but I think we shall ultimately find that it is essential to get rid of this poll tax.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: Will the Noble Lord bear in mind that the Americans never had this poll tax and they have millions of unemployed?
  Lord E. PERCY: I did not quite catch what the hon. Member said, and I want to get through my remarks as quickly as possible. It will be impossible to get rid of this poll tax unless you can so develop representative organisation in industry that you can make a block assessment of industry, in substitution for its poll tax on the number of men employed; and that, surely is a problem to which the Statutory Committee and the Government should devote prime attention. I hope that the Government will consider this matter in view of the fact that they are in danger, to some extent, in this matter of stereotyping the insurance scheme and will look with favour on proposed Amendments to the Bill which will at any rate make the question open for the consideration of the Statutory Committee and the Government.
  5.5 p.m.
  Mr. LUNN: We are in the third day of the Debate on this Bill and many varied speeches have already been delivered. The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) is usually fairly clear in his analysis of any Measure before the House, but he has not been quite so clear to-day. I admit that he has raised a new point which may be considered by the new Statutory Committee which is going to make regulations and deal with this subject instead of the representatives of the public who are sent to this House. The Noble Lord suggests some new method of dealing with the workers of the country in a kind of block contribution. We have hardly got that in this Bill with regard to unemployment insurance, but as the Statutory Committee is going to have wide powers I have no doubt that they will give consideration to the suggestion of the Noble Lord. But we have had another speech to-day, a very long
  1520
  one, much longer than the speech I propose to make, from the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern). The first 25 minutes of his speech, beginning last night, was an attack on the Labour party without any reference to the Bill, but that is usually the case with the hon. Member when he speaks in this House. He is allowed to do it. Last night he quoted a resolution passed at the Labour party conference at Scarborough. I was present at that conference and I remember a resolution coming from the national executive and being placed before the conference condemning the hon. Member. I remember a very impressive speech delivered by Mr. Willam Shaw, of Glasgow, to that conference, composed of the best and most highly-respected men and women in the working-class movement in this country. That conference confirmed that resolution, and I say that when a man deceives my class, the working class, he is not worthy of my consideration.
  Mr. McGOVERN: The hon. Member is now raising a personal issue. The statement made at the Scarborough Conference was made whilst I was lying in prison, and I had no opportunity of replying to it. I only say that it was a lying and slanderous statement, for which I could have taken action for slander had I been so disposed. I ask the hon. Member to recognise that the right hon. Member for Clay Cross (Mr. A. Henderson) is in the dock just now for much worse than I was.
  Mr. LUNN: It is more than two years since that conference took place, and if the hon. Member was in prison at the time he has not been in prison all the time since then. He might have dealt with it.
  Mr. McGOVERN: The electors of Shettleston endorsed my action.
  Mr. LUNN: There is one great feature of our public life and that is that the men and women who come into it are men and women of character. I know that there are exceptions. I see them.
  Mr. McGOVERN: So do I.
  Mr. LUNN: I hope we shall still carry on this tradition, and that men and women of character will be supported by us. I feel that I must leave the hon. Member there and say no more about his speech.
  Mr. McGOVERN rose
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): Order, order!
  Mr. McGOVERN: If there are going to be any personal references to me no matter what may be the orders of Debate, I am going to have the right to reply; and if there are going to be any lying insinuations about me I am prepared to challenge the hon. Member or any other hon. Member in this House to debate them in public.
  Mr. LUNN: I consider that the speech of the hon. Member, and the hon. Member himself, is unworthy of further consideration by me, and I think I can leave him there to take his own course in whatever way he thinks.
  Mr. McGOVERN: So I will.
  Mr. LUNN: In the few words I propose to address to the House I want to put what I have always understood is the Labour party's position with regard to unemployment. I have been a member of the Labour party since its formation, a loyal member, and I am a loyal member of it to-day. This Bill does not in any way cope with the problem of unemployment. The Minister of Labour, in moving the Second Beading, calculated that he would have on the live register 2,500,000 unemployed, but he did not say for how long, whether it would be for months or for years. But this we know, that there is nothing in the Government's policy which is going to ensure work for any of these 2,500,000, and that after all is the most important question. We shall spend weeks of consideration on this cumbrous Measure of great complexity, with very costly machinery, which is designed more for the purpose of preventing men and women getting either work or maintenance. We shall see that when the Measure is in operation. We are compelled to oppose the Bill because it does not meet the policy of the Labour party, that is, work or maintenance out of national funds for those who cannot get work. That is our policy and has been our policy for a long time. The Prime Minister was the Leader of the Labour party for many years. He is now the Leader of the Tory party. I remember him speaking in support of a Motion similar to that on the Paper today, and he used these words:
  1522
  "In a statement on unemployment, such as we have to-day, we must have ameliorative work or ameliorative treatment, and as has been said again and again from theee benches, if you cannot find work, which is your first resiponsibility, then maintenance must be found. You have not found maintenance and you have not found work."
  That speech was made on 1st December, 1923, 10 years ago. I wonder whether the Prime Minister holds that opinion to-day. I would have liked to have heard him in this Debate. I have often heard him speak on this subject, and I can hear him at any time in my own home making the same declaration from a gramophone record that was produced in 1929. It would be to the advantage of the House if we could know where the Prime Minister is on this matter at this particular moment. After all the gospel is the same yesterday, to-day and for ever. What the right hon. Gentleman used to say, I admit, was often the gospel truth. I am extremely sorry that I have the impression that he is not a supporter of he Amendment that we are discussing, an Amendment whose purpose he supported on many occasions in this House when he was associated with us on the Labour benches.
  The Bill does not restore the cut in unemployment benefit which was imposed in 1931 and by which the unemployed have been robbed of more than £50,000,000. I do not say that even restoration would be satisfactory to me or to the Labour party. There is no doubt that Amendments will be moved to the Bill asking for something more than restoration of the cuts. After all 2s. or 2s. 6d. or 3s. is not sufficient to keep a child, and 8s. or 9s. is not sufficient to keep a woman. This Bill stabilises, for how long we do not know, the present miserably low rates. That is unjustifiable. What has been the result of it? Millions of our people have been prevented from obtaining a sufficiency of good food, of good boots and of decent clothing, and we shall soon have to pay the price in the lowered standard of the physique of our people. We have seen during the last week or two what has been quoted many times in this House—the report of a commission or committee which was set up by the British Medical Association. Nine doctors considered the physical condition of the people under these terms of reference:

  1523
  "To determine the minimum weekly expenditure on foodstuffs which must be incurred by families of varying size if health and working capacity are to be maintained, and to construct specimen tariffs."
  I have read that report. I have seen that the food purchased was purchased from the cheapest market. Yet they say that the minimum to provide food for five persons is £1 2s. 6½d. I have a family of five. They are all taller than I am, and some of them are heavier. I would like to see the nine doctors keep those five in food on double the 5s. 11d. which they say is the minimum required for an adult. I would like to see them do it and keep the five in physical fitness. But even that is more than is given by the Government to the unemployed. When the £1 2s. 61/2d. for a family of five has been spent there is only 6s. 8d. left, if they are lucky enough to get the unemployment benefit, with which to provide rent, coal, light, clothes and boots. How can it be done? We know that it cannot be done.
  We have no right to impose such conditions on any people. But they are not even assured of that miserable existence, for the Bill reimposes the means test in its worst form. The household income is to be taken into account by a soulless official acting under regulations made by a well paid Unemployment Assistance Board. Although everyone of us in the House knows of innumerable cases of hardship that have arisen in the last two years through the operation of the means test, we shall see the principle of the means test applied more rigidly than it has been applied before. That, I believe, is what the Government want to see. What hope is there for young men and young women, in homes where there is unemployment, to provide a home of their own? There can be none. Through the means test we are laying the foundations of a population seriously deteriorated in physique. We cannot vote for the continuance of a system which we have had no part or lot in bringing into being.
  The Bill provides for children of 14 coming into the scheme. They have to pay in but they are to receive very little out of it. If out of work they will get 2s. a week. I say deliberately that it would have been better for the Government to have raised the school-leaving age to 16 and to have provided means for the
  1524
  parents to keep the children at school. If that were done work would be provided for many who are now unable to obtain it. Instead, the Government are introducing a shilly-shally course of instruction for some of those over 14, and they are going to make the ratepayers in the poorest areas meet the cost. It is the wrong way about and is certainly not in the national interest. Education is an incalculable asset both to the individual and the nation, and we ought to be generous in the provision of it at a time like this.
  The Bill imposes an unfair burden on local ratepayers in maintaining those who have not an insurance claim. The Government have already driven 320,000 more persons to seek Poor Law relief than we had in 1931. Who can tell how many more will be affected by the operation of Part II of the Bill. There are 2,500,000 unemployed and hundreds of thousands who have been out of work for years, especially in the mining industry, who have nothing to thank this Government for, as it has done its very worst for that industry in everything it has done since it came into being. It will be a difficulty in that industry to find any man with a five years qualification for the extra benefits under the Bill. I would like the Minister of Labour to make inquiries as to the position in the mining industry. I think I am safe in saying that there would hardly be one in a thousand who would be qualified for extra benefits under the Bill.
  We say it is the duty of the nation to maintain these people, and that the burden should not be placed on the poor in the industrial areas, as is proposed in the Bill. Moreover the contributors should not be called upon to pay back the £115,000,000 owing to the fund. I notice that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said something on this subject yesterday. I differ from him completely in this conclusion. He said:
  "I object altogether to the proposal to transfer this debt from the fund to the Exchequer, which is already bearing £70,000,000 out of some £100,000,000 to £ 110,000,000, which is the total cost of unemployment, because it seems to me to encourage that slovenly sort of idea that if you put a charge on the State, nobody is going to have to pay it. I cannot conceive a worse way of starting a new fund on a self-supporting basis than to suggest that it does not matter what money the fund runs up in the way

  1525
  of debts, because in the end the State will bear it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1933; cols. 1365 and 1356, Vol. 283.]
  I wonder whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer put that view in front of the Cabinet when the report on Newfoundland was presented? It would be interesting to know. We shall be considering the Newfoundland question in a day or two and we shall then see what the policy of the Government is. That is a case where they will hand over money without any question as to qualifications, and I think in a most undeserving manner. But this is the most useful and the most necessary expenditure of money, in my opinion, since the War, in providing for our unemployed people who are in need. The Government ought not to impose a payment of £5,500,000 a year for the next four years, to pay for what has been spent on food and necessary light for the poorest of our people.
  In Clause 36 the Bill deals with training. I ask the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to explain what is meant by training. What form are the training centres to take? Are they to be centres for doing work which ought to be done by ordinary work? Are they to do work for nothing, and are people who are in employment to be thrown out of that employment because, just for mere food and to provide work for those who are sent to the training camps, this scheme has been devised? Or are these people to be trained on the land? The Minister has had some experience of training the unemployed on the land. He knows that such schemes are costly, extravagant and wasteful. He knows that perfectly well. I was associated with him a little in two schemes that have been run, and he would agree with my statement. It would be much cheaper and far more satisfactory to give the unemployed people benefit than to reinstate that form of training. I agree with the idea of finding useful work. I want to see useful work provided for every man and every woman who is willing to work. But a successful centre is not the rule. I know that there are exceptions. I know of one undertaken by a man well known to the Minister and myself, but he is a rarity in that sort of thing. It may be possible to do a great deal for those who desire training. There should be no compulsion or the scheme is bound to be a failure. If there is a desire for training
  1526
  and you start proper schemes, something might be done to enable people to keep themselves fit, but you should give them something to live upon until work comes round.
  In our opinion this Bill will not, in any way, be of service or benefit to the unemployed. It does not meet our claim for adequate maintenance from national funds. We do not believe in the separation or division of the unemployed into two classes or categories, nor do we believe that they should be treated worse than criminals. They are decent, self-respecting, deserving people whose only crime is lack of opportunity to find work. We do not believe it is fair to impose burdens such as those proposed in the Bill upon the rates for their maintenance. We have excused nations from paying their debts to us since the War to an amount which would have kept our unemployed in a suitable manner for years. We are going to find money in a few days time for people in various parts of the world who will not meet their obligations, because of their own selfishness, greed, graft and corruption. But as this Bill shows clearly, we refuse to find money for our own people, for those who are, in my opinion, among the most deserving in the community. For those reasons I shall vote for the Amendment.
  5.32 p.m.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: The hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) always delights the House with his charm and sincerity, and I hope he will not think me aggressive if I point out that a great deal of his speech would have been more appropriate when any regulations which may be made or suggested by the Board in future are brought before the House for review. He made one or two remarks which showed that he laboured under some misapprehension. He said that the Government contemplated a figure of 2,500,000 unemployed. That is the reverse of the truth. The figure of 2,500,000 upon which these estimates are based, is one which errs, we hope, upon the side of conservatism and it is inserted in the interests of the fund itself.
  Mr. LUNN: If the hon. and learned Member will look at the speech which the Minister of Labour made on last Thursday, he will see that the Minister on more than one occasion referred to

  1527
  the fact that he was dealing with a live register of 2,500,000. The right hon. Gentleman also said:
  "In regard to the live register of 2,500,000, I want to make it perfectly clear at the outset that I believe that our prospects now are brighter than they have been for many years past, and that we may face the future with greater confidence. At the same time, I remember the experience of other Ministers of Labour who have one after another based their estimates upon expectations which have not been realised."
  Later, he said:
  "I have based the finances upon this very large figure of 2,500,000."
  I think, therefore, I am justified in quoting that figure.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: I hope that I made my point equally clear. My right hon. Friend the Minister followed the words just quoted by saying:
  "I may be criticised for excessive prudence but I trust at any rate I shall escape the charge of approving doubtful finance."
  He also used these words:
  "While, …. I believe that conditions will improve, no one can tell what the state of world trade may be in the future, and I do not think I should be carrying out my duty as custodian and trustee of this fund unless I took all possible precautions against contingencies which cannot be foreseen."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1933, col. 1079, Vol. 283.]
  The point at issue is, however, a email one, and as the hon. Member for Roth-well will probably want to intervene later when I make some remarks about him, perhaps he would reserve himself until then. It is quite clear that the figure of 2,500,000 errs on, the conservative side and it is in the interest of the fund and of any scheme which is going to weather the coming years that the most conservative basis possible should be taken. If the figure is lower than that estimate, the advantage will accrue to the fund. Another matter in which the hon. Member seemed to be under a misapprehension was indicated when he said that the Bill would not produce work. Of course, it will not wash clothes and it will not lay eggs. It is not a Bill for producing work, but a Bill for dealing with the unfortunate condition of those people who are unable to find work, and it attempts that task in a more constructive and comprehensive way than, any Bill of this character that has ever been before the House of Commons.
  1528
  The hon. Member went on to say that the Bill perpetuated the inadequate provision made for children and dependants, but that is inaccurate. There is no schedule of scales of relief anywhere in the Bill. That matter is entirely at large and the provision will have to be suggested to the Minister by Regulations from the board which will be laid before the House. When those Regulations are considered there will be an opportunity which, I am sure, the hon. Gentleman will take with alacrity, to express his views as to the adequacy of any particular sums of money. Lastly, he said that it was proposed that children between the ages of 14 and 16 who were out of work should get 2s. a week. That must have been a slip of the tongue. There is no provision in the Bill for the receipt by children between 14 and 16 of any sum at all. This very valuable part of the Bill is in fact an addition to the dependants allowance by offering a supplement of 2s. in the case of children between those ages.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the hon. and learned Member suggesting that the 2s. supplement is 2s. in addition to the 2s. which is now paid? That is what one would take from his remark.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: As I understand it, the existing dependants allowance would cease at the age of 14. This proposal is to supplement it, in the sense that it is an extension of the existing dependants allowance, not in amount but in time.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I wanted to make that point clear.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: That is how I read the Bill. When we look at the stability and confidence which evists in this country at present it is material to remember that a certain amount of it is due to the fact that we have had a system of unemployment insurance. That stabilising element has prevented us from experiencing some of the worst economic disasters that have been seen in other countries. It has been a stabilising element, constitutionally and economically. But it became clear a couple of years ago that the edifice itself was creaking very audibly and that any Government which pretended to call itself National, would require radically to recast the structure which had proved itself unequal to the storm of 1931. This Bill is the product,

  1529
  therefore, of two years of work by the Rational Government. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have also had two years in which to contemplate the question of what alternative they would present to the Bill which the Government has now produced.
  Mr. BATEY: That is not for us; we are not the Government.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: I have read with the greatest attentiveness—and it does not take long—the Amendment which the party opposite have put down, in order to see what is their alternative to the Bill. Hon. Members opposite will forgive me for saying but I am still quite in the dark as to what are the constructive alternative proposals of the Labour party after the two years which I am sure they have devoted to intensive deliberations on this subject. What is the alternative proposed by them in what is, I think, the silliest Motion for the rejection of a Bill that has ever been put on the Order Paper of this House? I can understand the Amendment of the hon. Members below the Gangway. They are like the crackers on the tail of the Labour party—pushing them on, driving them off the means test, driving them off insurance altogether as we shall see in a moment. But what do the party opposite propose? A plan whereby—"
  "all the victims of unemployment"—
  I leave out the propagandist verbiage which we always take for granted and which may in future be inserted by means of a rubber stamp—
  "are entitled to equal … treatment and maintenance."
  But no speaker on the other side has dared to suggest it in this Debate. Could not the Labour party's draftsman have produced something which expressed their mind better than that? How is it possible to give all the victims of unemployment equal maintenance and treatment? For instance, is the unemployed man who has fallen out of insurance to be required to pay insurance contributions? Is that contemplated? If not, the Motion is nonsense because it demands equal treatment for all. It also demands equal maintenance for all. Is there to be a general level, a minimum which is to be applied to everybody whether he is a married man or not, whether he is the father of a family or
  1530
  not? That is what the Amendment says. Then, if there is not to be equal treatment for all, how are different cases to be differentiated unless we investigate need? You are driven to a need test whatever way you attempt to do justice as between the different categories of unemployed.
  It is a need test if you ask a man, "Are you married?" It is a need test if you ask him, "How many children have you, and how many are legitimate and how many are illegitimate?" You must have a need test if you are going to-do justice and if you are not going to do what this Amendment suggests, namely, distribute equally over the whole unemployed community a certain dead level of assistance towards their needs. If you are going to have a need test—and in my submission you must investigate need—that involves a means test. You cannot ascertain a person's need without ascertaining his means and I venture to think, whatever the crackers on the tail have forced the Labour party into, that if ever they have the responsibility of administering unemployment insurance they will find it absolutely impossible to administer a system which is devoid of a means test.
  Are they going to say to those who are to receive benefit, "You are not required to present any case for the particular benefit for which you are asking, but the taxpayer who is to provide the money must be subject to a means test." Or do they propose an equal level of taxation to raise the money to provide the assistance. Do they not recognise that by the aggregation of the incomes of husbands and wives, millions of pounds go to the tax-gatherer in this country which would not otherwise go in that way. There is a means test, there is a domestic test in the collection of the very revenue that is to be distributed in this way. It is not the fact of a means test but the administration of the means test that gives rise to the grievances that have been so frequently brought before the House by hon. Members on all sides, and to some extent the great advantage of this Bill is that it gives the opportunity to the House of Commons of taking responsibility that the means test shall be neither unequal nor harsh. Hitherto it has been to a very large extent outside the purview of the House of Commons altogether.

  1531
  Public assistance committees may have operated in entirely different ways in different parts of the country, and the Minister has had a perfect answer under the existing imperfect system, namely, "It is not my responsibility, and I cannot interfere, because the local authorities are charged with that duty." This Bill gives the House of Commons the chance of seeing that the regulations upon which the means test is administered are at any rate regulations that commend themselves to the conscience of the House.
  Mr. LAWSON: They did on the last occasion too.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: Now we have the chance again. The House will now have the chance—a very different thing from last time—of framing regulations and scales which will be of general application throughout the country, on the recommendation of the board, and I am very surprised to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) making any complaint, because I always thought that he was in favour of a means test. Certainly the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), I well remember, said in this House:
  "I am prepared to-day to agree to a national scheme which involves the investigation of the question, but not under Poor Law auspices."
  Well, here it is. It is in the Bill. The grievances that the right hon. Member for Wakefield had about the means test as it existed under the previous Act of Parliament is removed in this Bill, and I should have expected, if the cracker had not been working, to have found him congratulating us on at last doing the very thing that he always thought was the right thing to do. We know now, however, that the abolition of the means test is the programme of the party opposite, but what is their position about insurance? This Amendment and the speeches to which we have been listening are quite inconsistent with insurance. The hon. Member for Rothwell said that it was entirely wrong to divide people into two categories, insured and uninsured. I have read or listened to all the speeches made from the benches opposite on this Bill, and I can see no vestige of approval of any insurance system whatsoever. What becomes of
  1532
  what the late Minister of Labour, Miss Bondfield, said, namely:
  "It is our considered view that a scheme of unemployment insurance should be a self-supporting scheme, that it should contain the elements of the tripartite contribution, that it should cover the able-bodied unemployed, and that we should do everything that we can to see that there is a fund which will cover the risks that it is intended to cover."
  Is that the policy of the Labour party to-day? If not, when has it been changed? The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street himself said:
  "The piling up of debt cannot go on; the scheme must be put on a self-supporting basis. That is agreed."
  That is strikingly different from the speeches to which we have been listening in the last few days. This Bill, as I see it, has two or three really outstanding virtues. It has some defects, about which I propose to have a word or two, but it presents us with what we have been waiting for a long time, and that is a watertight insurance scheme; it presents us with a system by which there is national responsibility for the relief of the able-bodied unemployed and uniformity of administration—whether or not that administration will be sympathetic is a matter for the House of Commons to decide when it considers the regulations that are put up—it provides, further, steps for reconditioning the chronically unemployed, which no other Bill has ever attempted to do; and it provides for an extension of children's allowances, coupled with juvenile training. Those are four pillars of the system, and upon them I want to see whether we have a foundation upon which future Parliaments can erect a structure. That is the important point. Have the Government presented the House of Commons with a stiff, unalterable Measure which will not be capable of evolution? If they had, I should vote against it, but I think they have given us scope for the evolution that we want to see of this important form of social service.
  Now I want to offer one or two criticisms, first of all as regards the insurance part of the Bill. I listened to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night, and I am bound to confess that I should have a very strong feeling of disappointment if I felt that he had spoken his last word on the

  1533
  subject of the debt on the fund. His arguments are perfectly sound as far as they go, but I will put another aspect of the matter to him. It is possible that the Statutory Committee may make a recommendation which would include agricultural workers within the framework of insurance in the future. Thus there would come into the scheme people who had had no contact at all with the finances of the fund. Does (he consider it right that new entrants of that kind, new types of workers brought in, should have cast upon them the burden of amortising a debt contracted when the fund had nothing to do with them at all? I cannot think that that is fair, and I also hope he will bear in mind that the Commission inquired into this very point and considered it very carefully. They considered it from the point of view of what would be fair and reasonable, and the conclusion to which they came was:
  "We formed the definite conclusion that it would not be equitable to call upon employers and workers to contribute separately at the same rate as the Exchequer towards the repayment of the debt of £115,000,000."
  They recommend that that debt should be divided as to two-thirds to the State arid as to one-third to the contributors to the fund. I hope very much that the last word has not been said about this matter, because although upon financial grounds you can make possibly an unarguable case—you can establish a parallel between it and the National Debt—you will never get away from the feeling that you are going to surcharge the contributors to the fund for the ineptitude of the Labour Government in 1929 which permitted £65,000,000 of this debt to be accumulated.
  There is another matter on which I want to offer what I hope will not be destructive criticism, and that is on the question of benefits under Part I to insured contributors. I should very much like to see those benefits different, not so much in amount, or duration as in kind, from the benefits that are payable under Part II of the Bill to those who are under relief. I see no power at the present time for the Committee under the Schedule or under the Bill to make recommendations, for instance, that will result in a lump sum payment at some advanced age to men who are getting beyond their best in the working areas,
  1534
  and that, I should like to see. I do not say that it should be embodied in the Bill at the present moment, but I think that power ought to be given to the Committee to make recommendations which would permit an insured worker who had a long, good, and steady record of contributions to the fund to take his benefit, not as 26 or 52 weeks' benefit at the end of his working life, but either in a lump sum or by way of getting an old age pension at an earlier date than he would otherwise be entitled to, and so to be brought out of the industrial field at an earlier age than that at which he would otherwise depart from it; or, what would perhaps be even more revolutionary, I would rather make this concession to my hon. Friends on the Liberal benches and see an aged insured worker who had a good record of contributions paid a lump sum in land, so as to enable him to settle by way of small-holding on the land and with a certain amount to assist him starting.
  Consider otherwise what the position is at the present time. It is not generally observed, at any rate, that the scale of relief payable under Part II may be higher, and must be higher in many cases, than the scale of benefit payable under Part I, because the scale of benefit payable will, of course, be fixed by the Statutory Committee, but the scale of relief payable under Part II will be assessed according to need, and it may very well be, therefore, that if you take a man of 58 years of age, with 20 years' contributions to his credit, it will be a positive advantage to him to find the moment at which he ceases to draw benefit under the insurance part and count upon the relief administered by the board, because in the latter case the need will be assessed and in the former case he will be offered only a scale of benefit. Therefore, there is little or no inducement, when a man is ending his working life, in offering him as an advantage of being a good, steady contributor that he will get as much perhaps as two years of benefit without means test, whereas if he had not got such a record, he would be getting only six months. For these reasons, I think that at the present moment Part I is not as attractive as it might be to the better paid and regularly employed workers, and I should like to see the Schedule amended so as to give

  1535
  the Statutory Committee power to make recommendations along the lines that I have been suggesting.
  I would like to make one or two observations upon what I think is a misreading of Clause 6, Sub-section (1), which, it will be remembered, is the Clause that alters the present third statutory condition. It reads:
  "The following shall be substituted for the third statutory condition for the receipt of benefit by insured contributors—
  '(iii) that he proves that he is capable of, and available for, work but unable to obtain suitable employment.'"
  It is suggested that that is really restoring the "genuinely seeking work" Clause, but nothing could be further from the truth, and that allegation must be based on an entire misapprehension. In the first place, these words were recommended by the Royal Commission, and not by the majority only, but by the minority as well, who adopted these very words. Secondly—and this, I think, is a most important consideration—these words have existed in Acts dealing with unemployment insurance from 1911 right down to 1924. They existed in 1924, when the Labour Government added to them the words "not genuinely seeking work." That seems to me to dispose of that argument entirely, because they would never have added those words if they had thought they were synonymous with the words in the present Bill.
  They are framed to deal with a very limited number of cases, but they are real cases. They are framed to deal with the case of the man who has himself avenues in which he knows, he can find employment, but who is too idle to find employment along those avenues. No party in the State, I am sure, wishes to deny the proposition that the first efforts to obtain employment should come from the unhappy victim of unemployment himself, and that is a principle that is supported by sound common sense, a principle that has been enunciated over and over again from the opposite side of the House, and by none better than by the late Attorney-General, Sir William Jowitt, and by Miss Bondfield, when she was introducing the Bill in 1924.
  The present fourth statutory condition is found not entirely to meet those cases, and although it is said that this Bill—
  1536
  and in a legal sense, no doubt, it is to some extent true—throws the onus, in the first instance, on the man to say that he is unable to obtain suitable employment, and to that extent there is a burden upon the man. He discharges that burden as soon as he says, "I have been looking for work and have not found it." The burden then shifts on to the Exchange to prove that he has not availed himself of sources that are open to him. To clinch the matter, it might be serviceable if I read a ruling, which was made by the umpire under these exact words in a previous Act, as to how that condition is interpreted:
  "It is for an applicant to satisfy the court of referees or the umpire that on any day for which he claims benefit he is unable to obtain suitable employment, and if he knew there was a possibility of getting work, and did not take reasonable steps to get it, he does not shew that he was unable to get it."
  If that was a ruling on these very words in the new Clause, it appears that they have not the application that the genuinely-seeking-work Clause had, and the apprehensions of hon. Gentlemen opposite are very much overstated.
  I congratulate the Government on this Bill. I think that it is a bold and courageous Bill. The spiritlessness of the Second Reading Debate and the lack of reality show that fundamentally there is no one who can attack the broad general principles of the Bill It can be attacked upon details, and there will be a good deal of attack, and I am sure that the Government will not commit the fatal error of thinking that, because they have had no real opposition on the Second Reading stage, it will not get a good deal of opposition on minor points during the Committee stage. That is right and natural, and is in the nature of things, because this is a great Bill which will affect the lives and the economic happiness of more than two-thirds of the population at one time or the other in the coming years. It is idle to expect that a Bill of this kind will remain unchanged for a generation, or even for a small part of a generation. It is a Measure that will undergo evolutionary change from time to time, and it is because it seems to me to afford scope for evolutionary change, and because it is a bold and real attempt to solve a very

  1537
  difficult problem, that I certainly shall not have the smallest hesitation in giving it my support.
  6.3 p.m.
  Mr. DINGLE FOOT: It is a curious fact that I find myself in agreement with most of what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor). The only part of his speech with which I disagreed was his peroration. I can agree with the criticisms he directed at the Amendment which has been put down by the official Opposition, but I suggest how much better it would have been if, instead of discussing that Amendment, we had discussed the Amendment which is on the Paper in the names of my hon. Friends. It is but a month ago since this Bill was first put into our hands, and in that time, in spite of the chorus of praise from the apologists of the Government, and in spite of the undoubted virtues which are contained in certain Clauses of Part I of the Bill, nevertheless I think it is fair to say that in many parts of the country the Bill has been received with disappointment and misgiving. I believe that as we go on discussing the Bill Clause by Clause, particularly Clauses in Part II, and as there comes a full realisation of all that will be implied by the Bill being carried into law, there will come a rapidly growing volume of protest from both the unemployed and the local authorities.
  The local authorities were certainly led to expect that they were going to be relieved of the whole burden of the able-bodied unemployed. They may have been wrong in taking that attitude. It may have been that the words that were used in the speech of the Minister of Health on 12th April leaves some loophole for the Government through which they can manage to scramble. Nevertheless, anyone who read that speech would receive the impression that the Government were going to take over the whole burden. Certainly that impression was given. Only three days ago I attended a meeting of my own public assistance committee in Dundee, and found that while different views were held by different Members with regard to the various provisions of the Bill, there was very little opposition on the subject of financial responsibility for the able-bodied unemployed. The committee were strongly of
  1538
  the opinion that that burden was one that they should no longer be called upon to bear. They are to be asked to find 60 per cent, of the expenditure, not for a normal year, but for the year 1932-3 which was a year of peak unemployment. That 60 per cent, has to be borne by the local authorities without their having any voice or say in the way in which the money is to be disposed of. It is a sound principle, to which all parties have agreed, that taxation and representation ought to go together.
  The criticism which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour aimed in his speech the other day at the present system of transitional payments was that taxation and representation were being divorced, but under the present system, at any rate, in the last resort, the Minister and the Government that provides the money have some means of control over the local authorities, because the Minister can sack a public assistance committee and put a commissioner in its place. Under the arrangement which is now to be made, the local authorities which have to contribute this high percentage of the cost will not have any voice in the way in which the money is to be spent.
  Miss HORSBRUGH: Has the hon. Gentleman deducted from the. 60 per cent, the amount that Dundee is getting in block grants?
  Mr. FOOT: I am coming to that, and perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to deal with it in due course. The only way in which any influence can be brought to bear by the local authorities is through the advisory committees. It is difficult to tell how those committees are to be constituted. They will not necessarily have any connection with the local authorities. Will the Minister tell us a little more about the constitution of the committees? Are they going to be local committees or regional committees? Will they be large like the present public assistance committees or will they be small bodies? That is an important point becuase if instead of having a large committee of about 20 persons, you have an advisory committee of two, or three or five persons, it will mean that the odium of administering the means test will have to fall on a smaller number of shoulders. That may have serious effects, and you

  1539
  may have great difficulty in getting the right people to serve. Whom are the advisory committees to advise? Are they to advise the board or the local officers of the board? It is provided in Clause 38 (1) that the officer shall make all the determinations. Is he to be subject to the advice of the advisory committee or is the committee simply to advise the central board on the general tendency of their policy?
  It seems to us that this arrangement offends against every canon of sound finance. Our opposition to this arrangement with the local authorities is not something like the attitude of the Socialist party towards the means test, not something that is simply invented for purposes of by-elections, but something which has been for years the policy of the Liberal party. I have here a copy of the Yellow Book. [Laughter.]. I hear loyal supporters of the National Government laughing at this book. It is not open to them to laugh at it, because it was the report of the executive committee of the Liberal Industrial Inquiry, and when I look through the names of the members of the committee who were responsible for this policy, I find the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The policy that the whole burden should be borne by the central government was clearly laid down by us in 1928. It is not confined to the Yellow Book, because a great deal was said in the House on the subject of the burden of the able-bodied unemployed. A great deal was said by Liberal Members at the time of the Derating Act and of the Local Government Act, 1929.
  In particular, a prominent part was played by my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines. I always read his speeches with the greatest interest, because I learned a great deal of my political faith from him. When I first began to take an interest in political matters, I had the opportunity of attending meetings which were addressed by my hon. Friend. I went on many occasions to sit at his feet and I learned his great language and had no difficulty in catching his clear accents. Naturally, when I wanted to study this subject and what has been said by the Liberal party in the past, I looked up the speeches of my hon. Friend the
  1540
  Secretary for Mines. He made a speech in the House on 26th November, 1928, in the course of which he was interrupted by the right hon. Gentleman who is now Postmaster-General, who asked:
  "Is it still the policy of the Liberal party to transfer the relief of the able-bodied poor to the State?
  Mr. BROWN: I am flattered by these inquiries after the policy of the Liberal party, for it shows how really the Debate will go—not between the official Opposition and the Government, but between the Government and the Liberal benches."
  It may be that history will repeat itself.
  "If the Government had quoted from the Yellow Book, not its diagnosis only but its constructive policy, we should have had a better Bill. This policy not merely transfers"—
  that is, the policy of the Yellow Book—
  "the able-bodied poor from local to national shoulders, but links that up with an immediate and determined attempt to find work for them, so that they may be relieved as early as possible from their position as able-bodied unemployed."
  That was the view taken by my hon. Friend, who was at that time acting as the spokesman of the Liberal party, and that is still the view of the Liberal party. It is our view that we ought not to leave all sorts of persons out of the scope of this Bill simply because they do not happen to come within the range of industrial employment. We do not believe that the shopkeeper, or the jobbing gardener, or the clerk, or the hawker, anyone of that kind, ought to be left out of the scope of this Bill.
  The defence of this arrangement was put forward yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who brought up the subject of the block grant, which was referred to just now by my hon. Friend the junior Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh). It is perfectly true that the burden of unemployment is an important factor in determining the block grant, but I do not know whether it is really suggested that the money spent on relief is the only expenditure which has to be incurred by a local authority in a depressed area on account of prolonged and high unemployment. Surely they have to carry a financial burden other than the mere payment of relief. A considerable item, though I do not say it makes up the whole of the block grant, is the amount paid for meals and clothing for necessitous school children. That

  1541
  amount has more than doubled in Dundee in the last five years, and I imagine the experience of other industrial areas has been the same. That directly arises out of prolonged and heavy unemployment. It may very well be that even the ordinary Poor Law payments will be swollen by prolonged unemployment.
  I want to say something on the subject of the means test. The House will already have gathered that whatever our views on this subject may be, we are entirely out of sympathy with the Labour party. We were in some sympathy with the original utterance of the Leader of the Opposition when he spoke in favour of an inquiry, but we really cannot follow him in his retreat from that position. The House will remember the old story of the man in the French Revolution who saw a friend following a ragged mob and asked, "Why do you follow that mob?" He received the reply, "I must; I am their leader." That seems to be the position of the Leader of the Opposition in relation to the means test. The means test was applied to transitional payments by the National Economy (No. 2) Order, which was issued in October, 1931, but, after all, the means test was nothing new, because it Was already in operation under the existing law. There is no definition of the means test in the National Economy (No. 2) Order, because paragraph 4 reads:
  "A committee or sub-committee in determining any question under the last preceding paragraph shall make such inquiries and otherwise deal with the case as if they were estimating the need of an unemployed able-bodied person who had applied for public assistance, and if such assistance could only be given in money."
  That was simply extending the test already applied to those unfortunate enough to come under the Poor Law. Who determined that? The conditions for the means test under the Poor Law were laid down in Circular 1069, issued from the Ministry of Health on 3rd January, 1930, when the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) was at the Ministry of Health. I will quote from paragraph 4 of that Circular:
  "In assessing the amount of relief to be voted the general principle is that income and means from every source available to the household must be taken into account."
  1542
  Further it states:
  "Again, it is proper that earnings of widows and children should be taken into t account."
  Mr. LAWSON: Does the hon. Member assert that the law was laid down then? It is a 16th century law, which the Minister had to administer. As a matter of fact, the Order made a more generous interpretation of the law, in view of the fact that we had not time to get the law altered.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Had not time!
  Mr. FOOT: The hon. Member cannot of wriggle out of it in that way. In 1930 there was placed on the Statute Book a Poor Law Act which must have been, passed through this House at a time when the hon. Gentleman was a Minister, I and surely, if his party had had such a strong objection to the means test at that time, it should have been possible to cut it out while that Measure was passing through Parliament. In any case a Minister has to accept responsibility for the documents which go out under his aegis. Whatever hon. Members may say now, they cannot escape responsibility for the document which went out defining the means test. All that happened in 1931 was that the means test, which was already in existence, and which had been in existence under two Labour Governments, was extended to the transitional class.
  Mr. LAWSON: The hon. Member is wrong in his interpretation of that also.
  Mr. FOOT: Well, I have given the House the quotations, and I think it is possible for hon. Members to judge the matter for themselves. In the view of the party on these benches, the principle of the means test is in itself perfectly sound. I agree with what was said yesterday by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Montrose (Lieut.-Colonel Kerr) when he said the principle of the means test was not necessarily unpopular among the wage-earning classes. There is no doubt that under the old system there was, at any rate among a small minority, a certain abuse of the system of unemployment relief and insurance benefit. Where people drew benefit when they were not in need of it, that was generally known to their neighbours, and was resented by their neighbours, who

  1543
  knew that they themselves had to pay for this unnecessary relief either as contributors to the Insurance Fund or as indirect taxpayers. I think the abuses of that system were resented by the general body of wage earners just as much as by anybody else, and I do not believe the principle of a means test was then, or is now, necessarily unpopular with any great class in the community. But having said that I want to add this, that there is a very real danger of bringing a sound principle into permanent discredit by the unjust manner of its application. I must refer again to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday. He began just after a speech from an hon. Member on the Opposition side, and said:
  "I sincerely hope that all Members of the House will follow tile advice which has just been given by the hon. Member opposite and will consider this Bill carefully. I am certain that, if they do so, the majority of them will, unlike the hon. Member come to the conclusion that the inevitable result of the provisions of the Bill must be greatly to improve the lot of the unemployed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1933; col. 1347, Vol. 283.]
  I am sure everyone must have been glad to hear that opinion put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, but how can we tell from the provisions of Part II that the Bill will greatly improve the lot of the unemployed? Nothing in Part II lays down the scales which are going to be applied. We do not know on what scale payments are going to be made to those' who are now in the transitional class after this Bill has become an Act. One of the most important Clauses of the Bill is Clause 37, and sub-section (3), which deals with the resources of the household, says that regulations shall be made,
  "and such regulations shall in particular provide that the resources of an applicant taken into account shall include the resources of all members of the household of which he is himself a member, due regard being had also to the personal requirements of those members whose resources have been taken into account."
  How much regard is going to be had to those resources? That is a vital question, which goes right to the heart of this Bill. Those of us who represent depressed industrial areas with a high level of unemployment know that although there may be quite substantial grievances about disability pensions, savings and the rest,
  1544
  the real grievance against the administration of the means test has been about the family contribution. In a speech yesterday the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scrymgeour-Wedderburn) gave the familiar instance of the young man living at home earning wages or a salary who is saving up to get married. If I may say so, I have a good deal of sympathy with the position of such a young man. At this time last year I also was saving up to get married, and I should have considered it a real grievance if just at that time a public assistance committee had told me they would allow me just a few shillings a week out of my own earnings, and that all the rest was to go to the support and maintenance of my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot). Let me say that I should have been prepared, had he been destitute, to make at any rate a reasonable contribution, and that is what I suggest to the Minister ought to be done under the regulations which are to be made.
  I think that we have a right to say to a man who is bringing home wages that he shall make a reasonable contribution to the upkeep of those of his family who are unemployed; but I think it is entirely wrong to say, "You will be allowed a small personal allowance"—in most places about 15s.—"out of your own wages and all the rest must go into the family pool." Every Member, especially those from industrial constituencies with a great deal of unemployment, must look at this Bill, sometimes at any rate, from the point of view of his own constituency. I do not suggest that we should judge it entirely from that standpoint, but we are entitled to look at a Bill of this kind and say, "How is it going to affect our constituents; will they be better off or worse off?" No Member representing a constituency where a large number of people are now on transitional payments can possibly tell how this Bill will affect the people he represents. Every Member knows the scale of relief paid by the public assistance committee in his own area, and knows the allowances made in respect to household contributions, but what is not known is whether Clause 37 will make the people we represent better off or worse off. Therefore, it is not possible to give the Bill an unmitigated blessing, it is not possible to judge of the

  1545
  Bill, it is not possible to apply the tests which we ought to be able to apply.
  One word, finally, about the Regulations which are to be made. It is laid down in Clauses 37 and 51 that Regulations are to be made as to the administration of unemployment allowances. In the Amendment put down in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) we have raised the objection that there will not be sufficient Parliamentary control, and I think that objection applies also to the Regulations. Whenever, in my short experience, we have had Regulations and Orders brought before the House we have always found that it was not possible to amend them. We are not able to go through them Clause by Clause and line by line and put down Amendments. We have simply to accept or reject them outright.
  The future of the means test has been a foremost political issue for two years in many of the great cities in Scotland and England, and is probably regarded by many thousands of people as of far greater importance than any questions which we discuss in this House. Yet it is to be dealt with not line by line on the Floor of this House; we are simply to have Regulations brought up which we shall have to accept or to reject outright. It cannot be said that there is sufficient Parliamentary control in that. I would refer to the speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who pointed out that those regulations would only become operative if an affirmative Resolution approving them were passed by this House. He went on to say that the Board would have
  "to produce an annual report upon the whole of its work, which will again be laid before Parliament and may he the subject of debate. Under Clause 46 there is an annual vote of the money required for the purpose of the Unemployment Assistance Fund, and that, of course, again will be the subject of debate in this House in the usual way in which estimates can be debated. Finally, I would point that under Clause 43, the accounts of the board have to be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General and he has to submit the accounts and his report upon them to the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1933; col. 1359, Vol. 283.]
  If my calculation be correct, and if we are allowed to discuss the reports of the Auditor-General, that will make three oocasions on which we shall be able to discuss the administration of Part II of
  1546
  this Bill. I do not know whether it is the intention of the Government to take this matter out of politics, but it is a matter which ought not to be taken out of politics. This House is a national safety-valve. Its chief value to the nation is that it is the place where grievances can be raised. To try to take this burning question out of politics and say that it shall only be debated on certain occasions during the year while Parliament sits, seems to me to be destroying a very great part of the value of this House, which is the place where we ought to raise burning questions of this character.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: The hon. Gentleman's party took the initiative in doing what he complains about. The first time that this was done in unemployment insurance, it applied to people who were on standard benefit. That was done under the Anomalies Act, by regulation, and was even worse than at the present time. The Regulations did not have to come up for confirmation, but passed automatically without confirmation. That was done with the strong approval of Liberal Members, who voted for it, so how can the hon. Gentleman now complain of a Regulation which has greater Parliamentary force t His party backed the Regulation without Parliamentary control for people who were on standard benefit, and not upon transitional payments.
  Mr. FOOT: I must apologise to the hon. Gentleman if I do not entirely follow the whole of his objection, but I gather that he was referring to a time before I was a Member of this House.
  "Thou canst not say I did it: never shake Thy gory locks at me."
  Mr. BUCHANAN: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to repudiate his parent, I have no objection.
  Mr. FOOT: In regard to repudiation, I should prefer to look at the Division Lists of that time. In any case, the responsibility of any Measure that was passed then must rest, not upon the party here, but upon the party that sits above the Gangway, the official Opposition.
  May I say a word upon a question that has been raised by a good many speakers, the cuts in the rate of benefit. I do not want to repudiate this in any way,

  1547
  because I was one of those who thought that the cut was necessary, in the circumstances of 1931. With most of my hon. Friends, I thought that the cut was a temporary one, which would be restored as soon as the financial situation allowed. We have a good deal of authority for that view. I see that Viscount Snowden, writing this week in the "Sunday Chronicle" said that he thought that the first cut to be restored ought to be the cut in unemployment benefit. I could go even further than that, and quote an even higher authority. This morning I looked up the file of the "Manchester Guardian" and, in the issue for 15th October, 1932, I found this report:
  "Mr. J. H. Thomas, Secretary for the Dominions, addressing a meeting of workmen at Derby to-day, spoke on the question of the possible restoration of cuts in unemployment pay. 'I have no hesitation in saying,' he said, 'I would restore unemployment cuts before any other.'"
  We entirely endorse that view, and we hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make his influence felt in the Cabinet, so that, if there is a surplus in the next Budget, the first consideration may be given to those who were called upon to bear relatively the heaviest sacrifices in 1931.
  6.37 p.m.
  Sir W. BRASS: I have listened with the greatest attetion to the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. D. Foot), and I have a very great deal of sympathy with the remarks that he made about the means test. I have agitated more, I think, than anyone else in this House, certainly upon my side of the House, against the means test. When the leader of the hon. Gentleman, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) was sitting in the Cabinet, and when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) who is now sitting next to the hon. Gentleman, was also in the Cabinet, I was agitating against the means test. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Caithness has come round to my way of thinking, instead of the way of thinking that the Government had at that time.
  Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: Did the hon. and gallant Member express his opinion in the Division Lobby?
  Sir W. BRASS: I did, on many occasions. I voted against the Government, and I spoke against it. I am very grateful for the opportunity of saying a few words on this matter. I represent a constituency in Lancashire which, I suppose, has more unemployment than any other constituency in the whole country. When the Minister of Labour introduced the Bill he said that, as we have an immense majority in this House, we have a special responsibility. I think that he was quite right. We have a special responsibility for the unemployed. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will forgive me if I am rather critical of the Measure which is at present before the House, but I remember a lot of the pledges which were made during the General Election, and especially the pledges that we made. I remember that the same pledges were made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen, as far as the means test was concerned. I do not think that any of us, at that time, thought that people who were going to be put upon transitional payments would be brought down to the Poor Law level, as they undoubtedly were. I certainly did not believe that, otherwise I should not have said the things that I did at the General Election. I want to be perfectly honest in this House, and to my constituents, in making these statements.
  There are quite a number of things in the Bill with which I agree. As far as it goes, it is good in parts. I am very glad that the dual control of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Labour has been put an end to. That was another thing about which I had been agitating for some considerable time. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has seen eye to eye with me on that subject, and that the public assistance committees are not to administer the means test. It is to be administered, as was suggested by several people besides myself, through the Ministry of Labour. With that part of the Bill I agree. As far as the stigma of the Poor Law is concerned, I think there is a little confusion of thought about it. The hon. Member for Spenny-moor (Mr. Batey) was a little confused about the stigma of the Poor Law. I object to a man going on to the rates, and being relieved by the town. I do not object so much to his going to the public assistance committee to get more

  1549
  money from the public fund. The men very much object to going and getting money from the local authority in the town. There is a definite distinction between the two. The stigma of the Poor Law has been removed in this Bill.
  I am very glad to see that we are to have training centres. That is an excellent scheme, and I have always supported it. I do not agree with the remarks that were made by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) on that subject. Training centres will be a very great help, especially to the younger people, in keeping the unemployed in good health and ready for work when it becomes available. I am sure that the local authorities will welcome the opportunity of housing some of these people, who are at present loafing about the streets, and of using them for works which are necessary in the various areas. No doubt hon. Members of the Liberal party will have seen a statement in the
  "News Chronicle":
  "The workhouse is the alternative to the training camp."
  I hope that that statement did not originate from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen.
  The insurance principle is maintained in this Bill. Possibly there is a hardship in suggesting that £5,500,000 annually should be collected from the worker and employer, and paid into the fund. I am not at all sure that it is not a hardship to the employe and an excessive burden upon the employer and upon industry. I am not sure that it would not have been better to add the £115,000,000 to the public debt and pay the interest on it, in the ordinary way, instead of, as it were, funding the debt, and making a contribution of £5,500,000 a year for 40 years to pay off that debt. I think that that is rather harsh treatment. I am not sure that the Minister is right in his view as to what he should do with the credit balance of £8,500,000 which he is going to get when the unemployment figure stands at 2,500,000. I am not at all sure that his decision that this money should be given back to the people who have paid the most premiums is really a right way of doing it, because I think that the people who have paid the most premiums in the past 10 or 15 years are probably the people who have been able to save more money than any-
  1550
  body else, and are probably more able to look after themselves than the poorer people who are at present on transitional benefit. In my opinion it would have been very much better if this £8,500,000 had been contributed towards the smoothing away of a lot of the difficulties and injustices of the means test, about which we have just heard from the hon. Member for Dundee.
  I asked a question a little while ago as to how much it would cost the country if the means test were abolished altogether, and I was told by my right hon. Friend that the amount would be £15,000,000. £8,500,000 is quite a little step in that direction, and, if the fund is going to have a surplus of £8,500,000 on a register of 2,500,000 unemployed, as I understand is the case, I think that that amount might have gone to the alleviation of the means test rather than to the people who have paid the most premiums. As I said at the beginning, I agree with quite a lot that is in the Bill. Where I do not agree—I will not say that I quarrel—with the Minister is in regard to what he has left out of the Bill. He has left out of the Bill altogether what is going to happen to those unfortunate people who are on the means test. Clause 37 defines the need of the applicant. Clause 51 (2) says that the board which is being set up to administer the fund is to report to the Minister, and that, when it has reported to him, the Minister—I am quoting from the Bill—
  "shall consider any draft regulations"—made by the board—
  "so submitted to him and shall make draft regulations either in the form of the draft submitted to him or subject to such variations and amendments as he thinks fit."
  In other words, my right hon. Friend, when he gets the report from the board, can take what he likes out of it. He can take the whole if he likes, or he can reject everything and make his own regulations just as he pleases.
  I would like to know whether the Minister is going to give any special instructions to the board as to how the means test shall be applied in the future, because it is not being applied at all well at the present time. There are numerous hardships. The hon. Member for Dundee has mentioned a few, and I propose to illustrate what happens in the Lancashire County Council area. I will take the

  1551
  case of a man, his wife and two children both over the age of 21. Under the scale laid down by the Lancashire County Council, the man and his wife receive 23s., and the two children over 21—they are not children any longer—receive 7s. each. These figures, added together, comae to 37s. Assuming that one of the children, a man, is earning 35s.—not a very high remuneration—he, out of his 35s., is allowed 6s. free. Consequently, the amount which has to be deducted from the 37s. allowed to the household is 29s., and the whole household is allowed 8s. altogether.
  I want hon. Members to realise what is happening, because this point has not been made. Here is a man who is earning 35s., out of which he is allowed 6s. free, and he is allowed, according to the rate of benefit laid down by the Lancashire County Council, 7s.; so that, out of his 35s. which he has been earning, he is allowed only 6s. and 7s., or 13s. altogether. If, on the other hand, that particular person were completely unemployed and drawing ordinary benefit, he would be drawing 15s. 3d., which is the ordinary rate. Here, therefore, is a man who is employed, who is earning 35s. a week, and all that he is allowed is 2s. 3d. less than he would be drawing if he were unemployed under ordinary unemployment benefit. I think that this ought to be remedied, and I would ask my hon. Friend to deal with the point when he comes to reply this evening. I want to get an answer to some of these questions; I have never had any answer yet. I want my hon. Friend to tell me whether this condition is going to be perpetuated after the Bill has been passed, or whether special instructions will be given to the board so that things of this sort do not happen in the future.
  I will give another case, that of a man, his wife, one child over 21, and two other children, one 14 and the other 15. In this case the man and his wife, according to the Lancashire County Council's scale, draw 23s., the child over 21 draws 7s., and the two children of 14 and 15 only draw 2s. each, so that the total allowed to the family, according to the scale of the Lancashire County Council, is 34s. Assume that the eldest child, over 21, is earning 40s. He is allowed, as I said just now, 6s. free. This 6s. is deducted from the 40s., leaving 34s. Therefore this
  1552
  family, consisting of a man, his wife, a child over 21 and two children of 14 and 15, can draw nothing at all from the public assistance committee, since the 34s. which is the balance of the man's earnings has to go to maintain the whole household. How can anybody say that that is fair? It certainly is not fair.
  I have here a list from the Lancashire Public Assistance Committee, showing what allowances are made for children by the different authorities. In the Lancashire County Council area the amount is 2s. In Burnley it is 5s. for the first child, 4s. for the second child, and 3s. 6d. for the third child. In Preston itself, the county town where these regulations are made by the Lancashire County Council, they treat themselves better than the people in the Lancashire County Council area are treated, because in the city of Preston the allowance is 3s. for the first child and 3s. for the second child. Again, in Warrington the amounts allowed are 3s., 4s. and 5s. I do ask my right hon. Friend to realise that 2s. is not enough for a growing child. I have here a statement, published by the British Medical Association, showing the estimated minimum cost of an adequate diet for children. These are the figures given:

  s.

  d.

  Under 6 years of age

  …

  3

  5

  Over 8 and under 10 years

  …

  4

  2

  Over 12 and undor 14 years

  …

  5

  4

  Therefore, I would beg my hon. Friend when he comes to reply, or my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, to take these figures into consideration, and to realise that the people in Lancashire have been down and out for years and have no more savings at all. I think that in my constituency some 40 to 45 per cent, of them must be unemployed, and they have been unemployed for a great number of years. I beg the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to remember these things. May I refer them to the Royal Commission's Report? On page 288 it says this—and it is very important:
  "The practice of regarding almost the whole income of each member of the household as available equally for all the other members is not easily defensible, and we think it necessary that, under any system of discretionary assessment, definite guidance should be given to the assessing bodies as to the treatment of different kinds of income."
  Therefore, there is no excuse for either the Minister or the Parliamentary Secre-

  1553
  tary to say that no instruction has been given by the Royal Commission in regard to this matter.
  Another case which I should like to put forward is the case of a man over 65 years of age. He is an old age pensioner, and receives 10s. He has living with him a daughter 31 years of age, and she is receiving 9s. from the public assistance committee, so that the total coming into the household is 19s. This lady went out to work, and worked for two days during the week. I think it was at charing, but anyway she worked two days during the week, and she was paid 8s. Naturally, being very honest, as all my constituents are, she told the public assistance committee that she had earned 8s., and what happened? The public assistance committee took off, not the 8s., but the 9s., and she got nothing at all, so that there was only 18s. coming into the household where before there was 19s. That, as one of my hon. Friends here says, is not a very great incentive to work.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The hon. Member is dealing entirely with the past. There is a specific Clause in the Bill which deals with the questions about which he has been talking for the last quarter of an hour. Perhaps he would be kind enough to read the Bill.
  Sir W. BRASS: I have read the Bill, and I can tell the hon. Member the number of the Clause. But I have not read the instruction which the Minister is giving, only the Clause itself. The Clause is 37 (3). I nearly read it out at the beginning of my speech:
  "(3) The need of an applicant shall be determined and his needs assessed in accordance with regulations made under this Part of this Act, and such regulations shall in particular provide that the resources of an applicant taken into account shall include the resources of all members of the household"—
  That is the whole point of my speech, which perhaps the hon. Member has not appreciated—
  "of which he is himself a member (due regard being had also to the personal requirements of those members whose resources are taken into account)."
  I want to know what "due regard" is going to be. That is the whole point of my argument. If my hon. Friend tells me that these things which are happening
  1554
  to-day will not happen in the future, then I shall be satisfied, but if they are going to happen in the future, as they quite easily could under that Clause, I shall not. We shall not know until later on.
  Another point which is not dealt with at all in the Bill is that when an individual becomes unemployed he has a waiting period of six days. After that he has to sign on for another six days, and at the end of that period he may get benefit. If there is any question of whether he will or will not get benefit, he does not get it. I have had representations made to me by my local authorities that this is a most unfair position. In one of the biggest towns in my constituency I have heard of 25 cases in which benefit was refused because there was a question as to whether the applicant should or should not receive it. It took on an average three weeks before any decision was given, and in all those 25 cases the people had to go on to the public assistance committee—on to the Poor Law—to be assisted during the whole of those three weeks. The number of cases that were turned down out of the 25 for whom there was an average delay of three weeks, was one. One case was disallowed out of 25; all the other 24, who had a perfect right to benefit, had to wait for three weeks and go on to the Poor Law during the whole of that period. I ask the hon. Gentleman whether that position cannot be remedied in this Bill?
  Another very important point is the question of reserve pay. My hon. Friend was in the Army during the War, as I was, and there were a certain number of men on the Reserve. I have a case in my constituency where a man is on the Reserve and receives 1s. 3d. a day paid quarterly, which comes to 8s. 9d. a week. The whole of that 8s. 9d. a week is deducted from his transitional benefit. I ask my hon. Friend whether he thinks that that is an inducement for the man to remain on the Reserve, if he is going to have the whole of his 8s. 9d. taken away from him when he comes to be assessed for transitional benefit? Why can the reserve pay not be taken into account in the same way as pensions and such sums are in the present Unemployment Insurance Acts?
  The other point is one which I raised some time ago; I have a Special Resolution upon it, and my hon. Friend pos-

  1555
  sibly heard about it a little while ago when he was in Lancashire. In a trade dispute, if there is intimidation—and this actually happened in my constituency— which is so strong that the police have not control of the crowd and the owner of a mill has to close his mill and throw the willing workers in it out of employment, according to the umpire's decision and to the law as it stands to-day, the employe who becomes unemployed as a result of the mill being closed through intimidation is debarred from getting any benefit at all, although he has to pay all the premiums for unemployment insurance. That ruling, which was given by the umpire and which I tried to get reversed—I asked my hon. Friend a long time ago to put up another case to the umpire, which he refused to do—is most unjust. I now ask him whether he wants the law to stand as it is to-day, so that anybody who is forced out of employment owing to intimidation in a trade dispute in which he is not taking part is forced to go on paying premiums, and whether he proposes to allow such a man in the future, as he is at present, to be debarred from getting any benefit whatever under the Unemployment Insurance Act? If the law is not to be altered, I propose to vote against the Bill. It is a perfectly monstrous state of affairs, and a direct inducement to mob law.
  I am very glad that I have had this opportunity of speaking my mind on this subject. I have been wanting to say this for some time. My constituents have been very badly treated, and if the Minister simply shakes his head, as he does, I do not see that I shall get any satisfaction from him. If I do not, I shall certainly not vote for the Bill.
  7.8 p.m.
  Mr. BATEY: It is appropriate that that speech should have been delivered from these benches. The hon. and gallant Member made it perfectly clear that he completely and strongly condemns the means test. His attitude is very different from that of the hon. Member who sits below me on my left, who said that he was in favour of the means test, but was opposed to its results. He wishes to be in both camps. It would be interesting to know just where the Liberal party stands, because it is so difficult to dis-
  1556
  cover where it is on anything. The hon. Member favours the means test, but objects to the results.
  Mr. D. FOOT: Our attitude remains the same; it does not alter from time to time.
  Mr. BATEY: I agree; your attitude never changes and you always get the best of both worlds. The Minister of Labour, in closing his speech last Thursday, said that this Bill was the greatest Measure of social progress which has been presented to this country by any Government for many generations. I was amazed when I read that statement. The right hon. Gentleman said that this Bill was social progress—a social progress which smashes the family life of the working classes by the means test. He describes as social progress a Bill which sends decent unemployed men to labour camps as though they were convicts, which will fill to overflowing the workhouses with unemployed men and their wives and families. What the Minister calls social progress I call the worst instrument of oppression that has ever been introduced into this House for many generations.
  During the 12 years that I have been a Member of this House, I have taken part in the Debates on several Unemployment Bills that have been introduced. None of them has been as bad a Bill as this one, yet the Minister of Labour and the Parliamentary Secretary seem to have persuaded themselves that it is a useful Measure. I am sorry that we have not with us to-night the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Thompson), who last Thursday night said that he was speaking for all the Northern Members. He was supporting this Bill, and he spoke as the Minister of Labour had spoken; he copied the Minister of Labour in saying that this was a great Bill. I am wondering how many of the Northern Members of Parliament are in support of this Bill. Two or three of them have spoken; the hon. Member for the Eastern Division of Newcastle (Sir R. Aske) opposed the Bill; the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Curry) did not support the Bill, and I am not sure that the hon. Member for Sunderland who spoke actually supported the Bill himself. In discussing, as some other hon. Members did, the results of the means test, he said that

  1557
  he did not like the results of that test and, after quoting a case or two, he said, "I say that that is ridiculous and unfair." This Bill is doing something ridiculous and unfair, and yet we are told that all the Northern Members support this Bill. I am wondering whether the Newcastle Members are supporting it. I read in to-day's Northern newspapers that last night there was a meeting in Newcastle and the Lord Mayor, who is not a Labour man, moved a resolution:
  "That we express our dissatisfaction with the Unemployment Bill now before Parliament."
  Mr. MAITLAND: The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Thompson) is not in his place, so may I say that he did not refer to this Bill as ridiculous? What he said was by way of criticism and by way of illustration of how a certain situation arose through the application under one authority of the provisions in connection with family allowances. He gave the details of the case, and then said quite plainly that he hoped that the definition of the household would receive the attention of the Minister. All he said concerning the Bill being ridiculous was in connection with that illustration. He did not say it of the Bill generally.
  Mr. BATEY: That is perfectly true—in fact, it is just what I said. I consider that this Bill is a twin sister of the Bill of 1931, and that there is less justification for it. In 1931 we believed-at least, the country believed-that we were in a financial crisis. To-day all that has gone; we are told that trade is improving and things are getting better, that there is less unemployment. Whatever justification there may be for the steps that were taken by the Government in 1931, that justification does not exist today in this Bill. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to remember this. The Minister of Labour, I take it, will ask the House to-night to pass this Bill, as he asked the House last Thursday to pass it. We cannot forget that two years ago the Minister of Labour and the Parliamentary Secretary asked the House to allow them to send the transitional benefit cases to the public assistance committee, and the House did it on their advice. Last Thursday the Minister of Labour condemned far more strongly than we could
  1558
  condemn the sending of transitional cases to public assistance committees and he admitted they made a serious blunder two years ago. How do we know that they are not making a similar blunder now? If the House was misled then, it may be just as easily misled to-day in accepting this Bill. The language that seems to me the best to describe the Bill is language that was used a few years ago by the present Prime Minister. In 1929, just before the General Election, the Labour party issued a pamphlet entitled, "How to Cure Unemployment" with a preface by the Right Hon. James Ramsay MacDonald. This is what he said:
  "Unemployment will be the major issue at the forthcoming General Election. No stone will be left unturned to rid the country of the results of Tory ineptitude."
  You could stamp with a rubber stamp on each page of Part I of this Bill the words "Tory ineptitude," because there is no reorganisatfon in Part I and no statesmanship. You could stamp on every page of Part II the other two words, "Tragic results." Two years ago you divided the unemployed into two classes. In this Bill you are dividing them into three classes, the standard benefit class, the transitional benefit class and the workhouse class. The last is going to be an increasing class. It is a new class for whose creation only the National Government can be held responsible. It is to be created out of men who have lost heart and who are bitter. You are going to put them into the workhouse, and I prophesy that within six months the workhouses will be overflowing with unemployed men, their wives and families and, unless you do what there is a danger of being done and send some of these unemployed men to prison for not obeying some rules made by the Unemployment Assistance Board, there will not be sufficient room in the workhouses to house them. One reads that in the north of England 100 years ago there were so many strikes that they were not able to put all the miners into prison, and they had to use a bishop's stable as a prison. We are going to see a similar state of things under this Government. They are creating a new class which will over-fill the workhouses, and they will have to find some other places to put them in.
  You are abolishing the public assistance committees—at least you are abolishing the need for the transitional

  1559
  cases to go before the public assistance committees—and you are going to apply the Commissioners, who have been hitherto restricted to, Durham and Rotherham, to the whole country. This Unemployment Assistance Board is to be composed of an employer, a trade unionist and someone representing Northern Ireland. I need only say in regard to Northern Ireland that it is difficult to understand why the Government want a representative of Northern Ireland, because they have their own Unemployment Insurance Fund and the only connection they have had with us has been to draw money from this country. From 1926 to 1932 the Treasury of this country have paid to the Treasury of Northern Ireland to help the Unemployment Fund £3,424,494, but the fact that we pay that money is no reason why Northern Ireland should have a representative upon the board. It is the trade unionist that I am more interested in whom the Government propose to put upon it. I cannot see how any trade unionist can sit on it.
  The board is going to deal with the means test, a thing that is condemned hip and thigh by the trade union movement. It is going to send men to labour camps to work for no wages, a thing that is condemned by the trade union movement. It is going to send men into the workhouses, a thing that the trade union movement condemns. So I am hoping that we shall not find any trade unionist prepared to sit upon the board. I hope the trade union movement will refuse to appoint a representative. In my opinion, any trade unionist who sits on the board will be betraying the trade union movement, and will not be entitled to remain in it. I object to the powers of the board. I object to their continuing the means test. I object to their power to send men to what they call training centres, but what I call training camps. I am definitely opposed to all training centres for anyone over 18 years of age.
  Mr. CAPORN: Does the hon. Member object to universities?
  Mr. BATEY: Universities do not come under the Unemployment Assistance Board.
  Mr. CAPORN: The hon. Member says he is opposed to all training centres.
  Mr. BATEY: I am taking it for granted that the House understands that it is the training centres under the Ministry of Labour that I am criticising. I do not object to training centres for juveniles, but I hold that there is no need for training centres for anyone over 18. If any men are needed for any particular trade, the trade is able to train them. My chief objection is that the Government have been training men and are now proposing to spend an additional £750,000 on training them and, when they are trained, they cannot find jobs for them. The Ministry of Labour Report for 1932, dealing with the training or instruction of men says:
  "Opportunities of employment for men from the transfer instructional centres suffered an even greater reduction and as agents of the policy of transference it became necessary to contemplate their almost total closure."
  It also states:
  "The procedure whereby suitable men who were unwilling to undergo a course at a transfer instructional centre were required to do so as a condition of the further receipt of benefit was abandoned in view of the fact that the likelihood of employment could no longer be held out to those going forward."
  If it was impossible to find jobs for these men, it seems to me sinful to provide £750,000 extra for these training centres. The Government are developing training centres into training camps and they are making a training camp for the first time in Durham. The hours of work are 44 a week and the men's time is spent on forest clearing, trenching and draining, road making, quarrying and similar work, for which no wages are paid. Jobs will be found for as many as possible of those who work hard and show keenness. Then we find that the men's lodgings are paid and they are allowed either 4s. or 3s. It is wicked to take young men to these labour camps to do work like this and at the end of the week give them only 3s., or at the most, 4s., after paying for their lodgings. The sum of 4s. will not provide them with clothes to replace those that they wear out. I have some pictures here of work in a training camp. They are making a bridge, and one man is lying on his back under the bridge. The hard nature of the work will mean that the men will go through any amount of

  1561
  clothes and wear out boots more quickly than when engaged at ordinary work.
  Mr. HUDSON: The work does not involve any wear and tear of their own clothes, because we provide them with working clothes and working boots.
  Mr. BATEY: I am glad of that, but your circular does not say so. What kind of uniform are you going to put them in? Convict's uniform? Is the clothing to be provided to have the arrow upon it? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, it is work which is as bad as convict's work. To put those men to such work, even if you provide clothes and boots, and pay them no wages entitles those who are interested in the welfare of the country to vote against this Bill.
  7.31 p.m.
  Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: I want to confine my remarks to a particular point in this Measure which to my surprise has not been dealt with in the Debate to which I have listened. It is one of outstanding importance, and appears to be a definite hole in an otherwise complete scheme. Whatever may have been said for or against it, the scheme is probably one of the finest schemes for unemployment insurance which this or any other country has yet had. It is far from perfect, but it is far better than any scheme which any other country has had, and that is a sufficient reply to the different condemnations which have been made. If you condemn the Government for this scheme, you condemn every country in the world throughout history for not having made such good proposals as are contained in this Bill. It shows how human are the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary when one can show a flaw in such a Bill. There is a very definite flaw, and I am going to bring it to their notice. It is clear that the Minister did not realise the flaw, because he; did not deal with the point in his opening speech. It is clear that hon. Members opposite who have been searching with a fine tooth comb for flaws in the scheme have not found it, because they have not mentioned the matter. Therefore, I want to deal with the treatment of the able-bodied unemployed. The Minister of Labour is keen on saving them from the stigma of the Poor Law. He said in his opening speech:
  1562
  "The Bill differs greatly to the advantage of the applicant, from the Poor Law."
  Again he says:
  "One of the main features of the Bill which will commend itself to all parties, is that the genuine workman who has lost his employment and is in need of assistance, without the traditional stigma of the Poor Law. … An applicant detests having to apply for public relief and so on."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1933; col. 1088, Vol. 283.]
  He suggests that such a man objects to having to apply for it as he is not as independent as he wishes to be. In that way stigma is a matter of self-respect, but in actual practice one of the chief elements in the stigma of the Poor Law is the association with the other people who include the dregs of society, as I have found out as a medical officer of health. Where is the association with the Poor Law the closest 1 It is on the question of medical relief. That question comes into this Bill. Clause 35 of the Bill says clearly that the able-bodied unemployed who will be dealt with in Part II of the Bill include persons whose normal occupation is employment in respect of which contributions are payable under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Act, and that essentially includes the National Health Insurance Acts. It goes without saying that when a man is unemployed his employers are no longer able to pay his health insurance. Part II includes these persons. It is clear that the matter has received exceptional treatment. In the Seventh Schedule it provides that a public assistance authority shall not order outdoor relief for these people because it is desired to keep them from the stigma of the Poor Law except provided that this paragraph shall not apply in respect of the medical needs of any person, and vis-a-vis the Unemployment Assistance Board shall pay to the public assistance authority the cost of any outdoor relief not being relief in respect of medical needs.
  It means that in Part II the able-bodied unemployed come under the Poor Law public assistance authority for medical relief. What is the effect? These men, who through the whole course of their employment have been looked after medically by their panel health insurance doctors, have now to leave the panel doctor and are to be looked after

  1563
  by the public assistance doctor, who is technically known as the district medical officer. He is the district medical officer who is paid a fixed sum for the treatment of all the people who come under public assistance or the Poor Law. Whether he has one, 20 or a 100 or 500 extra patients thrown upon him he has to treat them for the same salary. The panel doctor loses his panel patient. The official reply to this is unworthy of the Government. It was not made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, but by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health when this matter was being discussed recently in the House. I raised the question on the subject of the Poor Law assistance treatment of these persons, and he replied that the public assistance officer and the district medical officer is very often the same man as the panel doctor. It was simply being changed in regard to payment from one to the other. That we all know to be absurd. Very often he is the same man, but in many cases it is not so.
  Instead of having the choice of 16,000 panel doctors and of 10,000 chemist shops, the able-bodied unemployed man is to be put under a system which employs 3,500 district medical officers each of whom looks after an average population of 15,000 extending over 15,000 acres. It is not a reflection upon the district medical officer, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health suggested the other day, because he is very often the same man and an excellent fellow. There are black sheep in every flock, but I am objecting to the system. The system of the district medical officer is grossly inefficient in general ways and unfair both to the patient and to the doctor. The district medical officer can seldom prescribe extras, never district nursing, although some boards subscribe to local nursing associations. He makes no returns. He has rarely a superior officer to advise and to encourage him. He has no relationship with the medical officer of health and no incentive to advise, to prevent illness, or to report unhealthy conditions. His business is to supply medical relief which is too often limited to the giving of a bottle of medicine. The friendly relations which exist between doctor and patient are now to be broken. Everybody knows as well as the medical
  1564
  profession that the essence of sound medical treatment, especially the prevention of illness and the keeping of people in health, is the personal relation and friendship of the doctor and patient; the patient knowing the doctor and the doctor knowing the patient year after year. All that is to be broken. It is an unworthy and an unnecessary arrangement. What is the alternative? We had the alternative mentioned by the Minister of Health the other day. He said:
  "What is to be said in regard to the particular difficulty, which has been put to me with great force by hon. Members, that the real difficulty, and it is if I may say so, the only practical and substantial difficulty that has been adduced to-day, is that of free choice of doctor. Is there any way in which it can be met? There is. It is perfectly open to the local authority in a suitable case to make use of the panel system for its public assistance organisation. Experiments have been made in that direction in three areas, namely, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East Ham and Wiltshire."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1933; col. 485, Vol. 281.]
  He says in cold, chilly terms, "I invite local authorities"—
  Mr. HUDSON: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. This is a Bill to deal with able-bodied unemployed who are available for, and capable of, work. Obviously, a man is not available for, and capable of, work if he is sick. Does not the speech of the hon. and gallant Member seem to be more appropriate on a Debate on the Ministry of Health, as the Bill only deals with the able-bodied unemployed?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir D. Herbert): I did not like to interrupt the hon. and gallant Member in dealing with what appears to be a Committee point. He must not argue it. He may draw attention to it, but must not go into the details.
  Sir F. FREMANTLE: I gladly accept your Ruling, but, considering the amount of details introduced by other Members, I thought that I should be in order. As regards the point of the Parliamentary Secretary, it is clear that he will have to meet the point in Committee; otherwise, he cannot say that he is saving those people from the stigma of the Poor Law when he is putting them definitely under the Poor Law. The Government must see this thing as a whole and not in compartments. If it is a question of the

  1565
  Ministry of Health, that Department must be brought into it, and the Government must work together in those two offices instead of in pigeon-holes. The Bill throws the people on to the Poor Law for medical relief. It is a great blot, and, what is more, people will feel that it is against the whole arguments and statements of the Minister of Labour. The Parliamentary Secretary may shake his head. Doctors are clearly against it. The British Medical Association have raised this matter again and again, and the matter will have to come up in Committee.
  7.45 p.m.
  Dr. SALTER: Many grounds of opposition have been raised by speakers on this side of the House against the Bill. My strongest objection is that the Bill, as far as I can see, does nothing whatever to remedy the terrible privations from which hundreds of thousands of unemployed people suffer. It has been mentioned again and again in Debate that the cuts in unemployment benefit were made in 1931 at a time of crisis. Not only are those cuts not restored by the Bill but, as I read the Bill, they are to be stereotyped and made practically permanent.
  Mr. HUDSON indicated dissent.
  Dr. SALTER: The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head. It is true that there is a very vague possibility that at some remote period in the future the board may recommend an increase in benefit. There is a faint shadow of something of the sort happening but, surely, the fact that the first call on any surplus in the Unemployment Fund is for reimbursing the Treasury for money expended in the past practically negatives any chance of any available surplus being allocated for increase of benefit. I cannot see, looking at the construction of the Bill as it stands at the present time, that the Bill holds out any hope to the present unemployed of securing additional benefits. An enormous mass of evidence has been accumulated recently to show that the rates of benefit are totally insufficient in multitudes of cases to sustain life or, in the words of the report of the British Medical Association Committee, "to maintain health or working capacity." The Secretary of State for Scotland, in winding up the Debate last Thursday night, said:
  1566
  "I challenge the hon. Gentleman"—
  I think he was referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell)—
  "to show in any sense of the word that this Government has starved anybody. It is a gross mis-statement."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 30th November, 1933; col. 1183, Vol. 283.]
  I take up that challenge here and now. I say, quite deliberately, that, reviewing all the facts available to me, that literal starvation—using the word in its common, colloquial sense, to say nothing about the physiological starvation referred to by the British Medical Association-actual starvation exists at the present time in an enormous number of cases of unemployed persons and their families, and that it is working grave damage to health in hundreds of thousands of persons. The Minister of Health has said that there is no evidence of any increase in malnutrition among, for example, elementary school children in industrial districts. He has said, and it has been repeated on several occasions by other representatives of the Government, that there is at present no available medical evidence of any general increase in physical impairment, sickness or mortality as a result of economic depression or unemployment. Words to that effect have been used by other representatives of the Government. I reply that neither the Minister of Health nor the other Members of the Government who have repeated that statement can have read the reports of their own medical officers of health. I have an enormous mass of cuttings from the reports of different medical officers. I will quote a few. The Cumberland school medical officer, Dr. Kenneth Fraser, in his report for 1932, says:
  "There is no doubt that large numbers of the children are carrying on in this county without adequate food. The money available for food in very many homes is not sufficient to buy an adequate diet for a growing child, even on the plainest and simplest lines."
  Yet the Minister of Health says that there is no evidence of starvation.
  Sir F. FREMANTLE: Is the hon. Member quoting from a medical officer of health?
  Dr. SALTER: I am quoting from Dr. Kenneth Fraser the Cumberland school medical officer.
  Sir F. FREMANTLE: Why does the hon. Member choose that particular one?
  Dr. SALTER: I am going to give a selection. I have probably about 40 extracts from the reports of different medical officers of health, but I shall not read more than seven or eight.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I hope the hon. Member will be good enough to recollect the intervention that I had to make during the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle), and that he will relate all his facts, whatever they may be, strictly to the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Dr. SALTER: I propose to relate what I am saying strictly to the Second Reading of the Bill on the ground that it does nothing whatsoever to assist the unemployed or to relieve them from the effects of starvation or semi-starvation from which they are suffering, and that they will continue to suffer under it. I propose to relate my facts strictly to that point. Dr. Kenneth Fraser goes on to refer to the abnormally high infantile mortality in the country during the first nine weeks of the present year, and says:
  "I do not doubt that under better economic conditions many of these children would not have died."
  Is not that equivalent to a charge of manslaughter against the authorities, whoever they may be, who allowed those children to get into such a condition of malnutrition that they died? The medical officer of health for Preston says:
  "The general health of the children showed uniform decline in the last quarter of the year, the unprecedented trade depression and consequent unemployment being the direct cause. Possibly at no period during the past five years has work at the infant welfare centres been so difficult as during the latter part of 1932. One cannot help feeling that the means test was the responsible factor. No one can deny that the ex-baby and the toddler were both definitely much less robust and much more in need of medical attention and much more prone to rickets than was the case two years ago."
  The medical officer for Burnley says:
  "In the present state of unemployment children are getting too much starchy food and too little fresh fruit, fresh milk, fresh vegetables and fresh eggs."
  The medical officer of health for Monmouthshire, reporting on rickets, which has gravely increased, he states, throughout the county, declares:
  1568
  "It would seem that the prolonged industrial depression is saving its grave effect on the mothers."
  The medical officer of health for Cardiff reporting on the greater number of children in his area suffering from physical disease or defect, says:
  "It is the first sign of the influence on health of the bad times."
  The medical officer of health for Blackburn reports:
  "The standard of nutrition continues to decline,"
  —The Minister of Health said there was no evidence anywhere of anything of the sort— "
  "and in the case of boys shows but small improvement over that of the War period. The malnutrition is brought about by financial inability to provide the requisite sustenance."
  The medical officer of health for Stockton-on-Tees says:
  "The ill effects of the deficient quality of nutriment are widespread."
  Dr. McGregor, the medical officer of health for Glasgow, says:
  "Rickets among pre-school children shows a distinct tendency to increase. This increased prevalence of rickets is not entirely a local phenomenon. Reports from other areas are to the effect that similar increased incidence in rickets among preschool children has been noted."
  The medical officer of health for Hammersmith, Dr. Howell, says:
  "Many expectant mothers are undernourished. No provision is made for the supply of milk during the first six months of pregnancy, although the early period of pregnancy is equally as important, if not more so, than the latter."
  He refers to the malnutrition among children, which he says:
  "is due to the small amount of money left over for food for the family after paying present-day rents."
  He quotes an examination of children in the families of unemployed working-class families and says:
  "Evidence of malnutrition exists in 28 per cent, of the cases, while 76 per cent. were below the average weight of children of the same elementary schools."
  I refrain from reading more quotations, but they could be multiplied almost indefinitely.
  Sir F. FREMANTLE: Read the favourable ones. Are not they three times as many?
  Dr. SALTER: I am quoting extracts which demonstrate conclusively my assertion that malnutrition is very widely pre-velant at the present time among children.
  Sir F. FREMANTLE: What does Sir George Newman say?
  Dr. SALTER: I am denying statements made at that Box, and I am giving concrete evidence, not from politicians but from unbiased persons who have to administer the Public Health Act, and whose statements are correct.
  Sir F. FREMANTLE: Will the right hon. Member read Sir George Newman's summary?
  Dr. SALTER: Yes, I have read it, and it has been read in this House several times. I am going to deal with that point in a moment, to show how hopelessly inadequate Sir George Newman's summary is to throw any light on the situation. I suggest that the recital of these reports of medical officers in regard to the inadequacy of the feeding of children and adults supplies a terrible indictment of the Government in regard to its policy through the administration of unemployment and transitional benefit. Many of us who live in industrial districts know the facts first-hand from our own observation and our daily contact with the people concerned. I live in my constituency and in a working class street and I see the people all around me going down-hill month after month as a consequence of their inability to obtain adequate nourishment. The Government by their present policy are creating wholesale C3 individuals, C3 physically and C3 mentally.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This is not the time to discuss the general policy of the Government.
  Dr. SALTER: With great respect I am trying to show that under the existing Act, the policy of which is to be perpetuated by the Bill, these things are happening and that as no remedy is effected by this Bill things will become worse. I submit, therefore, that I am in order. As a result of this Bill the present policy of the Government is to be continued and we are definitely developing a C3 race. In a great many cases, owing to starvation of brain as well as of body, we are going to have persons of weakened mentality in the
  1570
  future. Hon. Members in this House and outside it have again and again demanded the sterilisation of the mentally deficient person. Here we are actually growing them by the policy of this Bill.
  Sir F. FREMANTLE: The hon. Member never heard me make that remark.
  Dr. SALTER: Last night the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scrym-geour-Wedderburn) in discussing the adequacy of the scale of benefit, said that there would be a difficulty in postulating any ideal scale of benefit, but he said:
  "Any question such as 'What do you consider the minimum weekly sum upon which an unemployed man and his family can decently live?' is an unfair question to which it is impossible to give a concise answer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1933; col. 1385, Vol. 283.]
  At the present moment we have in our possession a most remarkable and valuable report of the special committee of the British Medical Association which gives us a scientifically worked out minimum scale of expenditure upon food, admittedly not an ideal scale. The committee's terms of reference were:
  "To determine the minimum weekly expenditure on foodstuffs which must be incurred by families of varying size if health and working capacity are to be maintained."
  This committee, which was appointed last April, consisted of nine distinguished doctors, none of them, as far as I am aware, being Socialists, though certainly a number of them I know do share the political opinions of hon. Members opposite. They sat for several months and made elaborate and detailed investigations and calculations. They consulted Professor Bowley, Professor of Statistics at London University, and Dr. Crowden, and also a number of medical officers of health. This expert committee condemns in the most unqualified manner the statement made by the Minister, reiterated by other hon. Members, that there is no malnutrition among elementary school children. They point out that the standards or criteria adopted by the Minister are useless for the purpose of estimating malnutrition. Their actual words are:
  "The usually adopted age, height, and weight ratios are open to serious objections when applied to individuals. The functional fitness of the individual needs to be studied as well as the anthropometric measurements if the true state of nutrition is to be correctly appraised."

  1571
  It is only upon one particular criterion, the relation of age to height and weight, that the Minister relies for his declaration that there is no appreciable malnutrition among children at the present time. The standard upon which the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) relies has been condemned in unqualified terms by this committee of the British Medical Council, and it is also criticised by the Chairman of the Council of the British Medical Association. This again is a direct contradiction of the Government's policy and the Minister's statement that there is no malnutrition. He says:
  "Officialdom's methods for assessing malnutrition are so loose, haphazard, and out of date; that they give an entirely false impression of the state of things which actually exists."
  That statement was followed in the Press the next morning by a statement from the Superintendent of the Church Army Homes who said:
  "I have known families in which the children somehow keep up the illusion of health, despite the fact that they are lucky if they get one full meal a day, and even then that meal would be bought for bulk and cheapness rather than for nutritive qualities.
  Let me add the very definite statement, that among very young children you may have excessive bulk, a child almost bloated with fat, yet suffering from extreme rickets. It is well known that young children who are not properly fed, who are not getting sufficient vitamins, can actually put on weight and yet get every day nearer and nearer to death's door. Only last week I saw young children who are deformed by rickets, whose limbs are bowed, who will be knock-kneed for life, others who will have to be operated upon if their limbs are to be straightened, and yet they are actually over-weight for their age, and above the standard relied upon by the Minister. That is a medical declaration which no one can dispute.
  Dr. O'DONOVAN: No one will dispute my hon. Friend's statement about fatness and want of health, but there was one remark, perhaps a little rhetorical, that they were at death's door. The approximation of death and increasing weight cannot be co-related.
  Dr. SALTER: This is not the place, of course, to conduct a medical controversy, but I think my hon. Friend is a specialist in skin diseases, not in children's diseases, and if he were aware of the whole of the facts of the case he would realise that many of these children with extreme rickets, who are bloated and over-weight, are simply fading away, and would be seriously affected by a slight disease which an ordinary child would throw off in a day or two.
  Dr. O'DONOVAN: I agree.
  Dr. SALTER: Therefore, I say that they are next to death's door. When hon. Members opposite talk about the unemployed having lost their morale through being unemployed so long, and when the Government take credit for establishing training schools to re-establish this morale, I should like it to be known that chronic semi-starvation of the proper foods affects the brain functions and brain structure, and this insufficient feeding which is going on produces the sluggishness of brain, the inertia and the incapacity to effort, and is really the cause of what is described as a loss of morale. It is not a moral defect, it is a physical defect, because of the starvation imposed upon them by the Government's present policy. Let me turn again to the report of the British Medical Association and to the standards of payment which ought to be put into force immediately. As to the necessary amounts which ought to be allowed for food alone for different classes of individual, the report says:
  "The minimum required to maintain a man in health and efficiency is 5s. 10½d. a week."
  That is really an under-statement, because the report goes on to say that it is necessary that an adult man should have at least a quarter of a pint of milk a day and the cost of that is assumed to be 2½d. a pint in summer and 3d. in winter, or an average of 2¾d. for the year. Milk cannot be obtained under 7d. a quart, or 3½d. a pint, and I see that owing to the operations of the Minister of Agriculture a man was prosecuted the other day for selling milk at 6d. a quart when the price was 7d. I know of no places where fresh milk can be obtained at less than 7d. a quart, and it means that the figure of 5s. 10½d. must be raised by another penny to 5s. 11½d. Many of the

  1573
  ingredients in the diet set out in the document cannot be purchased, in London at any rate, at the prices mentioned. I have had comparative figures made out, and I find that they cannot be procured except for 1d. or 2d. more For children, allowing for this correction in respect of the price of milk, with which the Committee I have no doubt will agree, the minimum cost of the diet of a child from one to two years of age would be 2s. 11½d. per week; of a child between two years and three years 3s. 4d., from three years to six years 3s. 8d., and from eight years to ten years 4s. 3d. The Committee add:
  "It has not been found possible to prepare any diet for a child at a less cost than 2s. 6d. per week."
  Yet only 2s. is allowed, and the Bill proposes to perpetuate this allowance, at any rate, there is no suggestion that the figure is to be increased. The Ministry of Health has published its own report in which they say:
  "For the proper feeding of children in Poor Law institutions, in homes containing 200 children, the weekly cost of food is 4s. 6½d. per head, if all provisions are bought at contract prices."
  How can the unemployed buy food at contract prices? They will have to pay more. If 4s. 6d. is, on the Ministry's own showing, a minimum, how inadequate must be an allowance of 2s. for a child, and that 2s. is not merely for food, but it includes a proportion for firing and for cleaning materials, which in the case of young children are a heavy item in the domestic weekly expenditure. In fact, on three or four occasions in their report the committee point out that a diet for young children cannot be procured except for about 4s. 6½d. per week. That 4s. 6d. does not include a charge for any other service or purpose whatever. It is a curious coincidence that the Ministry's figure is almost exactly the same as the figure which the British Medical Association reached in this connection.
  When you come from the individual child to the family, how can a man with a wife and three children between the ages of six and 14 spend £1 3s. 1½d. on food, which is the figure set out in the British Medical Association report, out of a total payment of £1 9s. 3d., when the rent will be 10s. or 12s. at the least, and no allowance is made for renewals of clothing and fuel 1 In this bitter weather
  1574
  the cost of fuel cannot be less than 1s. 6d. a week. I would remind the House that since the British Medical Association report was published there have been articles in the Press, letters from doctors and public administrators, and pronouncements on the platform from public officials, from authorities of the Church Army homes, representatives of orphanages and legions of other people who are engaged in social and philanthropic work, drawn from all ranks of life, who declare that even the British Medical Association ration is only barely sufficient to maintain life at the level of subsistence. For decent life at all it is hopelessly inadequate. I have here an article by a very well-known writer and social investigator, who says:
  "The amount left after purchasing the minimum foodstuffs allowed by the British Medical Association would not pay the rent alone in many hundreds and thousands of unemployed households. The only possible conclusion to be drawn is that in order to pay the rent and purchase bare necessities the housewife in every instance must economise on food."
  That plainly is what is going on now. That is the explanation of the tragic records of the various medical officers of health whose documents I have mentioned. There is practically universal condemnation outside, by disinterested persons, of the scale of benefit which is permitted under the Act and under this Bill. I ask the Minister of Labour or his Parliamentary Secretary quite definitely whether there is any intention on the part of the Government to increase this scale of allowances for unemployment benefit, more especially in the case of children. A daily newspaper, the "News-Chronicle" on Saturday contained an article by a special commissioner who has been making investigations in Bishop Auckland and the North. He reports case after case where the family, when the husband was in receipt of benefit on present scales, had to live largely on bread and margarine, and even then by the middle of the week they had to pinch themselves. The conclusion of the commissioner was this:
  "The recent medical estimate that 5s. 10 ½d. is a sum upon which a man doing moderate work could reasonably be fed, has attracted much attention. I do not think that the sum available for food to any unemployed man in this village is more than 3s. a week."

  1575
  That is my experience first-hand in the industrial district in which I live. I am, therefore, justified in condemning the Bill root and branch. The Bill does nothing whatever to relieve the privations from which unemployed families in this country are suffering. I oppose the Bill because it gives legislative sanction to what I cannot but describe as the deliberate starvation of great masses of my fellow countrymen. There sits the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour. He is always approachable, he is always very kindly, very genial, and very sympathetic, but I would most solemnly say to him that in commending this Bill to the House, and offering no hope of any increase in the scales of benefit, he is really, with all his kindness and all his good intentions, making himself a party to the wholesale destruction of the health, and life even, of the people of this country.
  8.23 p.m.
  Sir J. WALKER SMITH: I propose to refer especially to the provisions of the Bill that fall within Part II. I shall restrict my observations to those particular provisions. I am concerned because of the fact that under those provisions there will be somewhat ruthlessly thrown on to one side the administration of unemployment assistance or unemployment benefit by those elected of the people, who have traditionally for many generations administered that particular service. I am concerned too on account of the fact that under this Part of the Bill there will be vested in Government officialdom powers and responsibility for this vast service, which involves the exercise of wide discretion and the expenditure of tens of millions—about £50,000,000 of public money per annum. I propose still further to restrict my observations to the question of the extent to which these particular provisions may develop an undesirable bureaucracy.
  In a very brief but very clear speech earlier in the day the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) indicated that there were in the scheme three main features which emerged for consideration. The second, with which he did not deal, was the question whether or not the vast service contemplated under this Bill would degenerate into an undesirable bureaucracy. The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr: Greenwood)
  1576
  said that in his opinion it certainly would. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay) rather gloried in the fact that it was a purely bureaucratic Bill and perhaps the Minister of Labour had in his mind the idea that it might involve something very much in the nature of an undesirable bureaucracy. He himself emphasised the fact that the responsible authority for the control and administration of affairs under this Measure would be what he termed the central authority. That is a somewhat euphemistic expression for what others have termed a bureaucracy.
  One knows that the Minister must be guided largely by his advisers and that he has around him a large staff of skilled advisers and draftsmen. It has occurred to me however that in the drafting of this Bill official effrontery has carried us rather further than we are accustomed to go. It is usual for the official authors of contemplated Government legislation to secure, by way of support for their proposals, some recommendations Or findings by Royal Commissions or committees or bodies of that kind. It may be that they are now so emboldened that they do not think it necessary to find any support from documents of that kind or it may be that in this case they have been unable to find any such support. It would be astonishing to me if, in relation to an astonishing Bill of this kind, anyone could find recommendations by a Royal Commission to support the provisions of Part II.
  The Minister of Labour, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Scotland have in turn referred to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance which presented its report in November of last year. They have referred to the findings of the Commission in support of various proposals in the Bill, and I take it that, had there been any support in that report for the astonishing provisions of Part II they would have felt it their duty to make that fact known to the House. But upon that point they were silent. I have perused with care both the Majority and Minority Reports of the Commission and have failed to find the slightest support for these provisions of this Government Measure. Indeed I find the reverse. It would be astonishing to find any recommendation of the Commis-

  1577
  sion in favour of placing a service of this kind in the hands of Government officialdom a more arbitrary or more regulation-bound body than which it is impossible to conceive. Yet it is to a body of that kind that the Government propose to entrust the welfare nay almost the very existence of a vast number of our people who are down on their luck.
  The provisions of Part II seem to be based upon certain questionable assumptions, and if those assumptions are shown to be unsound, as I shall show them to be unsound, the provisions of this part of the Bill fall of their own weight. The first assumption seems to be that Parliament has now become so invertebrate and Ministers so effete that they can no longer be relied on or indeed no longer desire to discharge the irksome duties of their offices without having some quasi-independent body to shield them from the worry and trouble of real responsibility. Secondly, there seems to be an assumption that local authorities are now so craven that they succumb readily to fears of the electorate and can no longer be relied upon to discharge their duties loyally and courageously. I do not propose to discuss the extent to which Parliament may have become invertebrate and Ministers themselves by their own actions, will tell us the degree to which they feel they have become effete and the extent to which they desire to interpose between themselves and real responsibility some body behind which they can shelter. But I protest that there is no justification for the belief that local authorities are now so craven that they can no longer be trusted to carry out their duties loyally and fearlessly even though those duties may have unpleasant consequences.
  I am not impressed with the statement of the Secretary of State for Scotland that there are some members of local authorities in Scotland who would be glad to get rid of the duty of administering assistance to the able-bodied unemployed. I do not think it can be a general desire among representatives on local authorities so to shirk a public duty which involves the welfare of citizens of their own boroughs. I would be sorry to believe that such is the case. Nor do I think it fair to judge local authorities upon their experience in regard to this particular service during the last two
  1578
  years under a scheme that is comparatively new and the machinery of which no doubt requires to be running for some time before its efficiency can fairly be judged. In circumstances of industrial depression which are unparalleled I have no doubt that for the effective administration of a service of this kind some adjustment of the scheme would be necessary, but when the scheme has been suitably adjusted I believe it is but right and proper that the administration should be left in the hands of the local authorities.
  In my own experience, I am bound to say I have found a much greater measure of effectiveness in the administration of affairs by local government bodies than in administration by Departments which fall under Parliamentary control. I say that without hesitation having had practical experience of 15 years in both services. I have no doubt that the machinery of local government could be considerably improved, and that the areas of administration could be modified in order better to adapt them to this vast service suddenly thrust upon them. But, notwithstanding anything Ministers may say from the Front Bench to the effect that local authorities are now manned by such a craven crowd that they would be afraid to discharge these duties to their fellow citizens, I maintain that there is no justification whatever for that view.
  There is one more assumption upon which this provision is based which is, perhaps, less untruly founded and that is the assumption that democratic government either has broken down or is in process of breaking down and that for the efficient discharge of unpleasant functions or duties involving great courage we must resort to some form of dictatorship. It may be that we must recognise, in common with almost the whole world now, that democracy is breaking down, but even so I do not think we have yet reached the stage when we need a dictatorship. But if, for purposes of this kind, we should need dictators, I sincerely hope that we shall have dictators whom we know, whom we can see, who will publicly proclaim their policy, and who will stand up publicly to defend it and take full responsibility for it. The dictatorship that is adumbrated under the provisions of this Bill is a very different sort of dictatorship.

  1579
  These dictators are unknown, they are unseen, they are secret in their methods, they are secure, they will wield an enormous amount of power, and they will carry no responsibility. That is not the kind of dictatorship that I think we could contemplate with any degree of equanimity whatever.
  I do not think there will be any efficient measure of Parliamentary control over the administration of this Part of the Bill at all, and I am still of that opinion after having listened with great care to the explanation that was given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the subject yesterday. It is true that the regulations will need to be laid before this House, but this House will either have to accept them in full or reject them in toto, and that, of course, is practically an impossible thing to do. In any case no regulations can properly define the discretionary power that will be vested in the officials who will administer the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that the expenses involved would necessitate a Vote, but the House must either pass the Vote or leave all the machinery at a standstill and no money available for the unemployed. I have no doubt the Comptroller and Auditor-General will see that the accounts are properly kept, but that will not be any control upon the extraordinary activities of this bureaucratic body, who, under the Bill, are being given enormously wide powers of discretion in the expenditure of this vast sum of public money.
  I wish to make one or two specific references to the Bill itself. I must pass rapidly over Part I of the Bill, although I feel quite satisfied that the organisation set up under it will be used merely as a convenient instrument for sheltering the activities of a permanent officialdom. I have noted too the manner in which the Unemployment Insurance Committee is to be appointed. The Chairman and the members are to be appointed by the Minister, and the Minister, one knows, in circumstances of that kind, very soon becomes a euphemistic expression for the higher officials who surround him. I have no doubt whatever that when the limelight of public attention is concentrated upon these particular appointments, the Minister will
  1580
  appoint those who will have a certain amount of independence of judgment and who can be relied upon to exercise impartiality in the administration of this enormous undertaking, but the appointments will endure for a period of only five years, and then there may be another Minister, more amenable to the wishes and to the pressure of his own officials, and at the end of that period, under cover and in the shadow of public inattention and indifference, those lucrative appointments will, without a shadow of doubt, fall into the hands of the present permanent Civil Service, and the whole thing will become part and parcel of that vast, uncontrolled, and perhaps uncontrollable organisation. I think that is most undesirable.
  I pass to the body which is to be appointed under the Fifth Schedule, namely, the Unemployment Assistance Board. It would appear that the method of appointment of that board is somewhat different from that prescribed for the appointment of the Unemployment Insurance Committee—in terms, yes, but in practice, no. The Minister will appoint the board for all practical purposes in the same way. It makes no difference whether the Minister appoints directly or whether the appointments are made upon the Minister's advice. The members of the board are appointed under what is termed the Sign Manual. By whatever method these lucrative appointments are filled, there is no doubt whatever of the ultimate destination of them. It will be precisely the same, as will be seen very shortly. I congratulate the draftsman who prescribed the constitution of this particular board in such grandiloquent terms. I forget the precise terms, but I know that they are to be a body corporate, with licence to hold land, and that they are to be appointed by warrant under the Sign Manual. That is all very gradiloquent, portentous, and ponderous, but it does not mean anything at all. I think it is designed for the purpose of deluding the public, and perhaps this House, into the belief that the body so appointed will be extremely independent, above suspicion, beyond reproach, a body which can be relied upon to discharge its duties with extreme impartiality. For myself, I feel quite sure that it is mere camouflage for Government officials.

  1581
  I am even more concerned with the proposals for the appointment of the appeal tribunals, which seem to me to be singularly objectionable. The scales have been loaded very heavily against the appellants. Each tribunal will consist of a chairman, who will be appointed by the Minister; the chairman will have a casting vote, and the chairman will be paid, so to speak, by the Minister who appoints him. There are to be two other members appointed, one to represent the Assistance Board—that is to say, another Ministerial appointment—and the third one is intended to represent the workpeople. He will be appointed by the Assistance Board, but even then the board cannot be trusted to appoint him, but has to appoint him from a panel which the Minister himself will supply to them. Therefore, it is clear that the triumvirate constituting this panel will be purely a Ministerial appeal tribunal. I submit that it is extremely unfair to the applicant.
  There is another provision to which the Minister looks forward with considerable satisfaction, believing that it will be a very important part of the Bill. That is the provision for the appointment of advisory committees. I do not think that will be a very important provision at all. I think it is somewhat farcical. Those who have had anything to do with advisory bodies to advise a Government Department know that they are chosen in the first place on account of the anticipated advice which they will give. If they do not give that advice, their advice is not taken. In any case, it seems to be ludricrous and a complete inversion of the proper order of things for representative persons in any locality—representative citizens, representative employers, representative trade unionists or any other representatives—to be called together to advise a paid clerk of the Civil Service who will have absolute responsibility for decisions made and in whom will rest the whole discretion with regard to these payments. It should be the reverse process, as it is under the Poor Law procedure. The elected of the people have the determination of these questions and the Minister of Health has his Poor Law inspectors, men of considerable knowledge and experience who sit with the elected representatives and help them with their assistance and advice. That is as it should be, but no self-respecting citizen
  1582
  will sit on the advisory committees which are proposed in this Bill.
  The independence of this Unemployment Assistance Board is illusory; I am quite satisfied that the tribunals are thoroughly unsatisfactory in that they are weighted against the appellants; and I am sure that these advisory committees are quite impossible. The whole of this machinery is of the wrong kind for administering the needs of the able-bodied unemployed. Sooner or later it will be found to be a meticulous organisation and inhuman in its operation. I think that it will be found to be extremely undesirable, and I fear that this additional organisation will become part and parcel of the Civil Service. I feel sure, too, that if this step is taken we shall have gone a considerable step towards the revulsion of public opinion against Parliamentary institutions and the forms of government. It may be that I have overstated my case in stating that probably this organisation will become part and parcel of Government officialdom, and that I have been a little too apprehensive that these lucrative appointments will soon pass into the hands of civil servants. I wish I had, but my experience tells me that I have done nothing of the kind because I have seen it happen over and over again.
  I have seen these intended quasi-independent bodies eradicated and the particular services which they were administering fall entirely into the Civil Service, and I am sure that the present lucrative appointments will fall into the present service. It will be remembered that a body called the Coal Reorganisation Commission was set up, and the chairman was to have a salary of £7,000 a year because he was to be a man of extraordinary impartiality and judgment who knew the coal trade through and through, and for no less sum could a man undertake such duties. Who was appointed? A civil servant got that appointment. This is one of the means whereby the Civil Service uses lucrative appointments of this kind as a spearhead to increase their emoluments and their standard, a standard which is greater than that of the Civil Service in any other country. I am apprehensive that the needs of the unemployed should be exploited for official grandiosement, and this movement is a real danger to the State.
  Mr. PRICE: My first criticism of this Bill is against its Title. The Minister of Labour calls it the Unemployment Bill. I think, however, that if it had been named a Bill to regularise starvation it would have borne a more appropriate name. The Bill has 63 Clauses and eight Schedules, and I challenge the Minister to point to one Clause that gives the slightest anticipation that work will be found for a solitary unemployed man. Surely the country was entitled to expect that, following a General Election and the promises that were made by Members of the Government and their followers, we should have had a Bill after two years' experience that would at least have given some promise or offered some hope that some of the 3,000,000 men now unemployed would be employed. There is not a Clause in the Bill that gives the slightest hope of employment. It simply perpetuates the starvation cuts and scales that are already in operation.
  I would like to make an observation on the financial position. We on this side of the House take strong exception to the first duty being placed upon the new Statutory Committee to make the fund solvent and to refund the £115,000,000 that has been spent in years gone by. The men who are employed and those who are coming in to make their contributions ought not to be held responsible for this debt. Not only are they to be asked to pay that amount, but, as we were told last night by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, this debt is carrying 3½ per cent. interest. That means that the fund will have to repay something in the nature of £220,000,000 in 40 years at the rate of £5,500,000 per annum.
  The country was led to believe that when the Bill was introduced the total financial responsibility for dealing with the unemployed would be taken by the State. Many of us have already received strong protests from local authorities because the Bill does not put on the State the full financial responsibility. The reply which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave last night to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) was misleading and ought to be corrected. A discussion arose as to the position of the local authorities. We are told by the local authorities that 60 per cent, of the expenditure, based on the standard year
  1584
  of 1932–33, on the able-bodied unemployed in receipt of transitional payments will have to be found from the local rates. We on this side of the House say that is totally unfair. The reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night would lead one to believe that that was not the position. In his reply to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, he said:
  "The cost of transitional payments is £51,000,000. The charge to the local authorities for the classes in respect of which they will be relieved under the Bill is estimated at £6,500,000. That is a total of £57,500,000. Under the Bill they are asked to pay a contribution of £3,900,000, but they already get a block grant, which means that they are relieved of about 23 per cent, of their total expenditure, namely, £1,500,000. We are left, therefore, with these figures: that of the total present cost of relief to the able-bodied unemployed the Exchequer pays £55,100,000 and the local authorities will be asked under the Bill to pay out of rates £2,400,000. That means that the Exchequer does not pay merely 40 per cent. in comparison with the local authorities' 60 per cent, of the cost of the relief to the able-bodied unemployed, but that the Exchequer pays 95 per cent, and the local authorities only 5 per cent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1933; cols. 1361 and 1362, Vol. 283.]
  That statement does not show the true position. The block grants to local authorities are not only a redemption for the cost of the unemployed but include grants for other social services, and, as stated by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall), this Bill still leaves the local authorities to find 60 per cent, in respect of the able-bodied unemployed. After the promise of the Ministry of Health last April, and after the pronouncements made by dozens of Tory Members in the country, we on this side of the House say that it is wrong to bring in a Bill which casts any responsibility for the able-bodied unemployed on the local ratepayers. We say that unemployment is a national responsibility and ought to be met out of no other funds than national funds.
  Part I of the Bill sets up a statutory committee to watch the finances of the fund and see that it is kept solvent. The committee are given powers to make recommendations. Are they to be empowered to make recommendations to increase the allowances to unemployed men and their families? It does not look as if they will be. The only power they will have is to make recommendations to the

  1585
  Ministry of Labour about the finances of the fund when additional contributions are needed or there is a reduction in the fund. We would like to know what the extent of their powers is to be. As to Part II of the Bill, we take strong objection to there being a Part II. We take strong objection to the unemployed being separated into two sections. It is not to be wondered at that there has been such varied discussion and criticism. We on this side approach the question of unemployment in a very different manner from some other hon. Members.
  The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot), who was speaking on behalf of the Liberal party, said that Members ought to approach the Bill from the standpoint of the effect it will have on our constituents. I think we ought to approach it from the standpoint of its effect on humanity. Nearly every Clause deals with human beings, and before we can gauge its real effects there enters the question of how we approach the problem of unemployment. Personally, I approach it in this way. As a member of this community I have always made one claim ever since I was 21 years of age. That claim has been the right to work. If the State cannot find me work, owing to the system under which we live, over which I have had no control and very little hand in shaping, then the State must keep me and my wife and bairns in decency until it can find work for me. That is what we stand for. This Bill does not make the slightest attempt to deal with the problem, as we should have expected from a National Government which claims to have in the Cabinet the best and finest brains in the country.
  Part II sets up a new authority entirely, the Unemployment Assistance Board. Why has that board been set up, and why have its duties been taken out of the hands of locally elected representatives? When the Minister of Labour was introducing the Bill I very much resented—I say it here to his face—the remark he made regarding members of public assistance committees and the old boards of guardians. He suggested that one of the reasons why he had transferred this administration to the Unemployment Assistance Board was that under the old regime on boards of guardians the proceedings became what was termed a whispering gallery, because men who
  1586
  were making application for unemployment benefit felt afraid to tell tike board the full domestic circumstances of their homes. That is not true, and it never has been true, and a statement like that is a gross insult to thousands of good, honest men and women who have spent tens of years in public life in dealing with the hard and difficult task of relieving the poor and the unemployed. If that is the only reason for the transfer of these functions, it is a very poor reason indeed.
  We see nothing in the Bill promising a restoration of the "cuts" suffered by the unemployed. I very much question whether there is a single hon. Member who, during the last few years, has not been responsible for giving an undertaking in his own constituency—and in many cases in other constituencies— that when financial stability was restored one of the first things to be done would be to abolish the "cuts" made in unemployment benefit in 1931. Nearly every speaker this week, even supporters of the National Government, has suggested that these "cuts" ought to be restored and yet they will be sufficiently hypocritical when the Division is taken to walk into the opposite Lobby to me and my party. I was told before I came here that it was very difficult to be a politician and a saint. I did think that hon. Members would be more honourable to their consciences and would carry out the promises that they made to the electorate and to the unemployed. If any speech has been made in the whole of this Debate which warrants, not only a return of the cuts to the unemployed but a vast increase in the scales that we are paying to those poor unfortunates, it is that which has been delivered by the hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter). Statistics have been brought forward that, in every part of the country, men, women and children are underfed, the public health is deteriorating, and we are breeding a C3 nation, as the result of the allowances that we are paying to the unfortunate unemployed.
  We say that there is nothing in this Measure that gives the slightest hope to the unemployed, and that this Bill is a disgrace to the National Government. We are hoping very much that the Bill will be taken before Caesar himself, in the form of a General Election, when the population of the country will be able

  1587
  to record their feelings about the abominable treatment which is meted out to the unemployed by the Bill, and which it is intended shall be continued. We shall fight this Bill root and branch, both in the House of Commons and in the country, and we hope, if we cannot get it amended by plea, that at a very early date the country, and the unfortunate unemployed who supported dozens of National candidates in the last General Election, will have seen the light of day and will be wise enough to know who are their real friends. We shall then have an opportunity of ripping this Bill off the Statute Book, and of giving to the unemployed men what hon. Members themselves would desire if they were in the ranks of the unemployed, a maintenance that is adequate, reasonable and Christianlike.
  9.7 p.m.
  Colonel GOODMAN: I have listened to the speeches in this Debate for three days, and for three whole days I have waited for some constructive criticism from the benches of the Opposition, but in vain. That is not surprising, because we have been given to understand that the Labour Opposition intends to fight the Measure which we are discussing not only in the House, but in the constituencies. That being the case, we are entitled to consider what is their alternative policy for dealing with unemployment. We know how wholeheartedly and fanatically they believe that there will be no unemployment problem when Socialism is adopted in this country, but they still have to convince the majority of the constituencies on that point. As we are discussing the present problem, the ultimate expectation of those hon. Members, in regard to unemployment being cured by Socialism, is too far distant to be considered as an alternative to the present Measure.
  It is some years since "work or maintenance" was declared to be the policy of the Opposition for dealing with the unemployed. If my memory serves me aright, the Right to Work Bill, which was introduced about 10 years ago, laid down that if any man or woman wanted work from other individuals, firms, local authorities or the State, and if the work was not forthcoming, the taxpayer was to provide adequate maintenance. The right
  1588
  hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), in moving the rejection of the present Bill, stated that his party re-affirmed the principle of work or maintenance. We can therefore assume that the right to work is the Opposition's alternative to unemployment insurance. They take the view that the unemployed should be maintained by the State. I should like to know how they translate adequate maintenance into scale relief.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield says that a scale should enable health and competency to work to be maintained. That has been repeated this evening by the hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter). It happens to be a phrase used by the British Medical Association. I admit that it is a very effective phrase, and that it would be very useful from the platform, but I cannot see that it gets us any nearer to the cost of the alternative scheme. As the policy of the Opposition is the right to work, instead of unemployment insurance, we can appreciate their hostility towards the unemployment insurance system. I cannot see how, in opposing this Bill, they can say that they are any nearer their object. They are not likely to have power for a long time in order to scrap the present system and to replace it by one based upon the right to work principle, and I should have thought that, instead of opposing this Bill tooth and nail, as we are told they intend to do, they would be much more usefully employed in co-operating with other parties, in order to see that, out of our discussions, the Measure emerges in as perfect a shape as possible.
  I am tired of methods to deal with the unemployed being made a party question. We heard last night that there should be more co-operation; I agree, but the party opposite has consistently declined to cooperate with any Government on the unemployment question, or with any method of dealing with the unemployed. The right hon. Gentleman who now sits for Clay Cross (Mr. A. Henderson) wrote, certainly a long time ago, to this effect, to a Labour meeting at Manchester:
  "The national emergency emphasises the importance of everything being done to ensure the success of Labour at the General Election."

  1589
  Although those words were written some time ago, they could be applied to the present day. I feel that hon. Members opposite have only considered the prospects of their own party, and not the prospects of the unemployed. That policy has governed their actions for a very long time. Last night, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham), nearly at the conclusion of his speech on this Bill, said:
  "You cannot settle the unemployment problem if you intend to do it in a partisan way and from one side of the House, because then it is approached from an entirely different angle from that which I have suggested. So far as hon. Members on this side are concerned, play the game straight and open, and you will find that you will get, not so much criticism, but a good deal more co-operation than you have bad in the past"—
  that is not necessarily a very great amount—
  "and more than you are entitled to if you continue the present partisan policy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1933; col. 1433; Vol. 283.]
  Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: That is only your opinion.
  Colonel GOODMAN: I presume that after that speech it may not be too late to ask hon. Members opposite to think a little less of their own party fortunes, and a little more about co-operating with other parties in the House, in order to make the plans proposed in this Bill an efficient means of dealing with the unemployed.
  Mr. GRAHAM: From my statement it appears that I hold exactly the opinion of the hon. Member's party as he appears to hold of mine.
  Colonel GOODMAN: That is my approach to the Measure, and it seems to me that it should be the approach of everyone who believes that the question should not be viewed from the standpoint of party. It is my intention to vote for the Second Reading of the Bill, because I believe in it. The Bill, also, has introduced some developments which commend themselves to me very cordially, as one who is not without practical experience of the existing scheme. For a year or more I sat as chairman of a public assistance committee in the East End of London. It was not a pleasing duty, but it certainly
  1590
  was a very illuminating one. I am very glad to see that this Bill provides that connection between the Poor Law and unemployed people who are seeking relief shall be severed. The hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass) said that there was no real distaste on the part of people going to a public assistance committee for relief, but I have sat with these people and have spoken with them, and I know that, in the minds of the majority of unemployed men and women who are obliged to go to a public assistance committee, there was, and is, a very real distaste for being associated in any way with the Poor Law system. Therefore, I heartily approve of the provisions of the Bill by which a special body is set up to deal with those unemployed people who have exhausted their insurance benefit.
  There are further provisions which commend themselves to me and, I think, to all others who, like myself, have interested themselves in boys and girls and their education. I refer to those Clauses which relate to the instruction and insurance of boys and girls. In the case of boys and girls, the uninsured gap between the leaving of school and going into employment and the age of 16 was exploited by a certain class of employers, who would employ boys and girls while insurance was not required, and discharge them as soon as they became of insurable age. I think it is a matter for congratulation that the Bill stops that gap by bringing the age of entry into insurance down to the school-leaving age. The provision of the Bill which requires instructional courses for boys and girls also commends itself to me, and I think it marks a further definite advance in the acceptance of responsibility by the State for these juveniles. That is a principle which must commend itself to every hon. Member of this House, to whatever party he may belong.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield concluded his speech by saying that the old system had broken down, and it was no use tinkering with it. But the unemployment insurance scheme was never framed to meet the prolonged and unparalleled depression in industry which we have had to face, and successive Governments have taken the easy way with the unemployed by tacking on to the insurance scheme a re-

  1591
  sponsibility for meeting an economic situation which it was never erected to bear. Is it any wonder that it sagged beneath what was practically an impossible burden? I do not agree that, because this economic situation was fastened on to it, that should be adduced as evidence of its breakdown due to its inherent weakness. I believe that the fact that there are millions of workers who have never exhausted their benefit is proof positive that in normal times and under normal conditions the scheme is a sound one.
  I agree that there are defects and omissions, and I would like to take this opportunity of associating myself with the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay), when he said that the first thing the Government ought to do is to increase the allowances to children. I would go even further than the hon. Member. He wanted to add another shilling, but, personally, I do not think that if the allowance were doubled it would be too much, and I would ask the Government to consider that possibility when the Bill reaches the Committee stage. The defects and omissions will, I assume and believe, be adjusted during the Committee stage. I support the Bill in the main because it disentangles the two types of unemployment—that which is due to national and international depression, and that which is due to the ordinary vicissitudes of an individual's industrial life.
  9.20
  Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: The views of those who sit on these benches were stated on the first day of the Debate by my hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White), and we have heard nothing in the Debate since to cause us to alter our views on any of these points. Our attitude towards the Division to-night is plainly this: Obviously, we cannot agree with the Amendment which has (been moved by hon. Members above the Gangway. They have put their Amendment, as they had a perfect right to do, in Terms of their own particular political philosophy, which we do not share. But to-night there will only be one Division, and in that Division there will be a plain question, "Aye or no, are you in favour of the Bill or are you against it?" For us on these
  1592
  benches, who find ourselves at variance with the Bill not merely on Committee points but on points of principle, there can only be one Lobby in which to vote.
  I think there is one common basis upon which everyone in the House approaches this question. In spite of some words used by the hon. and gallant Member for North Islington (Colonel Goodman), in one sense "work or maintenance" is now the motto of every party. That is to say, we are face to face with more than 2,000,000 of our fellow-countrymen who cannot obtain work or a living from their own resources, and we all agree that they have to be maintained somehow. The question is not "whether"; it is "how." This Bill is the Government's answer to the question how it should be done. We believe it to be the wrong answer. A wrong answer in a matter of this kind is not merely like an arrow which one looses at a venture at some target. If one is unfortunate enough to miss, one can have another shot, and try to have better luck next time. It is more like a building put up on the only eligible site. Once you have constructed a large piece of machinery like this, it must remain, just as was found to be the case with the De-rating Bill. Even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), who was among those who criticised that Measure most strongly, when he himself in turn was in office, could not lightly and in a moment overturn the whole of that structure. I am afraid that a mistake made in these provisions will have lasting effects, because there will be so much clearance work to be done before the country can get on the right lines again.
  Undoubtedly, Part I of the Bill has merits, which I think have been pretty generally recognised. It extends the scope of insurance; it restores the balance of the Insurance Fund, and it budgets for a surplus, as far as we can make out; but it is precisely on the disposition of that surplus that the temper of the Bill is tested almost at once. If the spirit of the Bill had been of the kind which we on these benches would have desired, I cannot imagine that the opportunity of this surplus would not have been immediately seized for the benefit of those who have contributed to the fund; but, instead of that, we have the provision with regard to debt. What the Government

  1593
  are really doing is floating a new company, which we all wish well and want to prosper. We want to see it start under the best possible circumstances, but the Government are saddling it from the start with a large debenture issue in favour of people who have a right to be paid in priority to the ordinary shareholders, by whom I mean the beneficiaries of the fund. This is bound to operate to the prejudice of the beneficiaries of the fund, and really there is no reason whatever why it should have been done.
  There seems to be some difference of opinion, as far as I can make out between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Royal Commission as to whether this particular debt is properly attributable to the fund or not. The Chancellor said very plainly that
  "practically the whole of this debt is in respect of insurance benefit proper, not in respect of transitional payment or transitional benefit."—[OFFICIAL REPORT 4th December, 1933; col. 1354, Vol. 283.]
  On the other hand, the quotation read from the Report of the Royal Commission last night by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bethnal Green North-East, who sits below the Gangway, showed the verdict of the Royal Commission precisely in the opposite sense. Whatever their opinion on the nature of the debt may be, there can be no doubt that they recommended that two-thirds of the debt should be transferred to the National Debt and should not burden the fund. Apart from that, there is ample precedent for an obligation, a liability, which has been incurred in times of national necessity being transferred to the National Debt. My hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. Mason) not long ago asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the fate of the sums of money which were lost in paying back to France and America amounts which were borrowed in the attempt to save the country from going off the Gold Standard. There was a sum of £17,500,000. The Chancellor's answer to that question was:
  "This debt is represented by an increase in the internal sterling debt of the country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1932; col. 1966, Vol. 262.]
  That money, which had been spent in time of emergency and which one would have thought would be payable, if any
  1594
  such debts are payable, by the people who had incurred the liability under the Budget of the year, it was thought quite proper—and I am not disputing the propriety of the decision—to put on the National Debt. If a debt of that kind can be so treated, why should a debt of this nature, that with which we are dealing to-night, be transferred to the fund so that—I am not afraid to repeat the phrase—it bears upon children as yet unborn? It is an important matter, in dealing with the debt, to remember that new people are continually coming in who know nothing about the debt. They are not like sharehloders who buy shares in a company with full knowledge of its financial circumstances, taking their choice as to whether they will come in or not. These people have* got to come in; there is no "take it or leave it"; they have to take the scheme as they find it.
  I am afraid that losing this obvious opportunity to restore the cuts will create the worst of impressions in the country. Equality of sacrifice was the most essential plank in the Government's programme at the last election. After people have been asked to suffer, that suffering should be equal, and that implies that the restoration and the recovery should also be equal. If there is going to be an opportunity to restore this particular cut, the most pitiable cut of all, surely it is now, and the Government should not wait until the time when there will be numbers of other competitors for restoration. The convenience of this moment is that no one else has any claim upon this fund except the unemployed and their dependants. That is the most excellent of reasons for restoring the cuts now. If that is not done, I am grievously afraid that the impression will go abroad into every unemployed home that equality of sacrifice has been scrapped, if it was ever seriously intended.
  So much for those who are in insurance and their treatment under this Bill. I come now to those outside insurance. They, of course, have always been in a weak position, because they have had no contractual status. My criticism of Part II of this Bill is that it is going to make their position weaker still. In the past, however weak they were, they had one remedy, the remedy that was employed against the unjust judge: they

  1595
  could employ importunity. They did employ it: importunity to their local authorities and importunity to their Members of Parliament. Of course I quite agree with the hon. and learned Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay) and others that many local authorities and individual members of them have been crying out to get rid of this burden. So they have, and it is quite natural that they should. It is very convenient for members of local authorities to be relieved of an invidious task. It is very convenient for Members of this House not to be pestered on all occasions with questions in regard to unemployment relief. It is very convenient for the Minister to have a system under which he can say that he is not responsible for individual cases. It is very convenient to everybody except the unemployed themselves, and they, after all, are the people to be considered. Elected persons have no right to set their convenience before their responsibility, and that is what I am afraid is being done in this case.
  I feel that we are setting up a soulless machine which may well become the instrument of widespread injustice. I do not believe that the safeguards, local or national, are of any value. We have no basis for supposing that the advisory committee is of any use whatever, because we have been told practically nothing about its functions. The only thing we know is that it is advisory; that is to say, it may have to take the blame for the advice which it appears to have given even when that advice has perhaps never been accepted at all. I do not think that tine membership of such an advisory committee will be a particularly inviting job.
  As to the control of Parliament, the Minister must realise that the essential point in this matter is whether we are to have an opportunity of really discussing, line by line and word by word, the Regulations which are going to affect the lives of our constituents. If each Regulation is merely to be put before us by the Minister, and it is quite clear that the Minister takes the responsibility—if, when the recommendation has been made by the board, the Minister then goes over it and puts it before us in his own form; then, if we take the responsibility of rejecting in toto what the Minister has been accepting, we are dealing a blow
  1596
  to that Front Bench. I, myself, might not be so reluctant to do that, but can we imagine the supporters of the National Government, however keenly they may feel upon this matter, dealing a rebuff to their Front Bench by referring back a whole Regulation, except in a case of the very direct need? I feel that we shall be allowing to grow up progressively a harsher system than the present one, which is quite harsh enough for me.
  I want to know how the means test is likely to be administered under these provisions. That seems to me the essential point, and I am not at all cheered by the vague outline of the kind of thing which will be required from the new authority which is given in Clause 37 (3). Certain things are laid down which are to be embodied in the Regulations; for instance, the treatment of wounds and disability pensions and the treatment of invested money. These matters are dealt with, as far as I can see, on the basis of the treatment now afforded by the harsher local authorities. There is only a direction to leave out half of the wounds, or disability pension or compensation payment. I have always wondered why we stopped at half in a payment of that kind. Then we have a direction in which, for the purpose of reckoning the value of a capital sum, each £25 is treated as the equivalent of a weekly income of a shilling. That always seemed to me desperately illogical. It represents a rate of interest on capital which no one could possibly obtain. If they can, I should be very glad to be directed to the investment; I am sure that it is not within the reach of any unemployed person.
  Take, above all, the matter in which the Minister took rather peculiar pride: that this Bill is directing the new authority to pay due regard to the personal requirements of those members whose resources are taken into account. That is the very heart of this Bill—in a way one of the most important things in it. We have no guide whatever as to the measure in which we are to take that into account. I know from personal experience, as most industrial Members must, that at present there is an enormous variation from one locality to another in the amounts that are allowed for the personal needs of each person before contribution

  1597
  to the family income begins. It might be claimed as an advantage for this Bill that under the new provisions we are likely to get a more uniform administration. Of course, that depends on the kind of uniformity, whether we are levelling up or down. What I see as likely is that the Commissioners in endeavouring, perhaps in a praiseworthy manner, to get uniformity of administration will adopt this kind of argument. "White town gets such and such a minimum allowance, why cannot Red Town do the same?" The result is that you will get a continual levelling down all the time.
  I do not want to appear gloomy in imagining the worst for the sake of being miserable, but we have to realise that we are putting enormous power into the hands of an absolutely untested body and it is the duty of the House before it parts with those powers to examine very closely how they are going to be exercised. It is not we ourselves who are going to be affected but the people for whom we are most vitally responsible. I am very anxious, and I find that my anxiety is fully shared by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass), as to what is going to happen as to the administration of the means test under this authority. Further than that, I agree with the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), who directed attention to the danger of creating yet a new class of unemployed persons, those relegated to the workhouse. I do not want to exaggerate at all. I do not view, as he does, the prospect of all our workhouses being crowded out with special cases, but the fact remains that you are giving to this new body the power to declare a new class of persons who are to be treated as cases of special difficulty, and those persons can be treated in an extremely drastic way under the Bill, by compulsory training and by the workhouse, and I am very reluctant to give such powers to an unrepresentative body. Exercised by those who are locally responsible, or nationally responsible, and could be called to account, I might not fear them so much, but here the responsibility is practically non-existent.
  Lastly, I come to the matter of the relations with the local authorities. I am quite prepared to admit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he is ob-
  1598
  viously right in his contention that the most impressive figure can be arrived at if you add up the totals of the various sums which by State expenditure have been allocated to the relief of the able-bodied unemployed at one time or another. It is an impressive sum, and it ought to be an impressive sum, for the thing is a national charge. But I think, unintentionally no doubt, he was unjust to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) in the passage of arms which he had with him yesterday. The hon. Member seemed to me to be putting forward a quite plain and accurate proposition, namely, that of the burden which still remained upon local authorities for the able-bodied unemployed, after taking into consideration matters which had already been taken away from them, there were these percentages of 60 and 40, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer must surely realise that, however much the nation has previously taken over, a terrible burden still remains on many of the worst situated localities. That cannot be denied by anyone.
  Look at the result. We had meetings upstairs, which the Ministers of Health and Labour attended, not on any matter of detail but because the matter was urgent. We had the local authorities sitting on the Minister's doorstep, we had a Debate in the House, and finally we had a special emergency provision by which money was provided to bridge the gap. It was so urgent that it could not even wait a few months for this Bill. It cannot then be denied that, whatever has been done in the past, a very heavy burden still remains on local authorities, and the best that we can be told is that by a special provision not in the Bill as yet they are not going to be left worse off than they were under the transitional provisions that were arrived at in the summer. That is rather cold comfort for those who were seeking relief from a burden that had become practically intolerable. I contend that the general result of the financial treatment of the local authorities under the Bill must be to spread widely amongst those authorities disappointment and disillusion. It is quite evident that disappointment and disillusion are there, and I am afraid that that will be the result of the whole of this Bill—disappointment and disillusion as the general effect. That is the

  1599
  atmosphere in which this new scheme will start, and we on these benches, seeing that the Government has set its feet upon the wrong road in the treatment of one of the most vital matters in politics, are bound to utter our most solemn protests and to back that protest in the Division Lobby.
  9.42 p.m.
  Mr. LANSBURY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Islington (Colonel Goodman) was at some pains to give me and my friends a sort of lecture on what should be our conduct as an Opposition. If lectures will do us any good, we have been lectured pretty often. We have enough lecturers all round, and they take advantage of their opportunities. I should like to recommend the hon. and gallant Gentleman to read the speeches of the Lord President of the Council, the Postmaster-General, the late Minister of Agriculture, who has now gone to another place, and several others—I am not sure that I might not include the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour—a sort of hunt the slipper in trying to have the blood either of Miss Bondfield or her assistant, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson). I am amused when I hear Satan rebuking sin.
  I am also amused at the doctrine that a Royal Commission is something sacred and that we must listen to what they say. I spent three years and more on a Royal Commission, and no one took any notice of us until a couple of Parliaments ago when the present Chancellor of the Exchequer applied some of the propositions of the minority report plus a few of the majority report. I am, therefore, quite unmoved when I hear Ministers calling Royal Commissions in aid. They are no more than we are. We are capable of reading and judging the evidence, and that is our business. When you appoint a Royal Commission you do not, of necessity, agree to accept their findings. I should like to see the Government start on the Betting Commission's Report.
  I want the House to understand that our opposition to the Bill has been, in our judgment, very fairly stated by a considerable number of Members in all
  1600
  parts of the House. They have not all agreed in every detail, but some of the principle objections have been stated again and again. We are told, as I dare say we shall be told again to-night, that this is another milestone on the upward march of the people towards the temple of progress. We do not believe it. In our view it is a reactionary Measure. It is the setting up of an entirely new Poor Law. The recommendation to appoint the statutory body, which is irremovable, as I understand it, except by petition to the Crown, is exactly what the original promoters of the Poor Law 100 years ago wished to do. Every prophecy made in regard to what may happen through the working of this Bill was put forward then. The proposition underlying the legislation based on the 1834 Report was that the individual in some way was responsible for his condition. Anyone who has read Webb's books on the history of the Poor Law knows that drastic as were those proposals, with no option but the workhouse for the able-bodied men, the whole policy broke down because it was very speedily discovered that it was no way of dealing with a social problem which had arisen, very much like the present one has arisen, owing to the fact that we had then come through, not one tremendous war but a series of wars, plus the rise of the new industries in the country.
  To-day the Government are tackling a problem of a similar character partly by insurance and partly by public assistance to be administered by five persons removed altogether from the control of this House. The insurance part of the scheme deals with one section. It may be said that it is the biggest section. That remains to be proved. We shall know more fully when the five gentlemen get to work, and when the public assistance committees no longer deal with the hawkers, the casuals, and the people who are out of unemployment benefit. We shall know much better than we can know now the full extent of unemployment. We cannot know now, because there are masses of people who are unregistered. These people are to be dealt with by men who, I suppose, will have their central office in London and perhaps divide the country among themselves. As I understand the position, there are to be officials held

  1601
  responsible only to these commissioners or board. I do not know what title will be given to them. That is something entirely new in the administration of affairs connected with the social needs of the people. I think that nothing similar has ever been set up. I would point out to the House that it is exactly the sort of body, not with the full powers which they wanted, as the Charity Organisation Society has been for the last half century. [Interruption.] I happen to know, and the hon. Member has not been connected with these people as long as I have, I have had half a century of experience of the Charity Organisation Society. I served with Mr. Locke on the Poor Law Commission, and if he had had his way at that time we should have brought forward a similar sort of proposition to that which is being brought forward now. Their whole conception is that you should remove the individual away from his fellows and treat him as if he is something different from the rest of the community. That is exactly what is to be done here.
  If there was anything in the extraordinarily able speech of the Minister which came out very clearly it was that the person who was in employment fairly regularly and did not suffer long periods of unemployment was in some way a better sort of citizen than the other fellow who ran out of insurance and became a burden on the community. We do not take that view at all, and we think that that is the fundamental difference Between the Charity Organisation Society's conception of this problem and ours. I have argued this thousands of times because it is fundamental. If you take the line that because a person is unfortunate to be unemployed for a long period of months or even of years, as many thousands are just now, he in some way is socially the inferior of those who are able to keep their heads above water, you are establishing a principle which we consider to be derogatory to human society. We do not accept that at all.
  When does this principle of dependence come in? Is it the good and lucky individual, the man who has kept his job and has never been out of work until suddenly he gets two or three weeks or a month and then receives his insurance pay in a respectable, honest and decent manner? When does this business of dependence come in? Two-thirds of what he gets is paid for by the employer and
  1602
  the State. He only pays one-third, so that two-thirds of his benefit is on exactly the same footing as that of the man who comes under Part II. That cannot be denied at all. Therefore I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will explain that matter to me. Where does the dependence and the less worthiness of the person concerned come in? The person whom the Charity Organisation Society, who are represented here to-night, would have described as a strong, independent citizen living his own life independently of his fellows, ought not to get that two-thirds. The Poor Law Commission in 1904-5 argued that point but the representatives of the President of the Local Government Board at that time argued against it. They said that the State ought not to have anything to do with it.
  I call attention to it for this further reason, that we object altogether to the doctrine that the fund to-day should bear the cost of the debt on the fund of £115,000,000 which has been accumulated because at the close of the War there was put upon the Insurance Fund a burden which in 1911 nobody dreamed of putting upon it. I am speaking in the presence of hon. Members who were in the House in 1911 and they will know perfectly well that the casual labourer, the unskilled labourer were not put in the original Insurance Bill because it was generally recognised that they were an impossible insurance proposition. The premiums could not be thought of that would cover them. Therefore, they were not put in, with the result that when the War ended and the men came home something had to be done.
  The first thing that was done was to collar the resources that had mounted up in the Insurance Fund and to put on to the fund masses of people who had not paid any money to it and many of whom never were able to pay any money into the fund. All kinds of arrangements were made. I discussed this matter one day during the Peace Conference with a very noted Member of the other House who, if he were here to-night is a good enough gentleman not to deny what I am going to say. He said that we had to do that kind of thing, and he afterwards stated publicly that we had to pay money to these men and were obliged to take this course, otherwise there would have been a revolution in the country. Therefore,

  1603
  we say that the Government have no right to put that burden upon the shoulders of those who are in insurance now. They are not entitled to say that those who are in the insurance scheme to-day must bear the burden that was placed upon the fund all those years ago, a burden which, as the Minister admitted, has been carried on by successive Governments.
  When we come to the question of the household means test, it is the Poor Law destitution test, and nothing else. What is the Poor Law means test that is being administered now? Hon. Members are talking as if there is going to be something fresh. I hope very much that there will be something fresh. I hope we shall be able to put into the Regulations, but I do not see how it can be done, exactly the questions that are to be asked to decide the amount to be taken from the individual in each household to maintain the unemployed members, and how much is to be left to the girl or boy, the man or woman for his or her maintenance and for his or her own self out of the money they earn. Here is one of the chief objections to the means test, and the Parliamentary Secretary knows it as well as I do, because he assisted to crush the people in the east end of London when this Government passed their Economy Act. He knows perfectly well, nobody better, that one of the worst features is the sending of letters to the employers of the children or of the father to ascertain their income.
  The Minister was a little eloquent about the "Peeping Toms" and whispering galleries of the guardians. There is many a home in this country where girls are almost stinting themselves, doing without necessities of life rather than allow the public assistance committee to write to their employers. That is the biggest crime of all. That is the very worst crime. It lowers the status of the person and makes the person feel that they are less worthy in the sight of their employers and in the sight of the girl or the man who opens the letters. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the members of the public assistance committee did that. No, it is done mainly by these sort of communications. It is also done verbally by the officer going to the places where the persons are employed. What
  1604
  right have you to say that what you yourselves admit is a national disaster should be a burden on the family or the household? Children are always good to their parents. If hon. Members give me a case where that is not so, I say that it is the exception that proves the rule. This is a continuing problem. It is not something that you can deal with just at the moment. It goes on from week to week and month to month.
  I do not find that this sort of thing happens in other walks of life. Look at the Votes of this House and you see some very extraordinary sums voted without any means test whatsoever being applied. I believe there is no legal justification for what is proposed to be done. Take the case of a man living in a certain household, eating at the same table, with people who are not his relatives, with people who are almost strangers. Are you going to say that that household income is to be taken into account. The London County Council administer this business in London. A man came to me the other day, and I give it as a typical case, and told me that he is living with his brother and his sister-in-law. That man had not drawn one farthing of unemployment or health insurance benefit all the years since the Unemployment Fund started. Six or eight months ago he got out of work, went on transitional benefit, and was then told that as he was living with his brother, who is over 60 years of age, and a sister-in-law who, I think, is little older, that the income of that household was enough for his maintenance. We have; got to this point, that it is not merely parents and children, but brother and brother, whether the brother is in a position to do it or not. I think that is an infamy, and I want to know whether it is going to be continued. In answer to a question put by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. K. Griffith) it was said that this master is not going to be left entirely to the officials, but that there is to be a committee of people with local knowledge.
  The hon. Member knows that the principle adopted by the London County Council is that nobody with local knowledge except Tories may serve on the local committees. They are packed in London, and he knows also that the people who administer public assistance

  1605
  in the East of London are ladies and gentlemen from the West End, who probably know all about a good dinner at the Eitz but nothing about the dinners of the poor people in East London. [Interruption.] It will be easy for hon. Members opposite to put a question to the Minister asking him to give the names and addresses of the people who serve on the London area committees. We shall then be able to understand what conception a Tory county council has of ladies and gentlemen of leisure who know all about au area to which they never go except when they are administering Poor Law relief. I am glad to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer is present. He was quite hilarious yesterday and thought that he had scored a point by saying, "You say, why should the workers pay for 40 years"; and then proving to us quite conclusively that they are going to pay one way or the other for 40 years. I am glad to agree with the right hon. Gentleman for once. The workers always pay.
  But in regard to this debt, he was at some pains to ask "Where do you propose to get the money?" I think it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer or it may have been the Minister of Labour who challenged us to say where we thought the money was to come from. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to think that we imagine there is a big hole somewhere and all that he has to do is to dip his hand down and haul it up. I want to tell the right hon. Gentleman where the money can come from. All of us in one way or another pay taxes, and since this Government has been in office £30,000,000 or £40,000,000 of indirect taxes have been imposed, most of which the working people pay. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members who interrupt will agree that everybody pays taxes one way or the other. If you smoke you pay; if you drink beer you pay, if you drink bad lemonade you pay; therefore, why should not everybody pay this? Why should you put it on to the employers and the employed? Why should you say that they alone shall bear this burden? We maintain that it should be borne by the whole community and that instead of one-third coming out of the Exchequer the whole of it should come from the National Exchequer. If that were done every one
  1606
  would pay according to the manner in which the taxes were levied. [Interruption.] I cannot give the hon. Member opposite brains, but I am attempting to give him an argument. If the employer pays one-third and the employes one-third, and the Exchequer the other third, then they are paying the whole of this debt. But the employers and the employed, who pay two-thirds, also pay part of the other third.
  Is it a very extraordinary thing to ask that the Exchequer should pay the whole out of the general taxation of the country? That is our case, and we put it forward seriously as a fair and equitable way of settling the question. I have not time to speak at any great length; I brought all this lot of notes with me so I am sparing hon. Members something. We on this side have decided against treating unemployment as an insurable proposition. The Bill acknowledges that it is not an insurable proposition. You only insure against a certain proportion of the evil, up to six months, or in certain special cases up to 12 months, and if the case goes longer then the persons are to be dealt with in some other way. We object fundamentally to this division of the unemployed. We recognise that it cannot be settled by insurance as one ordinarily understands the term, but it can be settled by the State shouldering the whole of this burden, whatever it is.
  If I am asked again about the money, I ask where does the money come from now? There seems to be some doubt on the other side about it. It comes from a section of the people now. If it were a charge on the national funds it would come from a larger area, from an area which would make it impossible for any one to say, as is said now, that industry is injured by the payments that have to be made. It would come in part from those who are living either on unearned income or are making money in the City or in ways that do not affect industry in the ordinary manner. If hon. Members say that the nation cannot afford it, I reply that the nation has to afford it, that it affords it now. All that we are asking is that the incidence shall be changed, and that the whole nation shall bear the cost of what is a national problem. That is our answer when the point is raised about the family. If the

  1607
  family have to keep the unemployed they have not as much money to spend on other things. It is just as bad for them as for anyone else that they should have to pay. In fact it is worse for them because the burden is ever so much heavier.
  My final words are that we consider unemployment should have been grappled with by the Government on altogether different lines. We do not take the view that economy, the shutting down and restricting of expenditure, or the reduction of the consumption, aids employment or helps the country. We believe that if this country were socialised, if the land and all the means of production were set going full pelt to supply people with the goods they need, the food they require to eat and the clothes that they require to wear, Lancashire, which to-day is crying out for sustenance, and the woollen mills of Yorkshire, would be kept going for a considerable time. So would all the industrial districts of the country. We repudiate the notion that what we want to do is merely to dip our hands into someone's pockets and to give money away. We want industry reorganised and rationalised on the basis of service for the community instead of profit for the few.
  Mr. HUDSON rose—
  HON. MEMBERS: Where is the Prime Minister?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Mr. Robert Hudson.
  Mr. COCKS: Where is the Prime Minister? Why does he not come in? He is afraid. He is a coward Prime Minister. Where is he?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must request the hon. Member to conduct himself properly. Mr. Hudson.
  10.52 p.m.
  Mr. HUDSON: The right hon. Gentleman has stated that what we have to consider is whether the problem of unemployment is one which is susceptible of solution by the method of insurance, and that statement goes to the very root of the case which I have to try to meet. I propose to try to sketch in broad outline the problem with which the country is faced at the present moment and to show
  1608
  how, in our opinion, the provisions of the Bill meet that problem. The problem stated in its bald essentials, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, is this: Is the relief of the results of unemployment a subject that can be dealt with by insurance at all and, if so, to what extent? We have had since 1911 in this country a so-called unemployment insurance system, but for the last few years that system has prostituted the name of insurance and has been nothing more or less than a glorified system of State relief. One of the results is that there has grown up a distinction in the public mind between unemployed men according as they were insured or uninsured, according as they happened to be drawing standard benefit or transitional payments, according as they had to go to the Poor Law or were fortunate enough to draw money at the Employment Exchange.
  That distinction, which I think is purely artificial, has caused a great deal of misapprehension and a great deal of legitimate heart burning among the working population. It is based on no real distinction, and I thoroughly agree with the right hon. Gentleman who talked about the doctrine of the lesser worthiness of certain persons. I go so far as to say that you cannot justify an insurance system in Equity if you are going to base it on such a moral distinction between different types of men, and imply, as happens at present in the public mind, that the man who happens to be drawing transitional payment is in some way a less good citizen than die man who gets standard benefit or is at work.
  The question arises then: Is there any alternative test? I believe there is, and I submit to the House that the distinction which we ought to draw is not one between different types of men but one between different types of unemployment. I believe that distinction can be made, and I am going to try to make it, and I think, when it is made it will be found that certain types of unemployment emerge which are suitable subjects for insurance. What is it that the working man desires to-day above everything else? [HON. MEMBERS: "Work."] Yes, work—eeonomic security. How is that economic security, in the shape of employment jeopardised? In three main ways. The first is by fluctuations inside individual industries. Every industry has its busy and slack seasons through

  1609
  various causes such as custom, season, habit, fashion and so forth. A second cause is found in the periodic cycles of industrial activity as a whole, usually nation-wide and often due to world influences. The third great cause is that, although industry on the whole continues to grow, individual industries, or industries in individual areas, tend to decay or to undergo radical changes in structure, organisation or methods of manufacture.
  These three causes of unemployment cover the various types of unemployment from which we suffer, ranging from the short-term unemployment of a day or so at one end of the scale, to the long-term unemployment of years at the other. They affect all the different methods of recruitment of industry from the industry that has an actual shortage of labour, through the industry that has reserves adequate but no more for its requirements to the industries with an excessive supply, and finally to the marginal cases of industries with a definite surplus where there is no prospect whatever of reabsorption. Hon. Members will observe that there is a continual fluctuation, therefore, in the demand for labour, but that the supply of labour at any particular moment is constant and fixed by the size of the population. Perhaps the House will say that in view of this infinite variety in the causes and types of unemployment, I was a little ambitious in suggesting that I could find some remedy in insurance. But I appeal to the facts of the case, and I find that those three main causes of unemployment that I have mentioned affect the individual in such a way that you can distinguish between two broad categories of unemployment, the short-term unemployment and the long-term, chronic unemployment, although, of course, very naturally in the middle they shade off one into the other.
  If I look at the experience of the people in this country, regarding the community as a whole, the overwhelming mass of individuals, I find that the risk that the average man suffers is short-term unemployment. Then I ask myself: When that risk occurs and overtakes them, what do they want? I think the answer must be that what they really require in order to maintain their economic security is that they shall receive with certainty, as of right, with the minimum of inquiry,
  1610
  save whether they are involuntarily unemployed, a weekly sum, which together with any private provision that they have been able to make, will at least, by providing money for rent, enable them to keep a home above their heads, and, by providing them with money for food, enable them and their families to bridge the gap until wages start to flow into the family exchequer again. I submit that if I can show that I can provide that weekly sum over the period of that risk for a reasonable premium, I am entitled to say that to that extent insurance is a satisfactory solution of my difficulty. It is a solution of part of the difficulty, though not of the whole.
  I turn to the other type of unemployment that I mentioned, the chronic or long-term unemployment, and there I say, quite frankly, that insurance is not and cannot be the remedy. We have to find some other solution, and we suggest the provisions of Part II of the Bill as the remedy. I cannot sufficiently emphasise the importance of this part of the problem, nor the fact that this is the very first time that any Government has attempted to solve it or even to face up to it. We have had an insurance system since 1911. Successive governments, misled by undue optimism into thinking that unemployment would be cured at the end of a month or two, or of a year or two at the most, have frankly shirked facing the problem, and the result has been that the Unemployment Insurance Acts of 1911 and 1920 have been stretched, as I think the right hon. Gentleman himself said, to cover risks that they were never intended to cope with. The result again has been that the principles of insurance have become submerged and the safeguards of insurance have been abandoned, and all because there was no satisfactory alternative for the man who had exhausted his right to standard benefit. We claim that this is the first attempt to provide a satisfactory alternative, and that, by providing a satisfactory alternative, it makes an insurance scheme possible; and it is worth noting in this regard that the original framers of the Act of 1911 realised this, and intended, if they had gone on, to couple with the introduction of unemployment insurance in 1911 a reform of the Poor Law to provide a satisfactory alternative.

  1611
  Now let me show the House how the various parts of the Bill fit into the problem, and I will take first Part I-Insurance. I will not weary the House with a great number of figures, but I must give a few. I said just now that the great risk, as far as the overwhelming number of individuals was concerned, that affects the workman to-day is short-term unemployment. It is short spells of unemployment, loss of work and wages, occurring between frequent and much longer spells of employment. The total number of unemployed to-day, 2,250,000, is not a stationary mass of individuals, but a continually changing mass; 800,000 new claims are made every month. That does not mean that 800,000 new faces go into the exchanges. They are very often old faces coming back to the exchanges after a spell of employment.
  Let me give the House a few figures. I take the eight years from 1925 to 1932, and I find that of the total population insured during those years, only 3.6 per cent, suffered unemployment in each of those years. Of that 3.6 per cent., one-third suffered less than 100 days unemployment in each of the years. The House will realise that even this last category of people would have been covered by Part I of the Bill. I will take an even sterner test-what happened in 1932, a year of exceptionally bad unemployment, and, moreover, the third of three successive bad years. Out of the 4,250,000 separate individual men who suffered unemployment during that period, over one-third were unemployed for 12 weeks or less, and only one in 13 for the whole period; while of 1,140,000 women who were unemployed, over one-half were unemployed for 12 weeks or less, and only 1.5 per cent, for the whole period.
  Do not let the House forget that there were over 7,000,000 people in 1932 who were not unemployed at all. Even under the very stern and restrictive conditions which we were forced to apply in 1931, 60 per cent, of the 5,500,000 insured people who actually suffered unemployment were fully covered by insurance during the whole period of their unemployment even in that bad year. If we add to them the 7,000,000 who suffered no unemployment, we get a figure of 80 per cent, of the total insured population whose risks of unemployment were fully covered in 1932. We calculate that if Part I of this Bill
  1612
  had been in operation in 1932, 800,000 more persons would have received longer periods of benefit than they actually received. In other words, 85 per cent, of the total insured population would under Part I, if it had been in operation in 1932, have had the whole period of their risk of unemployment covered by insurance.
  I submit that in face of figures like those in the very worst year that we have had, insurance can be said to be a satisfactory cover for the risks that affect the overwhelming majority of individuals. I admit frankly that insurance is only part of the whole scheme. It only covers a certain amount of risk, but do not forget that of the 15 per cent, whose risk was not wholly covered in 1932, even the provisions of the existing law covered a very large portion of their risk. We say that insurance is a satisfactory remedy for part of the problem. Because you cannot insure again3t every conceivable risk at Lloyd's, it does not follow that you should not insure against the risks that you can insure against. Before I leave Part I and pass on to Part II I would like to say one word about the Statutory Advisory Committee. Some hon. Members have questioned the desirability of this part of our scheme. What we are aiming at is to set up a sound insurance system, free from any hint or suspicion of the "dole," and if it is to survive it is absolutely essential that it should be free of what has proved the curse of the existing system, namely, instability of principle and of finance.
  Some hon. Members have talked to-day about taking insurance out of politics. You cannot. It would be wrong to take a scheme that affects the lives of 12,500,000 persons out of politics altogether. What we want to do is to see whether we can set up a system which will not be altogether outside politics but which politics will be unable to destroy. We have, therefore, set up this Advisory Committee with the object of keeping an outside eye upon the finances of the fund. Parliament, of course, will have the ultimate responsibility for action or inaction, but no future Parliament and no future Minister of Labour will have the excuse of saying that he did not know what was happening or was likely to happen, or be able to get away with making unduly optimistic financial assumptions.

  1613
  Part II sets up a new assistance service which is, perfectly frankly, relief and not insurance. For 300 years the community has imposed a statutory duty upon local authorities to relieve destitution and to come to the help of a man who had no means of livelihood. We are making a fundamental change; we are assuming that liability nationally. Part II will deal with those who are not insured at all and those who have exhausted their contractual right to benefit. It will deal for the most part, though, not of course, wholly, with men who are suffering long term or chronic unemployment. When a man has been out of work for a long period, or over a long period has been able to get only intermittent work, a new factor enters into the field, and we may say that the problem of his unemployment is not so much the reason that led to the loss of his last job as the reason why he cannot get a new job.
  As regards the overwhelming number of persons who will come under Part II, our experience is that they suffer unemployment for the last of the three causes that I have mentioned, namely, the decay or the change of individual industry and alterations in the industrial structure. It is idle to suppose that you can prevent any changes in the industrial structure, even in a Socialist State, because changes in the industrial structure are the life-blood of an industrial community; but what we have to do is to see whether we cannot deal with the results of that long-term unemployment. That is why we say, and we lay stress on this, that when a man comes under Part II cash relief is not necessarily the beginning and end of what he requires. He needs something more. The really serious problem of long-term unemployment in its social aspect is the problem of the transfer of men from decaying industries and decaying areas into new and expending industries and expanding areas. But once a man has come under Part II we say that there is no possible justification for making any distinction between the insured and the non-insured. They will all be on the same basis, and being on the same basis we refer, in spite of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman does not like the report of the Royal Commission, to the recommendations in their report in which they suggest that need must be based on the
  1614
  household, and the resources of the household must be taken into account. If the House will allow me, I will read one short quotation. The report says that the terms on which the unemployed worker should be protected against distress
  "must include conditions that furnish some guarantee to the community that help is really needed. … A service based upon needs has this convincing advantage, that it at least attempts to have some serious regard to the principle of equality. It does not add equal benefits to unequal resources, but seeks to apportion the assistance available in such a way that the greater measure of help reaches those whose need is most."
  The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) says something about the Minority Report. Even the Minority Report was unable to reject the means test altogether. It is true that they hedged it round with certain conditions about it being an individual test, but the principle of the test they were unable to reject, and had to accept.
  There is another important point. Once a man has come to the end of his contractual rights, generous as they are, we must surely recognise that his contract is at an end until such time as he is enabled to reestablish the conditions of the contract. One of the main reasons why the present insurance system got into financial difficulties, and suffered so much public disrepute, was that Government after Government, instead of "facing up to that fundamental conception, went on paying men, week after week, and month after month, money which they led the men to believe was contractual. They encouraged the men to think that they had a moral, if not a legal, right to go on receiving weekly sums of money out of the national Exchequer for an unlimited period.
  Having said that, I should like to say a word about the make-up of the persons who are coming under the board. Apart from the fact that they contain a rather larger number of men in the higher age groups and a small number of persons who are handicapped in the labour market, they are composed of exactly the same type of person as those who are in work or are in receipt of standard benefit. The only difference is possibly that they happened to have attached themselves in their youth to the basic industries of the country upon which this country's prosperity was founded. The fact that they did that, is no ground for differentiating against them, and for that reason we are taking them away

  1615
  from the Poor Law and attaching them to the Employment Exchanges of the Ministry of Labour, which runs an industrial scheme and not a Poor Law scheme.
  The second great change that we are making is in the conception of need. The assumption underlying the old Poor Law was that, if you made things sufficiently unpleasant for a man, he would eventually find work, and that the obligation of the community to come to his assistance did not arise until he was destitute. The relief of destitution has undergone modification in the past few years, but it still forms the basis of the Poor Law. A destitution test will not form the basis of Part II of this Bill. A man will be given assistance to prevent his becoming destitute, while the fact that he is unable to obtain a job will not necessarily be taken to mean that he is unwilling to do so. That enables me to point out that the arguments, laboriously built up by speakers on the Opposition side, pretending that the new Bill is nothing but a national Poor Law, fall completely to the ground. Part I represents the first line of defence, but no more. Part II, with its much more varied expedients, represents the second line of defence, and will enable the Board to make good any deficiency or close any breaches that may be discovered in Part I. Under Part II, all needs, other than medical needs, will be met, irrespective of the rates of standard benefit.
  That answers another whole batch of objections of hon. Members opposite, including the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan), who talked about the rates of benefit forming the ceiling of this scheme. They do nothing of the kind. If anything, they form the ground floor. That meets, I hope, a great deal of very genuinely felt misapprehension on the part of hon. Members opposite. The limit of need will not be confined in any way to the rates of unemployment benefit. It will be possible for the Board to supplement benefit in the case of persons under Part I, and they will also be able to meet the whole needs other than medical needs to the extent that the meeting of those needs requires.
  I had better, perhaps, deal now with the hon. Members who follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). I have in my hand a
  1616
  pamphlet containing the report of the National Liberal Federation on Unemployment Insurance and Unemployment. It contains the results of the Liberal party's inquiry under Mr. Milner Gray, my predecessor, who issued a large questionnaire to a great many eminent people. It contains a number of conclusions and recommendations, and 90 per cent, of the recommendations of the Liberal Committee arc; to be found in this Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "No wonder it is a bad Bill!"] I can only conclude that the attitude of the Liberal party is due to a realisation that the historic fate which always overtakes the remnants of the Liberal party has again overtaken them, and that is that some other party and some other Government give practical legislative effect to what in their hands were merely pious aspirations. I think the only thing left for me to deal with is the question of the board—[HON. MEMBERS: "The local advisory committees!"] The local advisory committees will have no executive function under the scheme, but they will be able—
  Mr. LANSBURY: The applicants will not appear before them?
  Mr. HUDSON: No; they will appear before the appeal tribunals, which will be bodies of very much the same nature as the courts of referees to-day. With regard to the question of the board and its appointment, the salaries of the board will be charged on the Consolidated Fund. The terms of each member's appointment will depend on the terms of the warrant, and it will, therefore, be possible to decide on those terms, and probably to make an announcement to the House when we have made more progress with the Bill and see exactly how the board emerges from the discussions in the Committee stage. In any case, there will be an opportunity on Monday to discuss this matter more fully, but I think I have answered the point that was made.
  Mr. D. GRAHAM: What about their engagement?
  Mr. HUDSON: In each case that will depend on the terms of the warrant. Some may be longer than others, but, as the Bill says that members will be eligible for reappointment, it implies that they will not be appointed for life.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Central Nottingham (Mr.

  1617
  O'Connor) made a very full and able statement about the question of inability to obtain suitable employment. I need only say, on that question, that there will be plenty of opportunities for discussing it, but the Royal Commission foresaw the suggestion made in the course of the Debate that the phrase "unable to obtain suitable employment" would be so interpreted as in effect to re-establish "genuinely-seeking-work." They said that there was no foundation for this suggestion. They pointed out that until 1924, when "genuinely-seeking-work" was added, such a construction had never been put upon the words. The Royal Commission, the majority, recommended that the present words should be inserted, and the minority, consisting of members of the Labour party, concurred specifically—I stress their specific agreement—and the Trade Union Congress, which gave evidence before the Morris Committee, said that such a phrase would be reasonable. Therefore I honestly think that there is no case whatever for the apprehension which has been expressed by hon. Members opposite.
  Now I come to the end, not of what I might say, but nearly of my time. I think I have shown—I hope to the satisfaction of the House—that the insurance principle is a satisfactory remedy for part of our problem. For the other part of our problem we have provided a new alternative which is not in any way to be described as a national Poor Law, because it differs from the present Poor Law in very important and essential details. I should like to remind the House of the terms of reference of the Royal Commission which was set up by hon. Members opposite:
  "To inquire into the provisions and working of the Unemployment Insurance Scheme, and to make recommendations with regard to:

  (1) Its future scope the provisions which it should contain and the means by which it may be made solvent and self-supporting, and,

  (2) the arrangements which should be made outside the scheme for the unemployed, who are capable of and available for work."

  Independently of that, I hope that I have shown that our scheme is satisfactory. To those who lightly throw over the contributory principle I would offer this observation. This Bill is not the last of the Measures which will have to be under-
  1618
  taken in this country to set up a comprehensive scheme to meet all the risks to which the working man is exposed. If, however, we abandon the principle that those who are going to receive the benefits shall be asked to make some contribution towards the cost, we shall seriously delay the speed at which the completion of those operations can be carried through. A very interesting pamphlet was issued the other day written by the Secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union, in which he sketched a comprehensive scheme for dealing with unemployment. The cardinal principle of that scheme was the contributory principle. Whatever we may think of Mr. Bevin, at least we may expect him to know what the British working man wants and is willing to pay for, and that he was, on that occasion, not talking pure politics.
  The whole of this Bill adds one more— the right hon. Gentleman suggested that I was going to say "milestone," but I will say one more storey to the edifice which this country provides in recognition of its debt towards the less fortunate of its fellow-citizens. It is a recognition the cost of which has risen from £30,000,000 in 1900 to £490,000,000 last year. This Bill contains provisions which are not surpassed and are not equalled in any other country in the world. Hon. Members opposite may say that it is the fault of the present industrial system that we need to make this sort of provision. I prefer to regard it as a tribute to the present industrial system that we are able year by year to employ increasing numbers of people, an increasing population for which society to-day is itself not responsible, but which is the result of the unco-ordinated efforts of individual parents a generation or more ago, an industrial system which is yet able over and above this to care for the casualties in an adequate and even a generous manner. The fact that the country is able to do this within two short years of being on the verge of bankruptcy is a testimony to the manner in which the National Government have husbanded our resources and the fact that in this Bill for the first time we are facing a task from which previous party Governments shrank is one more proof of the national manner in which we are carrying out our mandate.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 435; Noes, 81.

  [Division No. 9.]

  AYES.

  [11.0 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

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

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Grigg, Sir Edward

  Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

  Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Albery, Irving James

  Conant, R. J. E.

  Grltten, W. G. Howard

  Alexander, Sir William

  Cook, Thomas A.

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

  Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Cooke, Douglas

  Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

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

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

  Copeland, Ida

  Guy, J. C. Morrison

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

  Courtauld, Major John Sewell

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

  Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

  Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

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

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

  Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

  Hamilton, Sir George (Alford)

  Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hammersley, Samuel S.

  Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

  Craven-Ellis, William

  Hanley, Dennis A.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Crooke. J. Smedley

  Harbord, Arthur

  Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

  Crookihank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Balniel, Lord

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

  Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenn'gt'n)

  Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Cross, R. H.

  Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

  Barton, Capt. Basll Kelsey

  Crossley, A. C.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

  Bateman, A. L.

  Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

  Culverwell, Cyril Tom

  Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

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

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

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

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

  Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

  Hepworth, Joseph

  Beit, Sir Alfred L.

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

  Herbert, Capt. S. 'Abbey Division)

  Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

  Davison, Sir William Henry

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

  Dawson, Sir Phillp

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

  Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybrldge)

  Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

  Denville, Alfred

  Hopkinson, Austin

  Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

  Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Blaker, Sir Reginald

  Dickie, John P.

  Hornby, Frank

  Boothby, Robert John Graham

  Donner, P. W.

  Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

  Borodale, Viscount

  Doran, Edward

  Horobin, Ian M.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Dower, Captain A. V. G.

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Boulton, W. W.

  Drewe, Cedric

  Howard, Tom Forrest

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanslttart

  Duckworth, George A. V.

  Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

  Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

  Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

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

  Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

  Duggan, Hubert John

  Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

  Boyce, H. Leslie

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

  Hume, Sir George Hopwood

  Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

  Dunglass, Lord

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

  Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

  Eady, George H.

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

  Eden, Robert Anthony

  Hurd, Sir Percy

  Broadbent, Colonel John

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Eillot, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

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

  Elliston, Captain George Sampson

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

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Elmley, Viscount

  Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C)

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

  Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

  Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)

  Browne, Captain A. C.

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

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

  Buchan, John

  Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

  Jennings, Roland

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Jesson, Major Thomas E.

  Burghley, Lord

  Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

  Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

  Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

  Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

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

  Burnett, John George

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

  Burton, Colonel Henry Walter

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Ker, J. Campbell

  Butler, Richard Austen

  Fermoy, Lord

  Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Kerr, Hamilton W.

  Cadogan, Hon. Edward

  Fleming, Edward Lascelles

  Kimball, Lawrence

  Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

  Ford, Sir Patrick J.

  Knight, Holford

  Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Caporn, Arthur Cecil

  Fremantle, Sir Francis

  Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

  Carver, Major William H.

  Fuller, Captain A. G.

  Lambert. Rt. Hon. George

  Cassels, James Dale

  Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

  Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Ganzoni, Sir John

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

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

  Leckle, J. A.

  Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

  Gillett, Sir George Masterman

  Leech, Dr. J. W.

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (P'rtsm'th, S.)

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

  Lees-Jones, John

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh

  Gledhill, Gilbert

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Chamberlain, Rt.Hon.SirJ. A. (Birm.,W)

  Glossop, C. W. H.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

  Gluckstein, Louis Halle

  Levy, Thomas

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

  Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

  Lewis, Oswald

  Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

  Goff, Sir Park

  Liddall, Walter S.

  Christie, James Archibald

  Goldie, Noel B.

  Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

  Lindsay, Noel Ker

  Clarke, Frank

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)

  Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

  Clayton, Sir Christopher

  Granville, Edgar

  Lloyd, Geoflrey

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

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

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Graves, Marjorie

  Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

  Colfox, Major William Phillp

  Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

  Loder, Captain J. de Vare

  Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

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

  Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

  Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Soper, Richard

  Lyons, Abraham Montagu

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

  Mabane, William

  Preston, Sir Walter Rueben

  Southby, Commander Archibaid R. J.

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

  Procter, Major Henry Adam

  Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

  MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

  Purbrick, R.

  Spencer, Captain Richard A.

  McConnell, Sir Joseph

  Pybus, Percy John

  Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Radford, E. A.

  Spens, William Patrick

  MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)

  Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

  MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

  Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

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

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

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

  Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)

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

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

  Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

  McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

  Ramsbotham, Herwald

  Stones, James

  McKie, John Hamilton

  Ramsden, Sir Eugene

  Storey, Samuel

  McLean, Major Sir Alan

  Rankin, Robert

  Stourton, Hon. John J.

  McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

  Ratcliffe, Arthur

  Strauss, Edward A.

  Magnay, Thomas

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Maitland, Adam

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

  Ray, Sir William

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

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

  Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

  Marsden, Commander Arthur

  Reid, David D. (County Down)

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

  Martin, Thomas B.

  Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

  Summersby, Charles H.

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

  Reid, William Allan (Derby)

  Sutcliffe, Harold

  Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

  Remer, John R.

  Tate, Mavis Constance

  Meller, Sir Richard James

  Rentoul Sir Gervais S.

  Templeton, William P.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Renwick, Major Gustav A.

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

  Milne, Charles

  Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

  Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

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

  Rickards, George William

  Thompson, Luke

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

  Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

  Mitcheson, G. G.

  Robinson, John Roland

  Thorp, Linton Theodore

  Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

  Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

  Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

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

  Ross, Ronald D.

  Touche, Gordon Cosmo

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

  Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbrldge)

  Train, John

  Moreing, Adrian C.

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

  Tree, Ronald

  Morgan, Robert H.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

  Runge, Norah Cecil

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff. E.)

  Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

  Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

  Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

  Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

  Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

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

  Munro, Patrick

  Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

  Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

  Nall, Sir Joseph

  Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

  Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

  Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald

  Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

  Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

  Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

  Salmon, Sir Isidore

  Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

  Newton, sir Douglas George C.

  Salt, Edward W.

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

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

  Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

  Watt, Captain George Steven H.

  Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

  Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  North, Edward T.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

  Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour

  Nunn, William

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

  Wells, Sydney Richard

  O'Connor, Terence James

  Savery, Samuel Servington

  Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

  O'Donovan, Dr. William James

  Scone, Lord

  Whyte, Jardine Bell

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Selley, Harry R.

  Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Ormiston, Thomas

  Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Wills, Wilfrid D.

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

  Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

  Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

  Palmer, Francis Noel

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

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

  Pearson, William G.

  Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Peat, Charles U.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Penny, Sir George

  Skelton, Archibald Noel

  Wise, Alfred R.

  Percy, Lord Eustace

  Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

  Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

  Perkins, Walter R. D.

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

  Womersley, Walter James

  Petherick, M

  Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

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

  Wragg, Herbert

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

  Smithers, Waidron

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

  Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

  Somerset, Thomas

  Pike, Cecil F.

  Somervell, Sir Donald

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Potter, John

  Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

  Captain Margesson and Mr. Blindell.

  NOES.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

  Daggar, George

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Adams, D. M (Poplar, South)

  Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

  Groves, Thomas E.

  Aske, Sir Robert William

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Dobbie, William

  Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Banfield, John William

  Edwards, Charles

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

  Batey, Joseph

  Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

  Harris, Sir Percy

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

  Hicks, Ernest George

  Briant, Frank

  Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

  Holdsworth, Herbert

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

  Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

  Janner, Barnett

  Buchanan, George

  Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

  Jenkins, Sir William

  Cape, Thomas

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  John, William

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Cove, William G.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

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

  Cripps, Sir Stafford

  Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Curry, A. C.

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

  Kirkwood, David

  1622

  1623

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

  Smith, Tom (Normanton)

  Lawson, John James

  Maxton, James

  Thorne, William James

  Leonard, William

  Milner, Major James

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

  Nathan, Major H. L.

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Owen, Major Goronwy

  White, Henry Graham

  Lunn, William

  Parkinson, John Allen

  Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

  McEntee, Valentine L.

  Pickering, Ernest H.

  Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

  McGovern, John

  Price, Gabriel

  Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

  McKeag, William

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Wilmot, John

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

  Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

  Mainwaring, William Henry

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Mander, Geoffrey le M.

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

  Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. D. Graham

  Bill read a Second time.

  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Captain Margesson.]

  KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOM (HOUSE OF COMMONS).
  Ordered,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to control the arrangements for the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms in the department of the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House.
  Ordered,
  "That the Committee do consist of Seventeen Members."
  Miss Cazalet, Sir Leolin Forestier-Walker, Sir John Ganzoni, Sir Park Goff, Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle, Mr. David Grenfell, Mr. Grundy, Captain Arthur
  1624
  Hope, Lieutenant-Gen Sir Aylmer Hunter-Weston, Mr. Harcourt Johnstone, Mr. Leonard, Mr. John Lockwood, Sir Douglas Newton, Sir Thomas Rosbotham, Mrs. Shaw, Mr. Strauss, and Sir Lambert Ward, nominated Members of the Committee."
  Ordered,
  "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records."
  Ordered,
  "That Three be the quorum."—[Sir F. Thomson.]

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

Preamble
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER from this day's Sitting
Whereupon Sir DENNIS HERBERT, The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Belper) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (North Buckinghamshire Joint Hospital District) Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    CUSTOMS REGULATIONS, SPAIN (FINES).
    Mr. RANKINasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what has been the result of his representations in connection with the appeal of the British steamship "Datchet" against the fine of £2,200 imposed by the Spanish authorities for a breach of the Customs regulations; whether there have been other similar incidents in connection with British trade with Spain during the current year; and whether he is satisfied that everything possible has been done to protect British interests?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): Two-thirds of the fine inflicted on the steamship "Datchet" have been remitted and His Majesty's Ambassador at Madrid is continuing to press for the return of the remaining third. Two similar cases have been brought to the knowledge of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom during the present year. In the first case, which
    1626
    involved a sum of less than £10, two-thirds of the fine were remitted, and no further action has been taken. As regards the second case, Sir George Grahame has addressed a Note to the Spanish Government in support of the appeal by the agents of the vessel against the imposition of a fine amounting to nearly £20. As regards the third part of the question, I have no hesitation in replying in the affirmative.

    JAPANESE COMPETITION.
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Japanese engineering industry works its employés 60 hours a week for wages of 5s. 9d. a week for labourers, 14s. for fitters, and 25s. for skilled mechanics; and what is the Government going to do to protect the welfare of workers in similar industries in this country?
    Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have no official information as to the rates of wages paid or the hours worked by adult men in the engineering industry in Japan, but according to the Monthly Report of the Tokyo Chamber of Commerce the daily wages for skilled engineering hands in Tokyo in September last ranged from 3.03 yen to 4.94 yen. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the question asked on 28th November by my hon. Friend the Member for the Platting Division (Mr. Chorlton).
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the President of the Board of Trade or his representative not aware of the conditions which prevail in Japan? He says he is not, but, if I am able to prove to him that those are the conditions, I want to know what the Government are going to do about it, because I hold in my hand a dozen pencils sold to me yesterday in the streets of London for a penny, and I want to know what the Government are going to do about that, because it is a question of work for my people?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I can assure the hon. Member that the question of Japanese competition is receiving very active consideration, and I hope that he and his friends will support the Government in further protective measures.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: My point of view is well known in the House. I am out for the total prohibition of anything that will he detrimental to the well-being of the working classes of this country. I am no Liberal.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the hon and gallant Gentleman give the House any idea how many of these Japanese fitters and mechanics are working on the £28,000,000 worth of machinery that we have exported to Japan during the last 12 years?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: That question does not arise. We have to deal with the facts as we find them at the present time and with the existence of keen competition.
    Mr. CHORLTONasked the President of the Board of Trade which manufactures of this country, other than cotton textiles, are suffering from Japanese competition in Colonial markets; and if any trade negotiations for such manufactures are now being arranged for?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I have received reports of competition from Japan in various Colonial markets affecting a number of United Kingdom manufactures other than cotton textiles, including asbestos cement sheets, cement, made-up cotton goods and rayon goods, cycles and cycle parts, galvanised iron sheets, hardware, felt hats, pottery and tiles, rubber footwear, soap and beer. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave him on the 28th November.
    Mr. CHORLTON: May I ask my hon. and gallant Friend quite definitely if there are any trade negotiations going on other than those on cotton textiles, because, if so, a final settlement one way or another will be very much delayed?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: If my hon. Friend will refer to the answer that I have mentioned, he will see that in the Government's view it is important that the negotiations on cotton and rayon should be allowed to proceed to see what progress can be made first of all there, but that competition which is developing in the other lines is a matter which we are actively considering.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: What part are the Government playing in these negotiations? The Government are always replying that they are being conducted between the industrialists in this country and the industrialists of Japan. Are the Government using their influence in order to see that our people are being protected?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: It is our intention to allow those actually engaged in the trade to see what progress they can make in the discussions, and the Government will give every assistance possible.

    RUSSIA.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade, if he has any statement to make on the Anglo-Russian trade negotiations?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on the 27th November.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Have the purely trading questions been agreed upon, and are any extraneous matters, such as the Lena goldfields question, holding up this very desirable agreement?
    Lieut-Colonel COLVILLE: I cannot add anything to my previous answer, except to say that these are negotiations affecting many millions of pounds' worth of trade, and it is important to have patience in order to secure a really satisfactory agreement.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Are the purely trading questions now nearing the point of agreement?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I cannot add to my previous answer, except to say that we are making definite progress.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give an assurance that no extraneous, non-trading questions shall hold up a trade agreement?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The hon. Member has had all the assurance that can possibly be given during the course of the negotiations.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Are the Government going to, be in a position to give us any indication before the House rises for the Christmas Recess as to how far these negotiations are proceeding between this country and Russia?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I cannot name a date, but we could have had an agreement long ago if we had been content to have an unsatisfactory one.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman represent to the President of the Board of Trade, who, I understand, is the Cabinet Minister responsible for these negotiations, that he should consider the advisability of informing the House what it is that is holding up a settlement; and can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether it is true, as is stated in the Press, that the one outstanding question is the Lena goldfield, which ought to be entirely out of the consideration of a trade agreement?. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Certainly it ought.
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The right hon. Gentleman should not believe all the newspaper reports that appear on this question. My right hon. Friend has promised to make a statement as soon as he can on the question of the negotiations.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman ask him to expedite it?

    FLAVOURING ESSENCES (ALCOHOLIC CONTENT).
    Dr. SALTERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that at Messrs. Woolworth's stores in different towns throughout the country bottles of rum, brandy, and other flavouring essences, intended for human consumption, are being sold to the general public over the counter; that each bottle contains 10 cubic centimetres, or one-third of an ounce, of a so-called flavouring agent; that this agent is composed of 90 per cent, of ethyl alcohol; that the bottles can be obtained by any customer in unlimited quantities; and if he is satisfied that an Excise licence for the sale of intoxicating liquor is taken out in all these cases?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I am aware that certain flavouring essences are on sale to the public by the firm mentioned, and that the volume of the contents of the bottles is approximately as stated in the second part of the question. I am informed, however, that analysis shows that these essences do not contain any ethyl alcohol. The question of an Excise licence for their sale therefore does not arise.
    Dr. SALTER: Is the Financial Secretary aware that certificates of certified analysts have been published in the Press saying that they do contain 90 per cent, of ethyl alcohol as well as other essences?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I do not know who the analysts are to whom the hon. Gentleman refers, but we have had an analysis made in the Government laboratory, and these essences contain only iso-propyl alcohol. The hon. Gentleman will be consoled to know that iso-propyl alcohol is deficient in intoxicating properties.
    Dr. SALTER: I am not prepared to accept the accuracy of the hon. Gentleman's statement.

    IMPORT DUTIES (DRAWBACK ORDER).
    Mr. BURNETTasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the losses sustained by exporters of salt fish resulting from the difficulties of working the Import Duties Drawback (No. 8) Order, 1933; and whether, in adopting the recommended ratio between raw materials and the finished article, he will refrain from insisting upon the identity of each purchase of cleaned fresh fish and salted split fish?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am aware that representations have been made by certain exporters that they have experienced difficulties in connection with the working of the Import Duties (Drawback) (No. 8) Order, 1933. The matter is one of some complexity but the possibility of devising some arrangement to meet the difficulties of the exporters concerned is being actively examined.
    Mr. BURNETT: Is it not unimportant the vessels from which the purchases are made, but important whether it is foreign salted fish or foreign fresh fish upon which duty has been paid?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am not sure that I accurately heard what the hon. Gentleman asked, but I assure him that we are trying to discover a solution.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    NEW CRUISERS (NAMES).
    Mr. ISAAC FOOTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that no one of His Majesty's ships now in commission is named after Admiral

    1631
    Blake; and if one of the new cruisers can be named "Blake," in commemoration of the eminent services of that great seaman?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): The new cruisers belong to classes, the ships of which have names drawn from classical mythology. In these circumstances, it is not practicable to give one of them the name of Blake, but the hon. Member may rest assured that this illustrious name will not be overlooked if a suitable opportunity occurs for reviving it.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider, in due course, naming a ship "Brewer," after the great Oliver Cromwell?
    Mr. FOOT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is a repetition of a very stale lampoon which ought to have died in the seventeenth century?

    SINGAPORE DOCKYARD.
    Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDE-MANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty when he expects the Naval dockyard at Singapore to be completed?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: Provided that the necessary financial provision is made from year to year, it is anticipated that the base will be completed by the end of 1939.

  MANCHUKUO (NAVAL FORCES).
  Sir CHARLES CAYZERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state the composition of the Naval forces of the Manchukuan Government and from what source any such Naval force was obtained?
  Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: The forces at present consist of two gunboats, two patrol boats, and a few small patrol vessels, all built in Japan.
  Sir C. CAYZERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of war vessels now building in Japanese yards to the order of foreign Governments and the type and armaments of any such vessels?
  Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: So far as I am aware, the only vessels building in Japanese Yards for foreign Governments are a few small patrol vessels building for Manchnkuo.

  TANGANYIKA (CO-OPERATIVE SCHEMES).
  Mr. PARKINSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the first annual report and statement of accounts of the Kilimanjaro Native Co-operative Union, Limited; and whether, in view of the satisfactory nature of the report, he will recommend the further promotion of such co-operative schemes?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I have seen the report, and have also been informed separately by the Governor of the successful working of this Cooperative Union in 1932. The Government of Tanganyika is aware of the desirability of promoting similar schemes in other parts of the territory, but it is essential to provide these with trained supervision from the start. The provision of special training in co-operation for officers serving in Tanganyika has been delayed through lack of funds, but I am glad to say that arrangements are now being made which will overcome this difficulty.

  GAMBIA (TRADE UNIONS).
  7. Mr. PARKINSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any information as to the Bathurst Trade Unions; and, seeing that Government recognition is given to certain Trade Unions and not to others, why such recognition is not given to the Bathurst Trade Union of which Mr. E. F. Small is Chairman?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER.: Registration of trade unions in the Gambia is now compulsory, and, according to the latest information in my possession, the only union so registered is the Bathurst Trade Union. I understand that Mr. Small is not a member of this Trade Union.

  KENYA (COFFEE GROWING).
  Mr. MALLALIEUasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to indicate the main features of the conditions under which it is proposed in future to permit the natives of Kenya Colony to grow on their own lands coffee for the export markets?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER.: The main features which it is intended to embody in the rules are as follow:—

  (1) The Director of Agriculture may define areas in native reserves in which coffee may be grown, and growing shall be limited to such areas.

  (2) The grower must be furnished with a permit and a licence, which will not be issued until the competent authority is satisfied as to the applicant's suitability and resources.

  (3) Provision is made for regular inspection by an agricultural officer, who has power to deal with plants infected with disease.

  (4) The manufacture, removal from factory or warehouse, and sale of coffee, are placed under Government control.

  WEST AFRICA (CROP DISEASES).
  9. Mr. MALLALIEUasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that the native production in West Africa of agricultural products for the export markets has been so successful, he will state what are the measures taken by the West African Governments to protect native crops from pests and diseases?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The West African Governments have powers, under existing legislation, to prohibit or control the importation of planting material with which pests and diseases might be introduced, and to provide for the control of any outbreaks of pests or diseases that may occur. These powers are exercised, as occasion demands, through the Departments concerned. In addition, a considerable part of the work of the Departments of Agriculture is directed to the same end, by the development of improved agricultural practice, for instance, and by the breeding of disease-resistant strains of plants. I may add that the revision of the legislation with a view to uniformity is at present under consideration.

  COLONIES (DISCUSSIONS).
  Mr. ROBINSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the date on which the next Colonial Office Conference will open; where it will be held; and what steps have already been taken to prepare for it?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. I have carefully considered the question of holding another Colonial Office Conference, but I am satisfied that, in present circumstances, it would not be desirable to do so. Most of the Colonies are still seriously affected by the economic depression and their administrations are consequently still faced with problems of exceptional difficulty. I think it undesirable, in these circumstances, that Governors or other high officials should be absent from their posts more than is unquestionably necessary. I have reached this conclusion with the less reluctance, because I have had many opportunities, and hope to have still more in the future, of personal discussions with Governors both during their leave in England and during my own visits to the territories under their administration. I might add that the needs which the conference in London was intended to serve are being met to a considerable extent by the growing practice of holding regional conferences, particularly upon technical subjects, in the Colonies themselves.

  UGANDA (NATIVE PRODUCTS).
  Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the decision of the advisory committee for the development of native agriculture and production in Uganda that the production of native coffee should not be restricted but should be encouraged; and whether any steps are being taken to this end?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have not yet received from the Governor the recommendation of the committee to which the hon. Member refers. It is, however, already the policy of the Uganda Government to encourage in suitable areas the growing by natives of coffee and in other areas economic crops subsidiary to cotton. Technical assistance is freely provided by the Agricultural Department, and legislation has been passed in order to safeguard the quality of the coffee exported and to assist the producer to obtain a fair price for his crops.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why, while steps are being taken to encourage and extend

  1635
  native coffee growing in Uganda, it should be limited to two or three areas in Kenya?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That is an entirely different proposition. In Uganda native coffee growing is well established and it has been possible to give it the careful supervision which is absolutely essential, in order to maintain the quality of this very valuable crop on the world market. It is essential that in developing native coffee growing in Kenya the same care should be exercised in order to secure that the product may be of a high standard.

  COLONIAL RECORDS.
  Sir EDWARD GRIGGasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that in certain of the Crown Colonies in the West Indies the archives of the Colony are kept in unsuitable buildings, unprotected against fire; that the documents are unsorted and rapidly decaying; that similar conditions prevail in Crown Colonies in other parts of the Empire; and whether, in view of the unique character of these records, he will take steps to ensure their preservation?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The importance of the proper preservation of official records was impressed upon Colonial Governments in a circular dispatch addresed to them in January, 1929. That dispatch also stated that in cases in which the retention of those records in the Colony involved unavoidable risk of serious deterioration endeavours would be made to provide accommodation for them in this country. If my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind specific instances in which Colonial records are not adequately preserved and will furnish me with information as to the particular territories in question, I shall be happy to have inquiries made on the subject.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE (HENDON DISPLAY).
  Mr. T. SMITHasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the cost of the Hendon Air Pageant of 1933 and of
  1636
  1932; the amount incurred by the Air Ministry; and the sum paid to charitable institutions?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): As regards the first two parts of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given on 17th May and 28th June last to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Gren-fell) and the hon. Member for West-houghton (Mr. Rhys Davies). These replies are equally applicable to the Royal Air Force Display of 1933. As regards the last part of the question, the amounts distributed to charities in 1932 and 1933 were £10,810 and £8,761 respectively.

  NEW GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS, EDINBURGH.
  Mr. GUYasked the First Commissioner of Works if he is in a position to make a further statement as to the progress of the scheme for new Government buildings in Edinburgh?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire (Commander Cochrane) on 30th November.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (OFFICIAL REPORTERS).
  Mr. MORGAN JONESasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware of the conditions of discomfort under which Official Reporters are called upon to do their work in their room on the Upper Committee Room floor; and whether he will make some other arrangements so that they may be able to work under more comfortable and healthier conditions?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I fear that many people have to suffer inconvenience from the exigencies of the repair to the stonework. I am, however, considering whether some small improvements cannot be effected.
  Mr. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the actual conditions under which the Official Reporters are working at present; that 14 men are accommodated in one small room, the window

  1637
  of which has been taken out and replaced by a thin canvas screen; and are they expected to perform their duties under these disgraceful conditions?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I shall be very ready to hear representations from the staff concerned regarding this matter, but, as the hon. Gentleman will realise, the work on the stonework of the building is causing me the very greatest difficulties in finding accommodation for the staffs of the House and for the many other people who are engaged in the House from day to day.
  Mr. JONES: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered whether the room now allotted to the "Times" files, on the Upper Committee corridor, ought not to be permanently allotted to the Official Reporters and the files removed to some of the other rooms which are unoccupied?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: That is a new suggestion. I shall have to consider that.
  Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving them the Map Room?

  SCOTLAND.

    ILLEGAL TRAWLING.
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in order to prevent illegal trawling by vessels inside the forbidden limits, he will introduce legislation to punish every such offence by taking the offending vessel into port and keeping it there for a month or longer, according to the nature of the offence, instead of inflicting fines as at present?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND(Sir Godfrey Collins): I would ask the hon. Member to await the presentation of the Bill.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the captains of these vessels simply laugh at the fines imposed at present, even supposing that they are from £20 to £100, and will he not consider the advisability, instead of putting that punishment on them, of holding up the vessels for a month in port, because that would mean that neither the captain nor the crew would
    1638
    be paid, and the result would be that they would never do illegal trawling again?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I can assure the hon. Member that the point that he has just made has been fully considered. Perhaps he will await the presentation of the Bill.

    FISHERY BOARD VESSELS.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of days that each of the vessels under the superintendence of the Fishery Board of Scotland were absent during the past 12 months from their districts of operation for the purposes of re-coaling or re fuelling?
    Sir G. COLLINS: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    During the 12 months ending 1st December, 1933, the periods during which the respective vessels were absent from their customary area of operations for the purpose of coaling or re-fuelling were as follows.

    Days.

    "Brenda"

    …

    …

    …

    29

    "Freya"

    …

    …

    …

    42

    "Minna"

    …

    …

    …

    40

    "Norna"

    …

    …

    …

    29

    "Rona"

    …

    …

    …

    29

    "Vaila"

    …

    …

    …

    28

    "Vigilant"

    …

    …

    …

    23

    Mr. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will consider reorganising the method of patrolling the waters under the jurisdiction of the Fishery Board of Scotland and so utilising the services of the vessels under the board's control to greater effect?
    Sir G. COLLINS: Yes, Sir. The reorganisation of the arrangements for patrolling these waters is under active consideration.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Has the matter not been under active consideration for a period of years, and will the right hon. Gentleman now show some results?
    Sir G. COLLINS: As the hon. Member knows, I have only recently taken the matter under active consideration, and I hope very shortly to satisfy him as to the result.

    UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland, whether he is aware that Glasgow is expected to contribute £442,000 annually for the next five years as a contribution towards the cost of public assistance under the Unemployment Bill, while London will be required to find only £323,000, Liverpool £294,800 and Birmingham £40,000 during the same period; and whether, in view of the promise of the Government that special consideration would be given to distressed areas, he will take steps to have this matter reconsidered?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): No precise estimate of the amount which Glasgow or any other local authority will be required to contribute under the Unemployment Bill for the three years ending 31st March, 1937, can at present be given. Assuming, however, that the Glasgow contribution did amount to £442,000, the relief which the local authority would receive under the Bill would be £300,000. In addition, they will retain the whole of their block grant, which includes a special loading in respect of unemployment the value of which is about £183,000 per annum. The total Exchequer assistance to Glasgow in respect of unemployment would thus amount to £483,000.
    As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Monday last in the course of the Debate on the Bill.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that even with the promises that are made of benefits that are to be given from the Treasury to Glasgow, Glasgow will be more heavily rated in order to maintain her local unemployed who are not on statutory benefit than any other city in the United Kingdom, including London, with a very much larger population than Glasgow?
    Mr. SKELTON: I could not accept that at present, and even if I were to accept it, let me say that, on the other side of the balance-sheet, Glasgow in those circumstances would receive correspondingly larger relief.
    Mr. MACLEAN: But is not the hon. Gentleman avoiding a direct answer to the question? Is it not the case that Glasgow will be much more heavily rated
    1640
    for the maintenance of her able-bodied unemployed who are not on statutory benefit than any other city in the Kingdom, including London, a much wealthier city with a much larger population?
    Mr. SKELTON: I certainly could not answer that question in a supplementary answer, because that raises the whole question of the amount of rating that is necessary, and another question would require to be put down on that subject.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I give notice that I will put a question down along those lines.

  POTATOES (WHOLESALE PRICE).
  Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Agriculture the average wholesale price of potatoes for the years 1928 to 1932, inclusive?
  Captain Sir GEORGE B0WYER: I have been asked to reply. The average wholesale prices of home-grown potatoes on which the Ministry's annual index figure for England and Wales is based were in the five years 1928 to 1932 135s., 92s. 6d., 76s., 148s. 6d., and 155s. per ton, respectively. Information as to the monthly and yearly average wholesale prices of the principal home-grown varieties and of imported potatoes is given annually in Part II of the Agricultural Statistics.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the document referred to is always 18 months late and is not made available to hon. Members?
  Sir G. BOWYER: I have answered the specific question which the hon. Member asked.

  ALIENS.
  Sir ALFRED BEITasked the Minister of Labour whether there exists at the present time any system of exchange whereby the number of aliens working by permit in this country is offset, partially or wholly, by British subjects from the United Kingdom working under similar permission in foreign countries?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): Under arrangements with certain countries, including France,

  1641
  Switzerland, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands, facilities are granted to British subjects to take employment in those countries in exchange for similar facilities granted by the United Kingdom to their nationals. These arrangements relate principally to employés in hotels and restaurants and to teachers in schools; the number of admissions is about 700 each year. Apart from such arrangements, a similar number of student-employés are permitted to enter commercial and industrial concerns, corresponding facilities being granted to British students abroad.
  Sir A. BEIT: Do the actual numbers more or less equalise each other in the arrangement to which the hon. Gentleman refers?
  Mr. HUDSON: Yes, approximately. Although we do not keep any actual figures of British subjects going abroad, we have reason to believe that they more or less balance.

  HIGH COURT JUDGES (SALARIES).
  Mr. VYVYAN ADAMSasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to introduce a declaratory Bill to confirm the principle that, when the salaries of the judges were subjected to reductions under the Economy Act, 1931, there was no infringement of their judicial independence; and, if so, when such legislation is contemplated?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): There are great difficulties in preparing a Bill to affirm a principle that His Majesty's Government regard as unassailed and unassailable. The Government has under consideration whether such a declaratory Act is necessary or desirable.
  Mr. ADAMS: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the courtesy of his reply, may I ask, very respectfully, whether it is clear to him that in the original question on the Paper there was no suggestion implicit for any preferential treatment to the judges in the matter of any restoration of cuts?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That is so. I do not think it was involved at all.

  ROAD PASSENGER SERVICES (WORKMEN'S FARES).
  Colonel GOODMAN (for Mrs. TATE)asked the Minister of Transport whether he will take steps to ensure that the privileges of early omnibuses, and workmen's fares, shall be retained in all areas where tramcars are to be superseded by trolley vehicles?
  The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): Under the existing law the substitution of a system of trolley vehicles for a tramway requires the sanction of Parliament, and hitherto it has been the practice of Parliament to include in the special Acts authorising such substitutions provisions applying to the trolley vehicle undertaking the statutory obligation previously imposed on the tramway undertaking to run proper and sufficient services for work people at reduced fares.

  BRICK WORKS, WARNHAM (ACCIDENT).
  Mr. T. SMITH (for Mr. THORNE).asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the death of an employé of the Sussex Brick Company's works at Warnham, through falling into a clay pan; and if he has yet received a report from the factory inspector on the cause of the accident?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): Yes, Sir; I have received a report on this accident, which occurred last Saturday, and when I have had time to consider it, I will communicate further with the hon. Member.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS.
  PRIVATE ENTERPRISE.
  Mr. BATEY: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the failure of Private Enterprise and the need for the socialisation of industry, and move a Resolution.
  COTTON INDUSTRY.
  Mr. PARKINSON: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the position in the Cotton Industry, and move a Resolution.
  DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION, BRITISH EMPIRE.
  Sir ARTHUR SHIRLEY BENN: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the present uneven and unequal Distribution of the Population within the British Empire, and move a Resolution.

  FORESTRY.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR-WEDDERBURN:
  I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to Forestry and Development in the Marketing of Timber, and move a Resolution.

BILLS PRESENTED.
  CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (ANIMALS) BILL.
  "to prohibit the production or exhibition of films depicting suffering to animals or in the production of which suffering may have been caused to animals; and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Sir Robert Gower; supported by Mr. John Lockwood, Lieut.-Colonel Moore, Sir Cooper Rawson, Wing-Commander James, Mr. Isaac Foot, Mr. Neil Maclean, Mr. Groves, Sir Wilfred Sugden, Major Gwilym Lloyd George, and Mr. Lovat-Fraser; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 2nd February, and to be printed. [Bill 37.]
  PROTECTION OF DOGS BILL.
  "to prohibit the vivisection of dogs; and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. John Lockwood; supported by Sir Robert Gower, Lieut.-Colonel Moore, Sir Bertram Falle, Major-General Sir Alfred Knox, Colonel Crookshank, Mr. Clarry, Mr. Maitland, Lieut.-Com-mander Astbury, Mr. Groves, and Mr. Cocks; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 38.]

FISHING INDUSTRY.
3.20 p.m.
Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: I beg to move,
"That this House, while appreciating the steps already taken to improve the position of the white fishing industry, views with concern the depressed state of the herring fishing industry, and, being of opinion that the maintenance of a prosperous fishing population is essential for the national welfare, urges His Majesty's Government to direct its attention to the distress in the herring fishing centres and to do everything in its power to assist the efforts of the industry to establish itself on such a footing as to enable it to afford to those engaged in it a fair living."
In introducing this Motion, I must ask for more than the usual measure of indulgence from the House. I cannot and do not claim the authority, which many hon. Members can claim to speak on the subject of the fishing industry. The House recognises, as I do, the knowledge and experience of the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley), the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), the hon. and gallant Member for Banff (Sir M. Wood), who is not yet in his place, and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Harbord), who is going to second this Motion. Each of these hon. Members has a long connection with the fishing industry. But if my association with it is less extensive than theirs it is no less intimate, for I have the honour to represent a division in which there is an important fishing population recognised by all men in the trade as containing some of the best and most skilled fishermen in the country. Perhaps I may be allowed to make this further claim to speak on this subject. Six or seven years ago I had the honour and great pleasure of working in association with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair), who, I regret, is also not in his place, on an inquiry into Scottish conditions which included the conditions of the fishing industry in the north. I might go so far as to say that the proposals we then laid before the country met with a considerable measure of acceptance in fishing districts. Of course, in those days my right hon. and gallant Friend and his colleagues were in good company and in a safe harbour. I do not know into what uncharted sea they have now set sail, but I wish them bon voyage and God speed!
1656
It is not necessary for me to remind the House of the position which the fishing industry occupies in the national economy as a primary producer of foodstuffs: this country consumes something in the region of £12,000,000 worth of fish each year, almost all of which is landed by British vessels; as a defence force in time of war—we were told the other day by the First Lord of the Admiralty that no less than 53,000 fishermen served in minesweepers and on patrol boats; as a nursery for the Navy and the mercantile marine in the defence and transport services of this country. A seafaring nation such as ours cannot risk allowing the fishing industry to decline.
Yet how fares this industry, so vital to the national economy? In 1913, before the War, there were 80,000 men engaged in sea-fishing directly. To-day the numbers have fallen to 57,000, a decline of about 30 per cent. And those figures take no account of the great numbers of men and women who are engaged in ancillary occupations like curing, distribution, and net making, whose numbers have also declined. The same tale is true of boats. Before the War there were some 18,000 fishing vessels in England, Wales and Scotland available for the defence and food services of the country. To-day, if a war were to come, which God forbid, but for which we must not be unprepared, there would be only 13,000 vessels, or a third less, available for the country's defence, and large numbers of those would be found quite unsuitable and unfit for any proper service.
In the fishing villages of Scotland, where herring fishing is the chief industry, stark poverty is to be found at every second door. Hon. Members of the Labour party are accustomed, and rightly so, to tell us of the trials of industrial workers. Let the House believe that they are not to be compared with the distress of fishermen at this time. Unemployed men in the towns can have recourse to standard benefit or the "dole," but there is neither standard benefit nor "dole" for fishermen. In the last resort factory workers can turn to public assistance, but even that crutch is refused to fishermen. We have to evade the strict provisions of the law in order to prevent destitution in these fishing centres. I hope the House will not think I am exaggerating the position. My hon.

1657
and right hon. Friends from the north of Scotland will bear me out that the things I have described are no more than truth.
May I also hope the House will not seek to make this distress a plaything of party politics by attempting to lay blame for the present situation upon this or that Government of recent years. We are all inclined to do so, but I beg the House on this occasion to take the bigger view. The truth is that the fishing industry, particularly the herring side of it, has suffered eclipse ever since the War. It is a national problem, not of any one Government's making, but the result of the catastrophe that overwhelmed the world during the War and which struck at the foundations of industry in all countries. Let the House, therefore, view this problem as a Council of State, such as hon. Members of the Labour party proclaimed in 1929. The subject is altogether too serious for party wrangles. The livelihood of 100 or more fishing communities is at stake, and our duty as representatives of the people is, as I see it, to examine the problem fearlessly without party bias and find a means to solve it.
I will present the case as shortly as possible. There are three main sections in the fishing industry: deep sea white fishing, giving employment to some 20,000 men regularly; in-shore fishing, giving work to some 23,000 men; and herring fishing, giving employment to some 16,000 men directly, and at least as many more men and women indirectly, throughout the year. The main distress in the industry is to be found in the last of these three sections and I must therefore pass very quickly over the conditions in the first two. But I think it is necessary to say something about the position of the deep sea white fishing section, because that supplies the great bulk of this country's requirements of fish. Let it be recognised at once that there is to-day a measure of prosperity in this section, thanks partly, at any rate, to the action of the Government. The consumption of white fish in this country has risen in the last 10 years by about 20 per cent. Indeed, but for the comparative success of trawling the whole fishing industry might have gone under. The increased consumption of white fish is due partly to a change in taste from
1658
herring, the consumption of which has dropped in the same period by some 30 per cent.—that is part of the trouble with herring and partly it is due to cheapness. For white fish are not yet considered by the British working-man to be a necessary item of his diet. The haddock, or even the wise sole, whose Maskelyne manoeuvres through the mesh so intrigued the scientific mind of the Ministry of Agriculture, and which therefore should obtain a higher place in the menu, is looked upon only as an extra, a dainty for the evening tea in the average home. The knowledge that the sole has been psycho-analysed does not induce the British working-man to make a meal of it first thing in the morning! But this very cheapness, while increasing production, has been a source of danger to the industry in the past few years. As the Minister of Agriculture pointed out, since 1929 the landings of white fish have increased by about 1,500,000 cwt., but the price received in return has fallen by £2,500,000. It was to arrest that fall that the Sea-Fishing Industry Act was passed a few months ago. Let the House recognise and acknowledge the spirit of that Act, which represents a constructive effort on the part of the Government to deal with a big problem. It is too early yet to estimate its effects, but reports which I have had in the last few days from some of the leading fishing centres show that its value is appreciated by the trawling trade of this country.
I know that in some parts of the House, the Sections in that Act imposing restrictions upon imports of foreign fish do not find favour. But that, I think, is because hon. Members are out of touch with public opinion. I travel about the country a good deal and I have come to this conclusion, whether we like it or not, the British people have made up their minds that they are going to enter the trade race of the future on terms of equality, that the interests of our own country must come first, and that wherever necessary and possible the fortunes of our primary producers shall be safeguarded. I am perfectly satisfied, with the assurance of the hon. Member for Banff, that the catching side of the white-fish industry is efficient, but the marketing side needs thorough reorganisation,

1659
like most of the branches of agriculture. There is no time to discuss the case for that reorganisation, or the schemes that one may have in mind for overcoming the present inefficiency, but I am sure that this industry, just as much as the milk, bacon or potato industries, needs a marketing reorganisation scheme to standardise and stabilise the supply of fish upon the British market. That will be one of the problems for the Sea Fish Commission.
May I pass to the consideration of the inshore fishing branch of the industry? In Scotland, inshore fishermen are of robust physique and sturdy independence, and yet they are gradually declining. What is the problem of the inshore fishermen? It is again one of marketing and of finding an outlet, at a remunerative price, for the fish that they produce. Having little or no capital, the inshore fisherman cannot buy as cheaply or sell as profitably as the trawling companies, and suggestions have been made from time to time for the establishment of some form of co-operation among inshore fishermen. I know a little about co-operation and about Scottish fishermen, and I am perfectly sure that co-operation among those men is as impossible as it appears to be among the various sections of the Liberal party in this House.
Inshore fishermen do not ask for that kind of assistance. But they do ask for Government aid in the protection of their fishing grounds. In every rich bay and firth along the coast of Scotland, and, I suppose, of England, illegal trawling is being carried out by foreign or home vessels to such an extent as to be a deliberate flouting of the law. The Secretary of State for Scotland, in his tour of Scotland in the summer, heard complaint about illegal trawling as often, I suppose, as that about oats and barley, though I think the fishermen were less obstreperous in making their protests than were the farmers of the Moray Firth. Inshore fishermen have just grounds for indignation in this matter, and action must be taken, and taken quickly. They demand protection as a right. I understand that a Bill is now on the stocks in the Scottish Office to deal with illegal trawling; I hope that it will not become emaciated by too long an imprisonment in those stocks, and that the
1660
Scottish Office will not weaken the provisions of it.
Two steps are necessary in this matter; the first is a better policing service and the second is an increase in penalties. The Scottish Fishery Board, which has for years been asking for funds to carry out these services, has been starved of funds from its very inception. To furnish the board with the resources necessary for the efficient performance of its duties is not extravagance; to refuse such funds is not economy; it is the worst kind of waste. I hope the Secretary of State will not hesitate to rectify this longstanding grievance. The present policing service is not only inadequate; it is farcical, on most parts of the coast. One police boat, called the "Brenda"—round about Fife they call it the "Brandy," but it is a very milk-and-water intoxicant—is supposed to patrol the whole coast from Berwick to Aberdeen. Poaching trawlers, some of which, I am sorry to say, harry the waters of Fife from bases in which the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) is not uninterested. I hope that he will assure me that he will apply a quota to those marauders as he does to coal—these poaching trawlers play hide-and-seek with the "Brenda," and make the whole service look ridiculous. I am sure that the Secretary of State for Scotland would not wish a service which he controls to continue to appear ridiculous in the eyes of the world.
With regard to increased penalties, I commend to the Secretary of State for Scotland the Bill introduced by my predecessor, the late Member for East Fife, and supported by some of my hon. Friends opposite, in which he suggested a penalty of £100 for a first offence and £250 for each subsequent offence. I do not think that those would be excessive fines, and I myself would add a forfeiture of the catch; and, if the Secretary of State for Scotland would like to go down to fishermen's posterity not only as a Secretary of State, but also as a Saint of Scotland, he might set aside the income from these fines for the benefit of aged fishermen.
I apologise to the House for taking a little more time than I intended, because there is much to be said yet, not necessarily by me but by other Members. The herring side of the industry is that in

1661
which at the present moment there is the greatest need of Government assistance. The House will recall the critical situation which arose in Yarmouth a week or two ago, when the curers intimated their decision to close down earlier than usual. A deputation was sent to meet the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I would take this opportunity of thanking the Secretary of State for Scotland and his colleague for their courtesy and readiness at very short notice in receiving these gentlemen and listening with so much sympathy to their case. The proposals which the deputation put forward were found to be unacceptable, and, personally, I think the Ministers were right in the view which they took. To have adopted at this time a principle which says that, if an export industry is in trouble, all it has to do is to come to the Government and ask the Government to buy its surplus produce or guarantee its sale, would be to undermine the whole edifice which has been built up with such labour during the last two or three years. But to propound such a view, although I think it was right to do so, is not, I hope, to say that nothing can be done. I hope very much that the Government have not barred and bolted the door to further appeal from the herring industry.
I have already referred to the suffering in herring centres at the present time. It is real and acute. I have here some figures supplied to me from some of the Fife drifters. I will take one village, the village of St. Monan's, which sent 26 boats to Yarmouth. Of these 26, only four covered expenses. The remaining 22 suffered losses, sometimes small, often great, but in all cases losses. The best of the four that covered expenses earned £352, but, when expenses were taken off, there remained for each member of the crew only £6 13s. That was equivalent to a wage of 17s. per week for the Yarmouth season, and in addition they lost £100 worth of rope and nets. The other three made smaller surpluses, and the money paid to their crews was less. This morning I hear from Anstruther that the bulk of the boats there have suffered heavy losses, and I understand that in those parts of the country which are represented by some of my hon. Friends opposite the position is much the same.
Let the House realise, however, that the Yarmouth season is not the only part
1662
of the herring industry which has been unprofitable. The tale of loss has been told right through the summer fishings, and it was almost as bad then as in the case of Yarmouth. Here is a case, which is quite typical, of a man with a wife and seven children, the eldest of whom is 12. He has been working all the time since March of this year, and his total earnings have amounted to £18. That is equivalent to a wage, for 32 weeks, of 11s. per week. There is another man with a wife and a family of two; his earnings have amounted to £14 since March; and another, with a family of four, whose earnings amount to £17. These are not exceptional cases; such cases are the rule in the herring centres of Scotland. The bulk of the families in these districts are penniless. What is their outlook? For most of them there is no possibility of work, and, therefore, of earnings, until the winter herring season begins about the end of January. In the meantime, they must either obtain further credit from the local shopkeepers—grocers, butchers, bakers and so on—or they must resort to the Poor Law.
The credit facilities of local merchants are almost exhausted. There is scarcely a merchant in these fishing villages that I know whose financial position is not strained to the very limit. One of them, with whom I was speaking the other day—a small draper—told me that a month or two ago the total debts owing to him, in a small village, amounted to £400. He is one merchant in a small village. At the end of the summer season the fishermen were able to pay back £30, that is less than 10 per cent., and he sees no prospect of getting the remainder of his money back. As regards public assistance, too, we have almost reached the limit. As the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) remarked the other day, it is no use rating penniless men to maintain themselves.
We hear much about the distressed areas, but the herring centres are equally distressed. There are special grants for industrial distressed areas. The Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour last night, were at pains to assure to the House that the grants to these distressed areas were to be increased. I appeal to the Secretary of

1663
State for Scotland to make a similar grant to the equally distressed areas in the fishing centres, where destitution is rife at the present time. I ask for a temporary measure of relief to tide them over the period between now and the time when the herring industry is placed on a proper footing. I know that the Unemployment Bill will be of great assistance to fishermen, and I am grateful for it; but that Bill will not be of any practical value to fishermen until at least the summer. I beg the Secretary of State for Scotland to accede to this request for special relief.
It is not much that I ask in comparison with what is given to other industries. Take, for example, the case of agriculture. This year farmers are receiving through the Beet-Sugar subsidy, £3,000,000 from the Exchequer, while under the various rate relief measures they are obtaining now the equivalent of £9,000,000. That is a total cost to the Exchequer of £12,000,000 a year. The wheat quota; scheme, too, which, while it is not a charge upon the Exchequer, is a charge upon the consumer, puts money into the farmers' pockets equivalent to £4,000,000 a year. That is £16,000,000 for agriculture, and nothing comparable for fishing in this seafaring nation. Surely the Scottish Secretary, who spent his first, and it may be he thinks his best years at sea, who understands the character of a seafaring people, will not turn a deaf ear to my plea.
But let the House recognise that these relief measures can only be palliatives at best. The real problem remains, and, unless steps are taken at once to reorganise thoroughly the catching, curing, distribution and sale of herring, the self-same trouble will arise next year, and the year after.
What is the problem of the herring industry? It is again largely a case of marketing. But whereas, in the case of white fish, the market is at home, and therefore to an extent controllable, the market for herring is abroad, in countries where the best you can do is to make favourable trading agreements. Before the War Great Britain exported 2,500,000 barrels of cured herring. This year it is estimated that the total export will not exceed 750,000 barrels, that is to say about a third of the pre-War amount. The chief importers of herring in pre-War
1664
days were Germany and Russia. Germany is now building up its own fleet and developing its own curing industry. This year, I understand, there have been cured in Germany 300,000 barrels more than there were in 1920, and that is in addition to Germany's catch by trawl of herring amounting to 500,000 crans. That market, I am afraid, in the scope in which we understood it before the War, has largely gone. But what of Russia? Before the War Russia took 75 per cent, of the total exports of British cured herring. This year she takes none. The reasons that apply in the case of Germany do not apply here. Russia is not attempting in the same degree to develop her catching and curing trade. If she needs herring she buys cheaper herring from Norway. That is the explanation of the present position. The opportunity, therefore, exists for the Government to make efforts to recover what is lost.
I cannot exaggerate the vital importance of securing the re-opening of the Russian market. Negotiations are now proceeding. I hope the Government and its representatives will press, as an essential part of the agreement, that Russia should take a specified amount of cured herring each year. Nothing else can save the industry in its present proportions. A reliable Russian market is an essential basis for the future business organisation of the industry. I would ask for a million barrels to be taken. That may be said to be an impossible demand, but before the War she took 2,000,000 barrels. I have been at great pains to get the figures, and they show that directly, and indirectly through Germany, Russia took something like 2,000,000 barrels of herring. It seems to me that the opening of the Russian market to the extent of 1,000,000 barrels is the only method by which we can maintain the fleet on anything like its present scale and provide employment for its people. If the herring market to that extent is not secured, we must face up to one of two things, either the rapid and ultimately complete deterioration of the herring fishing fleet, its gear and its crews or some drastic cut to save something from the wreck. I received a letter this morning from a leading skipper of the herring drifters in Anstruther. He says:
"A large number of men will not be able to prosecute their calling next season due to financial straits. They will not be able to purchase nets and other requisites and they

1665
will find great difficulty in securing credit. Many of the boats are practically obsolete and unfit for service. Some of them also have suffered heavy losses in nets and ropes. A succession of bad years has caused the fishermen to use up any small resources that they have in the shape of savings."
The real trouble is an excess of the catching power of the industry. During the last few years it has become more and more apparent that the catching power is far in excess of any possible outlet for their produce. May I offer the House one or two figures, which apply in each case to the whole year. In 1913 1,600 boats of the herring fleet, English and Scottish, caught and sold same 2,700,000 crans of herring. In 1933, 1,000 boats—that is only 26 per cent, less—caught and sold 930,000 crans. That is 75 per cent, less catch than in 1913. It is obvious at once that at least a third of the fleet is superfluous. In 1913 the average catch per boat amounted to about 1,700 crans. This year it amounted to 930 crans. How can you expect herring fishermen to make a living in these circumstances? If at Yarmouth, by a reasonable allocation of catching power, there had been 600 vessels working for six weeks instead of 1,000 working for four weeks, you would have secured a fair living for at least 60 per cent, of the fishing community. Now, because there is no organisation, there is privation for all the men engaged at Yarmouth. The truth is the industry is over-staffed.
How will you deal with that problem? It applies to curers, salesmen, wholesalers, exporters, fishermen and all branches of the industry. I think a cut must be made somewhere. Unless you are content to do nothing and let the industry sink and drift into complete destruction, some measure of rationalisation in the catching power is imperative and, I think, inevitable. The first necessity is some reduction of the innumerable individual units in competition in the catching and curing sections. How is that to be carried through? I am afraid spontaneous amalgamation among the fishermen is almost impossible. I am afraid voluntary agreement in the form of a marketing scheme such as we have had for agriculture is scarcely likely to be successful, because it might involve fishermen in Fife, Banff, Caithness and Aberdeen voting for their own elimination. Therefore, I do not think that is likely to be a successful measure.
1666
The only solution that I can see is to apply to the herring fishing industry some form of control company or public utility company which shall if necessary be superimposed from the top. I see my hon. Friends from the fishing districts getting a little concerned, but I ask them to face the alterative. The only alternative to some measure of organisation like that is ruin in the course of the next 10 years. I beg my hon. Friends to face up to that. If the proposal I put forward is unsound, what is the alternative 1 Such a company would, if possible, be formed out of the industry itself, or, at any rate, with the co-operation of the fishing industry. It would bring all ranks under one control, make firm contracts with overseas markets for the whole cure, determine precisely how many boats are needed, how many crews and girls, prices, and carry out a really vigorous, modern, up-to-date advertising and selling campaign to popularise the herring. That is a revolutionary step if you like, but, as I say, there seems to be no alternative. It is the only method I can imagine to ensure a reasonable livelihood for at least two-thirds of the present fleet. The Sea Fish Commission will, I suppose, examine problems of that kind, and I have great faith in the appointment of Sir Andrew Duncan as head of that Commission. In Scotland he is looked upon as a man not only with a great career behind him and a reputation, but a man of broad outlook, prepared to apply to the industry the needs of the present times. I hope it will be possible for the Sea Fish Commission to examine that proposal.
But let me face the further position, that if such a step is taken, either voluntarily, or by the rationalisation of boats by one means or another, perhaps one-third of the fishermen are going to be left with nothing to do. They cannot, of course, be left to starve. It seems to me that here is an opportunity for the Government—here, at any rate, I shall have the support of my hon. Friends opposite—to link up fishing re-organisation with a real, imaginative policy of land settlement. In the North of Scotland it works now, and, I believe with some care, it might be applied in some other districts. I am inclined to agree with the Minister of Agriculture that it is no use making more smallholdings until farming is made to pay. But that is not

1667
altogether true, because smallholdings, I know, will pay when big farms will not pay, and, at any rate, it takes a year or two, perhaps, to set the machinery in motion, obtain the land, equip the holdings and so on in readiness for the men to work them. As I see it, the immediate task of the National Government is the reconstruction of the herring industry to save it from collapse, linked up with a bold policy of land settlement. That would be worthy of the name of the National Government. It would be worthy and even win the support of the right hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). If the Government adopted such a policy, he might write another book, this time about the National Government. He might even cross the Floor, and stand by the side of the Scottish Secretary and pat him on the back as he advanced this Measure.
I apologise to the House for having detained it so long, but the subject is one of great complexity. It is really three subjects in one. I was anxious on this occasion to present as far as I was able the whole picture to the House, so that a comprehensive measure of reform might be tackled by the Government. These little niggling approaches—I am not saying it disrespectfully—but these little individual approaches to this and that part of the problem certainly help, but do not deal with the real difficulties. The task of the National Government is to face up to the re-organisation of the whole industry. I hope they will not fail.
4.6 p.m.
Mr. HARBORD: I beg to second the Motion.
It is a great pleasure to me to have the privilege of seconding the Motion which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) in such eloquent terms. My hon. Friend spoke of the services of fishermen in the Great War. We know how they faced death time after time. On many occasions I witnessed their return, badly wounded, and I thought what great sacrifices those men made for their country in its hour of need. That was emphasised last week when the question of the Air Service of this country was under discussion. When we were facing
1668
the starvation of our people these men faced all the dangers attendant upon their labours as fishermen. I am certain that, without distinction of party, each and every Member of this House who takes a special interest in this question will be as insistent as I am that the Government should exhaust every possible channel to alleviate the lot and come to the active assistance of the fishermen. I am not going to cover all the subjects which have been so well covered by the hon. Member for East Fife, but there was one point in which I thought there was a similarity when he alluded to the police control boat operating from Fifeshire to Aberdeen not being seen when required. I was put in mind of the monster of Loch Ness.
I am confident that the House will rise to the occasion and support this Motion, which so richly merits their support. Regarding the herring fishing operating from Yarmouth and Lowestoft each autumn by English and Scottish fishing boats, my notes touch on the gradual decline of the industry occasioned by the aftermath of the Great War. We have been told this afternoon of the tremendous outlet for the cured herring before the War. In 1913 there were 1,606 herring boats fishing from the two ports of Yarmouth and Lowestoft, this number including Scottish and English vessels. In 1933, there were only 1,062, a loss of 544 boats. These facts also apply very closely to a similar reduction of catching power during the same period in Scottish waters at the summer fishing when the East Anglian vessels "are fishing in Scottish waters. I ought to say that in 1913, when a large number of fishing boats were busy at Yarmouth, the port authorities were contemplating large additions in the way of a new dock or basin to accommodate a greater number of fishing vessels, but, of course, with the advent of war, and the gradual decline of the fishing industry, there was no occasion for that to be done.
The point here arises why there is this great shrinkage of vessels and consequent reduction in their crews of 5,000 trained fishermen, together with the unemployment on shore occasioned by this reduction in catching power. The chief cause of the depression in the herring industry is because of the general poverty of other countries which were large buyers of

1669
pickled herring before the War. Countries such as Germany and Poland have also put high duties on the imports of our herring, and, at the same time, they are developing the catching of herring themselves. Then there is Russia, once the country which imported many hundreds of thousands of barrels of British-cured herring. This year, as has been pointed out, they have not bought one, and to-day in Yarmouth, or it was so last Friday, 40 per cent, of the catches of these fishing boats remain unsold. Some of the curers have not sold a barrel of herring from the commencement of the season up to the present time. It is a lamentable condition of things. The hon. Member for East Fife has told the House how it has averaged out, and the sorry plight of these fishermen having to face the long winter with such a pittance. It was put to me by a leading fish salesman of Great Yarmouth that, spread over three years, these fishermen have not averaged £1 a week, with all their discomfort and risk of life, steadfastly pursuing voyage after voyage round the coast of this country and Scotland. It does seem a terrible result for their hard labours in catching fish.
I am pressing upon the Government that this afternoon they should give us some message which will afford hope for the future of these men who have been so terribly hard hit. I am not complaining, and I am sure no one in the fishing trade is complaining, that the old trade agreement with Russia has been terminated. It was so terribly one-sideded and so much to our disadvantage, that it was high time-in fact, belated-that the trade agreement was terminated. We know that negotiations of this delicate nature between two countries which, unfortunately, are not on too cordial terms, are very naturally restricted, but it surely should not be beyond the power of man to establish a new trade agreement on terms satisfactory to both countries. We import much from Russia. We are a good customer to them. We pay them many millions a year more than they pay us—the proportion is five to one—and with long credit in many cases as well to the Russians. Up to now they have preferred to deal with Norway and buy their herring extensively there, because they are cheaper, though of a very inferior quality to our own.
1670
I hope, seeing that these powers have been given and are so far advanced, we shall be told this afternoon that we can take to our homes and to our districts, and to the men whom we are serving, a message of hope and encouragement that proceedings are likely to terminate in the direction of a market being created. Although there is the greatest friendship and good feeling between the hon. Member for East Fife and myself I think that he put his figure of a million barrels a year too high. I believe that if we had a market for 300,000 barrels a year the trade would be in a position to provide a fair and living price for the fishermen and that the trade would be able to carry on and eventually to return to its former times of prosperity. It has been suggested to me that, if in the new trade agreement there were to be a promise by the Russians that they would purchase in the English market 300,000 barrels of herring at a price of 30s. per barrel, it would pay the fishing community and give a fair return to owners and men alike. They have been getting 25s. a barrel, which is not sufficient to provide a fair return for those engaged in the undertaking. Unless something is done they cannot go on. They are going to the wall and facing bankruptcy and despair. Cannot we be told whether there is a chance of something being done or not?
I respectfully disagree with my hon. Friend when he says that the fishing fleet should be cut down. God forbid that there should be another war, but in such an eventuality these men would be very valuable on the seas. To lessen their number would be to lessen the opportunity of the services which they might render in such an important crisis in this country. The fishermen are worthy of every attempt to foster, encourage and help them in their hour of need. They have sent out an S.O.S. to the country and to the Government. These are the men who man our lifeboats. They answer the call of the S.O.S. When there are tempestuous seas and fearful weather, rain, sleet or snow, they never hesitate or turn back. They answer the call. What human sacrifice could be greater than theirs or what greater risks in this mission of mercy and help which they give so readily all the year round? I ask the Government to tell us what they have done. Have they had anything in

1671
the nature of success? Is there a prospect of our being able to go back to our respective constituencies and give the fishermen encouragement and help in this their time of need?
4.20 p.m.
Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: I feel sure that the House will be grateful for the opportunity of approaching this very difficult problem of the herring fishery, and especially grateful for the use made of opportunity in Debate by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Harbord), who conveyed to the House in such vivid language and in such a warm spirit our appreciation of those who follow this hazardous occupation, both in their first capacity as fishermen and in their auxiliary capacity as lifeboatmen along the shores of this island. I convey my personal thanks to the hon. Member for the inspiration which he gave to this Debate in his closing words. He also displayed his sympathy, understanding and knowledge of the problem which, perhaps, is very near to him because he represents one of the largest fishing ports of this country. It is proper that we should in this House from time to time give, by word and sentiment, expression to the needs of our constituencies and the people whom we are elected to represent. I belong to a great mining constituency, and one cannot keep away from his early associations. On the slightest pretext, when the question of coal is brought to one's notice, one does his best to recall the experiences of the earliest years of his life. The two hon. Gentlemen who have spoken have displayed that warmth and sympathy indicative of this House, which is a feature which should be encouraged and acknowledged by Members.
The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) said truly that the herring fishermen are in a state of great distress. That fact was confirmed by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth who represents the English section of this industry. Unfortunately, we are too well aware that fishing and agriculture, and the prime producers of our own country, in common with the primary producers in all parts of the world, have experienced a period of very great depression in recent years. There are special features of the herring fishery which the hon. Gentleman brought to our notice, and which, I hope, will be given still closer attention by the right
1672
hon. Gentleman representing the Government to-day. We agree within everything which has been said about the parlous state of the industry and with the analysis of the causes of distress, but we are not satisfied with the attitude taken up by the two hon. Gentlemen in their proposal for remedying the present condition. I think that they suffer from lack of courage and warmth which is so characteristic of the people whom they desire to represent. If they had half the courage of their lifeboatmen and fishermen they would be propounding much more drastic remedies this afternoon than they have given to the House. Perhaps they are not quite sure yet whether they are going to stay on that side of the House or not, but when they eventually cross the Floor they may take a much more aggressive attitude towards the Government. For this moment both hon. Gentlemen have been soft pedalling in their criticisms and have not ventured as far as they should have done in the direction of making proposals for the drastic reorganisation which the industry requires. A very comprehensive plan of reorganisation must take place in the industry if it is again to become the prosperous industry we all desire.
The hon. Member for East Fife said that the industry was suffering from two things. He stressed the point of overproduction. He said that the industry was producing too much; that there is more production and a large margin of productive capacity. He went into some details on that matter, but earlier in his remarks he referred to the decrease in the consumption of herring. If the figures of production and consumption pre-War and in the last year are examined, he will find that it is largely a question of under consumption of this most valuable and estimable item of diet. The consumption at home has not increased. I find in the report that the consumption of herring per head has come down very considerably at home. In 1913 the weight in lbs. per head of population was 12.8, and in 1932 it had dropped to 8.3 lbs. per head, a decrease of roughly 33 ⅓ per cent. There is no need for that to have occurred on the dietetic merits of the herring. There is no reason why this very large measure of decrease in consumption at home should have taken place. The hon. Gentleman moved his

1673
Motion perhaps in the expectation of getting some sympathetic promise and response to it, but the hon. Gentleman expressed approval of the means by which the white fish industry had been assisted in the last year or so. Really, the hon. Gentleman too easily agrees. There is no cause for general congratulation on that point.
Mr. H. STEWART: The hon. Gentleman will recall that I expressed the view that it was yet too early to estimate precisely the effects of what has been done. The reports which I have had tend to show that the Measure is being accepted as valuable.
Mr. GRENFELL: But the hon. Member did give faint praise in respect of what had been done for the white fish industry. When he came to the question of marketing, he said that it was very difficult to secure co-operation among Scottish fishermen. Really, their lies a very large part of the difficulty of this problem, and of all our problems. They are the individual producers in this case. We have, I understand, at present just over 700 boats. There were at Yarmouth in the season nearly 1,000 boats altogether, a large number of which were owned separately or by the people who work them through the medium of taking shares. The practice of sharing is perhaps more equivalent in this industry than in any other industry in the country. Such a basis of ownership develops a sense of individualism which is very difficult to eradicate. It must be tackled, because no Government can set the herring fishing industry on right lines towards future prosperity unless the people themselves are prepared to accept the general directions which a Government can give.
One of the essential needs for regaining prosperity is greater co-operation among the fishermen. The hon. Member opposite referred in some detail to the difficulties which exist and which will certainly require the utmost measure of co-operation if they are to be overcome: not formal co-operation or co-operation in words but a very large measure of co-operation which will require sacrifice, for a common effort and the pooling of resources, Therefore, we are agreed that the discussion of co-operation is a vital matter in the solution of this great problem. The hon. Member referred to matters of a local and technical character
1674
which I shall leave to my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) who, being a Scotsman, knows a good deal about every subject that comes before the House of Commons. He represents one of the Clydeside Divisions and knows a good deal about fishing, especially on the west coast. He will deal with illegal trawling, the need for better policing and for heavier penalties, all of which are domestic matters. The Secretary of State for Scotland, without further powers, ought to be able to deal with some of the difficulties referred to by the hon. Member.
The hon. Member carried the House with him in his description of the plight of the fishermen. He described one fishing centre where of the boats that went to the fishing this year only four had met their expenses. That is a very serious position. The explanation is known, and a large part of the fault must be directed against the fishermen themselves. During the fishing season at Yarmouth I read a statement that the fishermen, owing to their failure to co-operate and owing to their jealousies, went out every day in the week, Sundays included. With regard to fishing on the Sabbath it was said that the English boats went and the Scottish boats followed. Even with the knowledge that there was more than an abundant catch they indulged in Sunday fishing and obtained the maximum catch. That was a very great mistake. It is a sad commentary upon the condition of the industry that because more fish were caught than usual, because the catches were phenomenally good, the industry has suffered so much that, as stated by the hon. Member, in connection with one fishing fleet only four boats made their expenses, and even those who did meet their expenses had not a decent wage when it was spread over the weeks of the season.
We have had presented to us a fair picture of the condition of the industry and we know that the situation is really serious. The point we have to examine is whether the industry can be helped. We are told that the industry employed 20,000 people before the War and that the number of those employed has been reduced to 16,000, a loss of 4,000 compared with 1913. An industry of this kind cannot continue falling in personnel with-

1675
out very great danger to the national life and the safety and defence of this country in times of peril. We may differ very much as to the means to be applied to keep these men in production. It is a fact that owing to the badness of the seasons the boats are not in as good condition as they might be and that the nets are not maintained in as good condition as they might be. I understand that nearly half the herring fleet in this country is 20 years old or more. If no assistance is given from some direction, if there is no internal organisation to bring about the desired results, the boats will become older and neither the men nor the boats will be ready to take to sea, even if there is prospect of favourable remuneration.
The hon. Member referred to the direct subsidies given to agriculture, but he made no proposal for a direct subsidy to the herring fishing industry. I do not know whether he believes that the sort of subsidy given to sugar beet and wheat growers would be acceptable to the fishermen, or whether a basis could be found for a subsidy, even if the House were agreed that a subsidy of that kind should be given. Both hon. Members referred to the enormous loss of our foreign markets. The hon. Member for Yarmouth was right when he said that we could immediately provide a market for the herring catch in this country if we came to an agreement with Russia to accept even half a million barrels of herring for the season. The acceptance by Russia, by agreement, of anything like the pre-War quantity of herring that she used to take would solve the immediate problem of this industry and give the people engaged in it confidence to go on year by year, renewing their boats, improving their equipment and providing financial resources which might be used in a co-operative way to build up a new fishing fleet and a new system not only for developing the catch of herring but marketing that very valuable commodity.
We have been told that this year we have exported only one-third of our pre-War exports, that we have lost two-thirds of our foreign market. That is for the moment the primary difficulty that has overtaken this industry. I would urge the Secretary of State for Scotland, in his capacity as representative of the Government to realise that the situation does
1676
not admit of much further delay. It is very unfortunate that the herring industry should be devastated and crippled in this way. I am not a technical expert or associated with the industry but it seems to me that anyone who looks over the figures can see that this industry is disappearing, dying, and will pass out in a very short space of time unless we do what can be done to restore those foreign markets by which alone the consumption of fish can be maintained at a standard necessary to maintain the personnel and fishing equipment in existence.
We have suffered a very good deal because of political prejudice in this House. The House is full of political prejudice. There are people who regard Russia as an untouchable community, and yet we find hon. Members, who have a knowledge of the needs of their own constituencies, declaring that the only hope of salvation comes from Russia. Why should the Government apologise to any of the Diehards in this House, in face of the economic demands from various parts of the country for the restoration of communication and the exchange of services of all kinds with that great country; a country which must loom large in the future life of the world. Without making political capital, we must urge that this condition of affairs must be brought to an end and that agreement should be brought about. Unfortunately, not in the interests of the House but in the interests of a small section of individuals the Government have been urged to withhold an agreement and to refrain from making an agreement which is so important not only for the fishing industry but for the general economic prospects of the country. The Government have not made terms with Russia and there is no prospect for the time being of any addition to our present small marketing capacity as regards herring, unless that can be done.
The hon. Member opened up a very large question when he said that there is too much productive capacity, and that there are so many boats and so many people. He suggested that either voluntarily or by force or arbitration there should be some relinquishment by fishermen of their productive capacity, or some agreement for the scaling down of the number of men and boats. When I heard his remarks I felt that he was making a very important recommendation but not

1677
going all the way. I should like the House to view with us the need for a bold examination of the question whether we are prepared, to-day or to-morrow, to go all the way in the logical pursuit of the suggestion thrown out by the hon. Member, on the lines that something must be done, that there should be reorganisation and that these people, who witness the poverty of themselves and their neighbours, must be brought to an apprehension of the need for a radical reorganisation of the industry. Hon. Members should speak out more boldly in the House and outside and say: "Here is an industry which is an example of individualism which has failed." We see examples of the failure of individualism not only in the herring industry but in the coal trade. It has brought the coal trade almost to ruin, from which it is very slowly emerging.
Examples of individualism have brought a large community like the United States of America almost to bankruptcy and chaos, and the same example of individualism has hampered trade and industry in a hundred different ways in this country. We see that example in agriculture. The hon. Members for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson), who is always very keen on the question of reorganisation in our great productive industries, knows that in fishing as in agriculture those who think boldly may have something to contribute to the reconstruction of these industries, while people who talk in a comfortable, sloppy way of the problem and wish to avoid difficulties and unpleasant factors in the problem cannot help very much. The hon. Member opposite pictured to us what he described as the growing obsolescence of the fishing fleets, and said that there are too many boats, that some must be taken out and that some of the men must depart from fishing and be transferred voluntarily to small holdings and settlements on the land. That would require a very large organisation, and as an essential step it requires a good deal of propaganda. You have to convince these people that there is no other way. The hon. Member for Yarmouth was optimistic. He said that we can get prosperity for this industry, for the moment, by trading with Russia. Even he is a strong advocate of trading with Russia.
Mr. HARBORD: Those in the trade who are competent to form an opinion say that if we can get a Russian market, with a guarantee to take at least 300,000 barrels a year, the trade will want no subsidy. When the trade is on a businesslike footing it only wants a businesslike market and the trade will look after itself.
Mr. GRENFELL: I do not disagree with the hon. Member. The Mover of the Motion outlined the present position and suggested possible lines upon which a remedy could be applied. It was very interesting to me, and I hope that the House will pursue the suggestion made by the hon. Member on some future occasion. But there is the task. You must reorganise the industry. The tools of the industry, the nets, are getting worse and the personnel despondent and discouraged. You must rebuild the industry to a higher standard of efficiency. There should also be a greater proportion of fish in the national diet of this country, the more the better. It is a food which can be produced cheaply, it is wholesome, and has qualities not yet discovered even by those who talk so learnedly about the mysterious qualities of the food we eat. We welcome the Motion and we should like to join with-Members in all parts of the House in pursuing further its implications. We urge upon the Secretary of State for Scotland the need for bringing immediate relief. This can only be found in a restoration of trade with Russia, in encouraging cooperation between the producers themselves, and by taking measures to prevent the wide gap there is now between the price paid to fishermen for fish and the price paid by consumers in London and other parts of the country.
If the Secretary of State were to go to the next Cabinet meeting and say, "I shall not allow the fishermen of the North-East Coast of Scotland, or the fishing industry of this country, to pass into decay, as it seems to be doing, or allow the sufferings of these poor people to be poured into my ears day after day. I insist that as there is an easy and quick way of giving relief the Government should conclude the Treaty with Russia without delay." If he takes that stand in the interests of those engaged in the industry, who are suffering great distress, he will have the sympathy of all

1679
Members of this House, especially if he persuades the Government to make up their minds to trading with Russia as a remedy for the present position, as we believe it is, and which is the opinion of all those engaged in the herring industry. If the Secretary of State for Scotland as the direct representative of the northern half of Britain in this House will insist on this policy the Cabinet will not long be able to resist his demand, and then perhaps we may this winter see large purchases of herring going to Russia, to the help and assistance of this great industry.
4.51 p.m.
Mr. BOOTHBY: The House is familiar with the main outlines of the problem which confronts the herring industry today and, therefore, I shall not detain hon. Members for any long time. The first point I want to raise with the Secretary of State for Scotland is the direct question of relief during the present emergency. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the summer fishing has been a failure owing to the absence of herring, and the autumn fishing was a failure owing to the absence of markets. The result is that the fishermen on the North-East Coast are in dire distress, and I am satisfied that in the special circumstances of the case some form of relief ought to be afforded them during the winter. May I remind hon. Members that for the most part these fishermen do not come under unemployment insurance, and, as you cannot relieve them by rating—that is what it comes to—if the local authorities are to do the job, they are left in an exceptional position at the moment. I make a most earnest appeal to the Government to do something for them in the nature of direct financial assistance. The amount would not be large, and I am sure that in the circumstances of the case, particularly as they are not covered by insurance, this House would not grudge a small sum to the distressed towns of the North-East Coast during the present emergency. It would be only a temporary solution of the problem—no one expects it to be continued or repeated, indeed, we hope that it will not have to be repeated—but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make some statement to the House on this point.
1680
I now come to the important question of principle raised by the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) in the very able statement he made-the question of State control of the industry. He seemed to advocate the inauguration of a company which would undertake something in the nature of State control. In such a case the State would inevitably have to bear some financial responsibility. I have never heard a suggestion of the kind before, even from the Socialist benches, with regard to an export industry of the character of the herring—fishing industry. For my part, I cannot agree to any suggestion that there should be State control over an export industry of this character.
Mr. H. STEWART: Nor do I.
Mr. BOOTHBY: If capitalism is to survive and function it can only be through the flow of investments into industry under the stimulus of profits and confidence, and the basis of individual action and individual liberty, and in my opinion the only way, under existing conditions, under our present system, to revive prosperity in an exporting industry like the herring-fishing or in any other exporting industry is to restore markets. There is no other way. We hear a lot nowadays about the State planning industry. If the State is going to plan industry, and interfere with costs, production, and wages under a capitalist system, nothing but chaos will ensue in the long run. I have seen examples of the kind of thing going on in the United States, where the State tries to control production of goods, costs and wages, and, believe me, it is not working out successfully there, and it would not work out successfully here. The control of certain basic commodities nationally may be necessary, but restrictions on a free market, as far as agricultural produce and manufactured goods are concerned, are one of the prime causes of the depression at the present time. My views will, I think, be shared by hon. Members of the Liberal party, because although we may have differed in the method of the application of Protection I have always regarded Protection primarily as a weapon to be used in order to restore markets, and free markets, without which, in the long run, the capitalist system cannot survive. The only alternative is Communism.

1681
A reorganisation of this industry is undoubtedly necessary, and I think that a substantial reduction in the catching power of the fleet is necessary. That must be done by the industry itself; it cannot be done by the Government. The drifters are obsolete, expensive, and very dangerous. At least 75 per cent, of the drifters to-day ought not to go to sea next year. They will have to be replaced, but not all of them, because the catching power of the fleet is at present too great. The surgeon's knife will have to be used by the fishing industry itself to reduce their catching power. If the Secretary of State will keep in touch with the industry—it has reorganised itself so that it can now speak as a unit, to the Government—and if in return for a reduction of the catching power of the fleet he could guarantee them facilities for replacing these obsolete and expensive drifters by modern Diesel engine craft, which can be worked at half the cost, he would be doing a real service to the herring—fishing industry. I beg him to take this matter into serious consideration. Almost every other Government affords direct financial assistance, in one form or another, to their fishing industry. Our own fishing industry cannot stand up against the subsidised industries of other countries, particularly Germany and Norway, and I ask him to discuss with representatives of the industry the possibility of giving some financial assistance, by way of loan, for the replacement of the present obsolete and expensive drifters by more modern Diesel engine craft.
I come to my last point, and that is the question of the home market. I agree with the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) that the consumption of herring in this country, which after all is the greatest consuming market in the world, is not nearly high enough, and I ask the Government to see what they can do to help the industry by advertising-herring in our own markets. I am sorry that the Empire Marketing Board, the only advertising agency the Government possessed, has been abolished. It was doing useful work, and the cost was negligible. But it has gone, and nothing has taken its place, except the British Broadcasting Corporation. I believe that a great deal could be done through broadcasting to popularise herring and the methods of cooking herring. It may be
1682
stupid, but there is a great deal of truth in the assertion that in the consumption of herring the snobbish element comes in to a great extent. The people of this country do not like cheap food, even if it is the best food. If herring cost four times as much, I am sure that the consumption would be doubled. It is one of the misfortunes of the herring that they are caught in such enormous quantities and are marketed so cheaply, because they are one of the best and most nutritious of foods. It is a tragedy that we should have to try throughout the world to find people to eat herring when we ought to be eating ten times the quantity that we do. Indeed, the resolute refusal of the people of this country to eat our own home-grown produce, whether we catch it at sea or grow it on the land, has had a deleterious effect on the health of the population. We consume less fresh milk than any other country in the world, and I am sure that we consume more tinned and canned fruits of all kinds than any other country in the world. I think that the Government in the interests of health should try to rectify this position as far as they can. I ask the Government to reconsider the possibility of extending the home market for herring.
I have said that the catching power of the fleet will have to be reduced, and there is the question, therefore, as to what must be done with the fishermen who, during the next three or four years, will be unable to go to sea with the reduced fleet. I believe there is still a great opening for white line fishermen along our coasts. There are two things that the Secretary of State could do to help the line fisherman. The first is to afford him adequate protection against the depredations of the trawlers. That protection he has not got now. The second thing is to accord him proper harbour facilities for the prosecution of his craft. The right hon. Gentleman probably knows that I have in mind one particular harbour to which I had the pleasure of taking him myself, the harbour of Cairnbulg, in my constituency, the work on which was stopped in the economy campaign. It is now quite useless for any practical purposes. That simply means that the fishing population of three villages on that coast are unable to get a living at all. The expenditure of a modest sum in putting some of these small harbours into proper condition, so

1683
that the fishermen in the villages on the coast can make an honest living by catching fresh white fish with the line, would be a wise objective for the right hon. Gentleman and I hope that he will be able to give us some encouragement on that score.
Lastly I come to the very vexed question of foreign markets, and that immediately leads me to speak of Russia. It has been repeatedly pointed out that before the War Russia took about 75 per cent, of the total produce of the herring fishing industry. It is time that the Government made its attitude towards the Russian question quite clear. We are not at all clear now as to what that attitude is. At one moment we have relations with Russia broken, and the next moment we have them restored. At one moment we are all anxious for the utmost development of trade with Russia, and the next moment the implication is that it is a great pity we have anything to do with the Russian Government at all. Even the Lord President of the Council, who is usually so courteous in his references to foreign countries, said the other day, with regard to the American recognition of Russia, "If it comes to that we have enjoyed diplomatic relations with Russia," and then he added the words, "If 'enjoyed' be the word." There was an implied disparagement there. The Lord President would never have made that remark about the German Government.
I want to know what the ultimate intentions of the Government are with regard to the whole question of the relationship, diplomatic and commercial, between this country and Russia. Are the Government out to cultivate the maximum of friendly and trading relations or are they not? Are they sorry that we have relations with Russia and are they anxious to break them off altogether? If so, the sooner that is done the better. For my part, I believe that Russia has now to be accepted as a part of the scheme of things in the world to-day. You cannot get away from Russia by ignoring her existence. I have some right hon. Friends, and close friends, in this House, who would be very glad if they were told tomorrow morning that Russia had been submerged by the sea and had disappeared altogether. We cannot do that. To some extent I think it is a test point
1684
between what I call the pre-War mind and the post-War mind. The pre-War mind is still reluctant to accept the fact of the existence of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics. The post-War mind, although it may not approve of the idea, does recognise Russia's existence as an integral part of the world economic machine to-day. We can only expect to attain the prosperity that we ought to attain by taking Russia into very serious consideration.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I think the hon. Member is now somewhat anticipating a Motion on the Paper for to-night.
Mr. BOOTHBY: I can only say that this question of the Russian market is acknowledged by hon. Members in all parts of the House to be the most vital question in connection with the fishing industry.
Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: On a point of Order. This issue has arisen already during the Debate. In the official figures submitted to the House it has been shown that Russia has been a large commercial factor in this particular industry, and as the resumption of trade with Russia would give a great stimulus to the industry I think that any reference that is made to Russia should be held to be perfectly in order.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The position is this: We have on the Paper for discussion to-night another Motion dealing with general trading relations with Russia, and it would obviously be out of order to anticipate the discussion which might arise on that Motion. At the same time I agree with the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) that before the War Russia was a considerable market for herring, and so long as the discussion is limited to the regaining of the market for herring in Russia it would be in order.
Mr. MACLEAN: But surely that must also include anything which may stand in the way of getting these trading relations renewed to-day?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If hon. Members confine themselves to a suggestion to the Government that it would be very desirable to get trading relations with Russia in order to regain the market for herring in Russia, that would be in order, but hon. Members should not go into the details of trading relations with Russia.
Mr. BOOTHBY: I shall confine myself strictly to the question of the herring market with Russia. I would like the Secretary of State to throw some light on the present state of the negotiations for a trade agreement with Russia. The negotiations have been going on for a very long time and one wonders what is the cause of the interminable delay. There must be some reason. The Members of the Russian delegation have been in this country for weeks conducting negotiations, and I cannot understand the cause of the delay. Either they have come to an agreement or they have not. If they have not, there is no more to be said on the matter at the moment. But I think the Secretary of State might suggest to his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that he hurry up a bit with the negotiations and bring them to a conclusion as soon as possible, one way or the other.
In that connection, I want to say this: If it is difficult to get herring included in the trade agreement I am sure that everyone in the herring-fishing industry would be with me when I say that we would much rather see a trade agreement concluded with Russia without herring being included than have no trade agreement concluded at all. I believe we should be able to get a special trade agreement dealing with herring at a subsequent stage, if we could get a general agreement now. The difficulty the Russians are in at the moment is, I imagine, that they bought 100,0000 barrels on the urgent representations made to them by hon. Members in this House and by our Government last year, and, largely owing to reasons over which the Government have little control, a very short time after we cancelled the trade agreement. It is therefore difficult for the Russian representatives over here to say to their Government "You buy another 100,000 barrels and we shall get concessions." The only concession that they got last year was a breach of the trade agreement.
My suggestion is that a trade agreement covering the general question of reciprocal trading should be signed as quickly as possible, and that subsequent to that, in the course of this coming year and in time for next year's catch, we should negotiate a separate agreement with Russia in relation to herring specifically—a kind of five years plan, if I may
1686
so put it. It is the kind of thing that appeals to the Russian Government. The herring industry, if it got a guaranteed order of even 500,000 barrels per annum—I should like to see it 1,000,000—from the Russian Government for a period of years, could plan accordingly and give the Russian Government its herring at a very reasonable price indeed. I believe the benefit would be mutual if that arrangement could be made. For the life of me I cannot see why in return for that we should not give the Russians an undertaking to take a certain amount of their goods to cover that. I believe it would be possible, with a certain amount of give and take on both sides, to negotiate such an agreement. Surely it is worth while. Unless we get a market back for these herring there is no question about it that this industry is practically going to die. What the Government have to ask themselves is are they prepared to let the herring fishing industry die on the north-east coast of Scotland? The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Grand Fleet depended very largely for its existence in the War on the herring fishermen. You have the testimony of Lord Jellicoe and Lord Beatty on that point. The herring fishermen were vital to us in the War. If ever we come into difficult times again, whether it be war or not, the herring fishermen will be vital to us on the sea. It is in the interests of the nation that these men should be kept going and encouraged, and I beg my right hon. Friend to do everything in his power and quickly to secure that end.
5.8 p.m.
Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) on the luck of the ballot which has enabled him to bring forward this Motion, and I congratulate him also on the full use that he has made of his opportunity. This question or similar questions have been debated on several occasions recently in this House, but perhaps the present time is better than any other because the Scottish boats have returned home to Scotland, and it is now possible to take a more complete survey of the position than was possible on previous occasions. I do not want to go over the same ground as has been traversed by previous speakers. This is a very wide subject and it would be a mistake for anyone to try to repeat what has already been said.

1687
I say, therefore, that I agree with a great deal of what has been said by my hon. Friends who Moved and Seconded this Motion, and by my hon. Friend who has just spoken. If I do not touch upon many of the things that they dealt with it is because I want to make the most of my opportunity to speak.
The first thing I would say it that there are two aspects of this question and that we must distinguish them very clearly. The first aspect is the immediate state of these fishermen, and the second aspect is the future of the industry. Reference has been made to the distress in the north-east of Scotland particularly. But the distress is not confined to the north-east of Scotland or to Scotland as a whole; it is also to be found in England. The Noble Lord the Member for Eastern Norfolk (Viscount Elmley) has many constituents who are as hard hit as any in the north of Scotland.
This is not as local a question as it seems at first sight. The fishermen are in dire distress. I put a question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland last week asking him if he had any official information as to the exact position. He said that he was making inquiries. I wonder whether he has completed his inquiries and whether he will to-day be able to give us some definite information on this point. There is no doubt that the position is worse now than it has been for a generation. We have had a series of bad years and this year is probably the worst of all. The two principal fishings of the year have been utter failures, and the failure has fallen not merely on the fishermen but on the fish curers, who have had quite as bad a time. I was interested to notice that in one village in the north-east of Scotland the fishermen held a meeting and decided to make a direct appeal to the county council for assistance. A year or two ago it would have been much easier to have given that assistance, for the Unemployment Grants Committee was then in existence. The Committee has gone, and now it is difficult to see what can be done.
I wish to stress the fact that two out of three fishermen, that is to say the share fishermen, are outside the scope of the unemployment insurance scheme and
1688
they are the most hardly-hit section of the fishing community. Those who are in receipt of wages are within the scheme. They get something out of the fishing, yet when they go to their homes for the winter they are selected for assistance under that scheme. I submit that there is a case for a direct contribution by the Government to help the share fishermen. It need not be paid over to the men—I am not suggesting that—but it should be paid to harbour authorities and other local authorities who would then be able to do what was done by the Unemployment Grants Committee a year or two ago. In that way, while helping these men directly, we should also be helping them indirectly by providing them with better harbour accommodation.
I am informed, for instance, that harbour dues fall heavily upon them. Would it be beyond the power of the Government to do something in the direction of meeting the debts on these harbours in view of the position to which the fishermen are reduced at the present time? That is a definite proposal which I hope will be considered carefully by the Government. I am sorry to request a subsidy for any industry—very sorry indeed—but it is difficult to find an answer to the fishermen when they ask why it should be so difficult to give a subsidy to an industry of this kind when it is so easy to pay millions to wheat growers and sugar beet growers. Again, nearly all these smaller harbours require dredging and I hope that that circumstance will be taken into account in trying to find a solution of this difficult question.
I now pass to the question of what we are to do in the future to put this industry on its legs and to keep it there. The fault, in the present situation, does not lie with the fisherman. He is very efficient. When we were discussing the Sea Fisheries Act we dealt with that question, and I said then, as I say now, that the work of catching and landing the herring is most efficiently performed. Everyone will agree that the fishermen who can land herring on the quay at the price of ¼d. each is doing his work very well. There can be no complaint on that score. It seems to me that the fisherman cannot do much better than he is doing. Then we come to the question:

1689
What is the cause of the present slump in the industry? If I were to make any criticism at all of the speeches of the Mover and the Seconder it would be that they only glanced at that particular question. My hon. Friend the Mover of the Resolution said something about not making party capital out of this question. I do not want to make party capital out of the interest of the fishermen, but it is no use trying to find a remedy for the disease until we find what the disease is and what has been its cause.
There has been no glut. A number of people seem to think that there has been, and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) fell into the error of supposing that the difficulties of the industry were due to glut. That is not the case. This year has seen what is probably the smallest catch of herring for many years. This year may indeed be a record in that respect for the last generation. It cannot be said that there is a glut unless it is claimed that a glut exists where two herring are available and only one is required. In that sense there is a glut, but there is no glut in the generally accepted sense because the catch has been less this year than it is in normal years. The fact remains that this is an export industry, and it is suffering, like export industries all over the world, from the new economic theories of economic nationalism that are being propounded everywhere, and the attempts of each country to do its own work for itself without the assistance of others.
It must be understood that although the fishing industry has fallen on evil days since the War, that did not happen immediately after the War. We have been told quite correctly that before the War the export of herring was something like 2,500,000 barrels, but the average for the years 1927, 1928 and 1929 was still 1,700,000. The great slump has occurred since that time, which shows that there has been some factor at work other than the normal post-War factors which have been responsible for the decline of so many industries. We cannot control the actions of other countries. If other countries keep out our goods, probably we cannot do much to prevent them. But we can control our own actions, and my complaint is that we have not followed
1690
the interests of an industry of this kind in our dealings with other countries, especially Russia.
I have discussed this question over and over again with leaders in the herring fishing industry and every one is agreed that there is no hope of this industry recovering its pre-War position unless it recovers fully the great Russian market. The Scottish Fishery Board point out in one of their reports that it is estimated that Russia could absorb all the herring that this country is capable of providing. Last year we were discussing the confirmation of the Ottawa Agreements. I knew that those agreements—realising as I did that they were precursors of the denunciation of the trade agreement with Russia—were bound to be disastrous to this industry. I said so from my place in this House, to the annoyance of some Members on the Front Bench and everything that I said then has come true. I suggest that the position of the industry to-day is largely the result of the economic policy which the Government are pursuing.
I do not suggest that these economic agreements cannot do any good to the industry. I hope that in this case they may do some good, but, so far, that policy has been very unsuccessful in relation to the industry. Such agreements as have been made have been with the smaller Baltic States, which for this purpose are of less importance than other countries. There are three great countries which are of vital importance in this respect. There is Germany, and I cannot agree with the Mover of the Motion that the German market has gone. If that were so, the position would be even worse than I take it to be. We are unfortunately likely to lose a considerable part of that market and, if we do, it will be the direct result of German retaliation for our own measures. We made an agreement of a kind with Germany but it did not touch this industry. We were told that the agreement was provisional and that the question of herring and other things like that, would be considered later. I should like to know when the supplementary or final agreement is to be reached.
Then there is Poland, a very large and important market. What are the possibilities of an agreement with Poland? The fishing industry ought to have some

1691
idea in advance of what the Government are doing in this respect. I agree with the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby) that some notice must be given and in particular I agree with what he said about Russia, that you cannot remain in friendly commercial relations with a country unless you are going to treat that country decently. Some of the propaganda in this country against Russia is, to say the least of it, not calculated to help our fellow citizens whose livelihood depends upon proper relations with that country. I hope that something will be done very soon to bring to an end the present difficult situation. If the Government kept out of it, that would be much better than the present situation. Two years ago we had a position very similar to this and representatives of the trade went to the Russians to negotiate agreements about sale. They were very successful and they were able to induce Russia to buy 136,000 barrels in the following year. Then the denunciation of the trade agreement altered the whole situation, as I knew it would, and not a barrel has been bought by Russia since. That is a position which cannot be allowed to continue if these fishermen are to have any chance at all. I hope, therefore, that the Government will get a move on to terminate it and that they will at any rate give the fishermen some idea as to whether anything is likely to be done to help them, along those lines.
I am satisfied that something could be done by the Government in the direction of getting new markets. The same suggestion has been made by the Scottish Fisheries Board. Is there any reason why the Government should not instruct all our consular offices in countries likely to be importers of herring, with a view-to discovering the possibility of securing markets in those countries and also drawing the attention of the communities in those countries to the value of herring? In such countries as China and Japan and in the Argentine there is a possibility of markets being found. It is true that salt herring are only likely to get a market in the colder countries, but there are many places where a market might very well be found, and as I have said the Scottish Fisheries Board also take that view.
This Motion has been debated as if it were mainly a herring question, but it
1692
is not, and the fishermen in Scotland who fish for herring mainly, fish also for other things. The fact that they fish mainly for herring has been due to circumstances beyond their control to a very large extent. The competition of trawlers in the past has driven them from being white fish fishermen to concentrate largely on herring, and I think they would be well advised if these herring fishermen tended to go back again to white fishing. Any step that the Government or any other agency can take to improve the white fishing will likely be of very great benefit to them. I know that a speaker who simply criticises and does not put up some sort of constructive proposal is liable to be criticised himself. I should not like to think that I could not suggest anything that could be done to help these fishermen, and I have already made some suggestions, but I should like to draw the attention of the House and the Government to a remarkable statement that was made in a Scottish Fishery Board report since the War, which gives one an idea of what could be done to develop the fishing in Scotland. It says:
"No serious attempt has been made to develop the valuable inshore fisheries which exist along the coast, particularly on the West coast and in the islands. They are undoubtedly deserving of greater attention than has hitherto been bestowed upon them, not only as a source of livelihood for the people, but also as a potential nursery for the nation."
I am certain that all that is true. Later on, the board say:
"A great deal of valuable information as to the pre-war position of the industry on the west coast was collected by a committee of the Board in 1914, and this is available in the event of its being decided to adopt definite action."
That means that the Scottish fishery Board, after being 40 years in existence, felt that it had not been able to do what it wanted to do, and that the fisheries that it was appointed to develop had not been developed. It had its plans there, but the Government—not this Government alone, but several other Governments as well—had failed to give it support in carrying out the policy which it was prepared to put before them and the details of which were all ready. I do not pretend to be a practical expert in the fishing industry, but I know something about the North of Scotland particularly and the fishing there, and I am profoundly convinced that this is true

1693
and that a great deal more could be done there than has been done; and the present Government, I believe, have a very great opportunity to tackle this question.
I noticed the other day that there was a dinner of the trawl-owners in Hull, and there was a very prominent Aberdeen trawl-owner there who was criticising the Secretary of State for Scotland as to the proposals that he is going to make in a new Bill. He said that there were fishing grounds round about the Hebrides in Scotland that were lying waste. I believe that that is true, that they are lying waste, and although I expect to be able to support my right hon. Friend when he brings in his Bill dealing with trawling, I would warn him that a Bill which is merely going to impose greater penalties on trawlers or to prevent them going in for illegal trawling, while it might be very desirable, is not the development of the fishing, and that there is a great deal more to be done than that. Let us not run away with the idea that an anti-trawling Bill is going to have a very great effect upon the fishing industry, and let us not exaggerate its importance.
Why is it that this part of the world is not doing as well as it ought? Why are the fisheries not developed? It is largely because there are not the means, as Sir Andrew Lewis said at the dinner which I have mentioned, of preserving and transporting the fish, and that it was no use having fine fisheries away there if there were not the means of bringing the fish to the market where people were likely to buy them. I would strongly suggest that the Government should consider whether it would not be worth while setting up in certain centres kilns for smoking the fish, and also in the bigger centres—this also has been recommended by the Fishery Board—cold storage places, so that, in cases of emergency, when there is a glut, as there often is, the fishermen would know that in those places they could have somewhere to put the fish without having to dump it back. There are other suggestions of that kind which the Fishery Board themselves have put before the Government, and all that I would ask in this connection is that the Government should carry out the advice of their own advisers.
1694
My hon. Friend who preceded me also said something about the home market, and I agree with what he said about the snobbishness of those who do not eat herring. Scientists have told us that pound for pound the herring is the most nutritious of all fish; it is also probably the cheapest and the best. It is also a very perishable fish, and it requires very careful marketing. The marketing is beyond the control of the fishermen, but it is very bad, and I would like to suggest means whereby this part of the business could be improved. I sometimes, for instance, eat a kipper in London, and often I eat a kipper in the North of Scotland. When I eat it in the North of Scotland, it is always good, but when I eat it in London I sometimes start to eat it and then stop and say, "I will not touch it," the reason being, of course, that many of the shops that sell kippers in London keep them far too long. I would suggest for the consideration of fish-curers that they should put on their boxes a mark saying when the fish was caught, and telling people that if they do not eat it before a certain time they will not be responsible for it. If the fish-curers would adopt some such means as that, they would ensure that those who eat kippers would always get them good, and if they could always be sure of getting them good, I am certain that the consumption would go up by leaps and bounds.
Another aspect of marketing is this, and it is a question that I have put to the right hon. Gentleman and his friends before. I am certain that the inshore fishermen particularly do not get a square deal in the selling of their fish. If you go to Hull, or Grimsby, or Aberdeen, you will find that the people who are selling their fish there are very often large combinations, with big capital, who are able to look after themselves. They are able to control the marketing and the sales, and if the market is not very good, they are able to keep the fish back until it is better. But with a small fisherman or fish-curer in the North of Scotland, it is different. The fish is landed in a small port, it is sent off to market, and it has to be sold there and then at whatever price it may bring. Very often also, as I have told my right hon. Friend, the salesman buys from himself. The chief salesmen in many important markets are

1695
buying while they are selling, and I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should turn his attention to this matter and see whether it is possible to put a stop to the practice of men buying and selling at the same time. If he cannot do that, then the inshore fisherman is bound to be at the mercy of the salesman, and even any good steps that might be taken in another direction might be nullified by failure in this respect.
The Sea Fish Commission has been mentioned. When the Sea-Fishing Industry Bill was going through, I suggested that this Commission was unnecessary, and I am bound to say that I am not more inclined to think differently now, in view of the fact that it is four months since this Act received the Royal Assent, and this Sea Fish Commission, which we are told to expect so much from, has not yet been set up. I hope the Government will get a move on in that way, will get this Commission appointed, and will set it some work to do. There are a number of other matters which I have not the time to develop. There is the North Sea Convention, which requires overhauling. By the Sea-Fishing Industry Act we laid down the size of fish and the size of nets, and they were very good provisions indeed, but they are likely to be largely stultified by the fact that they are only applying to our own country, and I hope the Government will accept very soon the invitation that they have received from the Dutch Government to a conference to overhaul the whole of that Convention. I also hope to see very soon an international conference going into the question of territorial waters, so that we may have a standard interpretation of what is meant by territorial waters.
Lastly, I agree with what was said by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen about the necessity of the Government turning their attention to the question of the replacement of boats. Last year, according to the Scottish Fishery Board, the average age of Scottish drifters was 23 years, which shows that the great majority of them are really worn out. In view of the circumstances of the industry, circumstances beyond the control of the industry, I am afraid it will be impossible to expect the industry to re-equip itself without Government assistance, and I hope, therefore, that they will very soon
1696
address themselves to this question and see whether they cannot help them to get new boats. I am sorry I have taken so long, but there are many other points that I should have dealt with had time permitted. I hope that the Government, as I am sure they do, realise the seriousness of the position in which these fishermen are and that they will not only give them sympathy but some tangible assistance.
5.45 p.m.
Viscount ELMLEY: I would like to congratulate my two hon Friends upon the very comprehensive way in which they have brought this important matter forward. Representing the Division adjoining that of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Harbord), I can fully endorse the tribute he paid to the many great qualities of fishermen. Perhaps the two which strike me most are their strong sturdy individualistic outlook, and their very great kindliness. Anxious as we all are that the herring industry may prosper, we must recognise that in assisting it His Majesty's Government have a more difficult task than they had when they passed the Sea-Fishing Act to assist the other section of the industry, if only because three-quarters of the herring caught are sold abroad, only one-quarter are sold in this country; in the white fishing industry these figures are exactly reversed. On top of that, the herring-fishing industry has an even greater element of luck in it than the other section. For instance, two boats may put out their fishing nets in almost the same place, one will do very well and the other will do badly. We had the unfortunate occurrence on several occasions at Yarmouth this year when herring that were expected did not appear, and, when they did appear, so many came that nets, which cost a good deal of money, were destroyed.
Hon. Members have emphasised that markets are the kernel of this problem and of supreme importance, and that if new ones are not opened or the present one expanded, most drastic curtailments will have to be made. I would like to put forward two suggestions with regard to the home markets. Hon. Gentlemen will be familiar with those excellent institutions run by the Navy, Army and Air Force Institute. Wherever soldiers, sailors or airmen are stationed, one of

1697
their canteens is found, and I think it would be very good if the appropriate Department or the industry itself could insure that every one of those canteens sold herring. I understand that they do not do so now. As one who has to spend a good deal of time in the Midlands, I find it impossible to get fresh herring. Surely in these days of fast freight trains and motor lorries it ought to be possible to send fresh herring over a far greater area than is done at present. When Germany was buying herring from us a great number of fresh herring were covered in ice and then put on board a German boat, arriving in Germany two days later. If that can be done, it should be easy to have a supply of fresh herring available in the Midlands. It seems to me, as my hon. Friend opposite mentioned, that it should be possible also to do something in the Argentine. Up-to-date refrigerating ships run between this country and the Argentine bringing meat, and it should be possible for them to take back herring as part of their return cargo.
I have here some interesting figures which I should like to give to the House, if it will bear with me, for they speak louder than any words as to what is happening in the industry. Comparing 1913 with the present year, the number of drifters has gone down from 1,600 to 1,000, and the average age of the fleet has gone up from 10 years to 25 years. As things are going on, they will be getting older and older and will cost more money to run. The running expenses have gone up from £24 per week to £34, and the cost of the gear and its maintenance and insurance has gone up from £19 to £35. The number of tons of coal consumed has unfortunately dropped from 525,000 tons to 220,000 tons. That, of course, is largely due to the reduced catches, for every year since the War fewer fish have been caught. In that time the average price of coal has gone up from £1 0s. 6d. to £1 10s. per ton. The actual catch has gone down from 1,447,000 crans in East Anglia to 474,000, which is a very appreciable drop, and the average amount caught by each boat has gone down from 1,700 to 934 crans. That cannot fail to have an effect upon the earnings. These have gone down per boat from £2,385 to £1,490, and for the week the amount has gone down from £79 to £68. The crews have been reduced in East Anglia from 2,000 to
1698
1,000. Similar reductions are shown in the industries dependent on herring fishing, such as the coopers, the numbers of whom have gone down from 1,000 to 500.
These figures show eloquently the way in which the industry is going, and I do not like to think what the logical end of it will be. During this year we have been grateful for the information which has been given about the industry by the British Broadcasting Company. They have given helpful bulletins during the season, and lectures have been given by those competent to do so. We have also had a great deal of useful information in the Press, though my one criticism would be of the tendency in certain sections of the Press to put in photographs only of the very good-looking girls who come down from my hon. Friend's Division in Scotland during October and November to beautify the towns of Yarmouth and Lowestoft and the surrounding country. It should be borne in mind that they are not the only people in the industry, and that half-a-dozen other sections are engaged in it besides them.
With regard to the future, a great deal has already been said about the Russian trade agreement, and it has been emphasised that Russia took three-quarters of our herring before the War. Since then the unusual position has arisen that there are no such people as traders in Russia, and we can only negotiate with the Government, so that if the Government decide not to buy our herring there is unfortunately nobody else in the country who can have any say in the matter. That is a state of things which we do not want in this country or anywhere else. I have been told by those competent to know that they do not particularly mind by what method Russia buys her herring, whether it is a guaranteed number of barrels in a year or the purchase of a guaranteed value of herring, and they hope that it will be possible for Russia to buy from producers in the ordinary way. Various suggestions have been put forward this afternoon as to what would be a suitable quantity and price, but my feeling is that it would be of greater value if we could arrange for 250,000 barrels to be bought at a price of 28s., f.o.b., and I hope that in the meantime the other

1699
markets which we have will improve. The feeling in the trade is that they do not want a subsidy. They would far sooner be independent of that, and they very much hope that some arrangement of the kind I have mentioned can be made.
With regard to the trade agreements which have been made, the only thing that people wish about them is that they went a bit farther. It is true, for instance, that as a result of the Finnish agreement, Finland is taking 8,000 barrels, which is worth about £10,000. We are sending this quantity to Finland at a reduced rate of duty. It is obvious, of course, that that amount is a mere drop in the bucket, and does not get us very much further. I hope that it will be possible to enlarge this and other markets in future. Luckily, we have an open door to Esthonia, and it is expected that in a few years, when the economic conditions there improve, that market will very much expand. I am informed that there is a certain difficulty with regard to Latvia. There is a body known as the Exchange Commission, and people who are sending part of the 60,000 barrels laid down in the agreement with that country are having great difficulty in getting payment as a result of the operations of that commission. I ask the Government to get in touch with His Majesty's representative in Riga and to see if the difficulty can be smoothed out.
The position with regard to Poland has been mentioned. There, of course, the general economic conditions are very bad, with the result that our trade has been very hardly hit. Their Dutch subsidies also hit our trade. At this moment there are Dutch crews fishing in the North Sea with, perhaps, one Polish member among them, very heavily subsidised by the Dutch and Polish Governments, and their catches are landed duty free at the Polish Baltic port of Gdynia. That is equivalent to an advantage of 20s. a barrel. I hope it may be possible for His Majesty's Government to press for similar advantages for our own herring, and even to consider whether we could not in exchange buy such commodities as timber and salt.
Unfortunately, there is a very melancholy story as regards Germany. It
1700
was most unfortunate that herring were left out of the trade agreement which was made. I suppose it was inevitable that the duty on herring should be increased as the result of going off the Gold Standard, but the fact that it has been actually trebled, having gone up from 3 marks to 9 marks a barrel, has led to a good deal of buying from their own fleet on the part of Germany. On the top of that exchange conditions in Germany are forcing importers in the interior who for 100 years or more bought herring from British firms to purchase them now from German firms only. As to one other country, Lithuania, there, I understand, the condition of things is very much better and is, indeed, quite healthy. My point in mentioning the position as regards these countries has been to show that something more is required than has already been done under existing trade agreements.
The question of rationalisation has been mentioned. That is bound to come if markets improve, because with improving prospects old vessels will be scrapped and owners will go in for absolutely up-to-date boats, probably with Diesel engines, though I understand there are certain difficulties at present which prevent the Diesel engine from being generally adopted. I believe it cannot be operated quite so well as the steam engine. I would ask the Minister who is to reply to be good enough to say a word about the research station at Lowestoft, because I have recently met quite a number of people who think that station ought to be abolished and that it costs too much money. I do not believe that at all. I have had the privilege of seeing what is done at that station and I think it does a very valuable work in studying the habits not only of the herring but of all kinds of other fish, and all sorts of problems relating to the industry. It would be of assistance if the Minister would say briefly just what this research station is doing. Another year like the one we have just had will be a serious matter and inflict a great deal of damage on this most important and useful industry. I ask the Government to do their utmost to prevent the harm going any further than it has, and to assist those who
"go down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters."
6.4 p.m.
Sir IAN MACPHERSON: I would like to reinforce the arguments which were advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Banffshire (Sir M. Wood) and to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) on his good luck in the ballot and his wisdom in introducing this subject. The occasion is a convenient and a very suitable one, because we are all assured that the Scottish Office and the Fishery Board are sincerely anxious to do something for the fishing industry. It was a great relief to many of us to find that the Gracious Speech from the Throne contained a special reference to fishing. It is a very long time since there was any such reference to this very hard-hit industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Banffshire drew attention to the report of 1918, one of the most valuable reports ever presented to this House, containing a great deal of wisdom and the results of much research, which the Scottish Office would do well to consider at the present time. We are all convinced that something has to be done for this industry. Like other hon. Members I visited my constituency in the Recess, and, as special complaints were being made about illegal trawling, naturally I had a great many deputations and visits from my constituents. I am glad the Government are going to take action with regard to illegal trawling, but at the same time I would reinforce the statement that, although that will be a very good thing in itself, its effect on the fishing industry as a whole will be negligible.
While we are determined to have illegal trawling prevented, we must look at the positive side of this matter, the rehabilitation of the industry and its development, which were the things emphasised in the report of 1918. My hon. Friend who drew attention to the report pointed out some things that might be done. It is now nearly 25 years since I first stood for my constituency, and I can take my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to certain parts of that constituency, on the west coast, where there used to be 25 fishing boats in one little harbour but where to-day he would find only one. Two reasons for that state of affairs are put forward: one is illegal trawling and the other is that no scientific assistance in the matter of development has been forthcoming from
1702
the Government. A very useful thing which the Development Commission could do would be to institute a set of motor fishing boats for the various ports on the west and the east of Scotland and give training to fishermen there in new methods of gaining a livelihood.
The depopulation of the Highlands as we see it going on to-day is a crying shame. We are losing the very best stock in the country—a silent, heroic people. I am sure that when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited the North in the Recess he must have been deeply impressed, first, by the depopulation and, secondly, by the extraordinarily fine stock he came across in the various villages on the West Coast. I am sure it is the wish of the House of Commons, irrespective of party, that that stock should be maintained. I will not recall now what those men did in the late War, but every one who has written of the War from a naval or a military point of view has been definite about this fact, that the country owes more than can ever be estimated to the stock which for centuries has existed in that part of the country. My hon. Friend the Member for East Fife made an appeal that some of the fishing areas in Scotland should be regarded in the same light as distressed areas in the South, and I am also strongly of that opinion. The fishing industry has been very badly hit, and all that is asked at the present is that a temporary loan or grant should be given to these particularly distressed areas. I am sure my right hon. Friend will pay attention to this request, because, as far as I can gather, it has been put forward by every member for a Scottish constituency who has spoken up to the present.
In dealing with the industry as a whole one cannot neglect the marketing problem. I am not going into the very difficult questions arising out of the economic situation, because I do not think this is a time to argue about the economic difficulties. We are certain of one thing—that it is the unanimous wish of the entire fishing industry that we should be open to a free and untrammelled trade with Russia. Russia used to be our very best market and long before there was any question of import duties it was consistently the view of Scottish Members of Parliament and of all those engaged in the industry that any Government would be wise to keep that market as open as

1703
possible. Of course the same considerations apply to Poland and other countries. At a time when we are bargaining—and quite rightly so—whether the bargains are to be bilateral or multilateral, the Secretary of State ought to impress upon his colleagues in the Cabinet who are more directly concerned in that bargaining the desirability, and, indeed, the necessity, of remembering this hard-hit industry of fishing.
There are one or two other small points I wish to raise. I hope that when the negotiations are going on the Government will not forget the Moray Firth problem, a matter which is making the fisher people on the coast of the Moray Firth sick at heart. It is a gross international injustice. We feel strongly that the Moray Firth question ought to be settled. We know it is an international issue. Every other country is defying international law. We are not built in that way, we do not wish to defy any law, but our Government ought to use every effort to give our own people the same rights as are enjoyed by foreigners in this particular area. My right hon. Friend has had a great many deputations about the seine net. That is a newer problem than the question of illegal trawling, but expert fishermen tell me that, in the Cromarty district particularly, the seine net problem is just as bad as the illegal trawling problem. As one of the older Scottish Members who has listened to many Debates on fishing I would remind the Government that, whatever may have happened in the past, on this occasion every Member, whether Liberal or Conservative, or a supporter of the National Government or in Opposition, has emphasised his determination that something must be done for this industry, something not only on the lines of dealing with unemployment but on the larger Imperial lines, because this country is dependent, in the ultimate resort, on the quality of its fisher stock. I beg my right hon. Friend to press upon the Government to remember the necessity of rehabilitating this industry first in the interests of employment and population and, secondly, in the interests of the country and the Empire as a whole, because among no section of the population has so much silent heroism been displayed not only in war but in peace.
6.15 p.m.
Captain McEWEN: I wish only to raise a few small points. Most of the larger ones, and of the smaller ones, too, have been very fully dealt with in the Debate. In the first place, I would join with other hon. Members in thanking and congratulating the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) for having brought this highly important question before the House, and for the very interesting speech which he made in expounding it.
My first point is in regard to illegal trawling. I have the honour to represent a constituency which has a very long coast-line, and one of the questions which is most persistent there, and has been so for many more years than I have been acquainted with the division, has been that of illegal trawling within the three-mile limit. Without raising the question of an extension of that limit, I would ask what appears to be a very simple question, and that is, why not, if cheapness is the object, augment the policing of this coast by seaplane? Seaplanes are not very expensive, and they would be invaluable. They patrol at irregular hours and, as I think is generally agreed by those who live along our coats, they could be of the greatest possible assistance. I notice that, whenever this question of illegal trawling comes; up, hon. Members who sit for divisions which are interested in trawling have an expression on their faces not merely of indifference but perhaps also of derision. I cannot see why they should object if a Bill, as I hope may be the case, is to be brought in on the lines of that which was introduced as a Private Member's Bill by the late Sir James Duncan Millar, whose object was to increase the penalties and to extend protection. The only thing that we would seek to do would be to catch the man who is breaking the existing law; nothing more and nothing less. I do not see why hon. Members, or others who are interested in the trawling industry, which is very great and important, should object to a Measure of that kind.
The next question, which was mentioned by the hon. Member who proposed the Resolution, is that regarding the "Brenda," the ship the duty of which is to patrol a stretch of coast from Berwick to Aberdeen. Anyone who visualises the length and the importance, so far as fishing is concerned, of that coast, will see immediately that it is an undesirably

1705
lengthy feat for any one vessel to undertake. Short of seaplane assistance, I would certainly suggest that a sister ship should be added to complement the efforts of the "Brenda." I hope that some notice may be taken of the suggestion. So much for the "Brenda," of which we in Berwick and East Lothian hear so much and see so extraordinarily little. The question was raised in the course of this Debate of assistance being given to harbours. Many harbours in my division, of which Eyemouth is one, are in dire need of assistance. If any assistance is to be given to harbours in general in Scotland, I trust that the highly-important town of Eyemouth will not be overlooked.
There is only one other small point, and it has been mentioned by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby). I think that he struck the nail on the head when he said, speaking of the consumption of herring in this country, that a snobbish element entered into the matter. That is true, but I would go further than that and say that there are two points against the consumption of herring. One is that a great number of people are living in flats, and, unfortunately, the cooking of a herring, which is a most excellent thing, produces a very penetrating and permeating smell, and other people in the building are made aware of the fact that the particular individual is having a "herring to her supper," as we say in Scotland. That fact is, I am sure, a deterrent, odd as that may appear, to the more general use of the herring as a food. If any clever person could devise a patent machine, whereby the smell of the cooking of a herring could be diminished, or otherwise disposed of, he would be helping a great deal towards the popularising of this neglected fish. The other point is that people are put off by a certain complication in the herring's bony structure. Those of us who, as Scotsmen, have been brought up on herring, can very easily assure those who might be put off by this at first sight, that it is a very simple objection to overcome.
I should like to say a word or two with regard to the Russian market. The hon. Member for Banffshire (Sir M. Wood) said, in the course of his speech, that we could not carry on commercial relations with a country unless we treated it
1706
decently; up to a point, I quite agree, but "decently" rather begs the point at issue. Is it right to assume that it is entirely our fault, the whole time, that an agreement has not already been reached? We have heard this afternoon about a "tortuous policy," in regard to this agreement. Is that tortuous policy entirely on one side, and entirely on our side? I do not believe it. It is possible to regard trade with Russia generally—as, indeed, I confess that I regard it—as a necessity, but a regrettable one. Hon. Members have stated that you must, if you trade, also have friendship. I do not necessarily agree. It is perfectly possible to buy a pound of tobacco without embracing the tobacconist.
The two things are entirely distinct. One can have correct diplomatic relations and trade, by all means, but it is not necessary to go into the finer elements of a deep and abiding friendship. I would point out to the hon. Member for Banffshire that yesterday, at Question Time, figures were brought forward by the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, showing that Russia, during the last few months, has been buying articles of every description from this country. That she has not also bought herring is entirely, so far as one can see, her own fault. I leave this highly important question of the fishing industry and its troubles, with confidence and indeed a certain hope, in the hands—I believe the sympathetic hands—of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland, and his colleagues.
6.26 p.m.
VisCountess ASTOR:This has been a most interesting Debate, and we are grateful to the hon. Member who brought the matter forward. Fishing debates are always the same in the House of Commons. For 15 years I have attended these fishing debates, and there is always something hopeful and comforting about them. Hon. Members seem to co-operate with one another, and party prejudice is cast aside while we who represent fishing constituencies make our plea to the Government of the day. I do not suppose that there is any industry in the whole of the British Isles that has been so—we might almost say wilfully— neglected as the fishing industry. I remember, after the War, when the Government got that very able report which has

1707
been referred to to-day, that some of us went to the Government and told them about what Belgium was doing. Belgium had made plans, half by subsidies and half by private enterprise, for the reorganisation of her fishing industry. The Belgian fishing industry was put on its feet. They were keen competitors against us, but the Government of the day would do nothing, and seemed completely blind to what could be done.
This is the only Government that has ever paid the slightest attention to the question of fishing. We are grateful to the Government for what they have done, and hope that they will do a little more. I want to suggest that if the Government were to expend, upon research and reorganisation in the fishing industry, one quarter of what they have spent on sugar beet, for instance, they would get the commendation of the whole country. We can do without sugar-beet growers—they are no doubt very nice and kindly people—because we are not dependent upon them, as we are upon the fishermen. I hope that all hon. Members who represent fishing constituencies will keep on pressing the Government to pay attention to us as well as to the beet sugar industry.
One hon. Member spoke about the research station at Lowestoft and said that he had heard that they were spending too much. It was rather wasteful, he thought, but it was good. I want to bring to the notice of the House—not because my constituency is in Plymouth— the fact that at Plymouth we have a very remarkable man at the head of the biological research station, Professor Allen. Many years ago, when Lord Balfour came to Plymouth, I asked him whom he would like to meet. He replied, "I would like to meet Professor Allen." He is one of the most remarkable men in the world. He is so remarkable that he gets tributes from all over the world. Russia has sent students, and we have had American students. Professor Allen is well known throughout the world. If the Government could spend a little more upon helping the research of Professor Allen, I am certain that the money would be well invested. Very few people outside biological research circles know very much about Professor Allen, but inside they all know about him. Whenever you talk to
1708
him, he gives you a most intelligent and scientific way of dealing with the fishing problem. In listening to fishing Debates here, I feel how much clearer his mind is on the subject than the minds of hon. Members who represent fishing constituencies. If Lowestoft is not doing all that it could, I beg the Government just to look at the Plymouth research station, for they will find that they could do with a great deal more work of that kind, and it would be to the great advantage of the country. I must say that the Sea Fishing Industry Bill has helped us a great deal in the West country. It has stopped the glut of fish from Bear Island, and the increase of ½d. a pound throughout the country has certainly helped the fishing industry. Moreover, our trade agreements and quotas have helped the trade with foreign lands to a certain extent, and without putting up the prices of fish.
I hope that the Government will take note of what has been said by every Member of the House who has spoken in this Debate. They are in a position now to snap their fingers at the type of man who does not want trade with Russia. If they will only look at the by-election results, they will see that, no matter what the people want, they do not want die-hard Tories. I say that with great feeling, because the two people that I have had to fight most, ever since I entered public life, have been the Socialist and the die-hard Tory. They are so alike; there is no difference between them; they are both as blind as bats. I often laugh when I hear people say they object to a trade agreement with Russia because they want to fight the Communists. It is because we do not want Communism that we want freer trade with the whole world, and the more we can trade with Russia the better it will be for us. The Russians, however, are now catching their own herrings, and, moreover, the Russians are not eating as much as they did before the War, so that there are complications on that account. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are slimming!"] It is not voluntary slimming; it is the kind of slimming that we should have here if Socialism went to its logical conclusion. If Socialism went to its logical conclusion, we should all be a little slimmer than we are. However, I do not want to quarrel about that, be-

1709
cause this is almost the only subject that I know of on which people want to cooperate.
An hon. Member talked about there being a great deal of political prejudice in the country, and he is perfectly right. In this House every day we pray to be delivered from pride, prejudice and partial affection; we say our prayer and then we get out. I have no prejudice even against the Russian form of government. If the Russian people want it, let them have it. I do not mind, though I should not like it myself; but I want to trade with them, or with anybody, if it will help the industries of this country. As hon. Members know, I used to be shouted down when I said a word in favour of trading with Russia, but I want to trade with Russia because I am anti-Communistic. If I wanted Communism, I would stop trading with Russia, I would stop trading with all countries, so that we should be left to live on our tails in the way that some die-hards seem to think England can—to eat ourselves in and out. That idea, however, is dying clown; those people have not a leg to stand on; let hon. Members try it in their constituencies.
Do not the Government think it is about time that, in their trade reorganisation, they had someone to deal entirely with fisheries—an Under-Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture whose whole job would be to deal with fisheries? I do not believe it is possible in any other way to deal properly with such a very large and complicated subject, which has to be so scientifically handled. The Ministry have already provided an expert committee to deal with the question of marketing, and I should like to remind the Government that the other day there was held in London a large conference called by the Transport and General Workers' Union, at which Plymouth was well represented. That conference considered the need for a marketing scheme, and called for representation of fishermen and shore workers on any board that might be set up. I hope that when a marketing board is set up it will include fishermen of practical experience. The conference also called for a national body to regulate fishermen's wages and conditions, and for the inclusion of fishermen in National Health, Unemployment and Workmen's Compensation legislation.
1710
The sooner we can include fishermen in National Health, Unemployment and Workmen's Compensation insurance, and the more we can do for our fishermen in every way, the better it will be for the country.
One reason why fishermen have been so neglected is that they are not politically minded. They are too big and broad for such things as party and political prejudices. If they had been more politically minded, I think that probably the House of Commons would have paid more attention to them. But it always seems to me to show a lack of noblesse oblige not to pay attention to people who are not politically organised. I should like to feel that the Government would look after those who are least able to look after themselves. Certainly up to the present they have never been able to do it, and I think that that is why so many Members who represent fishing constituencies feel so keenly on the subject, and seize every chance they can get to beg the Government to do more for the fishermen. I know it will be difficult. They do not want to be subsidised in a direct way, but the whole industry needs to be in some way subsidised, so to speak, to be reorganised and scientifically controlled. I know that the Minister of Agriculture means to do his best, but we recognise that it is not possible for him to do it all, and we beg of him and the Government to consider appointing, say, an Under-Secretary for Fisheries under the Minister of Agriculture, for the purpose of dealing solely with the fishing industry.
References have been made to herring. I have always found that, if you give your guests or your family good fresh herrings with mustard sauce, they love it, and I do not know why people are so snobbish about herring. Why be class-conscious about herring? Surely, all of us are proud to have herring on the table, and, even if they do smell, most of us like the smell of herring. It is all very well to talk about flats. I have a large house in London—the house is in St. James's Square and the kitchen is in Piccadilly; but every time I enter the house I smell cooking, so it is not only people who live in small places that have to put up with the smell of cooking.
I think the Government ought to have a real policy of "Eat more herring and

1711
drink more milk." After all, you cannot go round London without seeing enormous signs: "Guinness is good for you"; but what have the Government done? They have given them £14,000,000 to show that Guinness is good for you. They need not turn up their noses at a practical proposition. Surely they could use some of this money for an advertising campaign on these lines: "Herrings are good for you. Milk is good for you. East more fish. Eat more herrings." I do not want to make a joke of this, but there is a great deal more that the Government could do for the fishing industry. Surely, there are no men more courageous, more independent, and more creditable to the country than its fishermen, and there are no people more courageous than their wives. You have only to live among them to realise that they have qualities that are badly needed in this country to-day, and we cannot afford to let them die out. It will, however, become a dying industry unless the Government do more for it. I do not want merely to blame the present Government, because they have done more than any other Government. This is the first Government that has ever attempted to do anything for the fishing industry—
Sir M. WOOD: We gave them a guarantee.
Viscountess ASTOR: Yes, but it was so badly administered that it was of no use. I was glad to hear, when reference was made to a quota and marketing scheme, a Liberal Member say, "Hear, hear." That is a good sign. If the Government will go forward and help the fishing industry even more, they will have the whole country behind them, and it might have the happy effect of causing our Liberal friends to cross over once more and join the happy band of National Members who are behind the Government through thick and thin; but we would like them to be a little thicker about the fishing industry and a little thinner about beer.
6.42 p.m.
Mr. N. MACLEAN: When the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) talked about what was being demanded by the Conference summoned by the Transport and General Workers' Union, she at least
1712
indicated that she took some interest in the proposals put forward by the workers of the country.
Viscountess ASTOR: I represent them.
Mr. MACLEAN: I did not say that the Noble Lady did not; I said she represented one of the Divisions of Plymouth. Therefore, I do not require to be corrected. The Noble Lady represents them very well—
Viscountess ASTOR: Thank you.
Mr. MACLEAN:—and very volubly. The demands put forward by that Conference are demands which I think could very well be made in respect of other industries. The conditions of representation asked for in the fishing industry might be included in a scheme such as was adumbrated by the hon. Member who introduced this Motion to-day, and whom, I think, we ought to congratulate on his selection of a subject when he was successful in the ballot. While this has been mainly a Scottish Debate, it also affects England, as was shown by the last speech and by one or two other speeches during the afternoon. Evidently the purpose of the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) was more particularly to call attention to the parlous condition, not of the fishing industry as a whole, but of the herring side of the industry. I agree with all that he said.
In Scotland the industry is in a very distressed condition. There is not a fishing village or town round the coast of Scotland that is other than a distressed area. I spent a considerable part of my life going round the coast towns of Scotland in connection with my own vocation, and in particular I know the fishing villages and towns along the Moray Firth from one end to the other. I have seen those towns prosper. I have seen drifters going out from those towns owned by the men—men who looked upon themselves as thrifty, men who looked upon themselves as individuals, and who could not only look the world in the face, but, when the fleet returned home from the fishing grounds, could meet their debts with the tradesmen who had provided the food and other things which are necessary for a vessel going upon its voyage. To-day no one can say that. The men are dispirited and the women are in despair. There is practically little outlook for the children, who were looked

1713
upon as being capable of following the industry of their parents. It is true, as the Noble Lady has said, that fishermen are not represented by fishermen in this House, but it is not true to say they have not had their circumstances, their conditions and their interests voiced. They have been voiced from time to time by Members whose constituents include fishermen, and they have advocated their rights and interests as sincerely and honestly as those of any other section of their constituents.
The truth is that Parliaments in the past have looked more upon the farming section of the community as the section that ought to be considered when financial or legislative support was to be given, and the farming element to-day is obtaining more from the House of Commons both in favourable legislation and in financial support than any other industry. The hon. Member for East Fife spoke of the subsidies that they are receiving. They came to the House pleading poverty and the approach of bankruptcy and asking for support, and financial support was given them. They will receive from all sources £12,000,000 in the present year. What benefit has accrued to the country from that? The farmers are still pleading poverty and bankruptcy and asking for further subsidies. The Government turn a deaf ear to an industry in which it is not poverty that is the principal element of their social conditions, but in many cases starvation. The Sea Fishing Industry Act passed a few months ago, while it may be helpful in some directions, has brought no relief and no comfort to these people. There may be an outlook years ahead, but there is very little rosy prospect before the people in the herring industry at present. That is why we are grateful to the hon. Member for giving us an opportunity of putting forward our demand for the Government to do something in the matter. The Secretary of State for Scotland, following the habit of Secretaries for Scotland for many years, has visited practically all the fishing towns round the coast. He saw at first hand what the conditions are, and I have no doubt he also saw at first hand the condition of the fleet that we have to police the seas and prevent illegal trawling. I hope he will give us some indication that he will not forget what he has seen, as has happened in the past.
1714
I hope that something will arise from what he has seen and from the stories that he has heard from those with a first-hand knowledge of the industry.
Every speaker has spoken about Russia, and I only wish the Prime Minister and other Members of the Cabinet were present to learn how universal has been the request made for the immediate conclusion of a trade agreement with that country. They would then close their ears to the diehards who, in order to represent the interests of a few hundred investors, are blocking a trade agreement which would bring a satisfactory livelihood to hundreds of thousands of workers who are unemployed and are receiving the dole or public assistance. If those investors in old Russia had not lost their money there, they might have lost it if they had invested it with Hatry or Harman and would have been unable to appeal to the Government for assistance. It is the risk of all investment. You either get dividends, if the company is profitable, or lose your money if the company goes into bankruptcy. These people cannot have their cake and eat it as well. When another government has taken over the country, it cannot be expected to look with equanimity upon the starvation of many of their workers merely because people here are not satisfied with the conclusions which have been arrived at by the Soviet Government. I am not concerned with the methods which have been adopted there. I am concerned with the net result in this country, that we have had a Debate such as we have had to-day arising out of the conditions due to the holding up of this trade treaty with Russia. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some indication that help may be given in time to enable the industry to equip itself for the coming fishing season.
With regard to illegal trawling, I know-that negotiations are going on, and I will not press the Minister just now as to when he expects them to be completed and an international agreement arrived at if that is necessary, as the Government say it is, to the closing of the Moray Firth and the Clyde against foreign trawlers. We are supposed to have a number of vessels that are doing patrol work. I see from the latest report of the Scottish Fishery Board that one did only

1715
40 days sailing during the year, while the others did from 220 to 240. The report says that she was again unsatisfactory. Evidently she had been unsatisfactory in previous years. Why cannot the Fishery Board have ample and satisfactory supervision of the waters in which illegal trawling is being carried on? The report states that one of the vessels is 39 years old. It is 39 years ago since the Board bought her, but she was eight years old then, so she is now 47 years old. She sails at 11 knots an hour. There is not an up-to-date trawler which could not make rings round her and escape. I am referring to the "Vigilant." The Government are advising shipowners to scrap ships 20 years old and order new ones, and they themselves have a fishery cruiser 47 years old. Another vessel is 37 and another 34 years old. With one exception, a motor boat bought a few years ago, not one of them can do more than 12 knots, and the average is 11. It is time the fleet was overhauled and an adequate fleet put upon the waters there, so as not to mislead the fishing people into believing that they are being protected. I hope the Secretary of State will be able to tell us something about the steps they are taking for the reorganisation of the fleet, and also what plans they have for reviving the fishing industry. I hope he will be able to make such a statement as will give the representatives of fishing constituencies some good cheer to take home to their constituents when Christmas comes, that they are taking steps either to give a subsidy during this winter or to pass such legislation as will bring about a return of prosperity.
6.57 p.m.
The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): I should like to join with Members in all parts of the House who have expressed their indebtedness to my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) for raising this subject. We welcome the appreciation expressed in the Motion of the steps which have already been taken to improve the position of the white fishing industry, the benefit to which from the Sea-fishing Industry Act is widely recognised. I hope that improvement will in time extend to all the fishermen who catch white fish, whether with the trawl, seine nets, lines, or by other methods, and that the inshore fishermen,
1716
whose claims have been pressed will get their full share of those improved conditions. In order to ensure this, inshore fishermen require to be protected from the unfair handicap of illegal trawling. Many Members have addressed questions to me on that point. I need hardly remind the House that the Government, in the Gracious Speech from the Throne, have promised to introduce early legislation. I must not anticipate the Debates on that subject, but I believe that illegal trawling is really due to a relatively small section of the trawling industry, and that the great majority of those engaged in that industry are law-abiding citizens who view with disfavour the illegalities which are practised by a small minority. The hon. Member and other hon. Members have addressed questions to me on the subject of policing. I frankly recognise that the present methods must be brought up-to-date. I think the House will excuse my going into details on that point on this occasion; it may be more appropriate when the Illegal Trawling Bill is submitted to the House.
I have been much impressed by the fact that local fisheries in Scotland are gravely depressed, and shortly after my visit to the West Coast, I sent investigators to gain first-hand knowledge as to the proper steps they would advise me to take. Those reports have not yet reached me, but I can assure hon. Members that it is indeed tragic, as the right hon. and learned Member for Ross and Cromarty (Sir I. Macpherson) pointed out from his own knowledge, that where 25 or 30 years ago there was a profitable inshore fishing industry, it no longer exists. It is the first duty of the Government to find out the causes which have brought about that unhappy state of affairs.
I pass to the great herring fishing industry which is the main subject of discussion, and the main burden of the many informed and sympathetic speeches this afternoon. I think all sections of the House agree that it was very fitting that this subject should be raised by a Scottish Member, for while herring fishing is of importance to East Anglian and other English ports, it is of greater importance to Scotland. As many hon. Members know, the Scottish boats form about two-thirds of the fleet which follow herring fishing round the coasts of Great

1717
Britain, and most of the curing is done by Scottish curers. Unfortunately, the herring fishing industry has fallen on very difficult times. The last three years have been very lean years, and it is undoubtedly the case that in present conditions the industry does not afford a reasonable living to many of those who are engaged in it. We all profoundly regret that state of affairs, as it concerns the well-being of the fine and courageous men in that industry, and, so far as the Government are concerned, I gladly give the assurance that we will do everything in our power to assist any well-directed efforts of the industry to establish itself on a more satisfactory footing.
While I am confident that a solution of the existing difficulties can be found, this can only be done if all concerned will recognise the seriousness of the problem. A very careful investigation of deep-seated causes and possible remedies is needed, and, in addition, a full measure of co-operation from all sources is vital. What are the real causes of the present depression? We have not here the common case of large imports depressing the price of the commodity. Even in present circumstances our own fishermen land in this country about 5,000,000 cwts. annually compared with imports of 560,000 cwts. The imports, therefore, are only about 11 per cent, of the home production. The main outlet of this industry has been the export of herring to the foreign markets. Exports now have fallen heavily. I will quote three figures showing a considerable decline. In 1913, herring cured in Great Britain amounted to 2,400,000 barrels; in 1928–30 the average was about 1,600,000; in the two years 1931 and 1932 it was about 900,000. This year, alas! it will be even smaller. In other words, owing to the reduced demand in foreign countries, our production of cured herring has fallen to two-thirds of the pre-War figure in the years 1928–30, and one-third in the last three years. Not only that, but the decline of foreign markets has also been accompanied by a reduced home demand. I find that the Addison Scott Committee, which reported in 1932, stated that the home consumption of fresh herring, kippers and all other kinds had fallen by about one-third since 1913. Here the cause appears to be very largely a change in the public taste. Herring have lost favour in comparison with the many
1718
rival foodstuffs which are now pressed on the public with all the resources of modern advertising.
The position, therefore, in a nutshell is that home demand has declined by one-third and foreign demand by two-thirds. So far as foreign markets are concerned, Russia was formerly the main market. Before the War Russia took some 800,000 barrels, and she has averaged only 70,000 since the War. The reduction of our total production is not entirely due to this fall in the Russian market. A further fall of about one-third of the pre-War production which has taken place in the last two years is due to the shrinkage in other foreign markets through the general world depression and restricted buying power. When a measure of prosperity returns to the world, as it must in time, it is reasonable to think that that shrinkage will be in part made good, but it must be remembered that in recent years a number of countries abroad have made strenuous efforts to increase their own catch of herring Our men are facing a very different com petition from what they did before the War. I come, therefore, to the conclusion that the recent reduction of our markets cannot safely be treated as merely transitory, though there is good reason to believe that a well-organised herring industry here could regain a considerable part of the lost ground when general conditions improve abroad, for, so far as I can gather, the British-cured herring are still regarded in those Continental countries as the best the sea can produce.
The difficulties I have mentioned are accentuated by the fact that the organisation of the herring industry is not well suited to present conditions, and it is a very remarkable fact that every Member who has addressed the British House of Commons this afternoon has, I think, directed attention to the vital necessity of a re-organisation of the herring fishing industry. I hope that those engaged in that trade, when they read, as they will, that the House of Commons has addressed itself to this problem, will note that in the opinion of every Member who has spoken prosperity cannot return to the industry until some measure of reorganisation has taken place. We know how difficult it is for a sea-faring race situated in small

1719
numbers and in many communities throughout the country to get agreement with the views expressed this afternoon. It it true, I think, that, as one Member stated, in 1913 about 1,600 vessels took part in the East Anglian fishing and their catch, which in those days was very readily disposed of, amounted to about 1,500,000 crans. In the present year, about 1,000 boats took part in the recent East Anglian fishing, and their catch will probably amount to about 450,000 crans, which is all that the markets of the world will take. In other words, the average catch per vessel which in 1913 was about 900 crans has dropped this year to 450. Similarly, 2,000 crews of women were employed to cure 1,250,000 barrels of herring in 1913, an average of 625 barrels per crew, and in 1930 the average had fallen to a little over 300. These figures reveal that the vessels and curers of the present day are only employed to about 50 per cent, of their capacity. Inability to make a satisfactory living and an addition to overhead costs, which is detrimental in a competitive market are the results.
One or two hon. Members this afternoon have referred to the deputation from East Anglia which waited on the Minister of Agriculture and myself a few weeks ago. That deputation represented the fishers, and they suggested to us that a certain company should arrange for the curing of an additional quantity of nearly 33,000 barrels of herring at a given price. These, they stated, could be kept off the market until 15th March, and in the interval the company were to try to sell them to the Soviet authorities; but, if unsold by 15th March, they were to be disposed of to the ordinary markets for what they would fetch, and the Government were asked to guarantee two-thirds of any resulting loss. The deputation also stated that it was vital that an answer should be given that night. After lengthy consideration with my right hon. Friend, we replied, with real regret, that the proposal could not be regarded as justifiable. Apart from the fact that an immediate answer was called for by the deputation on a proposal involving novel principles which might involve wider repercussions on the Exchequer, we were influenced by the fact that the proposal could only serve to keep the fishing going for our East Anglian Ports for two or three days longer. Any benefit to the fishermen
1720
was, therefore, of very limited extent. I think that hon. Members will also agree with me that to have a parcel of herring hanging over the market and liable to be unloaded at any time after 15th March might well have a demoralising effect on the market. The curers hold large stocks of which they desire to dispose in the next few months. With this parcel of herring hanging over the market every prospective buyer, I believe, would have had an interest to hold back, and the result might well have been a fall in prices and a check to future buying from the fishermen next season. Thus the proposal in the long run might well have injured the best interests of the fishermen. We decided, therefore, with great regret, that the guarantee by the Government was not one which we could justify to Parliament.
Several hon. Members have put questions as to what the Government are doing to increase the sale of herring in foreign markets. The Government are doing everything in their power to help the herring industry to regain Continental markets. I will come to each country in turn. In the trade agreements made this year with Latvia, Estonia, and with Finland, concessions involving the reduction of duties and the removal of certain restrictions en exchange and on imports have been secured. As a result, Scottish exports to Latvia for the season ending 31st October, 1933, were 53,000 barrels as compared with 20,000 in 1932; exports to Estonia, which I admit are very slight, rose from nil to 2,600 barrels. The agreement with Finland was ratified only a few days ago, and I know that the trade are actively engaged in making arrangements to take advantage of its concessions.
I now come to the Russian market for the herring. "What are the Government doing," I am asked from all quarters, "as to opening up the Russian market for this great industry?" I wish to assure the House in the most emphatic way that the Government are using all the force at their command to impress on the Soviet Government the desirability of their making substantial purchases of herring from Great Britain. At several meetings between the representatives of this country and Russia the herring industry has been discussed, but in all these

1721
matters two are required to make a bargain, and we can only await with hope the result of the efforts which are being made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department. I want to assure hon. Members categorically that the Government are making every effort to secure advantages for the industry in the negotiations with Russia and the other herring consuming countries on the Continent of Europe.
Mr. BOOTHBY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason for the interminable length of the negotiations with Russia?
Sir G. COLLINS: As I am informed by my hon. and gallant Friend, the Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department, these negotiations have indeed taken time, but we are so anxious to get an agreement that that may be the real justification for the time which is being taken.
Mr. N. MACLEAN: Is there anything of a political nature, which has nothing whatever to do with a trading agreement respecting goods going from this country to Russia and goods coming from Russia here, barring the way to an amicable settlement?
Sir G. COLLINS: I am asked a very definite question about a very specific matter, and I must answer in the usual Parliamentary form, that a question of that sort must be addressed to the appropriate Parliamentary head. I am only speaking this afternoon on behalf of His Majesty's Government as far as herring fishing is concerned, and I have assured the House of Commons that they are using all the force at their command, and that at many meetings between the representatives of the British Government and the Soviet Government the question of the herring industry has been discussed. I must ask hon. Members in all parts of the House to leave it there at the moment, realising as I do, and as I know every Member of the House does, that in all these matters, as I have already said, two are required to make a bargain, and we hope that a bargain will be completed with satisfaction to all concerned.
Mr. KIRKWOOD: This is a very important point, and I wish to press it a
1722
little further. I wish to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if, when this question of a trade agreement with Russia is before the Cabinet, he, as Secretary of State for Scotland representing Scotland on the Cabinet, will use his influence, having in mind the serious position which Scotland occupies not only as regards the fishing industry but as regards the wood which we require for house building in Scotland? Does the right hon. Gentleman use his influence in the direction of seeing that the rights of Scotland are safeguarded? What part does the right hon. Gentleman play in the Cabinet?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): That is a point on which I must intervene. Neither the Secretary of State for Scotland nor anybody else obviously can discuss the question of timber on this Motion.
Mr. KIRKWOOD: No, I want the herring. I shall be satisfied if he will answer that question.
Sir G. COLLINS: When I fail to satisfy the British House of Commons that in this, or in any other matter, I have not neglected the interests of Scotland I will bow to the decision of the House of Commons. But I cannot discuss here or anywhere else, in public or in private, what takes place at the Cabinet. I am anxious in the very few minutes left to me to discuss the herring industry. I am convinced chat if the herring industry is able to play its part in reviving old markets or in developing new ones, it is essential that reorganisation should take place, and that fact has been fully recognised in the Debate this afternoon. Among the points which occur to me as worthy of attention by that industry are the following: The number of vessels engaging in herring fishing; the purchase and supply to fishermen of gear, coals and other stores; the disposal and distribution of the catch; the number of curers and the number of workers employed; the marketing of the different herring products both at home and abroad; methods of preparation, and so on. I could give several more. The Sea-fishing Industry Act passed by this House during the summer months set up a Sea Fish Commission. That Commission is shortly to be appointed, and we shall ask the Commission to direct their attention in the first place to the herring industry, and

1723
to submit a report to the House of Commons at the earliest possible moment. I mention that in order to show how anxious and serious we recognise the situation to be. I feel sure that when the Commission get to work they will have the active co-operation of all sections of the industry in carrying out their difficult task of investigation and in making, what is much more difficult, practical suggestions for reorganisation.
A final word about the home market. It is one of the features of present-day life that the public of Great Britain are constantly running after strange foods and neglecting the wholesome products of our own fishermen and farmers. Milk, oats, herring, potatoes—how much healthier and more prosperous the nation would be if we all concentrated our digestive forces upon these articles. Here is a problem which the general public can solve themselves. Let them patronise the herring, and we shall have gone a long way towards the final solution of the problems of the industry. I have studied medical opinion as to the properties of the herring, and I find that the greatest authorities testify to the value of the herring as a foodstuff owing to its high vitamin content. So that it is very much up-to-date in that respect. My hon. Friend who moved the Motion to-day has given a concrete example of the kind of action which is necessary. A few days ago he sent me a neat carton containing one or two samples of a very tempting variety of cooked cured herring. I must not reveal to the House the name of the particular variety, but I assure him that I thoroughly enjoyed my breakfast the next day.
New ways of dealing with the herring are necessary, and they are constantly being devised. But what is necessary is to give them more publicity. How to organise a great campaign of "Eat More Herring" is a question primarily for representatives of the trade to settle among themselves. I should like to see them enlisting on their side, in a great campaign of "Eat More Herring," the use of all the varied methods of modern marketing and publicity, such as broadcasting, which was mentioned by an hon. Member, posters, and shop displays, which proved so successful two years ago in the "Buy British" campaign. If the
1724
industry will show the Government not only that they will make, and are prepared to make, real efforts, to popularise the home consumption of herring, but, at the same time, by their action, that they are willing to face the reorganisation of their great industry, which is so vital for this country, I can assure my hon. Friends that we in the Government will do all that we possibly can to further the interests which all sections of the House have in view. I thank my hon. Friend for the opportunity which he has given to the House this afternoon of discussing for a few hours this great problem, and, on behalf of the Government, I have much pleasure in stating that we are prepared to accept the Motion.
Mr. KIRKWOOD: I wish to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman. I want to know what the fisherman is going to do in the interval of the reorganisation which he says is necessary before the industry can return to prosperity? What is he to live on? What are the Government going to do for the fishermen until the fishing industry has been organised and we see a return to prosperity?
Sir G. COLLINS: I promised the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), in reply to a supplementary question a few days ago in which I stated that I was concerned as to the actual distress in these areas, that when I had that information from the investigation which I had put into being, I would communicate the fact to the hon. Member. From the knowledge that I have at my disposal, however, I have no reason to think that the local authorities have not sufficient powers.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
"That this House, while appreciating the steps already taken to improve the position of the white fishing industry, views with concern the depressed state of the herring fishing industry, and, being of opinion that the maintenance of a prosperous fishing population is essential for the national welfare, urges His Majesty's Government to direct its attention to the distress in the herring fishing centres and to do everything in its power to assist the efforts of the industry to establish itself on such a footing as to enable it to afford to those engaged in it a fair living."

ELECTORAL REFORM.
7.30 p.m.
Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I beg to move,
"That, in order to ensure in future Parliaments a greater correspondence between the strength of opinion in the country and representation in the House of Commons, it is desirable to reform the present system of Parliamentary elections."
It has been suggested to me by some hon. Members that to-night we are discussing two kinds of herring, one the fresh herring and the other the red herring. I hope, however, that before I sit down I shall be able to convince the House that the Motion which it is my privilege to move is one to which the House should give serious attention. It is a Motion to carry a step further the enfranchisement of the people. It is 100 years since the great Reform Bill of 1832 was passed by this House. I think it can be said of that Bill that it made certain and secured the ultimate victory of popular government, but it was the first step only, paving the way for later reform. In 1832, in 1867, in 1885, in 1918 and in 1928 the electorate was extended in ever-widening circles until it now includes all men and women on terms of equal citizenship. Having said that and having acknowledged that every person over the age of 21, man and woman, is entitled to a vote, I think I can state definitely that it is equally true that electoral reform is not yet complete. Here, I would like to quote from a speech delivered by the right hon. Member who is now the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in the year 1922. It was a most lucid speech on this question. He said:
"Franchise reform as such requires some way of securing that the casting of a vote, whoever casts it, is going to produce its proper and adequate result in representation. Merely to provide an adult citizen with the right to vote, without arranging a system by which, when that duty is discharged, it will have its true proportionate influence upon the expression of opinion, is like imagining that you could defend a country by an army merely because you distribute rifles to every citizen. Franchise reform only becomes really valuable if you are able to combine it with some system by which you not only answer the question who may choose Members of Parliament, but how is the instrument you put in their hinds to be so used as to produce the effect aimed at, namely, to ascertain the real judgment and opinion of the country. The equal right to vote is not calculated to give by itself the effective enjoyment of equal citizenship."
1726
I think that statement of the case, reinforced by many similar utterances by the same right hon. Gentleman, is unanswerable. The first General Election held under adult suffrage was that of 1929, and it showed definitely that equal citizenship was not attained. The results of that election were extremely anomalous. The Conservative party got the greatest number of votes, but they did not secure the largest number of seats. The sense of injustice and the sense of gamble in the result found considerable expression, and in the Gracious Speech of 1929 we find a reference at the opening of Parliament to that gamble. These were the words in the Gracious Speech:
"At the recent General Election an extended franchise placed in the hands of the whole of My People of adult years the grave responsibility for guarding the well-being of this nation as a constitutional democracy, and My Government propose to institute an examination of the experiences of the election so that the working of the law relating to Parliamentary elections may be brought into conformity with the new conditions."
Therefore, I think I may claim that the result of the first election under universal suffrage produced such results that it was deemed desirable by His Majesty's Government to institute an examination into the working of the electoral law. Then followed the appointment of what has been called the Ullswater Conference. The Government set up a conference consisting of members of the three parties, and the Prime Minister invited Lord Ullswater, a former distinguished speaker of this House, to preside over its deliberations. A long time was devoted to the consideration of this specific subject. The conference held many meetings and examined with great care many proposals for electoral reform and passed by 13 votes to eight the following Resolution:
"Any change in the present system of Parliamentary elections should include the adoption of Proportional Representation with the single transferable vote."
That was a Resolution in the voting on which all the Members took part. The Resolution is cautiously worded. I do not want to misrepresent it in any way. It does say that in any change proportional representation should be included, though I am willing to admit that some of those who voted for that Resolution were not convinced of the necessity for the change. It is true to say that opinions were expressed that while proportional

1727
representation might be suitable in the cities it might not be suitable for other areas. I want to make it quite clear that what I am concerned with is not one system in particular but some system that will ensure some correspondence between the votes cast and the Members coming to this House. The Government, following that conference, came to the conclusion that a change was desirable and introduced the Alternative Vote Bill, ignoring the majority Resolution of the Ullswater Conference. That led Lord Ullswater to make a protest in the other House against the practice of the Government of appointing commissions and committees and absolutely ignoring their recommendations. Lord Ullswater said:
"The committee spent at least ten meetings over this and at last a decision was taken. That Resolution would to a considerable extent meet the grievances which the Conference had set out to try and overcome, namely, the gross under-representation of great bodies of citizens on whom the franchise had been conferred."
After the introduction of the Alternative Vote Bill the financial crisis supervened and electoral reform and many other questions were submerged. I think it is true to say that the Lords Amendments to the Bill were not considered, Parliament was dissolved, and we had a second experience of a General Election held under adult suffrage. The election of 1931, I think it is correct to say, confirmed the need of complete electoral reform and of making some provision whereby large bodies of opinion in the country should be adequately represented both in respect of numbers and personnel in this House. I could produce many election figures in support of my contention, but I do not intend to inflict many figures upon the House. I should, however, like to refer to my own county. As everybody in the House knows, I am a Yorkshireman, and I am convinced that my county has not for years been truly represented in this House either in the last Parliament or in this.
Let me take the county of Yorkshire for the purpose of illustration. Yorkshire is represented in this House by 57 Members. In the last Parliament 40 of those 57 Members were members of the Labour party. Therefore, we are left to conclude that nearly three-fourths of the people of Yorkshire are adherents of the Labour
1728
cause. That is certainly not the case. Less than half of those who went to the poll in 1929 voted for the Labour candidates. Labour polled less than 1,000,000 votes out of a total of 2,200,000, and yet they secured an overwhelming majority of the seats in Yorkshire. The representation yielded by the electoral system was a gross misrepresentation of the county of Yorkshire. In 1929 Labour polled less than twice the Liberal vote. The Liberal vote was more than 500,000 and the Labour vote was less than 1,000,000, but they secured 20 times as many of the Yorkshire seats as did the Liberals.
Mr. LEONARD: Were there any uncontested seats?
Mr. HOLDSWORTH: There were no uncontested seats in 1929, but there were in 1931. In giving these figures I am not expressing or taking any partisan view. I want to impress upon the House, and particularly upon Conservative Members, that no one can foresee the course of political development in this country. The outstanding fact that I submit is that there are 500,000 citizens in my county who are denied an effective share of Parliamentary representation.
Let me come to the election of 1931. There was a combination mainly of Liberal and Conservative votes and that combination nearly wiped out the representation of Labour in Yorkshire. Compared with 1929, Labour polled 180,000 votes fewer in 1931. But this was sufficient for their representation to drop from 40 to seven. A drop in votes of 180,000 meant a loss of 33 seats. If we take the country as a whole every Labour Member, on the average, represents at this moment 144,000 citizens, while other Members in the House, including myself, represent on an average some 29,000 citizens. It may be the other way round next time. But we have sufficient experience of universal suffrage combined with our present system of election to know that the pendulum swings with destructive violence, depriving great bodies of opinion almost completely of representation.
The other point I desire to submit is a very serious one, and it is that the present electoral system excludes from this House so many of the ablest members of the defeated party. I am certain that members of the Labour party will

1729
not suggest that I am at all nasty about this, but will themselves admit that it would have been of advantage to have had some of the great leaders of the Labour party sitting alongside them now. I have not said one word against universal suffrage, I am trying to look into the future. Mr. Garvin, whom I always read with interest, made this statement a short time ago with regard to our system of election:
"It stakes upon a gamble at the polls the control of Imperial and foreign as well as domestic affairs."
We are all conscious that under the present system a general election is a gamble, and I submit that as the trustees of the spirit of our Constitution we have no right to entrust the destinies of the nation to a gamble. The need for reform is apparent; and the nature of the reform is expressed in the terms of the Motion, a greater correspondence between the Commons and the country. One of the greatest Parliamentarians of all time—I apologise to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) for trespassing upon his particular preserve—Edmund Burke, says:
"The virtue, the spirit, the essence of the House of Commons, consists in its being the express image of the feelings of the nation."
I suggest that this should still express our own attitude towards the House of Commons. It is interesting to go through the opinions expressed by the leaders of all parties in the House. Let me take first the Leader of the Labour party. Time after time, with the approval of the House, he has summoned us to apply Christian principles to public questions. He has endeavoured to lift public affairs, national and international, on to a high plane, and I am sure that it is his desire to be perfectly consistent in the application of these principles. In all seriousness I put to him this question: Have the citizens of Great Britain who differ in political views from the right hon. Gentleman, any right to representation in this House? Surely, the principles which he has summoned this House to follow must make him answer that question in the affirmative, and I would remind him that, whatever his answer may be, it will not only be heard in this House and in this country, but also as far away as Japan. I mention Japan for a particular purpose. The right hon. Gentleman has had a good deal to say about Japan; he
1730
has criticised many of the actions of that country. He desires Japan to act fairly and with every consideration to her neighbours, but the value of an appeal to any other nation of the world to adhere to a policy of consideration for weaker countries or for minorities within their own boundaries will be destroyed if the right hon. Gentleman and the party he leads rejects the right to representation in this House of those fellow citizens in this country who do not happen to agree with his political views.
I put to him this further question: not merely as to whether he agrees that other people shall be represented in this House, but how much representation these opponents shall have? Again, I think he will reply that the representation should bear a reasonable correspondence to the strength of its supporters in the country. I think he will also agree that it is wrong for a minority to have a majority of the seats; that it is contrary to those principles we wish to see at work in this country that small minorities shall be crushed. There is an independent group within the Labour party. I am not quite clear how far the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) believes in Parliament. There was a time when he believed in proportional representation, but I am not certain whether he still retains that faith. I am not sure also whether the official Labour party intends to do its best to exclude the hon. Member from the next House of Commons, but I am certain that there will be general agreement in the House that the hon. Member for Bridgeton is a distinguished and valuable Member and that this House would be less representative of the whole nation if he were excluded.
Let me say one word about my own political party; and here I can speak of the general unanimity on this question. Every Member of the Liberal party, whether he sits on this or the other side of the House, is certain that there is a need for giving a full representative character to the House of Commons. In the last Parliament the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was to the fore in demanding a measure of electoral reform, and nearly all my friends who remain staunch supporters of the Government, as well as their leader, have expressed at different times the necessity of making this House fully representative of the nation. I have

1731
already quoted the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, let me give one or two quotations from leaders of the Conservative party. On 2nd June, 1931, the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) made a remarkable speech in this House. The quotation is rather long, but I should like to read it:
"There is need for more strength and structure in our Parliamentary life. The collective personality of great cities is an important factor. Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Bristol, names which Tory democracy in the eighties used to conjure with, what effective expression have they now of their collective intellectual force? When they had, in the days before the great Reform Bill, perhaps only a couple of Members apiece, they had a greater influence upon our affairs than eight or ten Members representing carved up communities of no integral strength. They have far less weight than one or two men would have who spoke with the collective authority of these centres of British progress and culture. Under the Proportional Representation scheme these cities would regain their collective personality and their members of every hue Liberal, Conservative or Socialist, would speak for the opinions of very large numbers of people forming an integral society. The leading figures in our political life would find at the summit of these great cities far more secure and independent seats than is possible today. Our cities would become centres where keen and powerful debates would, as is almost impracticable now, proceed again before an increasingly attentive audience, and the formation of new opinions in these centres would influence thought in the surrounding districts"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd June, 1931; col. 103, Vol. 253.]
Let me turn to the speeches of the Leader of the Conservative party. I find that the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council makes the nearest approach to the conception of Parliament enunciated by Edmund Burke, and I should like to pay a sincere tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his speech some weeks ago on dictatorships. It was a remarkably fine speech and very interesting to every hon. Member to have such a declaration from the Leader of the Conservative party. Let me give one or two short quotations from the right hon. Gentleman:
"I believe that a democracy is incomplete and lopsided until it is representative of the whole people.
"You will never get that perfect democracy at which we aim until the whole people plays its part.
"For the perfect democracy it is essential that every man and woman in this
1732
country should realise his or her responsibility for the government of the country. Most of them can only do it by a wise choice of a Member to represent them."
Let me go a little further and take the Prime Minister himself. Here may I say, not with any partisan view, that there has been a somewhat remarkable change in the beliefs of the right hon. Gentleman on this subject. In the most considerable book that he has written since the War, "Socialism, Critical and Constructive," he makes a plea for the restoration of that type of constituency which for hundreds of years was the basis of this House of Commons. He says:
"There is no reason now why local government units like the city and the county should not become constituencies again. The Members returned will represent the area, not bits of the area. Proportional Representation, with all its deficiencies, alone seems to form a practical working scheme."
But I am more interested in the later utterances of the Prime Minister. Those who were Members of this House in 1924 and in 1929 will remember the speeches of the Prime Minister at that time. Addressing the House of Commons of 2nd July, 1929, the right hon. Gentleman said:
"It is not altogether because I happen to be at the head of a minority that I say this; the thought must be occurring to the mind of everyone who is aware of the very serious problems that this country has to face—problems at home and abroad. I wonder how far it is possible, without in any way abandoning any of our party positions, without in any way surrendering any item of our party principles, to consider ourselves more as a Council of State and less as arrived regiments facing each other in battle. It is perfectly true that the conditions of the House at the present moment invites us to make these reflections, and so far as we are concerned, co-operation will be welcomed—it applies, to a majority Government as much as to a majority Government—so that by putting our ideas into a common pool we can bring out from that common pool legislation and administration that will be of substantial benefit to the nation as a whole."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1929; col. 64, Vol. 229.]
That particular utterance and others of the same kind go a long way to show that the Prime Minister in his conception of the future looks forward to the application within this nation of the principle which we all look forward to in the governing of international relations, namely, that there shall be representation of all nations, and then discussion, and then the maximum amount of co-

1733
operation. The point I want to make is that it is clear that great bodies of citizens in this country cannot pool their ideas unless they are permitted to be present in this House through representation. You might as well conceive of the League of Nations passing a rule that a whole block of small countries shall be denied representation in the Assembly of the League.
What is the alternative before the nation? We are being invited from different sources to adopt dictatorial methods in which the views of minorities will be ruthlessly trampled upon and minorities are no longer to count. Such dictatorial methods involve the destruction of the freedom of the Press, the complete control of broadcasting, the complete control of education, and in the end the destruction of the House of Commons. I am sorry to see that the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has left the House, because I have one or two things to address to him personally. I had asked him to be in his place as I intended to make reference, to him.
Mr. ATTLEE: He waited half an hour.
Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I do not think the House has any reason to complain of the length of my speeches. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be able to answer for him, although I am very doubtful, because there are two different opinions on the things I have to say. Very few people in this House or in the country can contemplate with equanimity the threats which have been propounded so frequently by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol. He and his colleagues of the Socialist League have very little faith in Parliament. We are told in their literature that when they get into power there is to be no time wasted in talking. There is to be no discussion. Parliament is to meet, and on the first day, I presume, it is to pass what is called an Emergency Powers Act, which will authorise the Government to take possession of and to operate any undertaking the control of which by the State seems to it desirable or necessary in the public interest. That can be found in a leaflet written by Mr. G. D. H. Cole, called "The Socialist Control of Industry". A very interesting note follows that particular statement. It says that questions of compensation will be decided
1734
later by legislation. We are told in that particular pamphlet that their object is expropriation, not a mere change in the form of claims to ownership.
It is very interesting also to read a book called "Problems of a Socialist Government." We are there told that the House of Lords is either to be abolished or Peers are to be created who will carry through this particular policy. We are further told that there is to be taken away from the courts the power which they now exercise, as to the legality of Orders made by Ministers. Nothing must stand in the way of this complete system of Socialism as adumbrated in this book. We are also told that, if necessary, civil servants who are not Socialists shall be replaced by others who are Socialists. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol even contemplates the prolonging of the life of Parliament in certain circumstances, and in the last resort we are told that force may be used if necessary. The question I want to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman is this: Is all this to be brought about if the Labour party succeed in getting sufficient seats to form a Government, but yet, when the total of the votes they receive is calculated, it represents a minority of the electorate of the country?
It would be very interesting to the House to know definitely whether this programme is to be introduced if the Socialists represent a minority in the country. I see some hon. Gentlemen smiling on the Socialist benches. I would remind the House that they had not the courage at the Labour Party Conference to denounce this scheme in toto. I remember that at the Conference at Hastings a resolution was brought forward, I think by the Secretary of the Trades Union Congress, denouncing dictatorship. Then the representative for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) said, "Wait a moment. There are two kinds of dictatorships, one of the Left and one of the Right. You cannot say that a dictatorship of the Left is something which we object to." For my own part, I say that I object to every kind of dictatorship, from the Left or from the Right. That was my real purpose in putting down this Motion. I believe that this House ought to take all these suggestions very seriously.

1735
There is very grave danger facing this country, and the real alternative to dictatorship is the strengthening of this House by making it more representative of the nation. That is the safeguard against dictatorship. As the Prime Minister said, it may mean a new attitude in the relations between parties, but in practice it means nothing more than this: During an election parties will and must be free to put forward their views on policy and to secure representation in this House, but after the election there rests upon all Members of the House, irrespective of party, the obligation to examine not only the differences between parties but also those things in respect of which they are largely agreed. Just as we expect the co-operation of nations in international affairs, so there lies upon everyone of us an obligation to cooperate in respect of all those questions about which we may agree. Co-operation has been forthcoming in this country in time of war, in time of financial crisis, in respect of India, and it will be forthcoming in any great danger that confronts the nation.
What then is it that I am asking the Government to do? The Motion is no more than a declaratory Motion. We are aware that not even the first effective steps towards a measure of electoral reform can be made without the co-operation of the Government of the day. I ask the Government to consider the facts that I have submitted, and to see in what way practical steps can be taken. During the last century Parliament completed the enfranchisement of citizens. But there is not yet equal citizenship. That, I think, is a real and serious grievance, and it is the privilege of this House to redress it. I earnestly ask the Government to give this matter the same meticulous attention as is being given and rightly given to the new Constitution for India. In that Constitution provision will be made for the representation of minorities as well as of majorities. I will conclude by quoting one further sentence from the Prime Minister:
"It is only in so far as this House really represents popular opinion that it is going to retain its authority."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 3rd February, 1931; col. 1671, Vol. 247.]
That is my case to-night. This House cannot retain its authority when the
1736
public is aware, and increasingly aware, that a General Election under the present electoral system is a gamble and that it provides no assurance that representation in the House of Commons shall bear any reasonable correspondence with the strength of opinion in the country.
8.13 p.m.
Mr. MALLALIEU: I beg to second the Motion.
The Motion only asks that a General Election shall not in future be the complete gamble which it is at present, with the possibility of a minority in the country having a majority in this House, and the further possibility of large bodies of opinion in the country being absolutely or practically without representation in this House. I have been tremendously impressed by the remarks which I have seen or heard from time to time—there is no general plan about them at all—coming from extremely diverse sources, from one end of the country to the other, showing that there is great fear in the minds of many men to-day that there may be carried through this House legislation of a far-reaching character by a Government resting upon a minority of votes cast at a General Election. For instance, in the Debate on the Address there were 13 hon. Members who urged the Government to strengthen the other House because there was at the present time no assurance that this House would really be representative of the people and the country. The same sort of thing has been said almost unanimously by Conservative newspapers. They say, "Strengthen the other House; because the House of Commons is not representative, we must make the other House representative, to be a check upon it."
On more than one occasion National Conferences of the Conservative party have passed resolutions to the same effect. All these utterances and resolutions show the same fear, namely, that this House is not as it ought to be, representative of the body of opinion in the country. It is, I believe, possible for a Government resting on just a little over one-third of the votes in the country, to have a majority in this House; and that seems to me an element of extreme danger in the Constitution of this country. The most recent statement of this sort which I have come across is in a striking article by a former Member

1737
of this House in the current issue of "The Nineteenth Century." The author of that article, Sir dive Morrison-Bell, sets out a scheme for a Senate to supplant the other House, and the Senate, according to his scheme, is to be elected by a system of Proportional Representation in order, as he says, that it may be really representative. The writer records a conversation which he had with the late Lord Birkenhead on the subject and the only criticism which that acute mind had to offer upon the scheme was that it would make the proposed Senate too strong because it would be more representative of the country than the House of Commons. It was a remarkable omission from this scheme, as I thought at first, that there was to be no revision whatever of the powers at present possessed by the other House when the new scheme came into operation. The reason, of course, was that it was assumed that power would automatically gravitate to the other House, which would then be more representative of the country than this House.
This House under our present constitutional arrangements occupies the premier place. I am a devotee of this House; I believe that its position ought to be maintained, and I think most hon. Members take that view. But how can its position be maintained if, all the time, the House is becoming less and less representative of the people upon whom it must rely for support? I submit that already this House has lost something of its authority and of its grip upon rational affairs, for this very reason, that it is less representative to-day than it was previously. We have this extra-ordinary position—that Members of this House, and influential people outside, and newspapers all over the country, and Conservative Conferences are all, again and again, laying stress on the point that this House is unrepresentative. They go on to say that therefore we should strengthen the other House, as I heard an hon. Member behind me interject just now.
I am a Liberal, and many people cynically suggest, when the question of electoral reform is in the air, that there is an ulterior motive in the minds of Liberals who put forward proposals for any such reform. People say, "This is a device to perpetuate that outworn thing
1738
the Liberal party." I ask hon. Members not to allow any such easy excuse to come between them and a serious consideration of this problem. There is something far more significant than the mere prolongation of the life of the Liberal party at stake in this matter. I argue for this reform on the lines on which my party for over a century has argued for the extension of the franchise. As my hon. Friend the Mover has said, this proposal is for an extension of the franchise. Every intelligent Englishman ought to have not only the right to vote but the right to partake in the deliberations of this House. That, surely, is the full extension of the franchise towards which we should all work. My hon. Friend has referred to the treatment which it is proposed to mete out to minorities in India. I cannot help remembering the address with which the first Round Table Conference was opened. In it, this sentence occurred:
"I have in mind the just claims of the majorities and the minorities."
Surely, if we can do this thing for India, we can do it for our own country. The present Government have declared that they will guarantee representation in the new assembly that is to be created in India, to the illiterates and the depressed classes. According to the report of the Simon Commission the depressed classes in India are but 19 per cent, of the population. In 1929 in this country 24 per cent, of the voters were Liberals, and surely the depressed classes in this country are entitled to at least as much consideration as those of India
I should like to answer a criticism of electoral reform which I have heard many times from Members of this House among others. It is said that if you reform the electoral system of this country you will, in allowing every shade of opinion to be represented here, stifle the main current of opinion and prevent it from expressing itself in such a way as to enable the King's Government to be carried on. No system of electoral reform of which I have heard tends in the slightest degree to increase the number of parties—though I know that is contrary to the general belief—but apart from that question surely it shows a complete misunderstanding of our history to suggest that in this country, even if there were more parties, that

1739
fact would necessarily lead to stagnation in government. My hon. Friend has pointed out that whenever it has been necessary in this country for parties to come together they have done so, and, in this manner, enabled the King's Government to be carried on. That is a tradition which this country has long ago taken into its very bones and it would not be forgotten if such a system as is suggested here were put into operation.
In the countries of Europe in which Parliamentary government has of late gone under, that development has not been due to the reform of a Chamber, or to the fact that a Chamber represented the country. Rather (has it been due to the fact, which I would ask hon. Members above the Gangway to note, that the Socialist parties in Italy and Germany withdrew from co-operation and ignored the principle which we have learned to follow in this country. They refused to lend support to any Government which was not Socialist; thus no stable coalition was possible. I am reminded that the same thing happened in Austria. In those countries the Socialist parties, as I say, withdrew from co-operation, not having learned that principle about carrying on the King's Government which centuries have taught us in this country to respect. That is the reason why Parliamentary government went under in Italy and Germany, in so far as the reason was of a Parliamentary nature. On the other hand, we, with our experience, could look with equanimity at any problems which might possibly arise from making this House more representative than it is. If this House can but be a true mirror of opinion in this country, we shall know with certainty that neither reaction, nor wild cat revolutionary schemes can possibly be fastened upon it. A reformed First Chamber will be a real bulwark against such movements, whether they come from East Bristol or from the bench opposite where the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) usually sits.
There are three small quotations from great statesmen, who I know are respected in every part of this House, which I feel I really ought to bring again to the notice of the House. One of them is from Mr. Asquith, in 1921, a man who was, in particularly tragic circumstances,
1740
the victim of this crude system which we have in this country to-day. He said:
"The more I see of our electoral arrangements, the more certain I am that they are singularly ill-adapted to make the House of Commons what every great representative assembly ought to be—not only in name, but in fact—a real reflection, an authentic mouthpiece, of the opinion of the nation."
By no means are these sentiments confined to my party, for Mr. Balfour in 1918 stated, in this House, that proportional representation was a system which would give rise to a Parliament of
"more independence, in which capable men who have shown their value are sure to be able to find a sphere for the abilities which they intend to devote to the public service—surely when you have all these merits it is worth while on the few occasions which we have before us to adopt a system which I am convinced will more and more commend itself to all sober and wise believers in democracy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th January, 1918; cot. 1702-3, Vol. 101.]
The only other quotation that I would like to put before the House is from the late Lord Birkenhead, who said that it was only by the principles of proportional representation that we could
"secure elections which are completely honest, only by the application of these principles can we restore that reality and that stability to our representative institutions which, and which alone, stand between this country and non-parliamentary methods."
Mr. PIKE: Did either of those gentlemen advance the view that Proportional Representation coupled with compulsory voting would be the only fair reflection of the public mind?
Mr. MALLALIEU: I daresay they did, and I would be prepared to advance the same view myself, but it does not seem to me to be particularly relevant to the present discussion. I would like to bring the House back to the last quotation, that from the late Lord Birkenhead. I think it shows his astonishing foresight in this matter, for remember that that statement was made before the march on Rome and before the Brown House was a reality. If there are to be only two parties in this country, it seems to me that the following result must happen, that sooner or later the country, either for good reasons or for bad, is going to be sick of the Government party, and if then the only alternative is that of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol, surely it is good-bye to Parlia-

1741
mentary democracy as we know it. I do not believe the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol will ever have a chance to carry out his schemes, but I do not think I am any the more happy as a result of that thought. I believe that the moment the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol looks as though he were on the point of securing his majority, which at present he says he will require before he will carry out his schemes, other forces will step in to prevent his taking full advantage of the electoral victory which seems within his grasp.
I do not think that that is a particularly edifying future for any of us, for after all, the other forces which (might step in might be even less intelligent than is the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol. The result is precisely the same from the point of view of those who love liberty. That will be gone. The country must therefore be given the chance of having a decent alternative, and that cannot happen under the present system. I submit, with all the earnestness I possibly can, that there is absolutely nothing, absolutely no bulwark of any sort, save a reformed first Chamber which is capable of keeping the Government of this country upon the steady lines of Parliamentary methods. If we do not achieve that, certainly there must be a lapse away from Parliamentary methods into an uncivilised and liberty-crushing condition of autocracy, to save themselves and us from which our fathers laid the fair foundation of Parliamentary democracy.
8.30 p.m.
Mr. ATTLEE: The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Mallalieu), who has just made such an interesting contribution to the Debate, would seem, from my point of view, to have proved a little too much. He accepts the fact that we on these benches do not believe in the continuance of the capitalist system and that we would obtain a majority to abolish it by Parliamentary means, but he now tells us that it is no use our getting a majority, because if we look at all like doing it, the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) or someone like that will step in and squash us. Therefore the only thing we can do is somehow carefully to avoid ever having a majority; we must somehow manage to keep alive the Liberal party in this House, so that no party
1742
will ever have a majority but will always have to join the Liberal party and carry out some kind of policy of which they will approve. I think that is an invitation to violent methods, but I do not believe in the hon. Member's logic. I was interested in the speech of the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth), who moved this Motion, because he explained what was the real object of it. I confess that when I looked at it it seemed to me to have extraordinarily little content, and I was waiting for him to fill it in. I cannot see why, if the hon. Member really wants proportional representation, he did not put it down and get a vote on it.
Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I wanted to invite the Government to look into the question. I did not want to put anything down definitely of that kind. It might be that there might have to be proportional representation in the cities and something else in the country. I am not absolutely wedded to either of them, but I want to see the present system so reformed that the hon. Member cannot try out his practices.
Mr. ATTLEE: I am much obliged; I realise the Motion had to be vague to unite the Liberal party, and I go back to the view that I formed before, that the real point of the Motion is that the Liberal party are asking the Government to devise some scheme for the revival of the Liberal party. The other interesting point of the hon. Member was that about the awful gambling that there was in voting. I think the biggest gamble of all in voting is voting for a Liberal, because when you have got him in, you have not the slightest idea what he will do. First of all, you do not know on which side of the House he will sit, though you can be tolerably well assured that if he sits on the Government side, he will attack the Government, and that as soon as he crosses over, he will support the Government. It is really a most extraordinary gamble. I was very much interested in the various authorities with which the hon. Member supported his views. I was interested to hear his views on the correspondence between opinion in the country and representation in this House, culled from Edmund Burke, that distinguished occupier of a pocket borough for so many years.
Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Was Bristol a pocket borough?
Mr. ATTLEE: I have never considered that Burke, in his defence of the obsolete methods of representation in his day, was a particularly good example for Liberals, and if I were a Liberal, I should prefer Cromwell.
Major PROCTER: What is the difference between a pocket borough and a trade union borough?
Mr. ATTLEE: A pocket borough depends on a moneyed man, but a trade union consists of a number of people with very little money but with votes. This is a matter of some importance, and I was really amazed to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Colne Valley in which he suggested that if we adopted proportional representation we could save this country from falling under the domination of Facism. It is in those countries that adopted proportional representation on the very best plan that we have seen Fascism.
Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: The worst plan.
Mr. ATTLEE: We cannot tell from what the Liberals want which is the best plan. Some want the alternative vote for the country and proportional representation for the towns, but all they can agree on is that there should be some reform. They cannot agree what it should be. We do not know what is, in the judgment of the Liberal party, the ideal plan, but all those countries have had very up-to-date methods in an endeavour to secure the representation of minorities, and they have been most successful. The result was a multiplicity of parties and a complete futility of government. That is the result of a multiplicity of parties. Various sections are returned on all kinds of different issues. Anyone looking at lists of Continental parties will find it very difficult to know what they are doing. In Germany, where they have a very elaborate system of proportional representation, there are even family parties.
Sir JOHN HASLAM: We have one here.
Mr. ATTLEE: But they cannot run regularly as parties in the country. There is every kind of party on the Continent, and the result is the weakening and not the strengthening of democracy. Gov-
1744
ernments have to be made by a series of bargains between contesting groups. The people who come off best in that system are those with such fluid ideas that they can join in any coalition. That is, of course, the position of the Liberal party, and it is a perfectly natural position for a party that knows it will never get a majority, and we have certainly seen them following out that principle. It is hardly a political principle, unless we call it enlightened opportunism. I do not know whether the Liberal party will attain their end by this means, because I understand that if they have proportional representation it will be possible for them to stand in complete fragments. The whole point of being a Liberal is that when he gets here nobody knows what he will do, and he can therefore join any government. I believe that any adaptation of that sort will be clean contrary to the genius of British government. The point is not an elaborate provision so that every little group will get its mathematical representation. The point is whether you will get a government which will work. There are not so many democratic governments at work satisfactorily, and among those that have worked least satisfactorily are those in which they make the most elaborate provisions for the representation of minorities. I will not take the governments that have gone under already; I will take those which still exist. Look at what the situation has been in France in the last few weeks.
Mr. HOLDSWORTH: They have not got proportional representation.
Mr. ATTLEE: But it is a form of it.
Mr. HOLDSWORTH: It is not a form of it at all.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir VIVIAN HENDERSON: France went back to the second ballot some time ago.
Mr. ATTLEE: They tried various methods of this sort, but the system always tended to produce a number of groups. France has had 15 Governments in 15 years, and perhaps more, and during the greater part of that time proportional representation was in force. There is proportional representation in most of the Continental countries, and there is also this group system. The result is that the formation of the Government is taken out of the hands of the electors

1745
and is put into the hands of bargaining groups in the House. It is said that one great argument for proportional representation is that it saves the able men of various parties from being defeated. I agree that it is a misfortune to lose able men, but there is another danger in that you get a condition in which people do not know their Member at all, and, what is far worse, it makes for the domination of the machine. It makes for the selection of the Member not by the electors but by the machine, and far from freeing this House, such a system would tend to make the House fall more and more into the hands of an outside machine.
I recognise that there are very strong points from a theoretical point of view for proportional representation. I think that for certain purposes it is a useful instrument, but I do not think it is an instrument that is at all useful when applied to a Constitution such as ours, because the essential thing to be done at a General Election is to decide what set of opinions and persons is to carry on the government of the country. It is suggested that you may get a minority dominating the majority. It has not often happened in this country, and a government in that position is generally too weak to do very much and does not last very long. I am rather surprised to hear that that is put forward so strongly by hon. Members. I can remember a sort of cry about the unrepresentative character of the Liberal party in pre-War days, because it was alleged they had not a majority of the votes in this country but depended on votes from Ireland. The enthusiasm for minority representation has only come since the chance of getting a majority has departed from the Liberal party.
In the days when my party were a very small minority compared to the Liberals, no such suggestion was ever made by the Liberals. As a matter of fact, I do not believe it is really worth while discussing electoral systems in theory. I find that all parties, possibly we ourselves, tend to adopt the electoral system which suits their political position in any country for the time being. Minority groups naturally ask for the system that suits them, and majority groups probably have a dangerous tendency to squeeze out minorities. You get a party that thinks it is going to run second on the poll out of three and
1746
find it very keen on the alternative vote. On the other hand, the party which runs third moves away from the alternative vote and decides that its only chance is in proportional representation. I believe that practice has shown that, whatever disadvantages there may be, our present system works better than any of these fancy systems.
Sir H. SAMUEL: Why did the hon. Member, when he was in the late Government, join in introducing a Bill for such a system?
Mr. ATTLEE: I did not join in introducing it.
Sir H. SAMUEL: It was a Government Bill.
Mr. ATTLEE: I understood that there was a special bargain with the right hon. Member's party.
Sir H. SAMUEL: There was no bargain at all. If the hon. Member says the system is bad and injurious, why did the Government of which he was a Member propose to introduce it?
Mr. ATTLEE: At that time we were under a Prime Minister who was in the position so much liked by the Liberals; that is to say, he had constantly to think of what the Liberals would do.
Mr. ISAAC FOOT: What did you vote for?
Mr. ATTLEE: I do not know whether or not I voted for it.
Mr. FOOT: You know you voted for it.
Mr. ATTLEE: I have never concealed the point that I dislike the system, although I am perfectly willing to admit that some 20 years ago, when our party were in an even worse position than the Liberal party, I though there might be something in proportional representation. I am not considering this question in a theoretical sense, but from the point of view of what is useful. What is needed at any election is a decision for a definite course of action. I do not believe it is for the good of the country that a party with a definite political or economic theory should take office and have to tone down that theory for some third group. I would much rather that the Conservatives, for instance, should have carried out their full policy than allow themselves

1747
to be hampered by Liberals. On the whole, unless there is a broad two-party system in this country the machine does not work particularly well. Among English-speaking races the two-party system works better on the whole.
I feel this Motion was more or less a pretext for making an attack on the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). I have been asked a question. He is not in favour of a dictatorship, nor am I, but we are in favour of seeing that democracy works. We believe that the majority in the country should rule, and that the country should return a majority to this House, and our immediate concern is that there is always a danger that the majority opinion will be thwarted by another unrepresentative House. We believe that is quite a serious danger. We have always been of the opinion that it was the great merit of the British Constitution that it was so flexible that you could make great changes without breaking the whole machine, and there is a danger of an endeavour to depart from the flexibility of the machine and to try to put in a special bridle directed to restraining the Labour party. Hon. Members below the Gangway will perhaps assist in setting up a strong Second Chamber to prevent the will of the elected people prevailing. We have to face that possibility, because we on these benches are out for a complete economic change, and I am not in the least surprised that hon. Members oppose it. We hope, though, that they do believe, if we are to play the democratic game in this country according to the rules, that the rules should not always be altered when it looks as if the Labour party were going to win.
I would say, in conclusion, that, while there is nothing to complain of in the words of this Motion, I think the idea that we should make this House an exact replica of opinions held in the country is, first of all, quite impossible, and, if it were possible, that it would be undesirable. I do not think that a mosaic of various opinions, with all kinds of cross-currents, combined, by some kind of cabal inside the House, to make one of those shifting Governments such as we get on the Continent, where groups are always changing, is an effective form of
1748
Government for this country, certainly not in times like this. Though I admit that the machine has many imperfections, I think it functions better with a clear majority, even when the swing of the pendulum goes over too far, so long as there is an effective Government, because the real defence of democracy is not in abstract theories, but in the practical working of government.
8.45 p.m.
Sir V. HENDERSON: I am glad the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) has framed this Motion in very broad terms, because it enables a discussion on this subject, which is to some extent academic, to be carried out on very broad lines. It is not a new subject. It has been discussed in this House, often with considerable excitement, since 1918. We have had several private Members' Bills on the subject in the last few years, although those Bills were actually confined to the alternative system of proportional representation. We had one in 1921 and another in 1924. It is, perhaps, a remarkable fact that no party which has ever been in power in this country, and no Opposition which has been in what I might describe as effective opposition, has ever, as a party, advocated proportional representation. It is true, as the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) said, that there was a time when a large body of the Labour party were in favour of proportional representation. In the discussion in 1921, when I moved the rejection of the Liberal Bill, the bulk of the Lahour party voted in favour of the Measure; but in 1924 they had begun to appreciate better their strength, and they voted against proportional representation. In 1928, when there was a discussion on a private Member's Motion on this same subject, the whole of the Labour party voted against it, including the present Prime Minister. Proportional representation is generally advocated by minorities. It is natural that that should be so, because the whole basis of proportional representation, and, for that matter, of the second ballot and the alternative vote, is that it is supposed to provide a means by which minorities can more easily, clearly, and effectively express themselves at elections. Those systems are supposed to try to get rid of that

1749
curious trouble which excites some people's minds, the so-called wasted votes.
There are three alternative systems to the present one. There is the second ballot, which nobody has advocated to any extent in this country. Most of us who have had experience of politics know how difficult it is to get people to vote even once in this country, and to persuade people to vote twice, unless you had some form of compulsory voting, which would be very unpopular, would be almost impossible. In France, since 1928, they have gone back to the system of a second ballot. The political mentality of this country cannot be compared to the political mentality of the people on the Continent. In most of those countries where they employ a second ballot they actually have compulsory voting.
On the question of the alternative vote, I was very interested to observe the slight passage of arms which took place between the hon. Member for Limehouse and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). There seemed to be a slight difference of opinion as to who was responsible for the introduction of the Bill dealing with the alternative vote in the last Parliament. It sounded rather like a reintroduction and a rehash of the old Irish situation, with some sort of hint of a bargain in return for a hint of political support. All of us who can carry our minds back in politics know quite well what an enormous difference the question of Ireland made in the politics of this country for a period of 30 or 40 years. Irish politics loomed so large in English politics simply because the Liberal party frequently found themselves dependent upon the Irish Vote. Mr. Gladstone found himself in the position of having to make some kind of bargain with the Irish Members in order to keep himself in office. That is one of the great difficulties of any system of proportional representation, or even of the alternative vote. It does, as the hon. Member for Limehouse quite rightly said, tend to split up the big parties in this country into a number of small groups or sections.
Sir. H. SAMUEL: That situation arose without proportional representation, and under the existing system.
Sir V. HENDERSON: It certainly arose when Ireland returned that particular body of Members to this House, but it has not arisen since, except in the short period when the Liberal party were in the happy position of being dictators to those in office.
Sir H. SAMUEL: That is not proportional representation.
Sir V. HENDERSON: Well, the alternative vote.
Sir H. SAMUEL: It is not the alternative vote.
Sir V. HENDERSON: It is a possibility which, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen quite rightly says, occurs, but which is much less likely to occur in this country, and, over the whole history of our politics, has occurred far less frequently than in foreign countries which have adopted a different system. The present Prime Minister has been quoted on several occasions. As far back as 1909 he published a work "Socialism and Government," and in it he dealt with the question of proportional representation and the possible advantages of it. He dealt with it only to condemn it. In that work he said:
"It is a method of election for securing the representation of fragments of political thought and desire, and for inviting those fragments to coalesce after, and not before, elections."
That exactly expresses the danger inherent in all these systems. They have other dangers as well, because whatever machinery you devise, in order to make your voting more perfect and to get rid of those so-called wasted votes, it is bound to have anomalies of some kind.
Take the system of the alternative vote. If the candidate at the top does not succeed in getting an absolute majority, the second preferences of the candidate at the bottom are, as hon. Members know, divided up, so as to try to give the candidate at the top an absolute majority. The second preferences of the middle candidates are not divided up, and it would actually, in practice, be possible for the bottom candidate to poll more second preferences than the other candidates, although, of course, he would never get them, because the other preferences would not be counted. I saw the machinery of proportional representa-

1751
tion working in Scotland many years ago, when it was in operation for the old educational authority, which I think has been abolished. The system worked so that the value of transferable votes transferred from the top was less than the value of the transferable votes transferred from the bottom, because candidates at the top only had a certain proportion of their surplus votes transferred, while candidates at the bottom, whose candidature was eliminated, had the whole of their surplus votes transferred. The thing is very complicated, and the regulations, should any hon. Member like to amuse himself by reading them, are likewise so complicated as to be almost incomprehensible.
Whatever system you try to adopt, there is bound to be some anomaly, and some form of unfairness. You cannot produce a perfect machine, because it is always open to criticism of some kind. The hon. Member for Limehouse was quite right when he said that these alternative systems are, in themselves, no protection against revolution. I would go farther; in many cases they have almost been the cause of dictatorship. It is no use talking about wasted votes unless you realise that all votes are wasted unless they result in an effective form of government. If you produce the most marvellously mechanical system, by which every little vote has its representative in this House, it does not matter if, as a result of that, you send to this House such a collection of little parties that it is impossible to form an effective government. That has happened, of course, to a large extent in Italy. It led in Italy, and in Germany, to a form of dictatorship. It happened, and also led to a dictatorship, some years ago in Bulgaria,
Whether you take, as the hon. Member for Limehouse did, the case of France, which has a different Government about once a week, because they never can get an effective majority to pass a Budget; or whether you take Spain, which has just had an election and produced a multiplicity of parties, which may or may not be able to form an effective Government; or Belgium, whose Government a few years ago was brought to a standstill solely because no party had an effective majority; or Sweden, which had nine or
1752
10 elections in 20 years without any party ever getting an effective majority—all these countries, where there is a form of proportional representation or a form of second ballot, are dependent for their Government from day to day on a coalition of little groups. I am perfectly convinced that if in the last few years we had had to try to carry on the government of this country and of the Empire under a system of little groups, it would have been disastrous to our welfare as a nation.
I should be more inclined to believe the statement of the hon. Member for Limehouse that he is not in favour of dictatorship if I could persuade myself that the scheme which the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) advocates meant simply a scheme which, if they got a majority at the next election, would be put into force and would be tested at a subsequent election, standing or falling by the verdict of the people. But I am rather under the impression that the hon. and learned Member foreshadows a scheme which, among other things, will take power unto itself to postpone a subsequent election, and I look, of course, with grave suspicion on any party which pleads that it is democratic and all in favour of the people's verdict, when it proposes to postpone the people's verdict on any actions that it may have carried out. But of course I may have misunderstood the hon. and learned Member's scheme, and possibly on some other occasion he may have an opportunity of expounding it to the House in greater detail.
There are people who, perhaps, are disappointed or displeased with the present situation—as many people always are, whatever it may be—and who, when they find themselves in that position, seek for some alternative. I think that, if they would realise that politics, after all, is not a question of arithmetic, but very largely and primarily a question of humanity, they would perhaps get nearer to a solution of some of their difficulties. This suggestion of an alternative system of election overlooks certain fundamental facts connected with our whole system of government in this country. It has been suggested, perhaps quite rightly, that the present system pushes well-tried men out of politics at times when they are urgently needed, and there is no doubt that from

1753
time to time—as, for instance, at the last election, and at the election of 1906— political catastrophes occur which do result in many important and valuable men losing their seats. Mr. Asquith, as we all remember, lost his seat in this House in such circumstances. Mr. Balfour did the same, and so did Mr. Bonar Law.
There is, however, another side to the question. If, instead of the direct system that we have at present, by which a man stands for his own division and wins or loses it partly on circumstances outside his control, but to some extent on his personality—if instead of that we had vast three-Member and five-Member constituencies, with electorates of anything from 200,000 to 250,000 electors, the new, untried candidate, who had never been in politics before, would stand little or no chance of being sent to this House. If a system of proportional representation had been in operation in Glasgow in 1900 and in 1906, Mr. Bonar Law would never have come to this House at all; and if you delved into political history, I have no doubt you would find other cases where men who subsequently made their mark in this House and rose to high office, perhaps to the office of Prime Minister, would never have appeared in the House of Commons at all, because they would never have been elected originally. Many men, if they are defeated once or twice in politics, do not stand again, and certainly that is what would have happened in Mr. Bonar Law's case. Therefore, as I have said, there are two sides to the question, and, while the present system may knock out valued and tried men, the other will certainly keep out men who might subsequently prove their value in this House.
But the personal element goes much farther than that. Our system as we know it to-day goes right back to the time of Simon de Montfort and Edward I. It originated, not in a political system at all, but in so many burgesses being summoned from every town, and so many knights from every shire; and they were summoned here primarily, not to form political parties—that was a much more recent event—but to look after the interests of the areas from which they came, to represent them, and to protect them to some extent from over-taxation. To some extent that principle still
1754
obtains. There is still, in the large majority of cases in this House, despite the increase in the electorate, a definite personal touch between the elector and his Member. Half the work which a Member has to do—and, immediately after the War, as any Members who, like myself, were in the 1918 Parliament will recollect, it was a great deal more than half—half the work which a Member has to do has nothing to do with party politics at all; it is purely a question of personal representation. A Member is asked to look into a pension case; he is asked to look into some claim which a man has in respect of over-taxation or over-assessment; somebody who thinks he has a dispute with a Government Department will appeal to his Member. All of us will recollect the enormous number of widows' pensions claims when the widows' pension scheme first came out in the 1924 Parliament, and the enormous number of old age pension claims at the same time, while there was a tremendous number of War pension claims immediately after the War. None of these subjects has anything to do with party politics. I have been asked, as probably many Members of the House have been asked, to settle personal family disputes, which certainly have nothing to do with party politics.
How can that personal touch possibly be maintained if constituencies of 250,000 electors are to be formed, with an enormous area, particularly in the counties, and three or five Members who are supposed to look after the constituency? You could not allocate districts arbitrarily. Members would represent the whole district and not one part of it. What would probably ordinarily result from my experience of human nature is that the youngest Members would do all the work and the oldest would take all the credit. That would not encourage the entry of young men into the House of Commons even if they were fortunate enough under the system of proportional representation, being entirely unknown in politics, to get elected to the House at all. I attach tremendous importance to the personal link. It is a historical link, whatever some may think to the contrary. It is the one great argument which greatly impressed one great advocate of proportional representation in the Debate we had in 1921, I mean the Noble Lord the Member for

1755
Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil). If that is the case, we ought to think very closely before we make any change in this system which would destroy the real representation which the people have enjoyed in the House of Commons for some hundreds of years.
The hon. Member for Limehouse opposite said that he did not think this question was any protection against revolution and that any alternative system might actually encourage revolution, and he cited the case of some foreign countries where the electors do not even vote for a group of men but for a list, for a piece of paper, for people they have never seen and may never see. Does anyone with any experience of English, Scotch, Welsh or Irish mentality believe that the people of this country would tolerate a system of that kind for very long? [HON. MEMBERS: "Who suggested it?"] The Mover of the Motion suggested that the Government should consider all systems and that is one of them. Therefore, I am quite entitled to suggest that that one is extremely futile—even more futile than most of them. The Motion is framed in such a milk and water way that I do not think it makes any difference whether the House passes it or does not, because it merely asks the Government to consider the question and, knowing the present political complexion of the Government on this subject, I do not think the result is likely to be anything. But, although I think proportional representation may be effective in countries where you have strong racial or religious minorities, which we have not in this country apart from Ireland, with which we are not concerned at the moment, I do not believe that either proportional representation or the alternative vote or the second ballot has greater advantages than the present system has disadvantages. I agree that you cannot produce a perfect system. They all have defects, and the present system has many, but it has the great advantage of maintaining the personal touch between the Member and the people he represents. It has the great advantage of giving the country as a whole through a period of years an effective Government. It does not matter how beautiful a machine is in theory if in practice it does not result in an effective Government being formed. If you do not have that you are immediately going to
1756
have discontent and trouble and, sooner or later you are going to have the very dictatorship which hon. Members opposite so dread.
It amuses me that the Liberal party, of all parties, should now be the great advocates of proportional representation, because in the old days, when they were a great party, they were the great upholders of the freedom of the individual. The individual above all things was to them sacrosanct, but to-day the individual is no longer of any importance. It is the machine that has to be raised up into prominence. If you want to establish a system which destroys the individual in politics and increases the strength of the machine, this is the way to do it. The hon. Member who moved the Motion said the present system was a gamble. But all Life is a gamble and, when a party or a man first of all seeks security, it is in most people's eyes a sign of defeat. If you are going always to seek the safest road, you are probably going to seek the road which will end in your extermination. The best way to overcome difficulties is to face up to them and not always try to obtain security. If the people decide in a moment of madness that they are going to have a form of revolutionary Government, no form of Second Chamber, proportional representation, alternative vote or second ballot will stop them. The only way to make the country see sense is to try to din sense into them, and you will not do that by adopting any form of alternative election to the House. I hope, therefore, whatever happens to the Motion, the Government will not decide to make any change in the present system of election, to the House of Commons.
9.24 p.m.
Miss RATHBONE: I could not help thinking, as I listened to the last speaker's arguments, that some of them were extraordinarily double-edged. He attached very great importance to the personal touch between the representative and those whom he represents. I often wonder whether that personal touch is really an argument for the present system. What does the hon. Member's own argument amount to? Because there are a great many pension claims and claims about taxation and houses and so forth, which he has dealt

1757
with very effectively as a conscientious representative of his constituents, those constituents, from a mere sense of gratitude, vote for him at the next General Election. Constituents of other conscientious representatives do the same, and so we have returned to power a number of people who support a Government, who bring about reform of the House of Lords or an increased system of tariffs or take a certain line on great international questions, and yet we are told that it is desirable that the decision that the electorate makes at the time of a General Election shall be strongly biased by the way their representatives have acted in pressing their claims.
Sir V. HENDERSON: I never suggested that the question as to whether a Member looked after his constituency or not has anything to do with whether people voted for him. I have fought six elections and my experience is that, the more you do for people, the less they are likely to vote for you.
Miss RATH BONE: I am afraid I am not such an optimist as to believe that if all that work is done by Members for their constituents it is entirely disinterested, and I think it is obvious that it is intended to have that effect and it does have that effect. Another argument made by the hon. Member was that, under proportional representation, many distinguished men such as Mr. Bonar Law and others whom he named, would not have been returned. But how many distinguished men do not get returned under the present system because they belong to minorities which in the constituencies which would be their natural constituencies they have no chance of return or because they have naturally cross-bench minds and do not fall docilely into the present very rigid political divisions? May it not be argued that under the present system we lose many of the right people, because their party is in a minority or they are not good party men?
The speaker attached great importance, as did the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee), to the supposed failures of proportional representation on the Continent. I never heard a more clear example of the post hoc; ergo propter hoc kind of argument. What are the facts? The two countries where proportional representation does seem to have
1758
been accompanied by an apparent breakdown of the democratic system are Germany and Spain, both countries which have adopted peculiarly complicated forms of proportional representation such as I do not think are advocated by any of the supporters of this Motion, and both of them—and this is the really important point—countries where democracy was a plant of such recent and tender growth that it easily succumbed in the face of oppositions which saw that if democracy were allowed to grow strong it would be an obstacle to their own militaristic actions and plans. On the other hand, we see proportional representation in a number of European countries where, whatever disadvantages it may have, it has at least helped to bring about a form of democratic government and has produced contentment and stability and a relatively high standard of life among the people.
The hon. and gallant Member for Lime-house actually played the greater part of his tune upon France, a country which has not proportional representation at all, whereas you have proportional representation in the Netherlands, in Belgium, and in the three Scandinavian countries, and, if we were to pick out the countries of the world which upon the whole were less likely to be upset by revolution and where the standard of life is highest, should not we select exactly that group of European countries? I do not suggest that the result is mainly due to the proportional representation system, but it shows that proportional representation has not, in the majority of countries that have adopted it, led to instability of Government or to any breakdown in democracy. To a certain extent I suggest that some of the very disadvantages—and I do not deny that there are inconveniences in proportional representation, that it often does lead to the lack of big majorities and consequently to the necessity of bargaining and compromise between the different groups—are to a certain extent in themselves a safeguard. Proportional representation does prevent one of the great dangers of the system in this country, the danger of such a swing of the electoral pendulum as will bring about an overwhelming majority which may be used to cause changes for which the country itself is not really prepared.

1759
A great deal has been said about that aspect, and I do not want to dwell so much on the failure of the electoral machinery in this country to give fair representation to political parties, but I would suggest that there is another aspect of the case that is less often pointed out, and that is the failure of the system to give fair representation to different classes and sectional interests. I remember that when in the last Parliament there was an attempt to do away with university representation, I startled some people by declaring that in this country we had a dictatorship of the proletariat. So we have, in the sense that in a great majority of constituencies there is a great majority of members of the wage-earning class and their dependants, so that if those classes wished they could fill this House, not only with Members of the parties they favour, but with Members of their own class. If they have not done so, it is because the democratic ballot is a comparatively new thing, and the working classes in this country are on the whole very fair-minded, very conservatively minded, and only too ready perhaps to be led and manipulated by those who have a greater command of financial resources and greater control of organisations than themselves. We can hardly expect it to be otherwise as time goes on and the working classes become more educated and experienced in political organisation than that they should naturally desire to be represented more and more by persons not only of their own political faith but belonging to the actual class of society to which they belong, and we may have a House almost entirely with a proletarian membership. Such a House will be no more representative of the whole of Great Britain than the Parliament of 50 years ago, almost entirely filled with the upper and middle classes, was truly representative of the people.
It is rather unfashionable, it is invidious, nowadays to talk in terms of class, and class phraseology does not really express what I mean. It is not so much a question of class as of function. The point I want to make is that Parliament to-day interferes so extensively and intensively with the whole life of the people, its commerce and manufacturing interests, its education, its housing and
1760
all its social activities, that it is mere cant to say that representation of sectional interests is not necessary. Representation of sectional interests is not the only need of Parliament, but it is essential, if Parliament is to do justice to all, that every large class and section of interests must be adequately represented in this House. Those Members in this House who represent constituencies where fishing, or coal, or cotton or agriculture is the principal occupation are not ashamed of openly standing for the interests of those occupations, and there are occupations and interests that are not in a majority anywhere. All the learned professions, all the supervisory and managerial posts in all occupations, are of necessity, because they are the top posts, in a small minority in every constituency, and they are not able to command a majority of votes in any constituency. Is it desirable in the long run that all these upper strata of occupations should have no adequate representation in this House? At present, I believe that the small group to which I belong—there are 11 or 12 of us representing the Universities—are the only Members of this House who can say that we were directly elected to represent, not only university graduates but the professions and groups of occupations which are mainly hold by university graduates.
Mr. PIKE: Does the hon. Lady realise that the position even in her own university, when coupled with her fellow hon. Member, still shows conclusively that while they generally represent 8,700 voters, there are still left 4,968 who are not represented?
Miss RATHBONE: I do not quite see the bearing of the hon. Member's arithmetic. I know that in an ordinary territorial constituency of 50,000 voters there are, on an average, 200 university graduates. Can anybody say that those 200 university graduates;—and remember they stand for a great many other people who belong to the same professions as themselves—can exercise any real pull in the ordinary electoral constituency?
Sir J. HASLAM: Yes.
Miss RATHBONE: They are not numerous enough to do it.
Sir J. HASLAM: What has their education done for them, then?
Miss RATHBONE: The hon. Member says, "What has their education done for them?" or, in other words, that it is not necessary for them to exercise a direct pull through their votes, because they have their influence. I am a woman and, therefore, I know what that argument means. In the days before women had the vote we were always told that influence was quite enough. We found out that influence is not only inadequate, but that it is, on the whole, demoralising and bad when any large class or group in the community has to depend upon indirect influence, and has no direct means of representation. I often think that those who belong to the Conservative party who, because they are strong at present, and command a large majority in the House, overlook the danger, and some day may regret that they did not, while they had yet time, try to secure a more adequate system of representation of the electorate. At present, in order to secure the permanent control of their own point of view or interest, they want a strengthened reform of the House of Lords. The Lord President of the Council, who, I think, has his hand more closely on the pulse of the people than any other Member, perhaps, of the Front Bench, very clearly warned his followers the other day that any party or any body of opinion that tried to put the other House into a position superior to this House was merely promoting conflict which would go on until the lower House had asserted its superiority.
I suggest that those who want greater security against future revolutionary changes than they feel they have at present, had better turn their attention from the House of Lords to the House of Commons, and see whether there are not ways of making this House more truly representative than it is, at present. I think that speakers on both sides under-rate the very real and undeniable danger which will arise if we have in some future House a large majority of either side—if it is a Conservative majority which tries to frustrate the will of the people when the people are anxiously demanding improvements in their economic position, or if it is a Labour majority which tries to push through great revolutionary changes before public opinion is really ready for
1762
them. What will happen if that is the case? We all know of the vague hints and threats of dictatorships coming from one side or the other. I do not think any of us can deny that if there is ever an attempt to overthrow democracy in this country, it will come from there being some large element among the people which has reason to believe that the great and grave grievances it desires cannot get remedied through the ordinary constitutional media. That danger might come from the Left or from the Right, but from whichever side it came, it would be that which would really be likely to bring about a crisis which might lead to the overthrow of democracy in this country.
It is lamentable that it should be true, as the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) almost jocularly said, that these questions are always considered in the light of the political fortunes of the party in power at the moment. When the Liberals were in power and had the chance, they did not bring about reform. Now that the Conservative party is in power, it thinks its power is going to last for ever, and therefore it does not want proportional representation. Therefore, the question of the constitution of this country and how that constitution can be adapted and moulded so as to make it even more fitted than it is at present to meet all the manifold difficulties of the time, is far too big to be considered in the light of temporary electoral conveniences on one side or the other. His Majesty's Government ought to give their support to the Motion to-night, and see whether by proportional representation, combined with some form of direct functional representation, we cannot make this House more thoroughly representative of the whole of the people than it is at present.
9.42 p.m.
The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): I intervene only for a few moments. I am one of those who, having been a Member of this House for some time, have a very due regard for the rights and privileges of private Members, and there is nothing which those of us who have been private Members regret more than when the Government find it necessary to take away private Members' time. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Holdsworth) had the good fortune to be in his place and to open

1763
the discussion. I am sure, without agreeing or disagreeing with anything which the hon. Gentleman said, I can congratulate him upon introducing for discussion in this House a problem of such great interest. He appealed to the Government to consider this problem. Those of us who represent the Government on this occasion can assure him that we will study with the very greatest care the points of view which he and his friends have put, and, equally, the point of view which other Members have put in this House. I am not called upon to express, nor will I express, an opinion either one way or the other, or give any undertaking on behalf of His Majesty's Government. As I realise that a speech from the Front Bench should be as short as possible, I will now sit down.
9.44 p.m.
Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I am sure that the House was delighted with the very clear explanation of the right hon. Gentleman defining the attitude of the Government towards the Motion. It is the most unenlightening speech we have heard from the Front Government Bench for a long time. I am sure that we are all much wiser after what the right hon. Gentleman has told us, and that we all know at last exactly where the Government stand on this very important issue. I confess at once that when I was presented many years ago with the proposal of proportional representation, I felt that it was the right method of conducting our elections, and I adhered to that point of view for many years. But then I put the problem to my own particular case, and I think it is what all hon. Members ought to put to themselves as well. I will take my own Parliamentary Division as an illustration. Under proportional representation it would be joined up with four other constituencies. Two of those constituencies are now represented by the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) and the right hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hacking). I say, quite frankly, that I do not want at any time in my political career to be joined with them in representation in the House of Commons. That is the practical issue as it presents itself to me. In a large city I can see proportional representation operating without the same difficulty, but when you
1764
combine five county divisions in the great county of Lancashire, and the right hon. Member for Darwen and the hon. and gallant Member for Chorley and myself may be three Members to represent three of those five divisions which have been made into one, I think the situation is almost impossible.
Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Why?
Mr. DAVIES: In the first place, the electorate would know those two gentlemen better than they would know me. In any case, they would have more funds to make themselves known and run their election than I should have. But even if they had no more funds than I should have, they would certainly have more motor cars to cover the vast ground at election times. Those are some of the difficulties in actual practice.
How does the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Holdsworth) expect this Government to do anything in response to his request? Surely, he knows that the Ullswater Conference broke down when considering this problem. Nothing came of it. There was no agreement on any point. If there was no agreement possible then, how can the hon. Member think that we can get more agreement now on this issue? I think the Motion is based upon fear of the result of the next General Election. If the hon. Members who moved and seconded the Motion thought that the Liberal party would be the largest party in this House after the next General Election, I do not think they would have selected this subject.
Mr. J. WALLACE: Why not?
Mr. DAVIES: When the Liberal party were in power in this House they never bothered about proportional representation. Let me deal with some of the other points which have been raised. When the hon. Member for Bradford, South, talked about electoral reform, he said nothing about the anomaly of university representation, or that nuisance to all parties, the double-barrelled constituency. He did not say a single word either about another matter which constitutes an important problem, and that is the growth of population on new estates, which means that some constituencies have recently been doubled in size. The Government will have

1765
to consider some of these special problems if they consider the subject of the Motion at all. The hon. Member for South Bradford was a little unkind to those who sit on these benches when he said that the Parliamentary Labour party ought to have the help of some of our outside leaders in this House. He complained that under the present system of election the big men did not get a chance of coming here. So far as the Liberal party are concerned, the less their number the greater the proportion of big men remain in Parliament. Their numbers may decrease, but their leaders seem to remain. As regards the other side of the House, I am not wishing to insult them when I say that it is a Government of mediocrities.
We all believe that minority views should be represented. I have studied the problem of elections just a little in foreign countries. I was in the United States of America once when an election was taking place, and I felt that, in spite of all its deficiencies, our own electoral system is very much better than the one in operation in America. Over there nearly everybody votes for the ticket. There is one thing to be said about our electoral system, and that is that, however clumsy it may be our people vote for the man or the woman candidate as well as for the party. There is a great deal to be said for that principle when you get the right man belonging to the right party. We have a right to quarrel with members of the Liberal party when, in championing the case of proportional representation to-night, they argued that what was wanted in this House was representation of varied opinions. The Liberal party have no title to argue that way, because they were elected to support the present Government, and have since left it. If their action in this Parliament is any criterion, one can never be sure whether the opinions expressed by the electorate at elections will ever be carried out by Members of Parliament. We of the Labour party pledged ourselves then to oppose the Government and we are still in opposition to it.
I cannot understand why Liberal Members of Parliament should criticise the statements of certain members of the Labour party. Surely, a pamphlet written by one member of our party
1766
need not be the considered policy of the Labour party.
Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Is it?
Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I took pains to point out that the Labour Party Conference refused to repudiate the policy of which I spoke.
Mr. DAVIES: Surely, the hon. Member does not expect policies on negatives. The Trades Union Congress, which gave birth to this party, has definitely declared against dictatorship of any kind. Liberal Members are very much afraid that the Labour party would create Peers in order to carry out our policy in the House of Lords. If my memory serves me aright, the Liberal party once upon a time did that.
Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: After two elections on that specific point.
Mr. DAVIES: Suppose we did it after one election, would that be wrong?
Mr. MALLALIEU: If you had a majority, quite right.
Mr. DAVIES: We shall get a majority. That is what hon. Members are afraid of.
Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: Is it a party that creates Peers or is it the prerogative of His Majesty?
Mr. DAVIES: The hon. Member ought to know the answer to that question.
Mr. BEAUMONT: They are not created by party; do not forget that.
Mr. DAVIES: The hon. Member ought to know full well how Peers are created. If he does not, I will tell him privately. I wish the hon. Member for South Bradford had chosen a very much bigger subject than this, because what he has told us is utterly unconvincing as to the necessity of such a radical change. I agree that the present is a rough-and-ready way of dealing with things, but I am not satisfied that the proposals of the hon. Member will make the position any better. When he speaks of a dictatorship because of the defects of the present electoral system, surely he must be wrong in his history. I am convinced that it does not matter what system you have with regard to elections, if the people want a revolution there will be one. I am satisfied, on the other hand, and I think I can speak on behalf of the Labour party, that the working

1767
classes of this country will not stand a dictatorship either from the left or the right or the centre. The vast majority of the people of this country are wedded to parliamentary democracy. It may be a clumsy way of doing things; and in spite of the fact that hon. Gentlemen opposite hold the reins of Government at the moment I prefer the system we have now in operation to a more perfect instrument in itself which forgets one thing, and that is that the electors are human beings after all.
Proportional representation is a perfect machine, but its products are not up to human requirements. I have seen that system at work in foreign countries where there are different races and creeds. It is worth remembering that in this country the total alien population is only about 250,000. We are more or less of the same race. The Welsh came here first, then the English, and next the Scots; but in the main we are now of the same blood and that makes a vast difference in our political outlook. I have been interested in the Debate, and the hon. Member, if I may say so, put his case very well indeed. But it is indeed a poor case to ask this Government to do anything; and why on earth the Liberal party, after deserting the Government, should now turn round and ask this administration above all to alter the electoral system in order to save the Liberal party from destruction is beyond my comprehension. We are in a hopeless minority—
Sir J. HASLAM: That is not the only thing you are hopeless in.
Mr. DAVIES: Although we want every point of view represented in this House we have to face the fact that what is as important as representation of opinion is to get a Government. The present system in my view, however clumsily it may operate, does give us that which is essential for the welfare of the country, and that is a government.
9.58 p.m.
Mr. ISAAC FOOT: The words just used by the hon. Member for West-houghton (Mr. R. Davies) mark the division between his philosophy and mine, and show the difference between the exposition given on these benches and the benches opposite, and what has been said from the Labour benches. The hon.
1768
Member says, "We want a Government." That was also said by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Sir V. Henderson). They are not concerned as to whether fractions are represented, or whether all people get representation— they say, we must get a government. My submission is that we have first of all to secure representative government. You can get a government under Hitler, or under Mussolini. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or under Oliver Cromwell!"] Yes, or under Oliver Cromwell, who spent the greater part of his power in trying to secure civil government in this country. The cynical speech made by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) was entirely unworthy of a subject of this kind. He said that we had to get a government which would work. That is precisely the plea that has been used by every tyrant. If you want to get a government which is to work and you make that your first consideration, you rule out representative government. That is a philosophy against which I strongly protest. The hon. Member for West-houghton suggested that we are concerned with the machine, not with humanity. We are in fact pleading for the many people, the minorities, who are denied the right of representation in this House. Are they not our own flesh and blood? Are they to be mere ciphers in a mathematical calculation? Surely they have the same right to representation as those who are fortunate enough to vote for the majority. I am going to make a plea for minorities, who under our present system are shut out from consideration.
I am rather sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford, who has made a speech on every occasion when this subject has been discussed, and has spoken to-night, on the same lines as he did in the year 1923 when a Motion of this kind was introduced has not remained to hear what is said in answer to his argument. He suggested that we should start by going back to the system of Edward I and Simon de Mont-fort. If we go back to that system surely it was representation of cities and towns and counties. Simon de Montfort was not responsible for the system which has grown up in recent years of dividing cities like Manchester into purely arbitrary divisions, where the people on one side of the street belong to one con-

1769
stituency and those on the other to another division. If we establish the system which was set up under Edward I and Simon de Montfort, and which had been carried on for generations, we shall come back to the proposals contained in the suggestion for proportional representation and the single transferable vote. Counties like Cornwall had their number of representatives in the time of the Long Parliament. If we go back to the time of the Long Parliament, or to Simon de Montfort, we find no division of our cities into purely arbitrary divisions, by which in fact we are robbing our cities and counties of effective and collective representation in this House.
The hon. Member for Westhoughton said that it was a pity Liberal Members should spend their time on so small a matter. Some of us feel intensely on this subject. He may say that it is because of our party situation. We can pass that by for the time being, and also the cynical expressions used by the hon. Member for Limehouse; but what right have hon. Members to dismiss this matter as being very small, when only two years ago the hon. Member for Limehouse and his colleagues invited the attention of this House for many weeks in trying to carry though a Bill which was intended to remedy our electoral disabilities?
Mr. R. DAVIES: The hon. Member suggests that a city like Manchester with 10 Parliamentary seats should be made into one. Is it not a fact that under proportional representation Manchester would still be divided into two Parliamentary divisions?
Mr. FOOT: I have not worked out the details of proportional representation, and I am not sure what effect it would have on Manchester; I have not gone into the machinery. But the hon. Member knows that I was answering the argument that we should not interfere with a system which has been set up since the days of Edward I He must not get away from the next suggestion I was making. It is all very well for him to dismiss it, but less than two years ago the time of this House was occupied upon a Measure which was not hurriedly introduced, for a conference was called to consider it. Upon that conference many who are now in the House, and many who are no longer with
1770
us, served. They gave their time to it at the invitation of the hon. Member's Government, the Government of which the hon. Member for Limehouse was a Member. To-day he did not remember what he had done then. He did not remember whether he had voted for the Measure or not. If he had voted against his Government and taken the courageous line at that time, he would have remembered, unless it was that he was so obedient a Member of the Government that he went into the Lobby knowing not at all upon what subject he voted. But if Members of all parties were giving their attention to that Bill and in this House consideration was given to it, it is very cynical for hon. Members on the Labour benches just two years later to say that the subject to which we then gave our time on their Bill was one which really should not have occupied the attention of this House.
The case as it was put in the first instance was in my opinion overwhelming. I would like to tell Members why I feel strongly upon this subject. I ask them to give me credit for not being concerned merely with the fortunes of my own party. There are some things that it is very difficult to define. It is very difficult to define liberty or to define democracy, but whatever definition of democracy there may be two fundamental things we are entitled to look for in a democratic system. First of all under your system, if it is democratic, the will of the majority for the time being as it is expressed at the polls shall prevail. The other fundamental thing is that substantial minorities shall have a representation that corresponds approximately with their influence and their power. Judged by that test our system stands condemned, and to the extent that it falls short of that it ought to be improved if it is within our power.
I ask hon. Members to consider what has been the long struggle for representative institutions in this country. The fight for the franchise, for reform, extended over the latter part of the 18th century and went right on to the big Measure of 1832. Members opposite can take pride in the work they did for the extension of the franchise in some of the later years. Some of them perhaps repudiated it. But it ran right on to the courageous work done by the then Conservative Prime Minister, now the Lord

1771
President of the Council, in completing the work of manhood and womanhood franchise in this country only a few years ago. The franchise was the dominating issue for, I suppose, 100 years. We have got the system for maintaining our voters' list, all the work that is done by our registration officers, and the rest. Then we have set up the great machinery of law to see that the franchise can be fairly exercised. So much so that if it can be proved that a man, in order to get a seat in this House, has paid even 2s. 6d. for a vote, he can be unseated and dispossessed of political power for some years. We have elaborate election laws to see that wealth shall not have illegitimate power in an election. Yet in spite of all that effort, in spite of all the laws that we have set up during successive years to get fair representation of the people's will, when we make the supreme effort and we converge upon the elections, we have no assurance after an election that there is any approximate correspondence between the votes cast and the constitution of this House. That is the indictment.
Just now something was said about a gamble. My hon. Friend who moved this Motion said that it was a gamble, and that our Imperial concerns ought not to rest upon that. It has also been said in reply that all life is a gamble. There may be a great deal of the gamble in life, but a wise and prudent man does not rest his life on a gamble. He eliminates the gamble as far as he can. He cannot be certain how long his life will last, but for those who are dependent on him he tries by insurance to make some safeguard against the ordinary uncertainties of life. In our affairs we ought not to accept a gamble as being an essential element of our political life. We ought to eliminate it as far as we can. We remember reading in Plutarch how, when they elected senators of Sparta, they locked up two or three assessors in a room. The candidates for election had to come along one by one and pass through the assembly outside, and the assessors, who did not know who the candidates were, had to estimate the shouts of the crowd outside and so decide the issue. In that way they decided who was to be a Senator. That was a long time ago, but it was a scienti-
1772
fic system compared with the system upon which we elect our Members to-day. It was very much surer. It is now like a dip into a bran tub, as far as the constitution of this House is concerned. There is the undeniable fact, proved by the figures given by my hon. Friend, that you can have a majority in this House representing no more than one-third of the votes cast at a General Election. That is a matter which deserves much more serious attention than was given to it by the Home Secretary in his reply.
There are some things that we have to put up with, and I can quite understand that if it could be said that there is no remedy for this, we must accept the situation. But there is a remedy, and it is close to our hands. I was astonished when reference was made to the doctrinaire nature of the system and the difficulty. It was all very well for the hon. Member for Chelmsford to say that 12 years ago. He said that the system was complicated and presented too many difficulties. He could have said that years ago. No man who looks across the Irish Channel can deny that a steadying factor there has been the system of proportional representation. When we are told about the difficulties and the complications the answer is to be found in the statement of a leading Irish newspaper, after the election which took place in Ireland early this year, that the system is easy to understand and simple to work. There has been no difficulty in Ireland. Although there are between Mr. Cosgrave and Mr. De Valera very serious differences they are agreed that she system of proportional representation has been fair to majorities and minorities in Ireland. It has been a steadying factor in a country which has been torn more than most countries by disturbance and violence. We have had now 10 or 11 years experience of it in Ireland with this very remarkable result—that after each election there is in the Irish Parliament some fair representation of the different elements in Irish life.
Of course there are complications when you come to work out the system, but those complications need not be understood by the ordinary voter. They need only be understood by the trained man who does the work. Any man can cast his vote under proportional representation. The man who has a shilling to put

1773
upon a horse, decides as to the order in which he thinks three horses will come in at the end of a race. He has no difficulty in that and there is no more difficulty in making his choice of three candidates, marking the figure 1 against the name of the man who is his first preference and the figure 2 against the man he would like to see second and so on.
The hon. Member opposite who is very closely associated with his party forgets that under the present system the electorate has no free choice as to the candidates who are placed before him. An idyllic picture has been drawn of a constituency selecting the man dear to its heart, the man of its choice, but 999 people out of 1,000 in a constituency have no voice at all as to the people who submit themselves for election. Generally, as we know, the executives of associations decide who are to be candidates. Reference was made just now to the machine. This system is precisely the system that will give the individual a chance. Suppose that in a constituency where all three parties have strong party machines, they put up three subservient candidates who are ready to toe the party line. Under a system of proportional representation, a fourth man who, as a result of apprenticeship in the local service has gained the confidence of his fellows, could go forward as a candidate and stand side by side with those party nominees and beat them, even though they were smothered with party labels. The system will give the individual in this country an opportunity he has not had before. I beg of those who are looking into this matter, or who will be looking into it during the next year or two, to consider what our representations are. The hon. Member opposite quoted what the present Prime Minister said and rather contemptuously referred to the representation of fragments.
Sir V. HENDERSON: I did not use the word "fragments" contemptuously, nor did I imply that the words quoted were in any way contemptuous.
Mr. FOOT: I thought the quotation suggested that the Prime Minister, referring to proportional representation, said it would secure the representation of fragments. I withdraw the epithet "contemptuous," but I would prefer to take what was said by the Lord President of the Council in 1928:
1774
"We have got to make democracy safe for the world. You will never get that perfect democracy at which we aim until the whole people plays its part. Every fragment must bear its share of that burden."
I want the fragment to have its chance. I want to know why minorities cannot be brought in. I want to know why the Conservatives in Durham who, up to this last election have had practically no representation in this House, should not be heard. There are Conservatives there.
Mr. BATEY: Oh no there are not.
Mr. FOOT: I want to know why the Conservatives in the rural parts of Wales who cast their votes at election after election should not have a representation that corresponds with their strength. Why should not Liberals in the county of Surrey or Sussex, who are never represented in this House to the extent of their numbers, have their voice? Why should not a Labour man be entitled to come and represent some part of the county of Cornwall, not a geographical part, but the Socialist vote that has been cast there at election after election? What breaks the heart of people more than being in a constituency where they never have any hope of success; and why, by mere geographical accident, are they denied the right that is given to others? The greatest influence of education is the influence of politics, the education of politics. People have a great deal more education from their life than from their schools, and one of the essential elements of education in a free democratic country is the association with political workers. The shutting out of these minorities in these places where there are big majorities against them brings about apathy and paralysis and is a great loss to our national life.
One reason why I feel very intensely upon this question is that I come from a constituency that was represented by one who was Mr. Leonard Courtney, afterwards Lord Courtney of Penwith, and if hon. Members have time to read Dr. Gooch's "Life" of that great man, who served many years in this House, they will see the intensity with which he fought upon this subject. He gave his life to it, he gave his mind to it, mainly because it was not some change in political machinery, as it has been dismissed to-night, but because he believed that it would bring to this country forces

1775
that were being repressed and denied. We need every sustaining factor that is available, and the wealth of public service is not so great in this country that we can shut out great numbers of our fellow citizens. It is upon that ground that we ask that the minorities shall be able to make this contribution.
I believe that we have got to maintain representative institutions in this country, and that the responsibility rests upon this country more than upon any other country in the world. When William Wordsworth said, over a century ago, speaking of this country, that it was a bulwark for the cause of men, it was just after the Napoleonic struggle. It is very much more true to-day. Now that we see representative institutions going down all along the line, and Kings going down, and dictators going down, locking up the doors of Parliament, and putting the keys in their pocket, there are very few countries left where representative in-institutions are maintained, and it is not going one word beyond the bare truth to say that if they went down in this country, they would go down everywhere. Therefore, there is the responsibility upon us. In my opinion, there are two things that we ought to do, and if we shirk them, it will be a very heavy responsibility.
First of all, we ought to improve the procedure of this House, to make it equal to the needs of our own generation, and, secondly, we ought so to bring about the reform of our electoral system that this institution of ours is truly representative and can rely upon the influence and the support of all our people, majorities and minorities alike. There is no one of us who can tell what may be the changes and vicissitudes of the next 15 or 20 years; nobody here can tell if in 20 years' time our representative institutions will be still standing. I pray God they still will be standing, but I believe that they will have the better chance of surviving if we make these institutions less vulnerable than they are, and if we bring to their support every section of our people, not merely those of the majority or of our own way of thinking, but take the generous line and say, "We will have the support of those who differ from us," believing that many elements must go to the making up of our English life and that there must be the contribution of every
1776
school of thought. If those institutions go down in 10 or 20 years' time, the responsibility will not only be upon those who actually make the onslaught, but perhaps upon those of this generation who, from lethargy or shameful indifference, fail to avail themselves of a remedy which is at hand. That remedy would have a great reforming quality and be fair to all our people, and do something to maintain institutions which moan a great deal not only for this country, but for all the world.
10.25 p.m.
Mr. J. REID: I do not think I need detain the House on again elaborating arguments to show that the introduction of proportional representation might bring about a condition of stalemate. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) said he would rather have a condition of stalemate than have minorities not represented.
Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I did not use the word "stalemate." I said I would rather have an absolutely equal balance of parties if that were the result of balanced voting, than have one party with a majority over the other without any corresponding electoral support.
Mr. REID: I do not think I am doing the hon. Member any injustice when I say that he prefers a condition of stalemate if only it fits in with his theory. If there are three parties, none of which has a majority, he would have the bargaining which we saw in a previous Parliament. That is not a prospect which the majority of this House can view with equanimity. On the other hand, can we view with any more equanimity the continuance of the present system? It is the confessed object of many hon. Members opposite to bring in a revolution of the constitution of this country, and I have never heard the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) qualify his theory by saying that they will not proceed unless they have a majority vote in the country; and still less have I ever heard him say, "Suppose we get in on a snap vote, not because the country likes us but because it is tired of the other people, I will go back to the country and consult it before I do anything irreparable." If the hon. and learned Member will say, "We will not proceed unless we have a majority of the people behind us; and if

1777
there is a doubt whether they voted for our scheme and not against the other people, then we will give them another chance by means of a referendum," then I am satisfied. I am certain that if he goes to a referendum or a second general election, he will not have a chance. Therefore, I feel safe, but so long as the constitution allows a snatch vote in cir-cumstances in which the country may vote, not for one party but against another, we must have some safeguard.
The safeguard which obviously presents itself is the reform of the House of Lords, and if the Government will adopt that policy I will vote against this Motion with pleasure, but so long as the Government refuse to contemplate the obvious method of security, namely, the reform of the House of Lords, it seems to me that the proposal in the Motion is the second best. I have great difficulty in opposing it so long as the present attitude towards reform of the House of Lords continues. I beg the Government to consider three possible courses—the status quo, reform of the House of Lords, or reform of the procedure for the election of this House. The object of any scheme is not to defeat democracy. I do not think anyone in this House is a firmer believer in democracy than I aim, but the object of democracy is to make sure that the considered will of the people should prevail, and anyone who is afraid of the veto of the House of Lords, who is afraid to go back to the country and say: "We want our policy endorsed anew either by a referendum or a general election" is afraid of democracy.
If we had a reformed House of Lords, as against the proposal in this Motion, we should achieve two things. First we should avoid stalemate in this House. We should have a House of Commons strong enough to support a Government which wants to get something done, a House of Commons in which it is not necessary for the Government to bargain as between one group and another, and therefore there would be a chance of getting a positive policy carried out. But, on the other hand, we should have a brake which would make it certain that a change of high constitutional importance could not be brought about without the country seeing that Measure face to face and saying, "Yes, we approve of it." If I have to vote on this question, so long as there is any hope of the Government reforming
1778
the House of Lords I feel bound to vote against this Motion, because it is only a second best. I am a little bit in the position of those who like the alternative vote or proportional representation, I want to mark my ballot paper "Reformed House of Lords, 1; This Motion, 2; Status Quo, 3." But at present I have to vote as between No. 2 and No. 3, because No. 1 is not here for me to vote about.
In these circumstances it is difficult to know what to do, but I shall vote against this Motion in the hope that this Government will adopt the straightforward course of reforming the House of Lords. If I find that is not going to be done, and if this Motion were to come up again in the course of a year or two, no reform of the House of Lords being proposed, I should vote for this Motion. But I do not think the time has yet come to give up hope of the House of Lords being reformed within the duration of this Parliament, and, therefore, I venture to cast my vote against this Motion
10.33 p.m.
Lord SCONE: In rising to support this Motion, I find myself in unaccustomed company, and I hasten to make it clear to hon. Members opposite that my conversion is temporary; that just for to-night I am a lodger occupying one room in their spiritual home. One of the disadvantages of being unfortunate enough to be called so late in the Debate is that nearly all the points one wishes to make have been put forward by other speakers. The last one, that referring to the reform of the other Chamber, which I thought was to be my ewe lamb, the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. J. Reid) has snatched from me; but, unlike him, I propose to support the Motion because, unfortunately, I fear there seems to be little chance of the Government taking up the question of the reform of the other House, although to my mind it is one of the most vital problems we have to face.
The position at present is that in this country we are tending more and more to return to our old system of two parties. For a short time we have bad three parties, but now the right wing Liberals, those who think deeply, are tending more or less to fusion with Conservatives. The other Liberals, who think rather more vaguely, remain an isolated and diminishing band.

1779
As regards the others who are definitely opposed to the National Government, there is the Independent Labour party, which started with five Members and has now shrunk to three, two having joined the main party. That is not because the Members of the Independent Labour party are too modest to express their views. One of the Members of that party expressed his for about one hour last night. That is not because they lack political sagacity. As a matter of fact, everyone must be well aware that the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) have far more political ability than the whole of the Socialist Front Bench put together. From time immemorial, we have had a two-party system in this House and, unless and until Members elect to change it, that system is likely to continue.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Mallalieu), who very ably seconded this Motion, explained the reasons why the system of two parties obtained. If a Government became unpopular, or if possibly there were internal dissensions, the Crown would at once call upon the responsible alternative Government. That position was all very well as long as we had a responsible alternative Government, but to-day the position is changed. So far from having a responsible alternative Government, we have the pleasant position that, should a Socialist majority attain power as well as office in this country, it would not be the House of Commons or the Cabinet that would dictate, nor would the electors be the controlling body, but it would be a small gang of the Trades Union Congress, or some other political racketeers, who would dictate a policy which is repugnant to the vast majority of the electors and even of those who are misguided enough to vote Socialist. The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) was at great pains to dissociate himself and the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), from the policy of revolution. I do not know whether the latter associates himself with that dissociation.
Mr. ATTLEE: I associated myself with revolution, but revolution by Parliamentary methods.
Lord SCONE: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his correction.
1780
Those of us who have taken some pains to study the utterances of his hon. and learned Friend, have gathered an impression not precisely similar. In fact, it seems to us that, if the hon. and learned Gentleman obtained power, he would immediately proceed to put into operation methods against which he and his friends would be the very first to scream, if this Government adopted them. I am not certain whether it was the hon. Gentleman himself, or some of his spiritual advisers, who would suspend the holding of another election until such time as they saw fit. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman will say if we attempted to carry out such a proposal. He would probably become incoherent with democratic fervour. I do not know whether the ardour for Democracy of the Socialists who oppose proportional representation is as great as they say. If there were proportional representation, and they obtained a majority of the votes, nothing could stop Socialism, but, so far as we can see, and as has already been pointed out, they want to sneak in on a split vote, and then to proceed to put their policy into operation.
Everyone knows that hundreds of thousands, or probably millions, of electors do not vote for the government that is coming in, but against the government that is going out, irrespective of what the party colours may be. If the hon. Gentleman and his friends get into office, they will take very good care that the electors do not have a chance for a very long time of explaining whether they are in favour of a policy of Socialism or not. We are to have emergency legislation rushed through this House, so that thereafter this House will be reduced to a cipher, and all legislation will be carried out by Orders-in-Council. I do not think that that is an unfair statement of the position, which is going to be very dangerous if we are to have a revolutionary Socialist Government as an alternative to the present more-or-less fusion or coalition of parties, forming a moderate National Government.
Everyone is also aware that, no matter how good a Government may be, no matter what reforms it may carry out, no matter how prosperous it makes the country, sooner or later the electors get tired of it, simply because it is the Government, and in such circumstances, if we

1781
retain our two-party system, the time must come when the National Government, or whatever Government may succeed it, will fall, and there will be no alternative Government except one composed of people more or less led by the hon. and learned Gentleman. In such circumstances the future of this country will be very dark. Some people maintain that it would be a good thing for Socialism to get power as well as office, seeing that it would give the electors such a lesson that they would not trust their destinies to the Socialist party for many years to come. There is something to be said for that idea, but the time when a Socialist Government was merely in office without power, from 1929 to 1931, was quite enough to show what they could do. They reduced this country to the verge of absolute ruin by their complete incapacity, their complete lack of a constructive programme, and their complete abandonment of all sound finance and good government. Heaven help the country if ever they had office with power; they would ruin it in six weeks.
That is the position which we find before us to-day, and that is why I think there are very good reasons why proportional representation should be seriously considered by His Majesty's Government, and why electors who are "fed up" with the Government in office should be given a chance to vote for someone other than the Socialist party. I believe that the letters "P.R." do not spell "proportional representation," but "perpetual repression"—perpetual repression of the Socialist party; because I believe that the Socialist party are never likely to get a majority of all the electors in this country, though they are only too likely to creep into office by the back door on a split moderate vote.
I should like now to refer to certain disadvantages of proportional representation which are occasionally brought forward. In the first place, we are told that there will be a stalemate, but I do not think that that is necessary. Secondly, ray own party say that we shall never get any more Conservative legislation passed; but, speaking quite frankly as a Tory of the right wing, I am not quite sure that we have had any such legislation for a long time past. The only Tory thing about our policy has
1782
been the introduction of Protection, and Protection has ceased to be a party cry at all, and is now admitted by all parties, even including the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) and his associates, to be necessary in greater or lesser degree. We are not likely to be any worse off, in any such conditions as might arise in the future, than we are likely to remain to-day. Then we are told that it would increase the representation of cranks and freaks in this House. I do not want to be rude to anyone in the House, but, if one looks round, one wonders whether there are not some here already whose views are exceptional, and I rather doubt whether proportional representation would increase the number to any measurable extent.
Lastly, certain Members, especially of my own party, view with horror the continued presence here of those hon. Members who follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen. Personally, however, I do not regard their presence here with the abhorrence that some of my friends do. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Do not throw them flowers."]—I thought that flowers were usually given, even by way of a wreath. To my mind they certainly serve a very useful purpose. There are times when we have dull, serious Debates here, and hon. Members opposite sometimes make very useful contributions to those Debates, while at other times their presence is very valuable by way of a little light relief. I think that the price we should have to pay in having them here would be a very light one if it meant that we should be quite certain of keeping the Socialists out. For that reason, I myself am completely prepared to go into the Division Lobby to vote for their Motion. After all, even if it means the perpetuation of that section of the Liberal party that is led by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen, as a naturalist I am bound to be in favour of the conservation of all rare species that are on the verge of extinction, and I should be very sorry to think that they will be reduced in the future to the condition of museum pieces. It is far better that, in the interests of the country and of the suppression of Socialism, we should continue to enjoy in our midst the presence of those very interesting political prehistoric survivals.

1783
To strike a more serious note, I believe it is essential, if we are to escape the very great dangers that would overtake the country in the event of a Socialist majority coming in and a Socialist Government being put in power as well as in office, that some alternative form of representation should be considered. I think proportional representation is probably the least nasty of all such forms, and I hope that the Government will give the matter their earnest consideration, because by so doing they will avoid a great danger while suffering what may be no more than a slight inconvenience.
10.46 p.m.
Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: I feel that the Mover of the Motion will be neither surprised nor regretful to learn that it will have my unalterable opposition notwithstanding the entirely unexpected support of my Noble Friend the Member for Perth (Lord Scone). On both grounds, its preservation of democracy and its preservation of naturalist specimens, it fails to appeal to me.
Lord SCONE: I did not mention the preservation of democracy. That was merely incidental.
Mr. BEAUMONT: I would only justify my attitude by the speech of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) who said that in the House there should be people of all points of view and, as I believe that democracy is both bad and unworkable, and as I believe that neither proportional representation nor any other form of electoral reform will keep it from tottering to its inevitable grave, to my mind efforts that are addressed to the object of its preservation are neither attractive nor particularly valuable. On the other hand, from the point of view of the preservation of the rights of minorities, or of the Liberal party, I again think that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, and, while I am bound to say that, while the hon. Member for Bodmin made a passionate appeal and twitted the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) with cynicism when he said that the object of the Motion was to increase the strength of the Liberal party, and while I in common with every Member of the House would give the hon. Member almost complete credit for all sincerity,
1784
if he asks for it, it is peculiar that proportional representation is a matter of comparatively recent adoption even by the Liberal party.
We have had quotations from various statesmen, from the Prime Minister and from the Lord President of the Council, and we have had allusions without number to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). I will go a little further back and give a quotation from Sir William Harcourt. No one would accuse him of being anything but orthodox. No one could accuse him of any leanings either towards Socialism or Toryism, and yet this is how he described proportional representation in resisting a proposal to introduce it into a Local Government Bill of which he had charge—proportional representation applied to local government which, as was pointed out by the Liberal party when they introduced a Bill on the subject last Session, had all the advantages and none of the objections that may be attributed to Parliamentary proportional representation. This is how the right hon. Gentleman described it:
"It is a system by which a man has to vote for the person he does not prefer in order to secure a majority for some purpose he does not understand."
I suggest that for a description of the proposal of proportional representation the words of that distinguished Liberal could not be bettered. We have heard from the hon. Member for Bodmin how beautifully it has worked in Ireland. He has not said much about those countries which have undertaken it and abandoned it, and when he refers to Ireland, let him remember that in Ireland, though there may be a multiplicity of parties, there is virtually one issue on which the whole country is divided, and that is the adherence or non-adherence to the treaty. Therefore, if proportional representation has not worked too badly there, it is because it is merely adjusting the relations of two peoples of opposite views. In this country with, three, or is it four or five parties?—I never know how many Liberal parties there are—anyhow with a great many parties, in spite of what the Noble Lord the Member for Perth has said, a stalemate is inevitable.
The hon. Member for Bodmin implied that he did not very much mind. He said

1785
that he was not responsible for the results. If this House is to make a step forward, it is just the results that it has to consider. There will be very little disagreement in any quarter of the House, though the Opposition may have to pretend it, when I say that the Governments which lost confidence quickest, did most harm and got into most trouble since the War were the Socialist Governments of 1924 and 1929. To what was that due? Was it due to their policy or to the personnel of those Governments? Vicious as I believe the first to be, and inept as I know the second, I believe it was due to the fact that they could not get on with any job because there was a set of snipers. When they introduced a Measure they never knew whether it would go through or how far they would be allowed to carry out their policy. While I join with my Noble Friend in hoping that never again will a Socialist Government assume office in this country, and I agree with him that practically any method is worth adopting to prevent it, and I never make the slightest concealment of that fact, I differ from him in that I think they would do less harm if they were allowed to carry out a policy than if they were continually hampered by a minority vote. I know that that is more likely to happen to a Government of my own party. If it were dependent on the good will of the other parties it would lead to chaos. [An HON. MEMBER: "You are!"] My hon. Friend suggests that we are dependent on their good will. Well, we have not had much good will, and we are still surviving. If we were dependent for our existence on their support, the disasters would be appalling. Proportional representation is entirely unsuited to the three-party system and to a constitutional country in which a general election invariably follows the defeat of a Government on a major issue. I do not think that proportional representation is suitable for discussion. The hon. Member for Bodmin suggested that this was an opportunity to give the independent man a chance. Is it so? Is it not the fact that in all countries where proportional representation reigns they invariably vote for the ticket? He referred to the lack of choice of members of a constituency. Does he prefer all the glories and triumphs of democracies in an American election? Is that a thing he would like to see introduced into this country?
1786
With all its faults, our electoral system has a great deal to commend it, if you are to have an electoral system on a universal franchise at all. Has Europe benefited so much during the last 15 years by the full representation of minorities? We are told a great deal about the representation of minorities. Are minorities in this country unrepresented? There is the Liberal party. Can they be really dissatisfied with their representation in this House, when one sees their old and distinguished Members, and their seried ranks over there, and over here? Is there such a terrible burden upon minorities in this country that the representation should be adjusted to an exact numerical fraction? I commend to those who support proportional representation the example of Europe during the past decade where every constructive action and every agreement and advance has been swamped by the objections of small minorities. Minorities under a democratic system should, and must, be heard, and they should have a voice and true representation, but, if the object of minority representation is to swamp action, to prevent advance and to put a spoke in the wheel of any movement, our present system with all its faults would only be worsened.
Mr. HOLDSWORTH Mr. HOLDSWORTH rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
10.59 p.m.
Sir JOSEPH LAMB: I have sat through the whole of this Debate, and I should like an opportunity of saying a few words with regard to it. I think that the House will regret that the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has not himself taken part in the Debate and given us a first-hand account of his views instead of his views having been given second-hand. Systems are like individuals; they are not all perfect. While there is a great deal with which we may find fault in the present system of elections, I believe that the countervailing disadvantage of the other systems which have been suggested far outweigh the disadvantages of our present system.
Mr. HOLDSWORTH Mr. HOLDSWORTH rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
Original Question again proposed.
It being after Eleven o'Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.
Mr. William Allen, Mr. Albery, Captain Crookshank, Mr. Culverwell, Sir George Gillett, Sir Vivian Henderson, Mr. Hore-Belisha, Mr. Morgan Jones, Sir Assheton Pownall, Sir Eugene Ramsden, Sir Isidore Salmon, Sir Arthur Michael Samuel, Mr. Robert Smith, Mr. Wilmot, and Mr. Ernest Young nominated members of the Committee of Public Accounts.—[Sir F. Thomson.]
The House divided: Ayes, 32; Noes, 128.

Division No. 10.]

AYES.

[11.0 p.m.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

Holdsworth, Herbert

Rathbone, Eleanor

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

Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

Rea, Walter Russell

Aske, Sir Robert William

Janner, Barnett

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

Bernays, Robert

Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

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

Castlereagh, Viscount

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Scone, Lord

Curry, A. C.

Leckie, J. A.

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

Dickie, John P.

McKie, John Hamilton

White, Henry Graham

Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

Maclay, Hon, Joseph Paton

Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

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

Maxton, James

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

Owen, Major Goronwy

Mr. Isaac Foot and Mr. Mallalieu.

Harris, Sir Percy

Palmer, Francis Noel

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

Hanley, Dennis A.

Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Harbord, Arthur

Reid, William Allan (Derby)

Atholl, Duchess of

Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

Rickards, George William

Attlee, Clement Richard

Hepworth, Joseph

Robinson, John Roland

Batey, Joseph

Hopkinson, Austin

Ropner, Colonel L.

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

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

Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

Ross, Ronald D.

Broadbent, Colonel John

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

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

Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)

Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

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

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

Salt, Edward W.

Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

Jenkins, Sir William

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Burnett, John George

Jesson, Major Thomas E.

Sandeman, Sir A. M. Stewart

Cape, Thomas

John, William

Savery, Samuel Servington

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Cook, Thomas A.

Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

Copeland, Ida

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Smith, Tom (Normanton)

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Law, Sir Alfred

Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Lawson, John James

Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

Daggar, George

Lees-Jones, John

Spens, William Patrick

Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

Leonard, William

Strauss, Edward A.

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

Llewellin, Major John J.

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

Denville, Alfred

Lunn, William

Thompson, Luke

Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

Mac Andrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

Duggan, Hubert John

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Tinker, John Joseph

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

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

Titchflefd, Major the Marquess of

Edwards, Charles

McEntee, Valentine L.

Tree, Ronald

Elmley, Viscount

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

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

Fraser, Captain Ian

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

Fremantle, Sir Francis

Milner, Major James

Whyte, Jardine Bell

Fuller, Captain A. G.

Moreing, Adrian C.

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

Morrison, William Shephard

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Glossop, C. W. H.

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

O'Donovan, Dr. William James

Wilmot, John

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Parkinson. John Allen

Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Pearson, William G.

Wise, Alfred R.

Grimston, R. V.

Penny, Sir George

Womersley, Walter James

Groves, Thomas E.

Petherick, M.

Grundy, Thomas W.

Pike, Cecil F.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Guy, J. C, Morrison

Radford, E. A.

Sir Vivian Henderson and Mr.

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Ramsden, Sir Eugene

Michael Beaumont

ESTIMATES.
Ordered,
"That a Select Committee be appointed to examine such of the Estimates presented to this House as may seem fit to the Committee, and to suggest the form in which the Estimates shall be presented for examination, and to report what, if any, economies consistent with the policy implied in those Estimates may be effected therein."
Ordered,
"That the Committee do consist of Twenty-eight Members"
Sir Charles Barrie, Mr. Brocklebank, Sir Herbert Cayzer, Commander Cochrane, Mr. Cocks, Mr. Daggar, Mr. James Duncan,

1789
Mr. Richard Evans Mr. Hannon, Sir Vivian Henderson, Lieut.-Colonel Heneage, Mr. Campbell Ker, Mr. Kenneth Lindsay, Mr. Noel Lindsay, Captain Loder, Captain Macdonald, Mr. McEntee, Mr. Maclay, Sir Alan McLean, Mr. Munro, Mr. Nunn, Mr. Peat, Sir Assheton Pownall, Mr. Ross Taylor, Sir Isidore Salmon, Lieut.-Colonel Spender-Clay, Mr. Strauss and Mr. Edward Williams nominated Members of the Committee."
Ordered,
"That Seven be the quorum."
Ordered,
"That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records, and to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House."
Ordered,
"That the Committee have power, if they so determine, to appoint one or more Sub-Committees, and in that event to apportion the subjects referred to the Committee between the Sub-Committees, any of which shall have the full powers of the undivided Committee; and that Pour shall be the quorum of any of the Sub-Committees."
Ordered,
"That the Committee do report any evidence taken by the Committee or by any of the Sub-Committees to the House."
Ordered,
"That the Committee have power to report from time to time."—[Sir F. Thomson.]

JAPANESE COMPETITION (POTTERY INDUSTRY).
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Captain Margesson.]
Mrs. COPELAND: I wish to draw the attention of the Government to the pottery industry and the effects of Japanese competition. I wish to plead for that oldest of industries in this country, an industry which has been built up by the hard work and the brains and the artistic ability of the British working man. Before I say any more I want to thank the Government very much for what they have done for the industry. As most hon. Members know, under the Safeguarding of Industries Act we got a 33⅓ per cent. duty. That became 50 per cent, under the Abnormal Importations Act. But later it dropped to 20 per cent., and things grew very black. Then, thanks to the Government, we were again able to have the 33⅓ per cent, restored, and trade was doing well. It is for that that I wish to thank the Government.
1790
But we have to look further ahead. There is a very dark cloud looming on the horizon, a cloud so dark that it threatens altogether to destroy the greater part of the trade of the Potteries in the very near future. That cloud is the cloud of Japanese competition. It has come up very suddenly. In fact, it is only in the last three or four months that we have begun to realise what this competition means. We have begun to discover that, in the Dominions anyhow, the competition is so severe that it threatens to sweep the English Potteries right out of those countries. I have here a letter from Sydney, showing how very serious is this Japanese competition. Last month, well over 2,000 cases of earthenware were landed in New South Wales alone, as against 300 packages of earthenware from England. This is, of course, appalling, when you think of the shortness of the time in which this happened.
I have the same news from New Zealand. On 15th June, a letter reports that a large firm in Auckland had just landed Japanese tea sets at the price of 2s. lid. per set of 21 pieces. This is a price less than the cost of material here in England. There is no doubt that Japan is making a dumping-ground of both Australia and New Zealand. The landing cost of Japanese goods is less than the price of the same article would be at the factory in London.
Without wishing to delay the House at this late hour I would like to mention some of the prices at which Japanese ware is being sold. I have here a supper set which, if made here, would cost 7s. 11d. The Japanese are able to do it for 5s. 6d. Added to the effect of the low prices, we have to realise that English trade marks are being copied so cleverly that many people abroad are buying these articles thinking that they are of British manufacture. People are deceived by these marks. Quite recently, some articles of this kind were marked "York." They purported to come from a well-known English firm. It takes a little more ability than the average person possesses to realise that possibly "York" in this case is a shortened form of "Yokohama." I have here an advertisement from a Sydney paper in which Japanese goods are advertised under an English mark. The English mark is "Mt. Shelley." The "Mt." possibly means "imita-

1791
tion," but the ordinary person would naturally think that the article came from the well-known firm of Shelley. There are numerous other examples of this attempt on the part of the Japanese to imitate our marks and pass off their articles as English.
I have brought down here two cups, one made in England and the other in Japan. I ask hon. Members to examine these as they are passed round. The Japanese article is quite well done— sufficiently well done to take in any ordinary person buying it. What is so much against the British worker, however, is the great cheapness of the Japanese article. There is one thing certain, that we cannot absolutely prohibit Japan from dumping her goods in the Dominions or in this country, and it is for that reason that I am attempting to discover what the Government will suggest as a safeguard against this competition. It is our own workpeople whose living is at stake. Possibly the Government in their wisdom may be able to impress on the Dominions that by buying these cheap goods which come into their countries they are in reality lowering the wages of their own workpeople, and attacking their standard of living.
It stands to reason that if one country is allowed to dump goods at knock-out prices all over the world, little by little industry in all other countries will suffer, and it will not be possible for any of them to maintain the wages of their own people at a proper level. The people who will suffer most are our own people, whose standard of living is naturally and very rightly higher than that of anyone else in the world. I wonder whether it will be possible for the Government to point out to these Dominions that the amount of revenue lost to their own country by the admission of cheap goods is very great, for even if the highest tariff were demanded for Japanese goods it would still be considerably lower than would be collected from British imports. As an example of this, 100 dozen Japanese cups and saucers for restaurant use would yield a revenue of £3 0s. 6d., while 100 dozen of the cheapest British cups and saucers for the same purpose would pay a duty and primage of £7 12s. A Japanese brown teapot costs
1792
1s. a dozen, but here a similar teapot costs 18s. a dozen.
When putting on a tax, would it be possible for the Government to take into consideration the depreciation of Japanese currency as compared with ours, and also the extremely low wage levels which obtain in Japan and the very long hours of work? Would it be possible to point out to the health authorities the danger that accrues to the subject from the fact that the Japanese cups are fired face downwards, which means that the rims of the cups afterwards are not able to be properly glazed, and that is a danger, as it absorbs so many impurities. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us something definite. The Government have safeguarded our interests here against European countries, and I hope they will be equally clever to safeguard our interests from Eastern competition.
11.23 p.m.
Sir JOSEPH LAMB: I should like to support what the hon. Lady has said in the interests of the pottery industry. The dishonesty of these trade marks being infringed is obvious, but there is real urgency in this matter, because the markets, not only at home but abroad, are being flooded, and it will take a considerable time for them to clear themselves so as to enable our manufacturers again to enter those markets.
11.24 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin):The House will wish me to congratulate the hon. Lady on the way in which she has presented her case, and on the somewhat novel method by which she has displayed her ware. We are dealing with a serious subject, and the sympathy of the whole House goes out to the pottery industry, and the hon. Lady's constituency in particular, when it is found and demonstrated that Japanese competition is making serious inroads into a staple trade. I hope the extent of those inroads will not be exaggerated. I do not in the least wish to minimise the consequences of Japanese competition, and I am fully aware of the fact, mentioned by the hon. Lady, that the increase is precisely in the last few months. It is impossible for Government statistics to keep pace with developments that are so recent as that. The

1793
whole of the published data and material which are accessible to me are naturally a little further away in point of time than actual current dates, and consequently a number of the figures which I am able to give to the House are more encouraging than the reality, if the facts that the hon. Lady has mentioned are widespread, and happen in other markets as well as in these Dominion markets to which she has referred.
I am hoping to have the pleasure of receiving a deputation from the Pottery Manufacturers' Federation next Tuesday, when there will be rather more time than there is to-night to deal with the gravamen of some of the matters which are brought before the Board of Trade. There are two or three things that ought to be stated at once. First of all, any unfair competition with regard to copying and imitation of styles, trade marks, and names ought most severely to be dealt with. The Government do not intend to have anything of that kind trifled with. If instances of British makers' registered trade marks being infringed or copied in any underhand manner, by Japanese exporters, importing houses or merchants, are brought to the notice of the Government, every possible step will be taken to assist those whose mark have been wrongly interfered with, and, through the proper diplomatic quarters, to call the attention of those in authority in Japan to practices which are clearly reprehensible, and which no Government which desires to carry on a world-wide commerce ought to tolerate for a moment. The President of the Board of Trade dealt with the matter in an earlier Debate, a few days ago, and I desire merely to repeat his words.
The law in general is quite strong enough. It is merely a question of the application of it, and having material sufficient at first hand to enable all necessary steps to be taken. The hon. Lady will be the first to appreciate, with her unrivalled knowledge of the pottery trade, that if you are going to take up a case of the infringement of a registered mark, you must be quite sure that your mark is registered, you must be clear that it is an actual infringement, and be able to give chapter and verse that it was a Japanese who did it; but you must bring it home to individuals or to
1794
some exporting house. We must have that minimum of proof, and, subject to that aspect of the matter, the unfair competition ought most severely to be taken in hand. We can properly call the attention of the Dominion Governments to gaps in their legislation. For instance, in one of our great Dominions, South Africa, the law with regard to marks of foreign origin is nothing like as modern as the law in the United Kingdom and in some other of the self-governing Dominions. That is a matter of local legislation, and where we find that British exporting interests are handicapped by the absence of proper legislative provisions in one of the Dominion markets, then we will seek to bring representations to bear upon the Dominion Government concerned to suggest to them that they might, with propriety, consider the overhaul of their legislation dealing with merchandise marks.
Having cleared the air of that matter of unfair competition, and having told the House that we are going to receive this pottery trade deputation, there is really not very much more that one can deal with in a moment or two; but let me say, as the hon. Lady will also realise, that the state of unemployment in the pottery districts is very much better than it has been for a long time past. The figures have been steadily falling during 1931, 1932 and 1933, and the percentages are really most gratifying. In 1931 the percentage of unemployed was over 30; in 1932, it was 26; and in 1933, it is 17— still a long way to go, but it is only fair to look at both sides of the ledger and notice how the unemployment figure is falling. Then the number of people in employment shows 7 per cent, increase over 1932.
Mr. COCKS: Nothing to do with Japan.
Dr. BURGIN: Well that is not quite, right. The increase between 1931 and 1933 has been no less than 7,600 persons, in the pottery trade. British exports of pottery are going up. In the last three months for which I have figures, August, September and October, compared with 1932, the figures show a very gradual and continuous rise. I have the figures of the exports of pottery to the various self-governing Dominions, and of Japan's exports, and there is nothing in the

1795
figures down to the end of 1932 to show that our exports have gone down as a result of Japanese exports going up. I have pointed out to the hon. Lady that that may be because her figures are much more recent. What she says has happened has happened in the last few months. But I shall be very glad to go into this matter when—as no doubt she will—she accompanies the deputation on Tuesday. I hope I shall be able then to develop the matter rather more carefully than I can now under the rules of the House. I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this matter to our attention.
1796
It has the constant attention of the Government. We believe that conversations with Japan are the right method of dealing with these industrial matters. We believe there is a way to be found in the world for Japanese trade and British trade to live side by side, with a very proper proportion to the United Kingdom.
It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'Clock.

  BRITISH ARMY (MEAT SUPPLY).
  BRITISH ARMY (MEAT SUPPLY).
  SOUTH AFRICA (ITALIAN SHIPPING LINES, SUBSIDY).
  SOUTH AFRICA (ITALIAN SHIPPING LINES, SUBSIDY).
NATIONAL FINANCE.
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
  LOAN CAPITAL (DUTY).
  LOAN CAPITAL (DUTY).
  TAXATION (COMPARATIVE STATISTICS).
  TAXATION (COMPARATIVE STATISTICS).
  PLUMAGE (ILLEGAL IMPORTS).
  PLUMAGE (ILLEGAL IMPORTS).
  MILK AND BREAD (CONSUMPTION).
  MILK AND BREAD (CONSUMPTION).
  FRANCE (BRITISH GOODS, TAXATION).
  FRANCE (BRITISH GOODS, TAXATION).
  CENSUS.
  CENSUS.
  FISHING INDUSTRY (NEW TRAWLERS).
  FISHING INDUSTRY (NEW TRAWLERS).
  GAS AND ELECTRICITY UNDERTAKINGS.
  GAS AND ELECTRICITY UNDERTAKINGS.
  STEAMSHIP "SAXILBY" (CREW'S DEPENDANTS).
  STEAMSHIP "SAXILBY" (CREW'S DEPENDANTS).
TRANSPORT.
  MOTOR-DRIVING LICENCES (RENEWAL NOTICES).
  MOTOR-DRIVING LICENCES (RENEWAL NOTICES).
  MOTOR VEHICLES (NOISE).
  MOTOR VEHICLES (NOISE).
  SOUTH CIRCULAR ROAD.
  SOUTH CIRCULAR ROAD.
  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND.
  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND.
SCOTLAND.
  HOUSING.
  HOUSING.
  LICENSING ACTS (MAGISTRATES).
  LICENSING ACTS (MAGISTRATES).
  COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT LOANS.
  COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT LOANS.
  CROWN PROCEEDINGS COMMITTEE (REPORT).
  CROWN PROCEEDINGS COMMITTEE (REPORT).
AGRICULTURE.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  CATTLE, SHEEP AND PIGS.
  CATTLE, SHEEP AND PIGS.